HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-06-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Public Works Committee: Veterans' Mental Health Precinct Transforming Health Project

Adjourned debate on motion of Ms Digance:

That the 546th report of the committee, entitled Veterans' Mental Health Precinct Transforming Health Project, be noted.

(Continued from 25 May 2016.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:54): I had just opened and identified two areas of potential conflict of interest on the veterans' mental health project, and I had sought leave to continue my remarks. Members will not be surprised when I express my outrage at the government's decision to progress the $15 million veterans' mental health project away from the Repatriation General Hospital at Daw Park, which currently accommodates the provision of mental health services for returned veterans, to the Glenside campus of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, formerly the Glenside Hospital, which has been raped already by this government.

Members should understand what has happened so far. The government has sold off 40 per cent of the Glenside campus site. It has stripped naked the current site and rebuilt the hospital in the corner. It has crammed into that the drug and alcohol services and crammed right next to it services otherwise known as halfway accommodation. Apparently, some of those are to be tipped out to accommodate the proposed redevelopment of the PTSD clinic, renamed the veterans' mental health project.

So far, the government has also demolished two significant premises that are under heritage listing. It has ripped up hundreds of trees on a site that has over 2,000 trees. The Massada school next door has been sold off to a property developer, when the government clearly had an opportunity to buy it. Renewal SA is currently preparing the property adjacent to it along Conyngham Street for sale. A portion, including the old Z Ward, has been sold off to Beach Petroleum, an occupier of property adjacent to that facility.

What we have now is a tiny area allocated for mental health and a large portion of the area currently occupied by a facility in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, namely, the South Australian Film Corporation, when the heart was ripped out of this site and transferred to them. It is half empty most of the time because it has now become a corporation to distribute grants rather than make movies. To demonstrate its insistence on trying to get the financial benefit to prop up their bottom line in this premises, the government has even denied the local Massada school, dog clubs and others access to the oval which, of course, has had mountains of dirt on it for a while and now is to be covered with accommodation in a private housing development.

The government's miserable approach to the provision of care for veterans is demonstrated by the fact that they were prepared to spend $42 million to upgrade a facility for the SA Film Corporation and a measly $15 million (and I think they allocated an extra $2 million) for the mental health of our veterans. It shows the disgraceful disregard they have for this most important group in the community which is ever-growing due to the continuing return of men and women from active service in conflicts on our behalf to protect our way of life. They put their own lives on the line, returning broken and needing our important services, and $15 million for a relocation is the best they will get.

The government, of course, has decided to sell off the Repat hospital to a sister company of the RSL for aged-care facilities. It is clearly still going to be there. There is no reason why they could not allow veterans to stay there next to other acute health services. Ward 18 was completely rebuilt for civilian services. The facility is less than 10 years old. It is a magnificent facility and it ought to have been available for the veterans of South Australia, rather than their being crammed into the back end of the Glenside campus site with almost no room round them.

I think it is a disgusting treatment of these people who are getting a 24-bed facility at Glenside. That is minimal money. They will be lucky to be able to refurbish those parts of the buildings that will be salvaged from that part of the site. It will also accommodate services for research. It is what I call the skinny version, with the outpatients for all the drug and alcohol services, of course, crammed into the health site, without acute care and amenities.

Perhaps the final concern I have is in respect of women returned veterans. They are, apparently, to have a swipe card separation from the male patients with no external or internal private area of their own. I find that shameful, and I am absolutely appalled that there has been an acquiescence to a development where they are going to be crammed into this facility.

Other very well-known and highly regarded specialists, who are the heroes in this debate—people like Professor Warren Jones and Dr Robert Black, specialists and neurologists—have fought for this. Let me say that there are plenty of other people over the last 14 years I have been here who have come out and fought for this site for the mental health patients of this state. One of them I know particularly had his contract severed from providing public mental health services as a psychiatrist of this state when he spoke publicly spoken and gave evidence to an inquiry in this parliament.

