House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Glenside Hospital Redevelopment GLENSIDE HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:18): The Liberal opposition has made absolutely clear its objection to the government's sell-off of 42 per cent of the Glenside Hospital, announced by the former minister for mental health and the Premier in September 2007. We have since that time expressed our despair, disquiet and anger at the government's decisions, which have included: tipping out patients from the hospital; bulldozing a heritage-listed laundry; the relocation of patients across the campus; the decision to make the premises on the site into a movie hub, and spending $42 million on that when we have a great financial crisis in the state; and the decision to delay the mental health redevelopment for two years. These are just a few concerns raised by all members across the community. In particular, the sale of 42 per cent to the preferred purchasers, the Chapley Retail Group, which is the owner of the Frewville Shopping Centre, takes the cake. After a year of applications under the Freedom of Information Act for the disclosure of correspondence between the government and Chapley Retail Group, which were directed to be produced, what do they do? They turn up to the District Court this week to appeal against carrying out the determination by the Acting Ombudsman, Mr Ken MacPherson, who directed this government to produce these documents contrary to decisions made internally by freedom of information officers and the director of the department. This takes the level of secrecy to a new height. This is the first case of its kind in the 18 year history of the freedom of information legislation in this state where an allegation has been made in an appeal that there has been an error by the Ombudsman on the basis of his determination in the interpretation of the equitable relationship between the parties. He made a determination, and this government is now spending taxpayer's money to rush off to the District Court in order to try to stop the disclosure of all these documents. Isn't that typical of this government? Talk about being secret, devious and desperate to protect the details of a deal with a prominent land developer! It will fight to the better end in the District Court in order to prevent the release of important documents concerning the land at Glenside Hospital. It is bad enough that the government has decided to sell this land—to which we strongly object. It is worse that it then says that it is justified in selling it to its preferred purchaser. Local government cannot buy it, other people cannot buy it and other retailers cannot buy it: it must go to its nominated preferred developer. This is prime real estate along Fullarton Road and part of the 42 per cent of the total site of this asset that is being sold off. It is a public asset which is owned by the people of South Australia. It is not only selling it and giving it to its identified person but also keeping secret the correspondence between the two relevant parties, keeping secret from the people of South Australia the basis for this preferential deal. The documents would clearly explain that. We have had meetings with the Chapley Retail Group and the government in respect of the disclosure of any document that would justify the decision to give this preferential deal to this particular company, and not a single document has been produced, other than two emails under FOI—not by them—and a press release to tell us what we already knew was in the public arena. It has a duty to the people of South Australia to disclose this, and it is a wicked waste of money that the government should be fighting in the District Court to try to protect those documents when it does not need to do so. The Chapley family is doing its own appeal, so the government does not need to do it. It cannot even provide a continuation of dental and podiatry services to patients at the hospital. It cannot get on with building its new hospital yet it will waste thousands of dollars down at the District Court to keep those documents secret. The sooner we have an ICAC in this state the better. Time expired.