HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-09-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

New Women's and Children's Hospital (Relocation of SA Police Facilities) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 September 2023.)

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (11:02): I rise to speak a little bit about what is entitled the new Women's and Children's Hospital bill, but really the subject matter is the relocation of South Australia Police facilities. This process goes from one debacle to another. We hear constantly from connections within the South Australian police force about their concerns about the way they are being treated by this government under the guise of health care, with little to no respect for the needs and the wants of the South Australian police force.

They have a situation where they have been in a location for over 100 years, the Thebarton barracks site, serving the people of South Australia duly, respectfully and efficiently, and are now told, 'No, you are now having to locate yourself some 10 kilometres out of the CBD'—where the police greys do the vast majority of their work—'because it's going to suit our political narrative and it's going to suit the process that we're looking to follow. We don't want to try to look at the Parklands because we might be worried about what it might mean for the member for Adelaide's chances of re-election'. Constantly, the South Australian police have been going through a process of uncertainty because of what this government has put them through—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Elder! The member for Flinders has the call.

Mr TELFER: —with one site location after another. The uncertainty continues to grow, and even yesterday we hear that this process continues on.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is called to order. The member for Flinders has the call.

Mr TELFER: We hear from the police commissioner, who is a professional man who does not let too much on, that there are concerns within the police force about the operational impacts of what the location at Gepps Cross might mean. There are also personal individual concerns from police officers who are significantly reconsidering their positions in the mounted force if they are to be relocated to Gepps Cross. The way that this government has treated these police officers is shameful. To get to the point where individual police officers are reconsidering their position because of the attitude of this government is, I think, really disgraceful.

We see that the location for the police greys constantly gets bounced around. Firstly, it was going to be in the Parklands site, then it was going to move to Adelaide Airport—that was going to be the location. What happened then? We did not get much direction, unfortunately, from any answers to that, just some rhetoric around a wave pool. We asked the question of the police commissioner: what was the justification for a move away from the Adelaide Airport? There were concerns raised about PFAS, but was there any testing done on those sites? No, there was not.

So this move for SAPOL, once again from the government, now goes all the way up to Gepps Cross, a site where we hear it would take up to 50 minutes to mobilise the police greys into the CBD for urgent emergency responses. It is something that I worry is going to mean there will be a bigger risk for the community and lesser outcomes for community safety, and for me that is not acceptable.

To have the government ignoring the calls of police to have a site closer to the CBD—they are not asking for much. Have a look at perhaps some of the 14 sites. What are the 14 sites? We do not know. We have not had that transparency from this government. They are saying, 'Trust us. This is the location.'

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TELFER: They are saying, 'We don't want to take into consideration what the police are saying to us,' which is a site within three to five kilometres. We do not know what the government has actually considered.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens!

Mr TELFER: We do not know if there were brownfield sites that were written off because, once again, there may be a political impact on their decision.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey!

Mr TELFER: So it is a location 10 kilometres outside the CBD where all the work would happen, at a cost of what we are hearing at the moment is $90 million for the site at Gepps Cross. That does not take into account any of the additional costs, the additional operational costs—the additional costs that would be required because there will need to be a staging area constructed. Because it is so far out of town, there needs to be a staging area constructed to bring the police greys into the CBD to have them ready to go. We do not know what the cost of that staging area is going to be.

The location where it is going to be put—the site behind the Courts Administration office—has now been described as a temporary location because it is going to be needed by the courts in the future. So it is a temporary location for a problem, once again because of the worry about what the political impact might be.

The people of South Australia are starting to have their eyes wide open to the motivations of this government, and they are starting to realise that accountability means nothing to this government when it comes to this process. Questions are being asked about process and about who is making the decisions around this. Questions were being asked of the police minister, who you think you would be in charge. But, no, we hear that the Treasurer has been requested by the Premier to take control of this project because it is out of control. It is out of control, so the Treasurer has been asked to come and get his hands on it to try to get it under control.

This is not even starting to talk about the other units that need to have a location. Fifteen business units need to be relocated from Thebarton barracks. We hear where there is going to be a location for a few of them, sure. We still have no insight into where the Police Historical Society are going to be relocated, something that is essential for the long-term preservation of the over 100-year history of our South Australian police force. Where are they going to be located? Once again, the government is saying, 'Trust us. We've got it all in hand.'

Where is the police band going to be located? We hear from the Treasurer: 'Trust us in what's going to be.' Where is the road safety course going to be? 'No, trust us. It's alright. It's all in hand.' Unfortunately, the transparency of this is like a bucket of mud thrown in the air. The government have been so secretive in their way of going about it that not even SAPOL know what is happening.

Yesterday, we heard reports, which suddenly the government tried to shut down, of South Australia Police representatives going to look at a site at Morphettville, yet we get reassurances from the Treasurer that this project is all in hand and is happening at Gepps Cross. It is too bad for the operations of South Australia Police and what the impacts are going to be—too bad for them.

More than half of the officers within the police mounted division come from the southern suburbs and the Adelaide Hills. The conversation that I am having with them is that the relocation to Gepps Cross is making them reconsider their positions. They are going to have to commute from their southern suburbs homes or the Adelaide Hills, where the vast majority of them are from, up to a location at Gepps Cross, then have to work their horses into a horse float, drive back into the CBD and at the end of the day do the exact reverse. The amount of wasted time, wasted effort, wasted resources is all because the government think, well, it is out of sight, out of mind, 10 kilometres out of the city at Gepps Cross.

The way that this project has been handled has been shambolic. I am amazed that the government has let this roll on to this point, because if you are hearing directly from the people who are tasked with keeping our state safe, that they have significant community safety concerns about this location, why are you not listening? Why is the minister not listening? Why is the Treasurer, who is now seemingly in charge of this project, not listening, when SAPOL themselves are saying this is a significant concern not just for community safety but also for personal individual outcomes for our police officers?

We see that the attrition rate for police officers is at an all-time high. Over 5 per cent of police officers are leaving the force every single year. We have a gap of over 200 officers from where we are supposed to be. We have officers on medical leave, we have a situation where we are significant numbers down on where we need to be and what are we doing? We are putting more restrictions, more roadblocks, more hurdles in the way of our police officers.

We get platitudes from the police minister when any questions are asked about this, treating it like a joke. Community safety, for me, is not a joke. We need to make sure that the decision that is made about the relocation of SA Police facilities is done in a strategically smart way and in a way that actually ensures there is a long-term solution for community safety here in South Australia—not short term, not a temporary location—something that is going to be sustainable so that we know that the people who are tasked with keeping us safe, people who do an amazing job on the beat in the South Australia Police force, are listened to, they are heard, and the actions from the government reflect that.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (11:11): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 23

Noes 13

Majority 10

AYES

Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D.
Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Fulbrook, J.P. Hood, L.P. Hughes, E.J.
Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A. Michaels, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller) Pearce, R.K.
Picton, C.J. Savvas, O.M. Stinson, J.M.
Thompson, E.L. Wortley, D.J.

NOES

Basham, D.K.B. Batty, J.A. Bell, T.S.
Cowdrey, M.J. Hurn, A.M. McBride, P.N.
Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G. (teller) Pratt, P.K.
Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B. Telfer, S.J.
Whetstone, T.J.

PAIRS

Hildyard, K.A. Speirs, D.J. Malinauskas, P.B.
Gardner, J.A.W. Piccolo, A. Patterson, S.J.R.
Szakacs, J.K. Marshall, S.S.

Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.

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