HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-03-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GLENSIDE HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:30): I move:

That this house condemns the state government for the proposed sale of nearly half the Glenside Hospital site and the lack of genuine public consultation about the proposed redevelopment, and in particular for—

(a) announcing at a public meeting that the sale of the property is 'not negotiable' and the redevelopment is conditional upon the sale;

(b) selling part of the property for retail and commercial purposes without identifying any need for extra services in the area;

(c) selling part of the property to the Frewville Shopping Centre, while excluding other buyers from the opportunity to purchase the same;

(d) not assessing the traffic management of vehicles entering and leaving the property to service the hospital, public/private tenants, new residents and office, retail and shopping facilities;

(e) the reduction of open spaces and removal of significant trees, and the general reduction in amenities for local residents;

(f) the lack of consultation with clinical and professional employees;

(g) the reduction in amenity for patients, including patients from rural South Australia;

(h) the reduction of services available at the hospital, including the exclusion of mature aged patients and patients requiring open ward accommodation;

(i) not consulting as to where the new hospital will be built on the site or taking into account the extra security required with the collocation of drug and alcohol services; and

(j) the sale of land for private housing, when there is an urgent need for accommodation for mental health patients.

What has happened to date and, in particular, the announcement a week ago of what I call Glenside redevelopment mark 2, has taken the utter contempt of this government for local people in relation to consultation as they see it to a new level—a new level of deceit and a new level of absolute failure (deliberate, I suggest) to consult with people about this proposal. Let me explain.

On 20 February, that is, a couple of weeks ago, minister Gago, covering mental health, announced the appointment of a 13 member community reference group to provide advice on the Glenside Hospital redevelopment that had been announced seven months previously. That was the first indication of the intention of the government to genuinely consult. Up until then, three public meetings had been held. The Premier had refused to meet with the local mayor and representatives of the community. There had been a couple of consultations directly with the minister and selected members of the community, but there had been a clear message that the government had already decided that it would:

sell 42 per cent of the land (and it was said absolutely clearly at the public meetings that that was not negotiable);

build a retail shopping centre;

provide for a commercial precinct;

sell a vast area for private housing;

exclude local council in the planning of it by declaring a ministerial PAR;

ignore the resolutions of local residents at the public meetings;

proceed regardless of the local objection—in fact, as I have said, the plan was not negotiable;

demolish significant trees to build—but they have refused, even after three questions in this parliament, to identify how many of those there would be to the Premier and to the minister;

dig up the oval used for sporting and school clubs in the community;

amalgamate the drug and alcohol, mental health and Aboriginal services, which had been highlighted in a budget in September 2006;

disregard community concerns about public safety;

ignore the anticipated transport hazards;

remove aged care residents with nowhere to go; and

completely ignore the health professionals' advice and, in particular, the unanimous decision of the royal college of psychiatrists that this property should be saved and be available for future mental health purposes.

All of that the government had decided to do. So the government announced a 13 member group which it called the community reference group.

But what did it do last week? On 28 February The Advertiser published a story that the government had amended the redevelopment and was going to change precinct 1 for precinct 2. It was going to place the new hospital, which was to be in the north-east corner of the site, in the south-east corner of the site and swap it with what was to be private housing. That was the announcement that we all read in The Advertiser. But what about the community reference group? When did members find out about it? They got a phone call the night before saying, 'You will be reading in The Advertiser tomorrow about a new program, a new plan, a new redevelopment.' This is the redevelopment mark II. 'I know that we have not met and discussed it yet, but we will send you a letter next week to tell you what is in it and you will be reading about it in the paper tomorrow morning.' That is the government's newly-defined community consultation. Set up a group, do not even convene it to tell people what it is thinking of doing; publish it in The Advertiser and ring them the night before to say, 'We'll tell you about it in a letter next week.'

Well, some of them tell me that, as of today, they have not even received the letter they were supposed to get this week to tell them what the detail is—they just have to read about it in The Advertiser and guess that housing will be swapped with the hospital. No consideration is given to the fact that Massada College sits behind the new area where the hospital will be built, and to the security issues with respect to the children there.

