HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MENTAL HEALTH BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 1573.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:57): So, Dr James Hundertmark's contribution, both at the public meeting to which I have referred and otherwise as a former chair of the Royal College of Psychiatry and now remaining committed to public mental health, makes the point very clearly that there should be no sale and that it is very important that we keep the open space for patients. He also makes the point that, from his observation of the plan, the model of care, this 'all in together in the corner of the site' is far too small. We have mothers with infants in with rural and remote, drug and alcohol and the very acutely sick—all in one area. He says that the current oval which continues to be used by patients and clients of the hospital should remain available for them.

In fact, he even came up with what I thought quite a novel idea, that is, that if the Chapley family, who are to be given first option on land which covers this oval, want to be really generous to South Australia they could buy the property, donate it back and have it named the Chapley Oval Reserve. He says, 'Rebuild the hospital as contemplated by the government', that is, actually do that. And I have publicly and in this forum commended the government for taking the initiative to do it, although I am highly critical of it now delaying it and building a film headquarters instead of getting on with the job.

He applauds that that needs to be done, but he says, 'They've got the wrong model, the wrong size and in the wrong place and it will not achieve what is important for the patients.' The government should go back to the drawing board as recommended by the select committee and slowly use up the space, not only for open space areas but also for all the other demands that are necessary for mental health. With all that, we still have the government, ostensibly on the advice of its department, supporting a flawed model, which is utterly dangerous, according to some of these people who have put in their submissions.

We have an announcement by the government to defer the rebuild of the hospital by two years, so we have plenty of opportunity, we suggest, to do this properly. Mr Derek Wright is the current Director, Mental Health Operations. I have been to a lot of meetings with him and a number of them have been with relatives of people who are in the hospital. He knows, as I and others present have told him, that I have had in that hospital both relatives and clients from my former professional life.

That institution, along with the people who work in it, has been a life-saving institution for many of those people—mothers who have been suicidal with postnatal depression, people who have suffered great hardship who are in a major depressed state, and those who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, to name a few. I do not think there would be a person in this parliament who has not been touched in some way by a constituent, family member, friend or some other associate or colleague in their former working life who has not been touched by mental illness.

I think it is important to appreciate the significance of the feeling which is expressed by people like Mrs Beck in her letter, which I have read to the parliament, and many others who speak with passion at these meetings about their fear of the government's intention to relocate their loved relative.

Various assurances have been given by Mr Wright at these meetings about a number of different areas but I want to touch on a select few. He asserts that they are going to introduce a model of care which is state of the art, the best in the world, etc.—and I have heard that many times—and that they are working on the process of building that up and consulting with people. I do not necessarily agree with what he says on that for the reasons I have already outlined in this debate.

The next thing he said was that they were going to work with the relatives to make sure that they are comfortable with the changes and that they will help relocate their loved ones to other facilities. I ask repeatedly: will he and/or the minister commit to ensuring that people will not be relocated, either around the campus in some kind of musical beds arrangement or off the campus, without the support and consent of their relatives and carers?

These relatives and carers get a big plug in this legislation. The importance of their being involved and consulted is highlighted in this bill. They have information about the person who is in their care and they should be consulted about whether their relative gets dumped into some other community or facility which, as good as it might be, may actually cause trauma to that patient. I am told repeatedly at those meetings that that assurance will not be given.

The department asserts that it will make the decision on the professional advice that it gets about the relocation of these people. However, we have seen the memorandum of the patients who are going to be relocated from various wards in this hospital, pending the removal of administration from the main heritage building to accommodate the film corporation. People will be removed from certain facilities to accommodate the sell-off of land to the Chapley family, and the aged people will be transferred from an area which is going to be sold off for private housing, so they know the truth. The truth is that there will not be consultation about that. They will transfer them around.

The next question I asked was: will you agree, at least, not to move these aged people to some other facility during their lifetime? Will you allow them to stay in a dedicated facility on site? For example, the day centre (the former nurses' home) on Fullarton Road is not dedicated for a supermarket or anything else; instead, it is to be bulldozed and made open space. But no; that is not acceptable to the department either.

