State Election 2010

[Aidan]

As a matter of interest, Rann claims that public opposition to the new RAH and the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is the result of ignorance on the part of the opponents, and that the projects will go ahead.

Not a very tactful way of putting it, but the majority of the public supported Labors plans, those developments should go ahead.

Have you got any evidence that the majority of the public actually supported Labor's plans, as opposed to merely preferring them to Liberal's plans?

And do you agree that if support for the new RAH is based on ignorance then it shouldn't go ahead?

[Professor]

Amen to that, Will.

I have been in the RAH several times in the past couple of years, including as a patient in the Emergency after a serious road accident. Doctors and nurses - great. Emergency Theatre - Great. The rest - including trying to get anything done in Emergency that does not involve arriving in an ambulance - well not allowed to use bad words in this blog. Suffice to say when visiting sick friends the place is depressing and sub-standard. A greenfield site is always best for a complex project.

The hospital, together with the new Adelaide Oval, the Medical Research Centre and the Convention Centre / Riverbank it will breath new life into that whole section of Adelaide. Bring it on!

[skyliner]

Amen to that, Will.

I have been in the RAH several times in the past couple of years, including as a patient in the Emergency after a serious road accident. Doctors and nurses - great. Emergency Theatre - Great. The rest - including trying to get anything done in Emergency that does not involve arriving in an ambulance - well not allowed to use bad words in this blog. Suffice to say when visiting sick friends the place is depressing and sub-standard. A greenfield site is always best for a complex project.

The hospital, together with the new Adelaide Oval, the Medical Research Centre and the Convention Centre / Riverbank it will breath new life into that whole section of Adelaide. Bring it on!

In response to the bold - that's how I am seeing it - like an overarching vision with many parts (incl. the tramline). All together it has a better chance than bits
to really start to invigorate the west end. (much as I have trouble with the railyards location for a new hospital).

BTW Will - what is ICAC.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE

[Professor]

Independent Commission Against Corruption

PS I forgot to mention the new bridge to the Adelaide Oval as well...

[Will]

Amen to that, Will.

I have been in the RAH several times in the past couple of years, including as a patient in the Emergency after a serious road accident. Doctors and nurses - great. Emergency Theatre - Great. The rest - including trying to get anything done in Emergency that does not involve arriving in an ambulance - well not allowed to use bad words in this blog. Suffice to say when visiting sick friends the place is depressing and sub-standard. A greenfield site is always best for a complex project.

The hospital, together with the new Adelaide Oval, the Medical Research Centre and the Convention Centre / Riverbank it will breath new life into that whole section of Adelaide. Bring it on!

In response to the bold - that's how I am seeing it - like an overarching vision with many parts (incl. the tramline). All together it has a better chance than bits
to really start to invigorate the west end. (much as I have trouble with the railyards location for a new hospital).

BTW Will - what is ICAC.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE

You obviously don't read Stumpjumpers posts! An ICAC is an Independent Commision Against Corruption.

[skyliner]

Independent Commission Against Corruption

PS I forgot to mention the new bridge to the Adelaide Oval as well...

Most appreciated Will.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE

[Aidan]

One of the msot arrogant things any government can do is to break an election promise.

This wasn't an election promise, it was a statement of intent that almost cost them the election - and it probably would have if more people had realised the truth about how bad the plan was.

Arrogance is being touted as one of the things which contributed to the swing against the Rann government.

And few things are more arrogant than trying to foist a bad plan upon us under false premises.

Hence, considering how much the government is on the nose of so many people, it would be political suicide to break the more notable election promises made. One of the more notable eelction promises is the cosntruction of the new RAH at the railyards site.

Historically has it ever been political suicide for politicians to bow to the will of the people?

I know some of you are dissapointed that we are getting a new hospital instead of a stadium, but the RAH debate was not the knockout punch claimed by some. Yes, the RAH debate was a factor in the swing, but judging by the poor performance of the SAve the RAH party, it was clearly not the biggest factor.

But is that an adequate way of judging? Has any minor party ever done well based on a single issue platform that they share with one of the major parties?

Indeed, just by looking at the list of fringe parties that contested the legislative council eelction, one must acknoledge that community anger about the failue of the governemnt to inroduce an ICAC, perceived corruption in the state governemnt, the failure to have a R18+ rating for video games and land tax were also key factors in the swing.

I didn't notice any perception of corruption in the government, but I accept the others were also key factors.

