HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GLENSIDE HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on the state government's proposed sale and redevelopment of the Glenside Hospital site with specific reference to—

(a) The effect of the delivery of services by the proposed co-location of mental health, drug and alcohol, rural, regional and state-wide services and the possible security implications;

(b) The effect of the proposed sale of 42 per cent of the site and its impact on the amenity and enjoyment of open space for patients and the public, biodiversity, conservation and significant trees;

(c) The impact of the reduction of available land for more supported accommodation;

(d) The effect of the proposed sale of precincts 3, 4 and 5 as identified in the state government's concept master plan for the site and its possible effect on access to the site and traffic management generally;

(e) The proposed sale of precinct 4 by private sale to a preferred purchaser; and

(f) Other matters that the committee considers relevant.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 27 February 2008. Page 1867.)

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (17:05): The government opposes this motion, not because we are against scrutiny of this very important project—there is rigorous statutory scrutiny built into the process—and not because we do not think that the project warrants attention. In fact, I think it is one of the most important health projects we will undertake this decade.

We oppose this select committee because it is aimed at only one thing, or predominantly one thing, and that is preventing and delaying long, overdue reform of South Australia's mental health and drug and alcohol treatment services. Worse than that, the process of this politicised committee has the potential to whip up ill-informed hysteria and, further, publicly stigmatise people who need treatment and support, not derision and fear.

The Glenside campus redevelopment is a visionary project. It is a project that is of statewide significance and will contribute to South Australia receiving a modern mental health and substance abuse system to which it is entitled and which it deserves. This reform is long overdue.

During the 1990s other states across Australia reformed their mental health systems but, sadly, South Australia did not. While other states were investing in community-based care and new facilities in line with the national mental health plan, South Australia maintained an asylum-based system and allowed patients to be housed in unsuitable environments. I know this because as secretary of the Australian Nursing Federation I campaigned to close the Kurrajong Ward at Glenside campus. That facility was completely unsuitable for modern health care and it took a tour with cameras to finally bring to light that nobody should be cared for in such a facility.

Some of the older wards that operate now are obviously not as bad as that one. However, in my view, they are not physically conducive to a therapeutic environment. For years—decades, in fact—the future of the Glenside campus has been up in the air. On 20 September 2006, the government's announcement ended the uncertainty that surrounded the campus and put in train a fundamental reform to our system. This plan is part of a complete overhaul of our mental health system—one that has been thoroughly investigated by numerous committees over many years.

The Stepping Up report, prepared by the Social Inclusion Board, outlined the reforms needed across the system, including this reform of the Glenside campus. The reform plan was widely consulted on and lauded both in South Australia and nationally by mental health experts when it was released. The considerations of the Social Inclusion Board dealt with the need for these reforms and the need to completely change Glenside to become part of the community, not a stand-alone asylum.

The board's report specifically recommended that services be co-located and, in particular, that mental health and drug and alcohol services, as well as rural and remote specialty services, be located at Glenside. This was supported in the report because of the critical importance of treating people with dual diagnoses holistically and the view held by country people that Glenside was an important central location for rural and remote services. They very much support this model of their rural and remote services remaining at this site.

I note that the proposed select committee's terms of reference want to view these important services in the light of security implications. We all know that those words are code for stigmatising these clients and for scaring their neighbours. Modern treatment has changed all over the world, and these services are successfully delivered in community settings. Treatment delivered in this way is superior, and the entire community benefits from having people recover and contribute.

I have no doubt that South Australia deserves a best practice approach to mental health and drug and alcohol services. With this greenfield development, we will be able to design a hospital and allied services that ensure best practice building design in treatment and, most importantly, dual service delivery where it is needed. Major change like this redevelopment requires leadership, and this government is confidently providing leadership. On the other hand, opponents of the development want to short-change the community and have taken a rather different approach—one of misinformation, scaremongering and pleading the case for more and more of the same.

Unfortunately, some of these ill-considered and baseless accusations have been repeated by the Hon. Ms Lensink in this place. I need to set the record straight and, hopefully, persuade the honourable member that she is in fact ill-advised and misinformed. The Hon. Ms Lensink commented previously on the lack of consultation with both the community and recognised experts, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists. She needs to be corrected.

The government has established a comprehensive engagement process to inform the redevelopment. In fact, two key pieces of work are now occurring concurrently: the first is a refining of the concept master plan, with the objective of completing it shortly; and the second is finalising models of care for the new hospital. This work is being informed by dialogue with neighbours, stakeholders, consumers, their families and staff. That is not to say that many of these concepts are not challenging; however, they require leadership.

One of the many mechanisms used to gather input has been a series of listening events, which occurred through October and November 2007. These ranged from public meetings at Burnside Town Hall to community workshops held with me. If I recall correctly, I conducted three or four community meetings where I met personally with local residents and held intensive discussions with open and frank exchanges. These events were well attended, and over 500 valuable inputs were provided by the community. In addition, the Department of Health has established a number of other engagement methods, namely:

key stakeholder meetings with various interest groups, such as the Burnside shopping centre and a range of other stakeholder groups, some of which I have also attended;

an 1800 toll-free number;

a website;

ministerial communiqués, which are delivered to the homes of local residents and also posted on the website;

clinical workshops, developing the models of care for the health facility; and

the formation of a community reference group (and I have also met with that group).

The Royal College was also engaged in the 2007 report of the Social Inclusion Board, Stepping Up. I assure the Hon. Ms Lensink that members of the Royal College continue to be engaged throughout the redevelopment process. They may not agree with all our vision, but they have certainly been engaged right from the outset, including the Social Inclusion Board's Stepping Up consultative process, where the design of the blueprint was put together. I reiterate that there is a big difference between agreeing with all aspects of our vision and not consulting. Consultation has been extensive.

All of these engagement mechanisms have provided a diverse range of thoughtful and valuable input. These inputs have now been synthesised by the project team as part of the finalisation of the master plan. Unfortunately, when people prefer status quo they are typically dissatisfied with the consultation process. Unequivocally status quo is not an option, and I make no apologies for that. This state deserves better mental health and substance abuse services. The Glenside campus redevelopment is an important step in delivering better services.

