<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2017-05-30" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="9867" />
  <endPage num="9924" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Oakden Mental Health Facility</name>
      <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000354">
        <heading>Oakden Mental Health Facility</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="question">
        <name>Mr MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Dunstan</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2017-05-30">
            <name>Oakden Mental Health Facility</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2017-05-30T14:29:04" />
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000355">
          <timeStamp time="2017-05-30T14:29:04" />
          <by role="member" id="4338">Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:29):</by>  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?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Cheltenham</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Premier</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2017-05-30">
            <name>Oakden Mental Health Facility</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2017-05-30T14:29:22" />
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000356">
          <timeStamp time="2017-05-30T14:29:22" />
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:29):</by>  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.</text>
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000357">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—</text>
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000358">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="4338">Mr Marshall interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000359">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  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—</text>
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000360">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="4338">Mr Marshall interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000361">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  —not the question you wish you had asked if you had done your homework. This is the thing.</text>
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000362">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="4338">Mr Marshall interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000363">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  This is the thing—if you don't—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000364">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  The leader will withdraw those words unconditionally.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4338">
        <name>Mr MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000365">
          <by role="member" id="4338">Mr MARSHALL:</by>  I withdraw those comments, sir.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000366">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Thank you. Premier.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201705301bcec6ef95164c9a80000367">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  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.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>