No consideration is given to all the communities that will miss out on the use of the oval which is still to be dug up; and no consideration about the loss of open space for all the people who live around this site, which I point out has largely already been sold off to private housing, in particular, aged housing, which runs around the perimeter of this hospital and the northern and eastern boundaries. The area is intensely populated by multiple dwellings for aged members of the community. They have very real concerns, as have local schools and sporting clubs and the mental health industry, yet the government just redoes the plan, puts it out through The Advertiser and expects that we will say, 'Well done on public consultation.' What a joke! What an insult to the people who have been asked to be a part of this group.

The group is to be chaired by Damien Walker, Director of Major Projects for the Department of Health, as well as local residents and representatives from the school community, but they did not even see this plan before it was put in The Advertiser, let alone being consulted about it. What has happened is that the government has picked up a few issues which it is being told it might be able to deal with by just swapping over the two precincts, but it has not resolved any of these other issues. It is an indecent act, I suggest, for the government to proceed with this before it at least sat down with this community consultation reference group and said, 'This is what we have in mind to allay your fears.'

It is a damned insult to these people to ask them to give of their good time to raise and confirm these issues, to be invited to the table to talk and then have to read about it in The Advertiser. What about the rest of the community who have attended public meetings, who have raised their concerns and who, on almost a daily basis, have written to the minister and the Premier saying, 'Please save this area'? They get completely ignored. The government is dealing with this as though it is just a few local people who are unhappy, but let me say that communities in Mount Gambier and the Riverland have raised this issue in their local newspapers. Why have they raised this issue? Why is Glenside so important to them?

It is so important to them because rural patients have only the Glenside Hospital. That is the only facility for the whole of rural South Australia. There is not one resident psychiatrist in this state outside metropolitan Adelaide. Glenside Hospital has some beds reserved for rural people, and the new facility will accommodate those beds; but rural people have no facility other than Glenside Hospital. It is absolutely important to them. If members of this house took the time to read the local papers in the community they would see that people are very unhappy and very concerned about it. It is important that it is not seen just as some issue concerning local Glenside residents.

This is a major statewide issue for a major statewide facility that is being sold off for a massive health crisis facing this state. I see the Minister for Housing sitting here. Every day he must deal with the fact that 30,000 people are on the list, waiting for affordable accommodation. He has the challenge of dealing with Aboriginal and community housing lists—add them up in the list, minister—and accommodating these people in the existing affordable stock, let alone providing the services to deal with the mental health problems of these people. He knows those challenges'. They are not easy, but it exacerbates the problem if we do not even have the health facilities to support these people.

Here is the opportunity for this government to save this site. Even if it does not have the money to build health services or housing services sufficient to meet the current needs of the people in the community who need the service statewide, at least do not sell off the land until the necessary funds are available. Save that and preserve it: keep a decent amount of open space.

This is an interesting point about open space. This is an area which has almost 300 trees which are recognised as having significance and which need some regulatory procedure. Of those, 199 of them are in the category that is regulated as not being able to be removed unless there are special circumstances. In the areas that are to be built on, in master plan 1 and 2, at least 100 of those significant trees (which are published and on the internet) have to be chopped down—at least 100.

Let us understand what will happen. There will be the loss of not only the umbrella of the existing magnificent trees but also the bird life, koalas, foxes (I am told) and the significant flora which is dependent on this property—especially the koalas at the moment because they are desperate for water and are moving into the metropolitan area, as I am sure a number of members will have had reported in their own electorates. A significant list of rare and endangered bird species, including the black cockatoo, reside in and rely on the ambience of this area. This is important because it is staggering to appreciate their abundance in the area.

The Conservation Council and other interested parties have also expressed their concern about the sell-off of this precious asset for a service which we desperately need, as well as the open space ambience for those who are now residing on what was the original Glenside Hospital site, which has been operating for the care of mental health since 1870 in this state.

I have raised other aspects in relation to the need to have a very expanded supermarket service. We have a new supermarket and shopping centre facility at Norwood, which is magnificent; a big and expanded one at Burnside, which is fantastic; a completely rebuilt one at Mitcham, which is absolutely fantastic and superb; a rebuilt and extended one at Unley; the Arkaba shopping centre; and the Chapley Foodland at Frewville. It is the Chapley Foodland group that is to be offered first option to put a much expanded service on the Glenside site. No-one else is allowed to bid for it; they get the exclusive rights.