It is disgraceful—absolutely disgraceful. He said to me, 'I do this for two days a week because I feel a commitment to public health that's required for the mental health of people in this state. If the government don't want me, fine. There is nothing I can do about it. I can make plenty of money out of private practice,' and that is what he does today, five days a week instead of three days a week. How stupid has the government been in dismissing the wonderful services that have been offered by these people?

I wish to commend the member for Chaffey and the member for Finniss for having the courage to submit a dissenting report on this matter because clearly they understand that not only is it bad practice but it is the indecent haste with which they are throwing these people into the back end of a site at Glenside, away from the acute services they need and the specialists have clearly identified as being important.

This government has left a stinking legacy in respect of the provision of mental health services, in this case for veterans' affairs. They have imposed a wretched decision upon those who have served us and gone to the front line to fight for us. They have come back damaged and they expect and are entitled to our support for their recovery and a place or some precinct of sanctuary in which they can recover. They have been treated in such an indecent way by this government.

Finally, it has left forever an indelible stain on the public record of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is the local member covering the Repatriation General Hospital, and he should hang his head in shame at his failure to protect those who have gone out there and fought for us.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (17:02): I will not hold the house up for long. One of the things that impressed me—and I am on the Public Works Committee; I do not often speak about many of the references, but I feel compelled to speak about this one—is that what was notable through the presentations that were provided to the committee was the significant work that was undertaken in engaging various people who are connected in various ways with the management of veterans' affairs and, in particular in this case, mental health issues.

I have never seen such a comprehensive consultation and communication, but it was more than just communication: it was actually getting feedback from those people involved in various areas of the management and delivery of the services that are required by our veterans. I think it was a credit to those people who have done it.

We know that in its various forms Transforming Health is an emotional issue. We just saw the contribution of the member for Bragg, and some might say that was pretty emotional. I would say it was probably more political than emotional, and far from productive, and that is her. She talks about her 14 years being here and what she has seen over that period of time. Well, I can tell you that it is pretty hard sitting on this side of the chamber seeing her over the last 14 years contribute in the way she does, politicising every aspect of every issue that comes here. If she continues to do that, I just think they and she may spend another 14 years sitting on that side of the chamber.

The presentations given to our committee were excellent. The committee was very sure that what is being provided there is something better than we have at the moment. As I have said, all aspects of Transforming Health—and this indeed is part of it—are an emotional subject but, if you have a look at the current Ward 17 that was built in the 1940s, it is clearly in need of redevelopment. It needs to be done in such a way that it meets the modern needs, the clinical needs, and the social needs of veterans, and the committee was convinced that is going to be the case.

What was also impressive with respect to the presentations was the wraparound services that are going to be provided to veterans, where there will be a variety of services provided that will meet the mental and health needs of veterans. I think that is a good thing, and I also think it is a very good thing when we see the existing site at the Repatriation Hospital where the RSL are involving themselves in what is going to be the management of that site.

I cite the example of RSL care that is provided by the RSL in Queensland and the work they are doing in providing services for veterans up there, whether it be in aged care or certain aspects of health and mental care. I am very glad that the government is engaging the RSL in such a way that we are going to utilise that precinct at the Repatriation Hospital for the further delivery of services that will be provided to our veterans.

We know there is a lot of work being undertaken by the RSL and others on certain aspects of supporting those veterans who suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. The Henley RSL, along with other RSL clubs, are having a march along Adelaide beaches to raise money and awareness for post-traumatic stress disorder and the Operation K9 program. There are also other fundraising events going on to raise money for this.

It is very interesting that in regard to those people who have served overseas representing Australia in a variety of areas many have come back from Vietnam, as we know, and also from our most recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Timor with post-dramatic stress disorder. So I urge everyone here to speak to their local RSL in South Australia, and you can go online at www.gofundme.com/25rpss24 or to any Bendigo Bank branch and provide some money for this worthwhile fundraising campaign to raise funds for advancing the health and wellbeing of those people who have represented and fought overseas as Australian soldiers and returned suffering from significant problems as they relate to post-traumatic stress disorder.