We have recently heard the government's announcement that it will build an extra facility next to Cramond House at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. That is great; but I think the government needs to understand how traumatic this will be for the patients and how the relatives of those patients are concerned about their relocation. This is something that has been raised repeatedly. I urge the government to rethink this project, to understand that it has it wrong. Do not listen to the department, namely, Derek Wright, who keeps coming along and saying that he has the world's best model when, clearly, he does not.

How many times have people come in from England or New Zealand to tell us what is world-class, best practice, the greatest model? There have been plenty of them. We had that, I remember, from Dr David Panter in the department over country health, and what a disaster that was! He has now been put in charge of the Marj/Royal Adelaide Hospital rebuild, so I hate to think where we are going with that.

Now we have Mr Wright telling the minister and the former minister what we should be doing on mental health. Well, he has got it wrong, and the minister has to have the courage to acknowledge that it is wrong and actually listen to what these other people are saying and understand how dangerous the situation is.

While we are on the topic of listening to advice, please consider the decision and recommendation of the select committee to double the acute bed accommodation for rural and remote people. As I said, a third of South Australia's population lives in regional South Australia. The only acute facility those people have is at the Glenside Hospital. I was in the Riverland the other day. There are, on average, 10 people a week, who are sedated and sometimes have something put down their throat to keep them alive, and who are transported to Adelaide to be admitted to the Glenside Hospital to take up one of these 23 beds. That is just in the Riverland.

As Mrs Beck said about what is happening out there in the country, this is a very distressing situation. The government has said, 'We will upgrade four of our major hospitals in the country, and we will make them a facility which, under this new bill, will actually enable them to be a facility declared under the act to enable them to retain patients for up to seven days.' That is great, fantastic, but, having heard that announcement, the next thing we hear is that the facility that is going to be upgraded at Berri, for $42 million, I think it is, has now been put off for another two years.

When I was at the Berri hospital the other day, they brought in somebody who they were holding all day. I think two police officers were required, and two or three nursing personnel in the hospital were tied up in the hospital waiting for an ambulance to be available to bring that person to Glenside.

The time and resources that are taken up when we do not have a facility in the country is a real concern, and I say to the government: good on you for saying that you are going to do something about this, but it is deplorable that again you have put this off for another two years when you know how serious the situation is. And, in the knowledge of all that, they do nothing to increase the 23 beds for rural and remote people here at the hospital, which they could do right now.

While they are working out how they are going to get workforce into these areas at Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Berri and Mount Gambier, right now they could be providing those extra beds and services at Glenside Hospital. There are plenty of empty wards and empty areas; they have emptied a lot of them out and put them into the general hospitals. There is plenty of space, and the select committee says, 'I understand this is a very real problem out there and you need to double the 23 beds to 46 beds.'

It is a very serious matter and, again, the select committee are right in alerting the government to the seriousness of the situation that the interim arrangements which they have elected to adjourn themselves is not going to resolve it either now or possibly in a number of years. It could be another three or four years after that before the enhancements are made to these four regional hospitals to qualify them for declaration as an approved facility for the purposes of holding a detained person under an order or under a community treatment order. I say to the minister that this is another matter which needs her attention.

Yesterday I raised in the house the issue of four deaths—that have been identified in a circular that has gone around the Glenside Hospital—during the heatwave, at a time when each of them had a clozapine medication for schizophrenia. I appreciate that the minister—if I can paraphrase her—has advised the house that she is looking into the matter. That is great. She says that there are three. It is a bit concerning that we have a memo from the hospital saying there are four and the minister has been told there are three. That is a bit of concern to me, but, nevertheless, no doubt we will get a full report on this. It has gone to a particular subcommittee to deal with potential adverse effects of medications, and that is great.

But, I say again that this is under the watch of this government. They are the clients and patients of the Glenside Hospital, which is under the Central Northern Adelaide Health Service, and these matters must go to the Coroner. In circumstances where there are three or four—however many it is—it deserves more than just a referral to a committee on the possible administration of medication.

The Hon. J.D. Lomax-Smith interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The minister can make a personal explanation when the member has finished.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to do it now.

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