We have raised questions about this and we will continue to raise questions, because the public has not been consulted about whether they need a new supermarket. We have yet to see any data that the government has prepared to establish whether anyone needs a new or expanded supermarket—and we need to know this. If it means that, in the redevelopment of the site and the rebuild of the hospital, there is an opportunity for the Chapley family to have an extra nine metres (which was looked at for the transfer of the heritage wall and the issues they were having with that on the border) then, of course, that can be considered. No-one, so far, on either side of the house has raised issue with that. It needs to sort out how much it will pay for it and so on, but to have a prime piece of real estate—with frontage on Fullarton Road—as a first option, on the face of it, is scandalous and needs to be investigated.

Finally, I want to mention the government's mark 2 development, which was announced in The Advertiser the other day—that is, to have an extra hectare of open space. One of my constituents made an inquiry of the department and asked, 'Where is the extra hectare?' He cannot find it even on the mark 2 plan, which is displayed on the website. Will it be carved out of what is already the wetland and detention basin which is earmarked as necessary if there is to be any stormwater development to feed into the South Parklands? That is a very important initiative. All the local council mayors, even the government, in general terms, have committed to look at that.

Certainly, the opposition has been emphasising the importance of considering stormwater catchment and reuse not only because of the water crisis but also to manage the flooding that occurs across Unley and the western suburbs every winter. It is important, but to try mischievously to create an extra hectare by saying that there is a bit bigger area in a detention basin, and not even be able to answer the question when a constituent makes an inquiry, demonstrates that they are not good on detail, but they are good at throwing out stories through The Advertiser and putting flash glossies on the website before anyone has a real opportunity to consult. I do condemn the government in this motion, because this is not consultation. This is a dictatorship of the worst kind: it is against the most vulnerable in our community, and it is to sell one of our most valuable and sacred assets.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:45): I support this motion. In doing so, I would like to contrast the process of the Labor government to that of the land sale of a government asset, in a bid to rise from the ashes of the State Bank collapse, when Dean Brown was first elected as premier of South Australia. As a resident, I was involved in the negotiations over the sale of the Goodwood Orphanage.

The Goodwood Orphanage is a beautiful, historic building. It was owned by the education department. We saw a large and prolonged genuine consultation process in the sale of the Goodwood Orphanage. Of course, the outcome of that today is that the open space is still there for the residents of Unley to use every day. As a matter of fact, there is half a page in the Messenger Press this week devoted to an argument about the use of open space in that area after a council redevelopment of the play area. Without going into too much detail, we have a conflict between dog owners, who would like to run their dogs freely, and parents of young kids, who would like an area where dogs have to be restrained.

If it was not for the consultative process that we saw by the then minister for education, the Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place, that option would not be there for those residents in Unley today because that open space would have been sold to the highest bidder and developed, just like what is happening in Glenside. There are several differences. One difference is that the Goodwood Orphanage sale was done at the time when this state was bankrupt after 11 years of Labor government. We had no money; we had an $11 billion state debt and the collapse of our government-owned State Bank, and we had to start the recovery process.

With the Glenside site, we have buckets of money coming into this government at the moment. As a matter of fact, the Treasurer was boasting yesterday about how well the state economy is doing at the moment, and all the money he is spending. He is having enormous trouble containing his expenses, I must say, but he is spending an enormous amount of money. The budget has grown from $8 billion—do not forget that it took 170 years to reach $8 billion—to, some are estimating, a $13 billion budget this year.

It is enormous growth in the budget in six years, yet the Minister for Mental Health is telling us that we can upgrade these facilities only if we sell off a community asset. I ask whether that was the same case for the redevelopment of the new emergency ward of the Flinders Medical Centre. The public servant to whom I addressed that question in a public works hearing thought that it was an outrageous suggestion that we should have to sell off Flinders University land to fund this. This is a government requirement; this is what governments are there for; but the mental health minister is telling us that we can do this only by selling off public land. The argument the mental health minister uses is that the land is not used. Don Dunstan used that argument when he sold off the land for the MATS plan: it was not being used, and look at the mess we are in now with public transport. We cannot expand our road system. It was not being used, so it was sold off.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Bannon sold it.

Mr PISONI: Thank you to the member for Fisher for refreshing my history on recent South Australian politics.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Against the advice of the department of transport.