The Hon. Ms Lensink has also spoken of supposed secrecy around the Glenside concept master plan. I am certain it is no secret to the public that the future of Glenside has been uncertain for the past 10 to 15 years. The Premier, Monsignor Cappo and I announced on 20 September 2007 a concept master plan for the Glenside campus, and I will publicly launch a finalised master plan shortly. As a result of the thorough consultation and public announcements, the process has not been in secret but has in fact been open and transparent.

The Hon. Ms Lensink has also suggested that the community reference group members are anonymous. Considering that the names of members are listed on the Glenside redevelopment website, it is hardly a secret. They were put on that website at the earliest convenience, I think the next day after the evening of their first meeting where they adopted their terms of reference and endorsed publication of a list of their names. Big conspiracy!

The honourable member also voiced concerns about the proposed development plan amendment, the DPA process. There is no reason for concern as the DPA is a defined legislative process prepared under the Development Act 1993 and is a necessary process to introduce planning policy and support the change of land use. The DPA involves both a consultation process that spans a two-month period and a series of rigorous statutory requirements.

I also make clear that other state legislative requirements will be adhered to in this development. The significant tree legislation will be complied with for significant trees on the site, and our state listed heritage buildings will also be preserved. Assertions that the redevelopment of Glenside will result in a reduction in adult mental health beds are simply not true.

I take this opportunity again to set the record straight. 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 to a total of 516 adult mental health beds. The increase in the range of care and support services available will not only meet the needs of more people but will ensure that an increased number of people can receive care or support in their homes or in the community before they become acutely unwell.

We make no apology for relocating some beds into the community, in fact closer to where people actually live. This is part of moving away from the asylum-based model of care and is why we have built and are building new services such as the highly acclaimed Margaret Tobin Centre, the new aged care facility at the Repatriation General Hospital (a mental health aged care facility), the new mental health unit being built at the Lyell McEwen Hospital, our three new community recovery centres (two of which have already been opened), and the new intermediate care beds, which we will build in different areas of Adelaide and in country regions. The list goes on.

Because of our new focus on providing services in local communities and no longer having a large asylum, some of the land at Glenside is clearly surplus to requirements. This provides a real opportunity to integrate the local community with these health services and develop the best practice approaches that we know operate in other parts of the world and Australia.

Looking at the big picture, it also provides a complimentary opportunity for the creation of much sought after additional residential housing close to the Adelaide CBD. The residential development proposal will also include affordable housing for people such as first home owners, who may otherwise struggle to buy a house in this area.

The Hon. Ms Lensink has voiced her concerns regarding the mix of patients at Glenside. There is currently already a varied and diverse mix of patients at Glenside, and that has been the case for many years. The new facility sees a reduction in the mix. We will bring in drug and alcohol services but will move forensic and aged patients to other more appropriate sites. I remind people that there is a significant cross over between people with mental illness and substance abuse problems. People with addictions have always been on the Glenside campus, and many of these have been treated there as well. The inclusion of drug and alcohol services on the campus was promoted by the Social Inclusion Board to promote more effective and integrated treatments. South Australia's drug and alcohol services have been located in residential areas for many years, sharing local neighbourhood fences with suburban neighbours over decades. They have demonstrated their ability to be good neighbours.

The introduction of targeted substance abuse services recognises a co-morbidity that exists between mental health and substance abuse. With the new state-of-the-art facility rather than old and inadequately designed buildings that currently exist, the Department of Health will be better positioned to continue to provide safe and secure services. The false rumour that aged care residents will be removed from Glenside by Easter 2008 is another concern the Hon. Ms Lensink has been propagating. These claims are unfounded. As obviously Easter 2008 has now come and gone and, of course, the supposed 'evictions' have not occurred—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: —yes, that's true—concerns were nothing more than conjecture and rumour and there was never any substance to that. It was irresponsible of members in this place to perpetuate ill-founded rumours and conjecture.

The Hon. Ms Lensink has stated that mainstream aged care services do not have the expertise to deal with complex mental health clients. What she may not be aware of is the commitment that this government has made to reform the mental health system so that it is prepared to support complex clients.

The new stepped system has different graduating levels of care comprising: community care and support, 24-hour supported accommodation, community recovery centres, intermediate care and acute beds, and secure care beds. The system will provide people with extra support in the community where they need it most, either 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. We will be working with mainstream aged care providers to ensure that appropriate expertise is in place. This may involve significant in-reach arrangements.

The Hon. Ms Lensink has voiced concerns about the co-location of services on the development. The views of mental health staff, consumers, carers, and the broader community have been influential in shaping the way future services will be delivered at the Glenside campus. Input from a wide range of health stakeholders and the local community has refined the approach to be taken in the redevelopment, including changing where the new hospital will be located on the site. The new $100 million-plus hospital will now be built on the southern side of the campus, with the residential development now to occur to the north. The change will lead to a smoother transition of services, a more integrated site with the amenities and community, and even more public space. We believe it is also likely to improve traffic access.

I have heard some romanticising of the Glenside campus in recent times by neighbours waxing lyrical about their beautiful park. Anyone who believes that clearly has not visited the campus of late. The site incorporates a lot of built form at the moment, including a number of deteriorating buildings that can no longer be used, and a number of them have not been used for many years. Glenside is not a public park for local residents, it is an operating hospital and grounds. The site is very built up, with dozens of separate buildings on the site in a range of various states of repair. There are some magnificent state heritage buildings which the reform of Glenside will see retained and enhanced.

The Hon. Ms Lensink has spoken of the lack of open space to be provided in the redevelopment. To the contrary; one of the exciting features of the concept master plan is the environmental improvements that the redevelopment will bring and the creation of more usable public open space. Much of the existing Glenside grounds are difficult to access or just not designed to provide for functional public open space. The development will ensure that the public open space provided is inclusive and usable open space for all.

I also remind members that Glenside is across the road from Adelaide's magnificent parklands, so the parklands are, in fact, in very close proximity for local residents. I am very sure that local residents do benefit from those beautiful parklands just across the road.

