Oakden Mental Health Facility

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:29): Can the Premier provide any plausible explanation for why matters concerning the psychiatrist's review were limited to just 2016, given that the government had plenty of warning on issues relating to Oakden going back to 2007?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:29): Well, it rather begs the question. Perhaps if the Leader of the Opposition would reread the ministerial statements before he comes into this place asking questions about Oakden, he would see the answers set out in very clear terms.

In 2011, the then minister for mental health, minister Hill, received a briefing from the agency, which said that the three-year contract that ACH had been brought in on to manage Makk and McLeay had come to an end and, in broad terms, the institution had been given a clean bill of health. By then I think, it was the—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, no, that's a different question. I am answering the question you asked, not the question you wish you had asked because you didn't do your work—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —not the question you wish you had asked if you had done your homework. This is the thing.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is the thing—if you don't—

The SPEAKER: The leader will withdraw those words unconditionally.

Mr MARSHALL: I withdraw those comments, sir.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So, we do know that the institution, at least as far as the minister was concerned, was put on a proper footing by about 2011. We now know, with the benefit of hindsight, that wasn't the case, or hasn't been found to be the case by virtue of the findings that have been made by the Chief Psychiatrist, but at that time that was what was understood. Ministers were obviously entertaining particular cases as they arose as matters of individual concern, not necessarily raising broad concern that had been indicated as far back as 2007. So, that's the context in which the minister was conducting her duties in relation to this matter.