Mr PISONI: Thank you, member for Fisher. An asset that was not being used, according to the Bannon government, was sold off, but what use can we make of it today? That is the question we put to minister Gago in the other place. Selling off this land restricts any further use of that land, not only for mental health facilities and the patients but also for local residents. My electorate of Unley is only 2 per cent open space. We are being squeezed out by urban consolidation. It is a very attractive place to live: we have very large blocks and lovely leafy suburbs. It is so attractive in the eastern suburbs that a number of Labor members have abandoned their northern suburbs electorates and live in our electorates: that is fine, we welcome them. However, the point that needs to be made is that we are losing our private open space to urban consolidation, and we are fighting against that in Unley. We are now losing more of our precious public open space through the sale of 42 per cent of the open space at Glenside.

While we are on the subject of preserving heritage, open space and subdivisions, I cannot help but express today my disappointment in minister Holloway's delays in signing off on the first stage of the Unley City Council's development amendment plans that will enable it to have some form of demolition control, particularly in heritage and character zoned areas in Unley. It is something the council has worked enormously hard for, and it does not escape me that the minister was very loud during the 2006 mayoral elections where a Labor candidate was running for re-election as the mayor of Unley, saying the memorandum of understanding was a great idea and that he would support it, yet 18 months later the council tells me that it is still waiting for the minister to sign off on it. He has had it on his desk for signing off for three or four months, so what is the delay? All the pomp and ceremony during an election campaign to help out a mate: now that that is not relevant, it is not as important as he thought originally. I take this opportunity to plead with the minister to sign it so the council can start preserving the character of Unley and its historic homes. Sign it so we can keep our character and keep the features that attract people to live in, and make significant investment in, property in Unley.

I cannot express how disappointed I and the residents in and around not just the Glenside area but throughout Unley are about this sale.

Mr Goldsworthy: Being taken for granted.

Mr PISONI: Thank you, member for Kavel. They are disappointed about the lack of consultation, and lack of interest and concern the government has shown on the threat to their environment and the wrong decision it is making and enforcing under its indoctrination plan that it labels as consultation for the Glenside site. I support the motion, and let the minister and the parliament know that this fight is not over yet.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:55): I wish to comment on one aspect of this motion, that is, paragraph (e), 'the reduction of open spaces and removal of significant trees, and the general reduction in amenities for local residents'. This has been an issue for some time and it is not unique to this government: it has occurred before. We are getting to the point where we need to look closely at the issue of selling off open space to get a dollar. It is not unique in respect of this development because it has happened before.

The member for Unley touched on urban consolidation, and we are now getting to the point where it is becoming more important to retain adequate open space, genuine open space, that could be used by people for passive recreation and, also, mildly active recreation, such as kicking a footy with grandchildren or walking the dog. If we are not careful in Adelaide, we will get to the point where those areas have diminished so far that, rather than being a city proud of its open space, we will be in the exact opposite situation.

In some respects—and this is highlighted by the close proximity of the Parklands to the Glenside Hospital site—the Parklands (which are fantastic and which are the result of the foresight of Colonel Light and others) have provided a deceptive image of open space and greenery. It has meant that adjoining councils over the past 150 years or so have felt that they do not have to provide much in the way of open space because it is in the Parklands. That has resulted in suburbs close to the Parklands, not just Unley, missing out on recreation areas and open space because the Parklands have been used, in effect, as an excuse for not providing additional open space and recreational areas.

I suspect that in the case of Glenside the argument would be, 'Well, you have the Parklands.' Governments need to stop using that phoney argument because, whether or not we like it, Adelaide's and South Australia's population will increase and there will be more pressure on the Parklands. They are already used extensively and they are paid for by the residents and ratepayers of Adelaide to the tune of about $9 million year. Over a year the Parklands are used by millions of people in various ways—and that pressure will intensify.

I have raised the issue of the creation of superschools directly with the Minister for Education and Children's Services—and I do not have a problem with that per se—but if it means that the land, which is currently used by existing schools in the northern suburbs, is sold for housing, then there is likely to be a net loss to the local residents in the area in regard to open space. The minister rightly says that it is not her responsibility, but it is the responsibility of every minister in cabinet. I have great difficulty communicating to each minister on topics decided by cabinet because I often get an answer such as, 'That is the responsibility of minister X.' I know that that is the direct responsibility, but all ministers have a responsibility to look at all issues before cabinet, including the Glenside Hospital redevelopment.

The Minister for Urban Development and Planning should be asking questions in cabinet about the open space provisions, and, likewise, the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing should be asking about its impact on residents now and into the future. We know that a minister has sole responsibility for mental health, but every minister has a responsibility for the governance of this state, so each minister should take a close look at not only this development but also any other development which results in the reduction of open space.

I refer to one of the points that the member for Bragg made about trees. As members are aware, I am a great advocate of greening the state. It is a well-established fact in relation to mental wellbeing, not just those with a mental illness, that greenery helps mental wellbeing. I can refer members to studies which show that, if people can see greenery—which is probably why we are so well balanced in this chamber—it helps their mental wellbeing.

If people in offices can see greenery it helps their mental wellbeing; if people in hospitals can see greenery they are likely to recover more quickly. The point is that, apart from the benefit of those trees in terms of carbon sequestration and as a habitat for birds, and so on, there is value just in their contribution to the wellbeing of local residents and others. Any decision made on Glenside should not simply be in terms of the poor souls who are afflicted with a mental illness: it should encompass the bigger picture in relation to open space and the wellbeing of everyone, and it should not merely be about an area on which buildings are provided only because a government can sell off a piece of land.

I do not believe the government is at a point where, in order to carry out its required duties, it has to sell off the family jewels. If we are at that point then I think we are in a serious situation. Without going into all the aspects of this motion, I have written to the Premier and the Minister for Urban Development and Planning recently asking whether they have looked closely at open space provision in Adelaide, both now and for the future, and I urge the government to ensure that we are not short-changing this generation or generations to come. I think the Glenside Hospital site comes well and truly within that ambit for consideration.

Ms SIMMONS (Morialta) (12:02): I rise to oppose this motion. The government of South Australia released the Social Inclusion Board's report Stepping Up in February 2007 and endorsed the direction of all its recommendations. The government immediately committed $43.6 million towards the reform of the mental health system and has now, through the 2007-08 budget, committed an additional $50.5 million. The reform program includes service development, capital works and collaborative partnerships to build an integrated, community-based, stepped system of care.

This new stepped system has different graduating levels of care, comprising community care and support, 24-hour supported accommodation, community recovery centres, intermediate care beds, acute care beds and secure care beds. The system will provide people with extra support in the community where they need it most—in their own homes, in a number of different community facilities, or in an acute care setting. The range of care and support available will enable individuals to better manage their health and enjoy the benefits of being part of their local community. This is a very important part of health recovery that seems to have been missed by the opposition.

The reform of the mental health system to the new stepped model will deliver an estimated 86 additional adult beds across all levels of care to bring the state total to 516 adult beds. The increase in the range of care and support services available will not only meet the needs of more people but will also ensure that an increased number of people can receive care or support in their homes or in the community before they become acutely unwell. The reform is currently being implemented to a range of projects and programs, of which the Glenside campus redevelopment is only one.

The government announced on 20 September 2007 a concept master plan for the Glenside campus. This plan outlines the development of a new world-class 129-bed hospital for mental illness and substance abuse called SA Specialist Health Services. It comprises:

a residential area incorporating affordable housing and supported accommodation;

a major public cultural hub for the people of the state;

environmental initiatives to maintain the open spaces of the campus and enhance biodiversity and water capture (a point that also seems to have been missed by members opposite);

a village-style retail precinct with shops and cafes (which is very important in helping with the recovery of people with a mental health issue); and

a commercial development fostering employment opportunities in this near-city location.

Specifically, Glenside's SA Specialist Health Services will comprise:

40 secure rehabilitation beds;

six mother and infant acute beds;

23 rural and remote acute beds—so they have not been left out at all; the rural and remote acute beds are still there;

another 20 acute adult beds;

10 psychiatric intensive care beds; and

30 drug and alcohol acute beds.

In addition to the 129-bed hospital, the Glenside site will accommodate a drug and alcohol outpatient facility, a 15-bed intermediate care facility and 40 supported accommodation places which are vital to the needs of this state. In total, there will be 184 mental health and substance abuse beds on the site.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is quite right that the government has established a comprehensive community engagement process to inform the redevelopment. In fact, two key pieces of work are occurring currently. One is the refining of the concept master plan with the objective of completing the master plan very soon and the other is the development of models of care for the new hospital. This work has been informed by dialogue with neighbours, stakeholders, consumers, their families and staff.

One of the many mechanisms used to gather input has been a series of listening events. These events occurred throughout October and November 2007. The events ranged from public meetings at the Burnside Town Hall to community workshops held with the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Events were well attended with over 500 valuable inputs which were provided by the community. In addition, the Department of Health has established a number of other engagement methods such as key stakeholder meetings, a 1800 number, a website, regular ministerial communiqués posted on the website, clinical workshops developing the models of care for the health facility and the formation of a community reference group.

All of the above engagement mechanisms have provided a diverse range of thoughtful and valuable input. These inputs are now being synthesised by the project team as part of the finalisation of the master plan. The honourable member's motion fails to recognise the thorough community and stakeholder engagement process that has been established for the Glenside campus redevelopment. The motion also makes a series of false and misleading statements. In order to address these false statements, I advise the house of the following:

(a) Appropriate community and stakeholder engagement provides a clear and transparent description of what is fixed and what is not fixed at the outset of the process. The government has made a number of decisions—for example, the need for a new best practice mental health and substance abuse facility, the need to integrate these services by introducing retail, residential and commercial uses on the site, and the procurement method. Much of the rest of the redevelopment requires input from the community and stakeholders. That is what is occurring and will continue to occur.

(b) Detailed investigations have been undertaken for all aspects of the campus redevelopment. This includes retail, residential and commercial. There is a misconception that the introduction of retail, residential and commercial uses has been simply about deriving income. The income is merely a secondary benefit, not the primary reason for introducing these uses. These uses are about integration of everyday community activities with the provision of mental health and substance abuse services, and it has been well documented over a number of years now and accepted by those working in this area (as I did before coming into this place) that these are vital for the rehabilitation of people with both mental health and substance abuse needs. The integration of our services with the community has, is and will continue to be central to our mental health reform agenda. Moreover, this approach is consistent with best practice developments in both the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. The revenue achieved from the introduction of these everyday uses onto the campus provides a secondary financial benefit that will be directly channelled into the provision of mental health services—and I repeat that it is the secondary and not the primary reason.

(c) The deputy leader has been highly critical of the redeveloped shopping centre plan. However, the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse has given great thought to the village-style retail precinct that will be developed on the site, building onto the existing Frewville Shopping Centre. The government will require a design that faces shops, cafes and restaurants on to the broader development, therefore integrating these uses into all the other uses into the site—and this is, as I have said already, vital to the rehabilitation. The owners of Frewville Shopping Centre will be given the first opportunity to purchase this land from the government at an independently valued price. It is not unusual that government will negotiate with a single entity if there is strong strategic rationale to do so. Both commercial and design synergies exist in enlarging the existing retail precinct, rather than potentially creating a separate competing and polarised retail development adjacent to the existing one. Simultaneously, the government will acquire land from owners of the shopping centre to allow for widening of the Glen Osmond Road and Fullarton Road intersection. It is appropriate that an independent valuation be used to determine an optimum sale price. In fact, the very purpose of the valuation discipline is to determine the market value.

(d) Traffic and access has been an area of detailed investigation. The Department of Health, its traffic advisers and the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure have been conducting traffic and access assessments and modelling in order to inform the development of a master plan. These investigations are campus wide—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable member's time has expired.

Ms SIMMONS: Can I request more time?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no opportunity.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (12:13): There is a perception with some locals that there will be a loss of open space as a result of the campus redevelopment. In fact, the opposite is true. There will be more usable public open space provided as a result of the redevelopment. The current campus is an operating hospital and, as such, the majority of the site does not provide usable public open space.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: And they are welcome to.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Thanks to the good eggs of Glenside, my electorate is flooded regularly because of the intransigence of that council. The redevelopment will ensure that usable public open space is provided and is accessible to all. That is a very important point. It will be available to all; currently it is not. The opposition wants the 'No Trespassing' signs out the front there so that they can drive past in their four-wheel-drives and see the open space, but they cannot actually use it.

Models of care which will drive the service provided within the health facility have been developed over the past three months. The process for developing these models has involved a comprehensive engagement process of clinicians and consumers. To suggest that there has been a lack of engagement of clinical staff is false.

The campus redevelopment has a clear focus on the provision of quality therapeutic open space, tree retention and further plantings, the retention and enhancement of all state heritage listed buildings and the potential for a significant wetlands and stormwater retention system.

I am sad that the member for Bragg has fled the chamber since I got to my feet. Obviously, she is intimidated by me when I speak. That important wetlands stormwater retention is vital to my electorate and to the electorates of the members for Ashford and Unley. I do not see what the problem is for the member for Bragg.

The mental health system is being reformed, and part of the reform is the redevelopment of the Glenside campus. Services will continue to be provided on the site within a new best practice facility. I urge members opposite who are opposed to the redevelopment of the Glenside Hospital to look at what it is like now and see whether they would like to be treated in that hospital. Other services have been and continue to be provided for in other more appropriate locations, such as within general hospital campuses and in the community.

Aged mental health services will be carefully transitioned to more appropriate locations over the coming years. There is no reduction in service; rather, there will be more appropriate provision of services. Overall, there will be 86 more mental health beds within the system as a result of these reforms.

As yet, there is no specific location within precinct 1 for the hospital, and there will not be until such time that the models of care are finalised and these models inform the schedules of accommodation and then the facility design location.

The residential precinct will provide both affordable housing and supported accommodation options. I just wonder whether that is where the real opposition comes from and whether there is a little bit of 'Oh, my God, who's moving into our suburb? Oh my God, could they be Labor voters?' Given the poor performance by the member for Unley, I would be worried if I were him, too. The poll released in The Advertiser saw the current head of their party dramatically calling for a change in government and getting a 3 per cent swing against him in the six months that he has been leader. Rob Kerin did better, Iain Evans did better and John Howard did better. I have never seen such a bad result by a Liberal leader. Of all the Liberal oppositions—other than Queensland—this is the worst performing Liberal opposition, and what they are now doing is—

Mr PISONI: I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: The speaker is moving off the topic.

Mr Pengilly: Just a little bit.

Mr PISONI: Just a little bit off the topic. The motion is about Glenside, and the Leader of the Opposition does not even live in Glenside.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to address the topic.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I lost my place; thank you for the break. I just wonder whether affordable housing is the real objection. They say they want open space, but they have now committed to taking over the Parklands to erect buildings. But they say, 'No, in Burnside and Unley we want open space. Victoria Park is a different story.' So, I just wonder whether the real conflict here is about affordable housing.

The residential precinct will provide a welcome increase in inner-city accommodation stocks for those consumers who use the Glenside campus facilities. The Glenside campus redevelopment is an exciting statewide project that will contribute significantly to the reform of our mental health system. By condemning the redevelopment, we would simply be condemning the mental health system to further years of outdated and outmoded service delivery.

I submit that the opposition is morally bankrupt and is playing petty partisan politics with this important statewide issue. I submit that members opposite are simply worried about affordable housing going into their electorates. They have no plans for the future of the state and they have no vision for mental health and its delivery in South Australia. I submit that the member for Bragg (Ms Chapman) is simply playing local politics. Local politics is easy. It is easy to blame somebody when someone gets angry. It is hard to lead and it is hard to show vision. When there are changes in a community that benefit the state as a whole, it is hard to go out and sell those changes. It is much easier to be an angry man shouting into the wind than it is to get up, lead and set a future vision.

Because of their heritage, members opposite, unfortunately, do not know how to lead. They do not know how to show vision. All they know is how to assign blame. That is what politics has become in the Liberal Party: getting people angry about an issue and assigning blame. They are angry about Glenside not being moved off site and therefore not increasing property prices. They are angry about that, so, rather than deliver world's best practice in mental health care, they just blame someone. That is not leadership and it is not vision.

As to what the member for Unley said, I have a copy of his newsletter in which he condemns people who built 'McMansions' in his electorate. I will just let him know that I have written to all those people who own 'McMansions' in his electorate letting them know exactly what his views are of their properties and homes.

So, don't come here and lecture us about your electorate. I cannot think of any member outside this parliament, other than the member for Unley, who has condemned people for the homes they have built in their electorate. Imagine your local MP knocking on your door and saying, 'This house is a monstrosity. It shouldn't have been built.' You are a genius! He is not only stupid, he is stupid often. He put it in a newsletter, mailed it out to everyone and told them that these things are monstrosities.

