Correspondence

State Government ministers

On 17 June 2026 we wrote to six State Ministers, with copies to the Premier and Attorney General, raising 17 specific requests and a further six portfolio-specific questions. We asked for acknowledgement within 14 days and a substantive response within 28.

What the reply from Minister Carey's office covers

Our letter set out 17 specific requests. The table below shows how the 24 July reply from Minister Carey's office addresses each one. "Referenced, not released" means the reply names a document without disclosing its contents; "Partial" means part of the question is touched on but the specific detail requested isn't given.

Three further questions were addressed specifically to Minister Carey's own portfolio responsibilities — the planning approval pathway, an independent property-market assessment, and compensation. None are addressed in the reply.

One claim in the reply, checked against its own source

The reply describes Infrastructure WA's assessment of the business case as follows. We looked up the assessment itself.

Two different words, for two different groups

The reply uses different language depending on who's being described. Both sentences are quoted below exactly as written, so you can judge the difference yourself.

Documents

Sandra Brewer MLA, Member for Cottesloe

We wrote to the local Member for Cottesloe on 17 June 2026, and met with her in person on 3 July 2026 to raise the governance concerns set out in the Research Paper. On 2 August 2026, ahead of Parliament's return, she sent residents a written update on what she knows about the project and what she's doing about it.

The letter confirms several things already on this site — the current Stage 1 scope (a 32-bed sub-acute unit, an 8-bed child and adolescent unit, and an Integrated Patient Services and Rehabilitation Centre) — and adds one we hadn't had in writing before: the same 2021 taskforce process also covers the nearby Selby Older Adult Mental Health Service.

It also sets out a funding history in more detail than we'd seen previously. Stage 1 works were first funded in the 2023–24 State Budget, with delivery originally expected across 2024–25 and 2025–26. That delivery date has moved in every State Budget since — as of the 2026–27 Budget, works are now primarily expected to complete in 2027–28 and 2028–29.

She has advised that contractor procurement is underway, with one contractor appointed under an early contractor involvement (ECI) contract to begin design, and that she will lodge public questions on notice with the relevant Ministers when Parliament resumes in August, seeking to clarify the government's plans on safety, amenity and future development in the area.

She's followed through: 14 Questions on Notice were lodged 11–13 August 2026, covering the Project Definition Plan, the Infrastructure WA findings, Taskforce dates, campus security, the CLMI Act 2023, and bed capacity through to 2029. All are tracked, with links to the originals, on the new Questions on Notice page.

City of Nedlands

We also wrote to the City of Nedlands on 17 June 2026, asking ten questions about what the Council had been told about the project and what role it had played. The Mayor and the Director of City Development and Regulatory Services replied on 17 July 2026, answering all ten directly.

Unlike the reply above, every question we asked the Council was answered directly. Where the answer was "no" or "not yet," it was given as a plain no — not left open.

A reply was received by email on 17 July 2026.

On 14 September 2026, community representatives met with Mayor Leonie Browner, CEO Paul Martin and City of Nedlands planning staff to brief them on the project in detail — the forensic model, the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 framework, and the site constraints set out across this research.

Both the Mayor and City planning staff raised the City's own concern that a fully forensic campus of this scale sits awkwardly against the Mount Claremont Masterplan's aspirations for the area, and noted the contrast with the State's pursuit of other nearby sites for housing — including the former Irwin Barracks and the Subiaco wastewater treatment plant, where the City's own Master Plan already links a reduced buffer to new development potential. The City confirmed it has had only limited engagement from the State Government to date: an earlier request for a briefing from the responsible department went unanswered, and the City indicated it will follow up again.

We wrote to the Mayor and CEO on 15 September 2026, thanking them for their time and putting the point a step further: given the site's value and the State's own housing priorities, has the option of releasing part of the Graylands site for housing — with proceeds potentially funding or contributing to a purpose-built forensic facility elsewhere — been properly costed and considered? We asked whether the City would be willing to put these questions directly to WA Treasury and the responsible Ministers.

Office of the Chief Psychiatrist

On 17 August 2026 we wrote to Dr Nathan Gibson, WA's Chief Psychiatrist. Unlike the ministers, agencies and elected members above, this is an independent statutory office under the Mental Health Act 2014, with its own power to inspect services and require information — not a political office.

Our letter asked whether the Office was involved in GRAFT or otherwise advised on retaining Graylands as the preferred site; whether the site's suitability has been formally reviewed since the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 came into force; what school-specific and community-specific risk, notification and emergency-response arrangements exist; and whether the Chief Psychiatrist would support an independent reassessment of the site. We asked for a written response within 14 days.

What the reply covers

A reply arrived on 14 September 2026 — 28 days after our letter — signed by Dr Emma Crampin, Acting Chief Psychiatrist, on Dr Gibson's behalf. The table below shows how it addresses each of the nine questions we asked.

Of our five further requests, only "provide a written response" was met.

What the reply says instead

Rather than take the questions in turn, the reply describes the Chief Psychiatrist's role in general terms.

That's accurate: the Mental Health Act 2014 doesn't give the Chief Psychiatrist a site-selection function. But it answers a narrower question than the one we asked, and the Office's own published guidance describes a different level of involvement before a building is finished.

The Office's own standard, published two months before this reply

In June 2026 — while Graylands was already in detailed design — the Office published a new Standard for the Authorisation of Hospitals, with a companion FAQ for infrastructure agencies delivering projects like this one.

Design work for Stage 1 has been under way since at least April 2026, when a contractor was appointed for early contractor involvement. Whether that recommended early engagement has actually taken place for Graylands, and what — if anything — the Office has advised on the model of care so far, is a different and more specific question than the one the reply answered. It remains open.

What's fair to expect here, and what isn't

An independent statutory officer arguably shouldn't be giving a personal opinion on a live, contested site-selection question before the finished facility comes to them for formal authorisation — doing so could compromise their own impartiality when that day arrives. Questions 8 and 9 above ask exactly that, so we think declining to answer those two is defensible.

We don't think that reasoning covers questions 1 and 3 to 7. Those ask what happened and what exists, not what the Chief Psychiatrist thinks — confirming or denying past involvement, or whether a review or risk assessment took place, doesn't require taking a side on anything.

It's also worth being straight about what obliges a response at all. An open letter like ours carries no legal obligation to be answered in substance — that's what Freedom of Information exists for, with a statutory deadline and a right of appeal if refused. We've lodged a separate, formal request to this same office under that Act; see Request 7 on the FOI page.

Documents