Parliamentary Committees

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROPOSED SALE AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE GLENSIDE HOSPITAL SITE

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:20): I move:

That the report of the select committee be noted.

On 2 April 2008 the Legislative Council established a select committee, on motion of the Hon. Michelle Lensink, to inquire into and report on the state government's proposed sale and redevelopment of Glenside Hospital, with specific reference to:

(a) the effect on the delivery of services of the proposed collocation of mental health, drug and alcohol, rural, regional and statewide services and the possible security implications;

(b) The effect of the proposed sale of 42 per cent of the site and its impact on the amenity and enjoyment of open space for patients and the public, biodiversity, conservation and significant trees;

(c) The impact of the reduction of the available land for more supported accommodation;

(d) The effect of the proposed sale of precincts 3, 4 and 5 as identified in the state government's Concept Master Plan for the site and its possible effect on access to the site and traffic management generally;

(e) The proposed sale of precinct 4 by private sale to a preferred purchaser; and

(f) Other matters that the committee considers relevant.

The select committee advertised for interested persons to provide written submissions or to register an interest in appearing before it. The committee received 212 written submissions. Submissions were received from government agencies, local government, professional organisations, service providers, individual professionals, consumers of mental health services and their relatives, local residents and members of the public. There were 1,507 submissions received as form letters sponsored by Burnside Save Open Spaces Incorporated. Accompanied by representatives from the Department of Health, the committee visited the Glenside Hospital site on 20 June 2008 and met on nine other occasions to hear evidence.

The select committee supports the proposed acute hospital and the development of better services for those with mental health illnesses. The committee believes that the primary purpose of the redevelopment should benefit the people who have either a mental illness or a drug dependency problem, or both. The majority of evidence and submissions presented to the committee has supported this view. However, a great deal of disaffection has been expressed to the committee on aspects of the proposed development, including the sale of the land to fund residential housing, plans for retail and commercial areas, the future of rural and remote services, the depletion of open space, the possible destruction of trees and our security, particularly in relation to the incorporation of Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia, traffic and access issues and the consultation process.

At this stage, I would like to summarise a number of the issues raised before the committee and the findings and recommendations that it brought down. I will not go back over the individual terms of reference in detail, but I will perhaps just go to some of the subtopics raised under them. After considering the evidence presented to it, the committee supported the collocation of mental health services and drug and alcohol services on the site. The committee believed, however, that the collocation of services must be handled sensitively and that services for incompatible vulnerable groups must be adequately delineated.

The first recommendation of the committee was that all current high-care patients be provided with a detailed care plan outlining their treatment and its location. The committee's second recommendation was that the Department of Health incorporate best practice principles in the plans for the new collocated services, with the health of vulnerable client groups as its highest priority.

We then move to security issues. The committee noted the concerns of local residents and believe that, if the collocation is to succeed, the present harmony with the local community must be maintained. This will mean ensuring that effective security arrangements are put in place. The committee recommended that the Department of Health develop an up-to-date and comprehensive security plan for the redevelopment.

I now turn to rural and remote services. A number of members in this council (including you, I am sure, Mr President) are aware of the ongoing issues with mental health in rural and remote areas of this state and the genuine concern of the community. The committee found that there are plans to expand the capacity for mental health beds in the regions but, on the evidence presented, it was unclear as to when this would occur, particularly in light of the current financial situation. As such, the committee recommended that the proposed number of rural and regional beds in the new facility be doubled from 23 to 46.

The next topic I would like to refer to is Helen Mayo House. The committee noted that four years after a recommendation was made by the Social Development Committee there are still only six in-patient beds in Helen Mayo House and that the redevelopment of the site will not provide for any increase in bed numbers. The stated intention by the government in its State Strategic Plan to continue to increase population numbers logically calls for an increase in the number of in-patient beds at Helen Mayo House.

Further, the committee recommended that, because of the contribution made to birthing women in this state by Dr Helen Mayo, her name be retained for the unit which continues to deal with women admitted for acute postnatal psychological and psychiatric conditions. In addition, the committee recommended that the number of in-patient beds for women with acute postnatal psychological and psychiatric conditions be increased from the current six to 10 with provision for expansion at a later date should that be necessary.