The Hon. Ms Lensink has made reference to the Stepping Up report as being used to ward off questions about Glenside. In fact, the report sets the parameters for the conceptualisation of the Glenside redevelopment. The board emphasised that the site needs to be more integrated into the community and that Glenside should have facilities that the community uses in order to help destigmatise the site and remove its institutional past. In direct response to this vision, the site will be designed to enhance the movement and integration of persons through the site and its services, as well as enhancing the integration of mental health clients and the local community.

The sale of three metropolitan DASSA sites is also of concern to the Hon. Michelle Lensink. The existing three sites in North Adelaide, Norwood and Joslin are not purpose built. They are old and inefficient. Selling the sites and using the funds to consolidate the three services into one state-of-the-art contemporary facility will contribute to providing more efficient and effective drug and alcohol provision. This is what the public expects of a government that is providing the community with needed services, rather than having some irrational desire to maintain the status quo.

The Hon. Ms Lensink has been concerned with the procurement approach outlined for precinct 4. The government announced on 20 September 2007 that the owners of the Frewville Shopping Centre—the Chapley Retail Group—would be given first opportunity to purchase precinct 4. This was detailed within the concept master plan. It is not unusual that the government will negotiate with a single entity if there is strong strategic rationale to do so.

In this situation, design synergies exist in enlarging the existing retail precinct rather than potentially creating a separate, competing and polarised retail development adjacent to the existing retail area. Simultaneously, the government will acquire land from the owners of the shopping centre to allow for the widening of the Glen Osmond Road and Fullarton Road intersection.

I draw members' attention to the well-known fact that the former Liberal government had already agreed to sell some of the Glenside campus land to Chapley's Frewville Shopping Centre—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have a copy of the correspondence. It is signed by the Hon. Iain Evans, if my memory is correct. The piece of correspondence has his signature on it. The former Liberal government did agree to sell some of the Glenside campus land to the Chapley's Frewville Shopping Centre directly. This particular grievance is complete hypocrisy. I have a copy of the correspondence. A village-style retail precinct will be developed at the southern end of the site building on the existing Frewville Shopping Centre. The government will require a design that faces shops, cafes and restaurants onto the broader development, therefore integrating these uses into all other uses on the site.

Design criteria will be established as part of the development requirements. An independent valuation will be conducted to determine the market value as well as the optimal sale price. Further, the honourable member holds a general misconception regarding the introduction of retail, residential and commercial uses onto the campus site. She falsely believes that it is simply about deriving income. The income is, indeed, a benefit, but a secondary benefit, and it will undoubtedly assist us to fund responsibly these health service changes; however, it is not the primary reason for introducing these uses. These uses are about integration of every day community activities with the provision of mental health and substance abuse services.

The integration of our services with the community has, is and will continue to be central to our mental health reform agenda. Contrary to suggestion, these uses are not simply for revenue; they are mechanisms by which we integrate, destigmatise and deinstitutionalise our services. For many of our reform activities we are taking our services to the community. In this instance we are bringing the community to our services. These uses are not about revenue; they are primarily about integration. Moreover, this approach is consistent with developments in the United Kingdom and Europe. The revenue achieved from the introduction of these everyday uses onto the campus site will be channelled into the provision of health services.

The Hon. Ms Lensink has commented on mental health staff being dissatisfied. I strongly refute this statement. The future of the Glenside campus has been debated for years. The release of the concept master plan has finally provided our mental health and substance abuse staff with the certainty they have been asking for. In fact, many of our staff have been instrumental in developing our models of care (and I congratulate all those who have been involved), which will guide the services to be provided on the site into the future. I am advised that there is more hope and enthusiasm in the mental health sector because of the Stepping Up reforms than there has been for decades.

Finally, the Hon. Ms Lensink has spoken of traffic congestion. I can assure the Hon. Ms Lensink that traffic and access has been an area of detailed investigation, like many other technical areas. The Department of Health and its traffic advisors and the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure have been conducting traffic and access assessments and modelling in order to inform the development of the master plan. These investigations are campus wide and will provide traffic and access solutions for all precincts, while providing a new strategic approach to traffic management for all those living in the surrounding environs.

The disappointing aspect of the Hon. Ms Lensink's motion is not that she does not support the Glenside campus redevelopment but that she is in opposition to change and consequently to improvement. I would hope that no member here fails to recognise the fundamental need to reform our mental health and substance abuse systems. While the government provides leadership in reforming our out-dated, Victorian lunatic asylum type model of care, the opposition argues for its retention. Whilst opposition members have not said this overtly, that is the result of the misinformation, the scaremongering and the false accusations regarding the Glenside development. It is stigmatising to assert wrongly problems with patient mix and suggest security concerns and secrecy.

Any community leader allowing this type of stigmatisation should be ashamed of themselves, and this proposed select committee seems to me to have a high risk of feeding just that agenda. Mental health and substance abuse services are important and serious topics. This council should not contribute to their trivialisation or demonisation, and I am concerned that a select committee could provide a platform for this to occur. I strongly oppose this motion.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (17:35): In supporting this motion, I acknowledge that there is a need for cultural change within the mental health service. However, we are less certain that commercial redevelopment of the Glenside campus is the best way to bring this about. Community feeling has run high around the method of consultation employed by the government. It is a method called 'no consultation', with decision making from the top down prevailing. Some Burnside residents and counsellors have been less than complimentary about minister Gago's behaviour. In fact, I—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: —think that some of the comments have been—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Kanck has the floor.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: —a little unkind. However, the basic decision to carve up the site was cabinet's, and the fact is that no consultation was entered into. It appears from the public perspective that all the decisions have been made, and that the only opportunity for input will be about where some of the services, housing and shops will be located on the site, and people are feeling miffed about that. The question of whether this carving up of the site is the right thing to do, I think, is answered probably by the fact that this is part of our common wealth and therefore we should all have been a part of the consultation.

The issue of consultation within the mental health community in South Australia has earned a poor reputation for successive governments, both Labor and Liberal. That the trust of the people of South Australia has been broken is a great pity. Mental illness is a normal part of life: directly for one in five South Australians and indirectly for all of us.

A little bit of history: back in 1841 a Board of Pauper Lunatics was set up to find an alternative to keeping people with a mental illness in the Adelaide Gaol. So, in 1842 the Maintenance Act was passed. It stated that it was the legal responsibility of the family to support any member who was destitute or sick.

In 1846, the government rented a house with eight rooms and a small cottage at Parkside for people with a mental illness. In 1852 the Adelaide Lunatic Asylum was opened to care for the mentally ill. Although it provided far better facilities for the insane, in less than two years it proved to be far too small.

While the terminology has changed—we do not talk about lunatics or asylums—and there have been advances in treatment, and hopefully increased tolerance from the wider community now exists, much of the personal and familial crisis and stigma around mental illness persists.

When I was a child, to refer to Parkside was derogatory as it meant that one was referring to the lunatic asylum. I have to say that around that time my great-grandmother spent time in there because of her dementia. The concept of 'asylum' is to provide a safe haven, and in the midst of a psychotic episode it is a necessary thing to ensure that people are safe.

Since the walls were pulled down and a slight name change took place, generations of South Australians have seen Glenside Hospital as a place of reassurance should they or someone in their family have need of it. In working to care for people with a mental health issue we, as law makers, must remember that such people are part of our society, not a separate group of alien beings.

Ensuring that appropriate, timely and respectful services are offered to them is a mark of a civilised society, and Glenside Hospital is well placed to do that. The culture within our mental health services is not as good as it needs to be to really support people living with mental health issues. Funding is one part of the picture but so is regularly updating skills, encouraging best practice in all areas and having concern for human rights.

Morale amongst staff must be maintained at a high level if they are to deliver optimum care, and I am reliably informed that morale at Glenside is at the bottom. Redeveloping the Glenside campus offers some possibilities—possibilities which were not envisaged by the government when they sat in opposition nor when they came to power.

Something has shifted in their thinking in recent times and now it is seen as an inevitability, albeit one which will please a small number of developers only, that the site will be partially sold off. Glenside has intrinsic heritage value, but it also offers the strong symbolism of asylum. In its current configuration, however, it is not meeting the needs of the mental health community, and that means clients and workers alike.

In 2005, the government proposed to close Glenside, but it was just prior to an election and, surprise, surprise, they reversed the decision. What is proposed now is closure by stealth. The opportunity exists to recast Glenside while retaining its heritage, both built and natural, and to create a world-class centre of excellence for people who live with mental illness.

Such a model centre could create a safe haven for people who are not being detained under the Mental Health Act but who are housed in a community where they can feel secure and can access expert assistance as they require it.

Whether there is a need for more shops in this precinct is debatable, although the minister has made it part of her plans for subdividing the site. Existing retailers in the Glen Osmond and Fullarton Roads precinct may not be thrilled at that prospect. Many of those retailers have welcomed the business of Glenside residents for many years and they have shown themselves to be good corporate citizens in the process.

A greenfields site, to use the lingo of the development industry, so close to the city would appear to be ideal from the perspective of providing mental health services. In other cities it would be snapped up by health planners, so it seems strange that the South Australian government is choosing to carve up some of that beauty and to hive it off to developers.

The option to bring the community into the Glenside campus to house clients of the Mental Health Services side by side with others would break down barriers, but there still needs to be a safe place where people living with mental illness can receive the best possible treatment and be protected from harm.

We need an emphasis on harm minimisation to avoid the long-term mental health impacts of drug abuse. We need to offer early intervention, counselling services and primary mental health care, and Glenside is the place where it could happen if the resource is not sold off to the highest bidder. Glenside Hospital could consolidate many outpatient services, and its location on a bus route is part of its suitability for mental health patients. Glenside, in so many ways, is an ideal location.

So, I applaud the initiative by the Hon. Michelle Lensink to bring this motion before the council. It is clear that in applying public pressure the minister has already announced some changes to her plan. If the reason for selling off this land is the Treasurer putting the squeeze on the mental health budget then we need to be told this, and perhaps the committee will recommend ways of making budgetary savings at the Glenside site.

On the other hand, if the objections we are hearing about are simply about preserving housing values for nearby residents, I have little time for that. If it is about fears relating to community treatment of recovering alcohol and drug addicts, the committee will be able to reassure the community that they will not be at risk. Community treatment programs are happening all over Adelaide with almost no knowledge of their existence by nearby residents.

I indicate that I am willing to serve on this committee because I do not want to see it become an avenue for party political free kicks. I look forward to discovering more about this project, free from hype and gobbledygook, free from the interference of those whose vested interests in property developments might otherwise muddy the waters. I want to get to the truth and hopefully come out at the other end with recommendations that are best for mental health consumers in particular, and for South Australians in general.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:44): The debate over the future of Glenside seems to me to embody three main questions. The first question is how best to provide mental health, drug and alcohol services in South Australia. How do we do that? That is the first question. The second question is: how do we use public assets to best effect in this state? The third related question but a broader one is: how do we use land to best effect for the whole community? That is effectively a town planning question.

Despite the protestations of the minister, I do not believe that the establishment of a select committee pre-empts the answer to any of those three questions, but it does provide a process for them to be asked and to be debated. I am very heartened to hear that the Hon. Sandra Kanck is interested in serving on this committee, because it reminds us all that this chamber is not dominated by either the government or the opposition. It is a council of mixed membership, and I believe that we are a better place than the other place to have a proper inquiry into these topics.

The focus of my contribution is to look at the planning issues for Glenside and to pose the question: how do we get proper scrutiny over major decisions with possibly irreversible outcomes? A subsidiary question (or the flip side, if you like) is: is the current system of statutory public consultation and scrutiny effective? My answer to that is clearly no, the current system will not deliver sufficient public or parliamentary scrutiny.

So, what is wrong with the current system? There are two main aspects to it. When we are talking about changing the use of land, we are talking about rezoning. The process involves the passage of a development plan amendment, and part of that process is consultation by the Development Policy Advisory Committee.

A number of us have been to meetings of DPAC (Development Policy Advisory Committee), and we know that is not a forum for debate over the future of land use in this state. Basically, you get an opportunity to stand up in front of members of the Development Policy Advisory Committee and you tell them what you think. You have no opportunity to grill the proponents or the people behind any rezoning, and there is no opportunity to ask any questions. It is simply a stale, one-sided forum where you tell the Development Policy Advisory Committee what you think.

That organisation then gets its advice from Planning SA—and it is Planning SA that has redrafted the rezoning—and that is its main avenue of advice. It would be no surprise to members to learn that the history of the Development Policy Advisory Committee is one of support for government rezoning proposals. The committee occasionally tinkers with them, but it overwhelmingly supports them.

The biggest insult to injury in this process is that as a community we never find out what happened to our submissions—we never find out what the Development Policy Advisory Committee did with them, how it analysed them, whether it accepted or rejected them—because we never get to see the advice of the Development Policy Advisory Committee to the minister. It is a Star Chamber and a sham of a process. There is no debate, and it is a system I have called for to be reformed on many occasions.

The next level of scrutiny under the present system is that any rezoning, any development plan amendment, is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. How does that work? There is the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. The Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Russell Wortley sit on that committee. They may not agree with me publicly, but I have put it to that committee on several occasions that parliamentary scrutiny of planning schemes is a joke. It is an absolute joke in this state, because we do not get to see those planning schemes until they have been brought into effect. Once they have been brought into effect—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: Then resign from the committee.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am not going to resign from the committee because the committee has a number of functions, as the Hon. Bernie Finnigan knows. We have just produced an excellent report on coastal development. What I will tell the honourable member is that I do not spend as much time scrutinising the planning schemes as they deserve because I know the horse has bolted. I know that, by the time the ERD Committee of parliament gets to see a planning scheme, it has already been brought into effect. Any application for development approval that has been lodged under that scheme is legally binding and, even if the ERD Committee had the courage to recommend throwing out a planning scheme—to come back into this chamber and say, 'The scheme is no good; we don't like it'—it would be too late. There is no retrospectivity in parliamentary scrutiny over planning schemes. We know that that does not work.

If the existing mechanisms for public scrutiny and for parliamentary scrutiny over major land-use decisions such as this were adequate, we would not need a separate process—we would not need to move select committees because we could say, 'You don't need the committee; there is already a process in place.'

A select committee will provide some level of scrutiny, and it will run parallel to the government process. It is not going to stop the government process. It will proceed apace with the master plan, with the rezoning—and the parliamentary committee need not stand in the way. I would urge those who are members of the committee to keep up with the government's process to make sure that whatever recommendations you come up with are not wasted.

I do not want the Hon. Michelle Lensink, or me or anyone else to have to keep bringing to this chamber proposals for select committees when we could have standing committees that do the job properly. We should not have to do it for Glenside, and you can think of any number of other major projects where we could have established a select committee, and I refer to Cheltenham and the Port Adelaide redevelopment—big decisions where the public and parliamentary scrutiny process has been inadequate.

I would also say that my supporting this motion does not imply my support for any particular outcome. I agree with most of what the minister said about such things as the collocation and the integration of mental health services; I disagree with much of what the Hon. Michelle Lensink had to say about mental health. But that is not the point. The point for me, if we can put this in the reverse, is that to not support this motion is to tacitly approve or support the existing mechanisms, the existing regime, for scrutiny over major decisions such as this. I do not support the current system of scrutiny, therefore I do support establishing this select committee.

The existing regime is flawed and, until we fix it, select committees like this will be necessary every time major public assets come up for redevelopment. I support the motion.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:52): I have been provoked to make a contribution by the minister's persistent attacks on my colleague the Hon. Michelle Lensink, particularly by her use of the term 'stigmatisation'. I find it extremely personal and offensive the way the minister has attacked the honourable member, particularly because of the way that the government's proposal does stigmatise mental health patients. Let us remember that a crucial element of this proposal is that the Grove Ward at Glenside will be closed, as will James Nash House, and they will be transferred to be collocated with a prison. What could be more stigmatising for a person with health-care needs to have their service delivered hand in glove right next door to a prison! I think it is absolutely offensive that the minister should choose to ignore that element of the proposal which proves the stigmatisation of the mental health community by this government.

In support of my case, I will refer to the annual report of the Office of the Public Advocate which was tabled in this chamber in November or December last year. John Harley, the Public Advocate, said this about this proposal:

The SA government has recently announced its intention to build a new forensic facility at Mobilong to replace James Nash House at Oakden and Grove Closed Ward at Glenside Campus. I advised the Hon. Gail Gago, MLC, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, that I have and I continue to have two major issues with the proposal.

The first is that the plan is for the facility to house only 40 beds. At present, Forensic Mental Health Services already has 40 beds which is insufficient as they are chronically full with at least 50% of inpatients being non-prisoners—

I pause there to remind the council that we are talking about 50 per cent of people in this facility who are non-prisoners. Why should they be stigmatised by having their facility transferred right next door to a prison? I cannot think of anything more stigmatising than the government's proposal. The report continues:

...(declared liable to supervisions under section 269 of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Mental Impairment) Amendment Act 1995). In fact, in many cases there are non-prisoners being held in prison facilities because there are no vacancies in James Nash House.

Does this council really believe that after being collocated with a prison there will not be more of that? We will have more non-prisoners being placed in prison facilities as a result of overflow, because this government refuses to expand. Let us remind ourselves that the Grove Ward at Glenside and James Nash House have a total of 40 beds. The government is proposing to increase significantly the size of the prison population but not increase the size of the forensic mental health facility. It is committing itself to overcrowding and, therefore, in my view, to non-prisoners with mental health problems being placed in prison facilities. What could be more stigmatising? What a hypocritical minister! The report of the Public Advocate continues:

This is in clear violation of their human rights. I have previously drawn this to the attention of Parliament. The competition for beds also affects mentally unwell prisoners' access to the facility due to the limit of 40 beds. There is substantial evidence of the need to increase beds in any new forensic mental health model.

The second issue is one of service delivery. At present the staff work hard to facilitate regular contact between friends and relatives, government and non-government organisations and patients in James Nash House. This is particularly important for those non-prisoners who are being gradually re-integrated into the community (which is, in the majority of cases, metropolitan accommodation).

The minister preaches about re-integration and then has the audacity to transfer a whole group of mental health patients out of the city well away from any prospect of community integration and stigmatise them by placing them next to a prison. The Public Advocate continues:

Placing any new facility in Mobilong will result in a great disadvantage for patients and their families who need to be able to have face-to-face contact with each other. This also affects accessibility for patients to most support services which are relied upon for rehabilitation and recovery. Any transition into the community would also be severely hampered as most patients choose to live in the metropolitan area. The move of the facility to Mobilong could be likened to the Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Citizenship's previous policy of locating detention facilities in remote areas such as Woomera, Nauru and Port Augusta to ensure inaccessibility of detainees from support networks. I would like to be convinced that the SA government is not following the same policy.

I encourage members of the government to search their conscience after having attacked the federal government so hypocritically in relation to Baxter. They might like to look at their own policy in relation to placing a health care facility next door to a prison. The report continues:

I have requested that consideration be given to dual services taking into account the two groups of individuals that require a service, i.e., prisoners and non-prisoners. A metropolitan-based facility, in addition to the one proposed, could take into account the above issues and lack of beds.


[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:47]


The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the Leader of the Government for the opportunity he gave me to collect my thoughts over dinner. I took that opportunity to consider other annual reports of the Public Advocate and I propose to refer to them shortly. I will just conclude my comments on his most recent annual report. I remind members that we were considering the hypocrisy of the minister in relation to her use of the word 'stigmatisation' with respect to the proposal for a select committee when, in fact, it is this government that is doing the most offensive stigmatisation of people with mental health problems, in terms of placing their mental health care facility next to a prison.

In the conclusion of that section, the Public Advocate says:

In my annual reports of 2002-03, and 2003-04, I brought to the attention of the parliament my concerns about the inadequacy of forensic mental health services and mental health services provided by the prison health service. They did not produce any response from the government nor any questions in Parliament. As of the date of this report—

which was the end of last year—

I have also not, apart from acknowledgment, received any response from the minister addressing my further concerns.

So much for the minister's concerns about stigmatisation, when she has two annual reports and receives a third piece of correspondence (apparently, on this occasion, a letter from the Public Advocate), and she still has not responded. I do not know whether the minister has responded since that time. I think she might have. An FOI request from the shadow minister might well have elicited a letter from the minister to the Public Advocate. However, it took two annual reports and a letter from the Public Advocate to get the minister to address his concerns in relation to forensic mental health services.

That is my first point: that it is hypocritical for this government to talk about stigmatisation in relation to its proposal to consider the Glenside redevelopment when part of that redevelopment is to place mental health care collocated with a prison.

My second point is that on the Glenside site, the James Nash site and in the proposed new Murray Bridge site, this government is failing to provide mental health care—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am sorry but I will not correct myself, because the government insists that it is the Murray Bridge site. If it wants to call it Mobilong, it should let us know.

So far, I understand that it is the Murray Bridge site. The point is that in those three sites the mental health service provided to prisoners is totally inadequate. I will read from the 2003-04 annual report of the Public Advocate, which states:

Studies both locally and interstate indicate that approximately 7% of prisoners have schizophrenia or related psychotic conditions (not including substance related psychosis) and an additional 10% suffer from depressive disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder or anxiety disorders. Substance abuse by this 17% is also the norm.

The South Australian Prison Health Service and the Department for Correctional Services provide primary care for prisoners with these problems. However, there is also a responsibility for specialist services to provide both direct care and support primary care services in their management of prisoners with complex and serious mental disorders.

Subsequently, the Public Advocate refers to a number of international instruments and the human rights that people with mental health issues are accorded under those instruments. He goes on to say:

These international treaties are being breached because the level of services being provided to prisoners is not equivalent to that available in the community. At present non-violent offenders with obvious mental health problems are kept in prison whilst waiting for assessment of mental impairment—

I pause to explain the implications of that. It means that, whilst people are waiting for this government to deliver appropriate mental health care, they are being left in prison, which is a totally inappropriate environment for people whose need is a health need. I will commence reading that part of the report again, as follows:

At present non-violent offenders with obvious mental health problems are kept in prison whilst waiting for assessment of mental impairment before the courts, whereas they should be placed in suitable health facilities or their assessments arranged in the community. Violent offenders with the same mental health problems should be placed in a secure health facility, such as James Nash House, pending assessment. This frequently does not occur due to a lack of bed space.

These quotes are from two reports of the Public Advocate, but it would be unfair to suggest that the Public Advocate is the only stakeholder who expresses concerns about this government's failure in terms of mental health and, in particular, its consequences for people who find themselves in the prison system. In that context, I will read from a 2007 report of the Human Rights Committee of the Law Society. In relation to the mentally ill, it states:

The absolute failure in the treatment of the mentally ill in the prison system has now reached the stage of being an unmitigated disaster and crisis. On 1 August 2007, when giving evidence before the Coroner in the inquest into the death in custody of Arthur Charles Smith, who hanged himself with sheets at Yatala in 2005, forensic psychiatrist Dr Craig Raeside told the court that most of the 40 beds at James Nash House and Glenside Hospital are being taken by people who were found not guilty of crimes due to mental impairment, and there are more people suffering from serious mental illnesses in South Australia's prisons than its psychiatric hospitals. Dr Raeside went on to say that there are inmates in the Adelaide Remand Centre and Yatala who are in far greater need of admission to the mental health facilities and he expects things to worsen, especially if one of the facilities is transferred to Murray Bridge, south-east of Adelaide.

I pause to remind the council that that proposition is integral to this government's proposal to redevelop Glenside Hospital. I commend the motion before members tonight, because it gives the council an opportunity to consider not just what happens at Glenside but also the knock-on effects it has for people with mental health needs throughout the state. The report continues:

That evidence serves as a damning indictment on the current system and the almost certain disastrous consequences which will follow if something drastic is not done now to change direction and increase the level of resources for programs and treatment. This is not the way to treat offenders who are ill..

In concluding my remarks, I urge the council to support the Hon. Michelle Lensink's motion not simply because it gives us an opportunity to think about the Glenside site and its consequences for the community around that area but also because of the effect it will have on services not only in metropolitan Adelaide for mental health and substance abuse and also in terms of the forensic mental health care delivered by the Department of Health and the Department for Correctional Services.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (19:55): I wish to say a few words. There is not much I can say about the detail of the proposal for the use of—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, I do know a lot about it, and because I am the Minister for Urban Development and Planning ultimately it will be within my jurisdiction to adjudicate on any development plan amendment which will come before the government. For that reason, I have excused myself from cabinet discussions in relation to the future of the Glenside campus, and I will not talk about that.

However, I do oppose the establishment of a select committee, because I believe it really does set an extremely unhealthy precedent. I am not aware of any other case where a select committee has been established running concurrently with a statutory process.

What does 'statutory process' mean in relation to this preparation of the development plan amendment? This is a process that was not established by the government. The statutory process is a part of the act of parliament. The Development Act sets out statutory provisions for the consideration of a development plan amendment, which would be necessary for any changed use of the Glenside site.

It was this parliament that determined what those procedures would be. Why then would we have a select committee that is appointed and set up to look at matters which will run concurrently with a statutory process—a statutory process which, incidentally, involves public consultation? And there will be a public meeting, as there always is, in relation to this particular provision.

I am not aware of any precedent in this parliament or other parliaments where you have that take place. I can think of only one reason why one would do it, and that is really to play politics with it. If this parliament has established a statutory process under the Development Act to take place to consider things, why on earth would we need a select committee running parallel with that?

Ultimately, it is well within the traditions and purview of this parliament to look at decisions taken by government. Certainly, in any case, the development plan amendment, as the Hon. Mark Parnell points out, if it proceeds to that stage, and any decision that I make or the conduct of that statutory process, will ultimately go to a committee of this parliament (the Environment Resources and Development Committee) for consideration.

So, I suggest that what we have here is a duplication, and I cannot think of any reason other than the total politicisation of this process as to why we would do that. How stupid does it make this Legislative Council look if on the one hand we pass legislation which sets up a statutory process to examine these sorts of matters and then we have a select committee running parallel with it?

It is for that reason that I strongly oppose this resolution. As I said, I will not speak about the particular measures that relate to the future of the Glenside campus, and I have deliberately kept outside of the cabinet decision in relation to those matters, because ultimately I will have to deal with any development plan amendment and the process that comes out of it.

How silly for any parliament to set up a statutory process that is part of legislation and then to run that parallel with a select committee. It is unprecedented, in my knowledge, and I challenge members opposite to indicate another case. But let us see where it will lead.

I have just pointed out how silly it is to do this, but let us just think through where this is going to go. If this parliament passes legislation that sets out statutory processes and we then double-guess them through setting up select committees or other processes, then apart from making ourselves—or at least those who support these measures—look foolish, it is really just telling the public that this parliament, if it supports this, really has no idea what it is doing.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (20:00): To sum up, I think the only parallel here is not the process but the parallel universe that this government seems to be living in. The number of stakeholders I referred to in my speech previously who have expressed their concern and outrage at this decision has been added to by the Australian Psychological Society. I would like to read into the record their letter to the Premier which must indicate their particular concern.

I am grateful for the break in proceedings in debating this motion because I was personally very disappointed with the Minister for Mental Health's contribution in which I found she quite manipulatively misrepresented my position. She tried to indicate that I was some sort of reprobate in terms of mental health progress, and she would be well aware because I am sure that some smart alec in her office has sifted through every comment of mine in the public domain and, if they had actually bothered to record that accurately, they would be aware that I have said that we support reform but we do not support the selling of open space. I will return to those remarks in a moment but I want to read this letter from the Australian Psychological Society:

Dear Mr Rann

Re: Glenside Hospital Redevelopment and James Nash House Transfer.

I am writing on behalf of the Australian Psychological Society (SA Branch) to comment on the plans for the redevelopment of the Glenside Hospital site and the transfer of forensic mental health services (James Nash House) to Murray Bridge. We acknowledge and support the government's intention to modernise mental health services in South Australia and to provide more options in the community.

Glenside Hospital

At the same time we are deeply concerned that a large portion of the Glenside land is to be sold to fund these services. We question the justice and wisdom of this decision and we support the comments of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (The Advertiser, 27.11.07). The inner south-eastern suburbs of Adelaide are well provided with retail and commercial space in this vicinity, for example, the expanded Burnside Village, and the Fullarton Road and Greenhill Road commercial precincts.

Social Justice—

it is interesting that the APS needs to remind a Labor government about social justice—

does not require the provision of more shops and offices in this area. In contrast, there is very limited land available close to the CBD for health and community services.

If the Glenside land is privatised and parcelled out for commercial ventures it can never be re-established. As Adelaide expands, future mental health services on this site will be crippled by space restrictions, as there does not appear to be provision for any additional or expanded services suggested by consumer and professional groups. Rather than attending a central hub whenever specialist services are required, future clients, families and health professionals will have to travel longer distances for some specialist services.

James Nash House

The proposed transfer of the James Nash House service to Murray Bridge raises more immediate issues for forensic mental health clients (who like any other mental health clients are people with illnesses and a need for care). Relatives and legal advisers will have to travel long distances to visit patients and provide the support required for justice to be served and rehabilitation to be achieved. Skilled specialist staff are hard to retain in the public system already and most private practitioners work in the city; the commute to and from Murray Bridge will not assist the taxpayer.

We believe that city and country taxpayers are increasingly aware that a devastating mental health breakdown is no different from a serious car accident, in that it can happen to any family in any community.

For some people, a brief engagement with specialist services is all that is required. For others, a lifetime of support and rehabilitation will be necessary, and patients and caregivers need at least occasional access to central specialist services as well as to local services.

We acknowledge the major financial issues involved in building newer and better specialist health units. We note, however, that there is no proposal to sell half the space available on the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital site to fund the development of the other half, or to site the MJNH at Gawler or Murray Bridge. Taxpayers and investors will fund this physical health service in an accessible location. Social justice requires the same for mental health services.

We appreciate that you are working hard to reform and support services for people with mental illness in South Australia, and we would like to discuss the proposed developments with you. Meanwhile, we would like to emphasise the crucial importance of building up, rather than taking away from, the range of services and amenities available to this very disadvantaged group of South Australians.

We request that you delay a final decision on the Glenside sale and the James Nash House transfer, and instead provide 'bridging finance' for the Glenside development and new community-based services. If that is not possible, we believe that reducing the size of the Glenside land sale and reserving some land for new or expanded services would be a responsible step on behalf of future generations of South Australians, and welcomed by voters and taxpayers.

We hope that this will be the beginning of a constructive dialogue about assisting people with mental illnesses, and we will be more than happy to respond to consultation at any time.

With best wishes

Yours sincerely

A/Prof Jacques Metzer, PhD FAPS

Chair, SA Branch, Australian Psychological Society.

That is dated 15 February 2008. I could not have put that better myself. I did not have that letter at the time I gave my previous speech, but I think it underlines all the reasons we have moved to establish a select committee.

For the record, I found the minister's comments patronising. I believe that she has taken the usual tactic of ministers opposite who, when they cannot play ball, decide to play the man or the woman.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Matronising.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Matronising; indeed. In relation to open space, this is a serious issue for metropolitan South Australia. I urge all members of the government to consult the presentation of Professor Chris Daniels. The Hon. Mark Parnell would know his exact title.

The Hon. M. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Whatever it is—Urban Chair at the University of Adelaide. Professor Daniels has cited that the Adelaide metropolitan area has an unusually low level of public open space, largely because historically we have had large blocks for housing but, as urban infill has continued, those blocks have decreased. Overall, in terms of the metropolitan area, it is some 10 or 12 per cent—I forget which—and it is less in a large number of cities.

The minister referred to the community reference group and said that there had not been any secretive behaviour in relation to that, but I am told that members of the reference group still do not have a list of members. They were given a set of terms of reference which they were told to adopt; they were not actually asked. The government clearly does not understand that consultation means that you ask people; you do not tell them. The minister referred to the stepped model of care.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is getting into the evening.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I sat in silence for you, Gail. You can give me the same courtesy.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Go and have a look at the website. It's on the website.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Mr President, the parrot opposite will not listen.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: It's on the website.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. Gago: It's been unanimously agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: You've had your chance, Gail.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Lensink has the floor.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is getting late in the evening.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: You're undignified! Your entire speech was a personal attack on my understanding of mental health.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I have a point of order, Mr President. There is so much noise in the chamber I cannot hear the honourable member speak.

The PRESIDENT: Yes; I agree. The Hon. Ms Lensink will stop getting into conversation with the honourable minister across the floor and address her remarks through the chair.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I apologise, Mr President. We have heard lots of fine words about stepped models of care. I am grateful to the minister for allowing me to visit the CRC in the inner west; however, I understand that a number of people who have been accepted to enter that facility are not even from acute facilities. One of the concerns of a number of stakeholders—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Step up, step down.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: She'll be stepping out in a minute, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Lucas will come to order, too.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: A number of stakeholders are very concerned that there are some significant gaps, particularly in terms of long-term rehabilitation beds.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Mr President, I am beginning to wonder whether I have touched a raw nerve with the protestations opposite. The minister also tried to accuse me of supporting the status quo—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Don't you understand? It's step up, step down.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Mr President, I am having a lot of trouble concentrating at the moment.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Lensink has the call. The minister will come to order.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have this clanging in my head—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: It's called your brain.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: At least I have one.

The PRESIDENT: Why don't we have the debate, and the shadow minister and the minister can go outside and settle it out there.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Mr President, I understood that the normal manner for debating was that members may interject (even though that is out of order) but, generally speaking, one would be allowed to speak without having one's opposite number constantly interrupting.

I have been accused of supporting the status quo, which I struggle to understand from anything I have ever said on the public record. I have said many times that I support reform, but there are aspects of this proposal that I think are, quite frankly, wrong—and I believe I am entitled to my opinion. As I said, the minister got rather personal. I attempt not to get into the gutter in my speeches, but I would like to say that I have had members of the ANF visit me and their comments about this minister have been particularly unflattering. They are very unhappy and, as other contributors to this debate have said, morale in mental health is at an all-time low.

A number of people in the forensic mental health facility at James Nash House (and this includes staff members and ANF members) will not go to Murray Bridge, and I remind this government that if you do not have staff who have the relevant qualifications you do not have a service. Health, and mental health, is not necessarily about buildings; it is also about the people who work in them. If you keep pushing around those people and are not actually listening to them they will become fed up and find something else to do.

I remind honourable members of the Labor Party's record on this, in that there are at least two instances on the public record prior to the last state election where the former minister for mental health quite clearly stated that Glenside would close. That has been the agenda of this government. The process has been a farce, but I outlined that in quite a lot of detail in my previous contribution so I will not go through all those issues again.

We have been told that this new mental hospital cannot be built without the sale of all these significant sites, yet this government has been talking about buying the Mitsubishi factory site. Now, one of the things that the select committee will seek to determine is what the value of that site is, but I think it goes to the heart of the priorities of this government that, when it comes to vulnerable people and areas which are not, perhaps, as politically popular, it is quite happy to sideline them. I believe members of this government should hang their heads in shame every time the words 'social justice' are mentioned, because social justice to this government comes at a very high price.

Yesterday we had the ministerial announcement about what was happening with Oakden. Quite clearly, from what I have read, the commonwealth Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency pointed the gun at management and said, 'You have to fix this up; you have to find some solution other than what you are doing at the moment, or we will close the facility.' We also have the farce of Palm Lodge.

This is not a government that knows how to manage any specialist mental health service, so we have some fancy plan being sold to us as a fix for mental health services in South Australia while it treats the people working for it in mental and forensic mental health like trash. I am grateful for the indications of support from every one of the crossbenchers for the establishment of this select committee, and I urge all members to vote for it.

Motion carried.

The council appointed a select committee consisting of the Hons J.S.L. Dawkins, B.V. Finnigan, I.K. Hunter, Sandra Kanck and J.M.A. Lensink; the committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to adjourn from place to place; the committee to report on Wednesday 23 July 2008.

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