I wanted to get that plug in because I know that some people in this chamber—and, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you are not one of them—are renowned for having what we call deep pockets but short arms, if that is the right terminology. They are pretty tight. They should put their hand in their pocket and give some money to this good cause, instead of standing up here arguing about what the government is doing wrong in relation to the support that we provide for returned servicemen and women.

I did note one reasonable aspect of the member for Bragg's presentation, and it was actually raised by the committee—that is, how do we manage the aspect of women's mental health at that particular site. We were reassured by the people who presented to us that that is not only well and truly on the radar but we have processes in place with a view to managing it in an even more proper way as this precinct is built.

As I said earlier, it incorporates other health facilities and wraparound services that will be provided to those returned servicemen and women, and I think that is a good thing. There has been a lot of heat about Transforming Health, particularly a lot of heat about the Repatriation Hospital and the establishment of a health precinct at Glenside. I think the heat is going out. We have support from the RSL and we have support from others.

Whilst I know we will continue to have people marching every Tuesday or Monday or whatever it is, the 20 or 30 and sometimes seven or eight of them, marching through town saying, 'Save the Repatriation Hospital', it reminds me of the comments that were made about saving the RAH; the only way to really save the RAH was to pull it down and start again. I am not being disrespectful to anyone, but I actually say that the best way of ensuring we provide the best possible services for returned service men and women is to ensure that we utilise existing aspects of the Repatriation Hospital but also provide modern, new services that are sensitive to the needs of those returned service men and women.

I think the government is doing the right thing, and I wish those opposite would stop criticising this issue. The majority of people are now supporting this approach, in particular, to managing the needs of our returned service men and women.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (17:10): First, I would like to thank all those members who have contributed. I acknowledge the anxiety that some from the other side have expressed but, as the Chair of the Public Works Committee, I point out that this was a project we thoroughly interrogated, in particular on the location and the consultation process. If you look at the report I think you will find that it was an extremely extensive consultation process, very transparent, and with many layers of people involved and gathering their ideas.

To have the accusation laid that we will not be catering for women is something I find highly offensive as a woman myself, as well as on behalf of the other committee members. It is something we were all concerned about, and it was greatly considered. This is not simply just a $15 million relocation exercise. This is an exercise to ensure that we have the best possible, most appropriate, most respectful facility for some of the men and women who are deserving of our support and concern, who go and serve on our behalf in many different conflicts overseas. To suggest we would give them anything less is a shame.

I think what those opposite are expressing, what we have heard over time, is fear of change. This is quite natural, fear of change is quite natural, but rest assured this is a project that has been supported by both parties. Although there was a minority report submitted—which members can all read—it was supported by all committee members, and it is certainly worthy of our support and our commitment. I would like to say that on the day we received the project we had a number of Save the Repat campaigners present, many of whom I have met with on a number of occasions. The Repat borders my electorate and I have never, ever shied away from the fact that I am there to support them. The Repat would close or would change, but I was always there to support them with their concerns.

Change is never an easy thing for some of us. I did get to speak with most of those Save the Repat campaigners who were present that day post our Public Works Committee meeting, and they were all supportive of the plans they had seen presented at that particular meeting. They liked what they saw, they liked the facility, they liked the difference between the modern, contemporary facility that was proposed for the Glenside site as compared to the older site at Ward 17.

While there is some sadness at moving out of Ward 17, I think there is also some sort of eagerness to see that contemporary site we will see at the Glenside campus. The Repat has served our veterans and South Australians since the 1940s, and with that there have been some things that have progressed and some things that have not. Ward 17 is one of those things that has not had a lot of progression as far as its physical standing.

My previous work life began as a registered nurse, and I know that over the years there have been significant changes in our healthcare system. I have witnessed and been part of those significant changes. These people who are going to use the PTSD facility I think will be grateful. These people will see that the South Australian government has paid them the respect that they deserve when they see this new facility built. I commend this report, and I hope that with time everyone will support this project.

Motion carried.

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