HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-10-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:33): A feature of the state Labor government's infrastructure program over the last five years has been to announce a new project, announce that the existing facility, wherever it might be, will be sold and announce that there will be a new rebuild of the facility, usually in some outer lying area. A classic example is the announcement of super schools. Inner suburban schools that have served the community and are on valuable land are to be sold off and rebuilt further out some time in the future. We have had the announcement that the prisons that currently service South Australia (Yatala, Magill, and other correctional facilities) will be sold for housing development and relocated at Murray Bridge. Similarly, the mental health forensic facility at James Nash House is to be sold and moved to a new facility to be collocated at Murray Bridge.

We have had another announcement of the possible public-private partnerships to cover this type of redevelopment, which, as I say, is a feature of the government. A new one announced recently—the Glenside Hospital redevelopment—has a rather new feature; that is, not to just sell it up and build a new facility somewhere else, but to sell half of it. This is a 30-hectare site in Glenside. It is very close to metropolitan Adelaide, situated on the intersection of Fullarton and Greenhill roads. For over 130 years, it has been the home of mental health in South Australia.

The new feature is that you sell off half and you squash the patients and the proposed facilities into one half of the remaining half—that is, a quarter. The proposal has been justified on the basis that the government is committed to mental health, it will provide services elsewhere and it does not need to have such a vast expanse. In addition, it claims that it is doing some urban good by selling off this land. We all know that is a complete nonsense.

Yesterday, when the Treasurer was asked to identify whether there would be any redevelopment if the land was not sold, he did not know the answer. This is a $150 million project and he did not know the answer. It was interesting because a similar question was asked in another place of the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse (Hon. Gail Gago), and she had some interesting ideas about the sale of this land. She explained to her chamber that one of the important aspects of selling off these facilities was to provide income for the development. She was quite honest. That will happen because it has to be sold to be able to proceed with the infrastructure.

The minister went on to say that, in relation to one of the precincts which is for private housing, the housing development is about helping to contain our urban sprawl. Her excuse for why they have to sell off this valuable site is that it will be doing some good for urban sprawl. We have heard the explanations to the house that we need to have a supermarket, which is an utter nonsense, given the supermarket facilities in Glenside already. One of the biggest supermarkets in South Australia at the Burnside shopping centre is in Glenside. We have supermarkets in both Mitcham and Unley. The supermarket story is a complete nonsense.

This is all about trying to gain the maximum amount of money. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that we have to have commercial facilities on the Glenside Hospital site on Fullarton Road. Again it is about maximising return. We do not need new office space on mental health land. Mental health is the biggest single project needing assistance. It is a complete nonsense to suggest that. The tragedy is that, at a meeting the other night which the local community were invited to attend, officers of the Department of Health said, 'The sale of this precinct is not negotiable.' That is public consultation for this government. What an utter disgrace. Officers of the department said, 'This is what we will be doing. You can give us a view about what colour taps you want in the new building or whether or not there will be four trees planted next to the new wetlands area, but you cannot have a say about whether one half of this asset will be sold off to the highest bidder and miss out on the open space you have now.'

Time expired.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT