HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Grievance Debate

GLENSIDE HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:31): I rise today to speak about the government's redevelopment of the Glenside Hospital site and, in particular, the contributions that are ongoing to the inquiry into the proposal in another place. There are a number of aspects of this which, of course, are under consideration, and one of the important submissions presented recently was from the Public Advocate, Mr John Brayley, a former director of mental health and someone whose history of service to public mental health services is well recognised.

Mr Brayley made a submission which I am pleased to note is fully consistent with the Liberal Party's position, that is, whilst we endorse the importance of redeveloping the Glenside Hospital facilities, which clearly are outdated and need to be rebuilt, it is also very important that we maintain adequate space in the new hospital to meet consumer priorities, that we maintain adequate space on the site for future expansion and, in particular, that we ensure housing is a feature. Adequate accommodation for people suffering mental health problems currently is almost completely absent. The redevelopment should take into consideration the importance of future housing for mental health patients.

In his submission the Public Advocate also provides an interesting contribution about making provision within the grounds for social firms and research, which has already been the subject of an institute recommendation to the select committee, included in an interim report to the parliament. He also makes some comments in relation to a model of integrated governance. This clearly demonstrates that, yet again, we have a professional person saying that to sell off 42 per cent of the Glenside Hospital site and use it for services other than those consistent with mental health (that is, accommodation and services) is ill-conceived and totally inconsistent.

A particular example is the decision to press ahead with the film and sound hub on the Glenside Hospital site. This is the $45 million expenditure which is being established right at this moment. Here we are with New York in meltdown and the government today saying it has had to announce a three-year delay in the development of the forensic mental health facilities at Murray Bridge, yet it is pressing ahead with the $45 million development at Glenside Hospital.

I have received under freedom of information a letter from Mr John Harley, the previous public advocate, to the former minister. He sent a letter on 24 May 2006, which was referred to in a letter of the Hon. Gail Gago of 15 September 2006. As if that is not insult enough—to delay a response on this important issue—the government decided to close down the special stay unit and throw out the mental health patients—detainees as they were at that time—into other facilities. In his letter, Mr Harley says that this is contrary to the professional advice of psychiatrists. Three psychiatrists were overturned by a directive from Glenside to throw these people out. They were not sent to other facilities: one was sent to the Arkaba Hotel and was guarded by two GSL officers. They were held under surveillance in a hotel after being thrown out of Glenside Hospital.

This is another example of the government being totally dismissive of the importance of protecting mental health patients. We are seeing it again. At present the government is making decisions which it claims are covered by decisions that are supported by psychiatrists in respect of aged patients at Glenside, a third of whom have been earmarked for exclusion. That is totally unacceptable.

Time expired.

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