I will move now to matters relating to open space and, following that, of course, biodiversity, conservation and significant trees. The committee believed that the whole Glenside site should be dedicated to the provision of mental health services and that any open space that is not used should be preserved for future expansion of services. The committee recommended that at least a portion of the old orchard should be retained as an example of previous activity on the site. The committee recommended also that new buildings at Glenside be sited so that as many of the 191 significant trees as possible are retained.

I now move to the term of reference referring to the impact of the reduction of the available land for more supported accommodation. In its findings the committee noted that South Australia has an undersupply of supported accommodation, with hundreds of people on waiting lists. With more than 400 supported accommodation places having disappeared in the past eight years and possibly more to come, the 40 places to be provided on the Glenside site redevelopment are totally inadequate. While the committee noted the concerns of witnesses who argued that there is not enough housing for the mentally ill proposed in the master plan, it is also aware of the conflicting arguments about providing more supported accommodation on the Glenside site.

The committee believed that if the development is to be successful it is essential that it is in harmony with the ambience of the surrounding area and does not strain longstanding local community acceptance of mental health services consumers. Nevertheless, the committee strongly believed that the provision of suitable housing plays a critical role in the shift from institutional care to community care and that there is a serious shortage of appropriate housing for the mentally ill in this state. This is becoming even more critical as supported residential facilities continue to close. In this regard, the committee recommended that the government implement a mental health accommodation strategy for the state, particularly in light of the expected closure of more supported residential facilities. In addition, the committee recommended that the number of supported accommodation places to be provided in the redevelopment be increased to 50.

I now move on to the term of reference relating to the effect of the proposed sale of precincts 3, 4 and 5 (as identified in the state government's concept master plan for the site) and its possible effect on access to the site and traffic management generally. The committee was disappointed to find that final plans are still not available. The committee was not confident that all aspects of the development are proceeding in a transparent and timely manner.

In relation to the sale of land, the committee found that the government proposed that the sale for housing and retail development is required to fund the redevelopment of the mental health facility. Members of the committee were concerned that funding for the redevelopment is not being set aside from general revenue, as was the case with previous mental health projects, such as the Margaret Tobin Centre. The committee believes that this has compromised the potential to provide for the current and future needs of people with mental illness in South Australia.

The committee noted that the government has committed $100 million for the AAMI Stadium upgrade and $50 million for the Entertainment Centre without providing the level of planning that is taking place in reviewing South Australia's mental health services. Recommendation 11 indicates that the committee recommended that plans for the sale of land for residential and commercial purposes be discarded and that the government explore alternate funding models, including those suggested to the committee by the Public Advocate, which I will not go into at this point.

Access and traffic management was a further area the committee examined. It was clear to the select committee that the proposed redevelopment will place additional strains on existing traffic flows, even though this is likely to happen in stages. The committee believed that traffic management will be a key factor in the success or otherwise of the redevelopment. The committee recommended that the Department of Health work closely with the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure and the relevant local government bodies to ensure optimal management of traffic relating to the Glenside site.

I now move to term of reference (e), which relates to the proposed sale of precinct 4 by private sale to a preferred purchaser. The committee noted that, 15 months after the release of the concept plan (and that was the time frame when the report was finalised), the government was not yet able to provide more information about the status of negotiations with the proponent. The committee was aware that the rapidly deteriorating economic situation facing South Australia may have an impact on arrangements such as this one. The committee believed that, if these negotiations fall through, plans for precinct 4 will need to be re-assessed, including plans for selling the oval.

The committee recommended that, in the event that negotiations with the Chapley Group were terminated for any reason, the Department of Health re-assess plans for precinct 4 to include the future of the oval.

Under the term of reference that refers to 'Other Matters', first, I would like to talk about the consultation process. The committee was very concerned that such a diverse group of stakeholders including current and former mental health services consumers, the local council and mental health professionals viewed the consultation process as tokenistic.

