Oakden Mental Health Facility

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Mental Health. What is the minister's response to the question posed by Elizabeth Dabars in the ANMF's latest newsletter asking why Oakden was, and I quote, 'not placed under continuing review to ensure that operational and cultural changes had been achieved'?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:41): The minister has only been a minister a relatively short period of time. Can I say that to the extent that—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I know those opposite are fond of—

The SPEAKER: The member for Schubert is warned for the second and final time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I know those members opposite—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Stuart is warned for the second and final time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Those members opposite—

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Colton is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: If I understand the remarks that were made, they refer back to events that occurred sometime hence, and I think the ministerial statement that has been provided to this house by the minister, which recounts the advice that was provided to the then minister for mental health, minister Hill—

Mr Bell interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —was to the effect that after a three-year period of supervision in a sense by ACH, a well-respected aged-care agency, a number of the issues associated with the Oakden facility were resolved. In fact, in very clear terms it mentioned that it was a learning organisation, the cultural issues that had plagued it had been turned around and indeed new leadership had been put in place.

It is worth remembering that the trigger for involving ACH was the accreditation issues by the federal agency. The federal agency had then moved to three-yearly accreditation, so in the 44 domains, the federal accreditation agency, which looks at the very issues which are at the heart of the criticisms at the Oakden facility—there was a clean bill of health given by the federal agency. So, the regular review is a review which is undertaken by the federal agency.

Of course, we do need to understand how it is that this particular institution could have slipped into such an abject state, but part of the explanation is revealed in the Chief Psychiatrist's report—which is the culture of lack of disclosure, which seems to have evaded the detection of even the Chief Psychiatrist, who has general supervisory powers over this institution and, indeed, the community visitor who had been in place and had documented isolated incidents but did not raise the very serious alarms until very late last year, which then triggered the more extensive inquiry.

It is a fair point to make that the supervision and monitoring of this organisation by the various layers of management do need to be examined. I am sure that will receive very detailed examination in the course of Commissioner Lander's investigation. It will also receive our attention. There are a number of ongoing investigations that are occurring, a number of ongoing investigations that are trying to get to the heart of all the disciplinary issues, including management failings, which are at the heart of the Oakden issue.