I do not know if you have ever driven around Unley, but a lot of people there have had a lot of capital growth in the value of their homes. As part of the inheritance to their children, they subdivided those properties and built these so-called 'McMansions' that the member for Unley hates so much. He condemns them. He does not want them to capitalise on the value of their homes: he wants to condemn them. I say: all power to you. Next time you put out a newsletter, send me the bill. I will help you. I oppose the motion.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Not in the poll in The Advertiser; maybe on the island you are doing well, maybe in the Barossa and maybe on Yorke Peninsula you are doing well, but in metro Adelaide you are going backwards—and you are going backwards fast. Do you know why they are going backwards? Because of motions like this. They have no vision. They just shout into the wind. That is all they do. I oppose the motion.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (12:21): It is a great pity that the house has had to listen for a number of minutes to the contribution of the member who has just resumed his seat. Things must be going badly when they have to trot out the honourable member to give us the benefit of his particular wisdom on a number of subjects. Unfortunately, he never addressed the motion.

The motion states that the house condemns the state government on the proposed sale of nearly half the Glenside Hospital site and the lack of genuine public consultation. As someone who drives past that site—

Ms Breuer interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The honourable member has plenty of time to run back to Oak Valley and try to look after her friends. I suggest she—

Ms Breuer interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: That's dead right, but let me go on. As someone who drives past that site on a regular basis, I cannot help but think how wise our forefathers were when they set it aside, just like the land down at the racecourse. I think it is also an unwise decision to sell that. Do you want to have bricks, mortar, pavement and bitumen across the whole of Adelaide? I thought that this was an environmentally friendly government, but it opposes responsible motions like this. The member for West Torrens talks about polling, but I suggest that he look at the pale faces of those members in the marginal seats. They do not think that the polling is going too well.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: My point of order is relevance. The member attacks me for my not being relevant, and then he immediately launches into a tirade against marginal seat members. The father of the house should know better.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I have an alternative point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The man who appears to be on his feet at the moment I do not think can be the member for Stuart because he is promoting a radical green agenda. I believe there is an impostor in the house and I ask for him to be removed immediately.

Honourable members: Stranger in the house!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I will be pleased to give you the call when the member for Stuart has finished. Meanwhile, I ask the member for Stuart to stick to the subject.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I am honoured that the minister takes a point of order. Notwithstanding what he said, I have not been born again: I am just a practical member of parliament dealing with each issue as it arises and looking at each one purely upon its merits. I am looking at the merits of this issue because, as someone who will continue to drive past the Glenside site, I think it would—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It's not on your way home.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: It is on my way home. At 5 o'clock in the morning I drive past there, and sometimes it is midnight. Unlike the Attorney-General, I can drive myself past it—he can't.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: If it's 5 o'clock in the morning, I'd be getting home, not getting up.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: That raises another question, but perhaps we will not go into that. I am a charitable character, and all I want to suggest to the Attorney is that he concentrate on the inner-city electorates; there is no way that he could represent the vast inland of South Australia, because he cannot drive himself.

Mr Pengilly: With Mrs Gunn up there now, you're in trouble.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, I'll be in real trouble. All I want to say in conclusion in supporting the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Come on, you've got seven minutes left.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, normally, Madam Deputy Speaker, they want to curtail my remarks. Normally, I am a man of few words, and it takes a lot to get me on my feet. I rose today only because I think it is appalling that they want to chop up the Glenside area and put a commercial development on it when it has been for generations a very important open space area and, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, I think our forefathers had great wisdom in setting it aside.

So I support the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is sticking up for her constituents and many other people in Adelaide. The government wants to cut this area up, but it will not even put a decent facility in Victoria Park. There seems to be a conflict somewhere. When it receives a proposition to provide a decent facility to cater for the needs of South Australians, it runs away—it is frightened of the Adelaide City Council. I find that appalling. The North Adelaide Residents Association—a couple of thousand residents—has more pulling power than the rest of the people in Adelaide. Well, I have a view about the North Adelaide Residents Association, but I will keep that for another day.

In conclusion, all I say to the member for West Torrens is that he can laugh about the polls but the backbenchers are not laughing about them. The chilly winds at the ballot box are starting to catch up on them, and the more arrogant they become, the more necessary it will be for them to start looking through the 'positions vacant' columns in the daily newspaper. In supporting the motion, I think the deputy leader has done a good job in bringing this matter to the attention of the house.

Motion negatived.

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