It appeared to the committee that many of the issues that had been drawn to its attention in submissions and by witnesses could have been resolved if more attention had been given to informing and involving interested parties in the planning process for the redevelopment. The committee recommended that, as a matter of urgency, the Department of Health develop a revised master plan in consultation with key stakeholders including local residents, hospital staff, patients and their families, Burnside council, the heritage branch of the Department for Environment and Heritage and the National Trust of South Australia.

Moving to the area of aged care, the select committee believed that, if aged patients with significant psychiatric illnesses are to be transferred to the aged care sector, protocols should be in place to ensure that the transfer will provide professional care. The committee recommended that the Department of Health, in conjunction with aged care providers and the appropriate federal agencies, develop protocols for the transition of aged mental health patients to aged care facilities to ensure that they will receive appropriate professional care and supervision.

In the area of forensic services, the committee noted that, with the delay on the new prisons project, transitional arrangements for forensic patients were unclear. The committee recommended that the government consider keeping James Nash House open until capacity constraints arising from the transitional arrangements are fully addressed. The committee recommended that the government consider providing medium security forensic beds in the new Glenside development. The committee also recommended that the Department of Health negotiate with the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure to put in place a public transport service to ensure that visitors can get to the proposed new facility in Murray Bridge.

In relation to extended care, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists identified the area of extended care as one where services had been lost from the Glenside campus and told the committee that extended care patients are receiving services in acute wards in the general hospital system. The RANZCP is concerned about this loss of capacity and believes that acute settings are not the most appropriate environment for patients with chronic mental illnesses. The committee recommended that a specialist service for mental health patients with chronic needs continue to be provided on the Glenside campus.

There are a number of other areas that the committee considered and had brought to its attention. I will not go into all of those today, but they are the committee's key findings and recommendations—19 in all. I do just want to make a few more remarks. First, it is appropriate to mention that two members of the select committee, the Hon. Ian Hunter and the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, dissented from a number of findings and recommendations in the report.

Their dissenting statement is attached to the report, and I understand that that will be addressed when one (or both) of them speaks to this motion in the near future. However, I do want to say at this point that I thought the committee's work was very important and that all members of the committee regarded it as such, and I was privileged to chair what was a very good committee in the way it conducted its work.

I should also mention—and members might recall—that the select committee brought down an interim report, tabled with unanimous support in September 2008, which called for the establishment of a dedicated mental health research facility on the Glenside campus. That followed pressing evidence from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, and certainly the report has been out there for some time.

It is important that, on behalf of the committee, I extend thanks to those who provided information and evidence to the inquiry, including the Department of Health, the City of Burnside, the Public Advocate, interested organisations, professional bodies, mental health services, consumers, and members of the public. Many members of the public demonstrated that they have experienced the good work done at the Glenside Hospital because of their own personal experiences or because of the experiences of family members. I appreciate the open manner in which many people expressed that to us.

I would also like to again thank members of the committee: you, Mr Acting President, the Hon. Mr Hunter, the Hon. Mr Finnigan, the Hon. Sandra Kanck—who, of course, has since left the services of this council—and the mover of the motion that established the committee, the Hon. Michelle Lensink. As I said earlier, it was a pleasure to chair the committee. I extend my thanks for the way in which members made my job easier.

I also put on the record the excellent service given to the committee by Mr Guy Dickson, the secretary, and also Ms Geraldine Sladden, the research officer. I thank them for their attention to detail and dedication in helping the committee produce a report in 10 months. Given that Christmas and New Year were in that time and given that some select committees in this place go on a little bit longer than that, I would like to thank the staff for their role in assisting us in bringing down the report in that time.

In conclusion, I have learnt a lot more about mental health services in this state as a result of being a member of the committee. Members here are well aware of my strong interest in mental health, in general, and suicide prevention, in particular. The role of Glenside is fundamental, and I think it has been a very good committee which has come down with a report that provides a depth of information relating to the facility. I think that will be valuable for other members of the community who wish to know more about the Glenside facility.

I encourage the government to strongly consider the findings and recommendations in a timely manner. Once again, I thank all those who contributed to the report and commend it to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.