It would be silly to argue that the labor plan was more popular, which it clearly wasn't. But the Liberals shot themselves in the foot, by choosing to go with the cheapest option for the RAH rebuild. I feel they would have garnered more votes, as well as the support of the AMA and the nurses federation if they had chosen the $1.4 billion option. For many voters, myself included, this just confirmed my suspicion that the Liberals do not prioritise public health.

Possibly, though I think the promise to spend the savings on other hospitals throws that into doubt. Ultimately I think Rudd's planned takeover makes this less important anyway.

So in essence, a new hospital will be built on the railyards. The electorate has spoken.

Despite the government feeding them false information, the electorate spoke against it. They just didn't speak loud enough.

[jk1237]

Sorry Aidan, I find your arguments completely unconvincing.

Does anyone really think that Mike Rann woke up 1 morning and thought a new hospital would be good, or do you think those working in the health department and health consultants might have done some form of cost-benefit analysis in comparing a new or rebuild, and produced a report to the govt recommending a new hospital. Im guessing the latter might have been what actually happened. But I may be wrong

But then the media get involved to create and stir up interest and debate to sell more papers, and then Joe Bloggs from the suburbs writes into the advertiser opposing the hospital as he thinks he's the expert in health issues, and so on. Meanwhile the opposition rubs its hands with glee because of the mountain made out of a mouldhill, in the hope of getting into power with voters against the proposal, and then once in power, they will then be recommended by the health professionals and consultants to do what - build the new hospital

[Will]

One of the msot arrogant things any government can do is to break an election promise.

This wasn't an election promise, it was a statement of intent that almost cost them the election - and it probably would have if more people had realised the truth about how bad the plan was.

Arrogance is being touted as one of the things which contributed to the swing against the Rann government.

And few things are more arrogant than trying to foist a bad plan upon us under false premises.

Hence, considering how much the government is on the nose of so many people, it would be political suicide to break the more notable election promises made. One of the more notable eelction promises is the cosntruction of the new RAH at the railyards site.

Historically has it ever been political suicide for politicians to bow to the will of the people?

I know some of you are dissapointed that we are getting a new hospital instead of a stadium, but the RAH debate was not the knockout punch claimed by some. Yes, the RAH debate was a factor in the swing, but judging by the poor performance of the SAve the RAH party, it was clearly not the biggest factor.

But is that an adequate way of judging? Has any minor party ever done well based on a single issue platform that they share with one of the major parties?

Indeed, just by looking at the list of fringe parties that contested the legislative council eelction, one must acknoledge that community anger about the failue of the governemnt to inroduce an ICAC, perceived corruption in the state governemnt, the failure to have a R18+ rating for video games and land tax were also key factors in the swing.

I didn't notice any perception of corruption in the government, but I accept the others were also key factors.

It would be silly to argue that the labor plan was more popular, which it clearly wasn't. But the Liberals shot themselves in the foot, by choosing to go with the cheapest option for the RAH rebuild. I feel they would have garnered more votes, as well as the support of the AMA and the nurses federation if they had chosen the $1.4 billion option. For many voters, myself included, this just confirmed my suspicion that the Liberals do not prioritise public health.

Possibly, though I think the promise to spend the savings on other hospitals throws that into doubt. Ultimately I think Rudd's planned takeover makes this less important anyway.

So in essence, a new hospital will be built on the railyards. The electorate has spoken.

Despite the government feeding them false information, the electorate spoke against it. They just didn't speak loud enough.

What false pretenses are you talking about? Why is building a new hospital such a bad idea?

The will of the people? (the Libs lost the election and the save the RAH party got a similar vote to Gamers4Croydon)

The reality is that the experts, including the AMA (a conservative organisation) and the nurses federation supported the plan.

Are you saying you know more than such people? Now, that is arrogance personified. You parade on this forum as if you are an expert on everything.....

[Aidan]

Sorry Aidan, I find your arguments completely unconvincing.

Does anyone really think that Mike Rann woke up 1 morning and thought a new hospital would be good, or do you think those working in the health department and health consultants might have done some form of cost-benefit analysis in comparing a new or rebuild, and produced a report to the govt recommending a new hospital. Im guessing the latter might have been what actually happened. But I may be wrong

It was indeed consultants who recommended it. Specifically it was Durrow Health Services Management. This organization is based in (and has experience with hospital PPPs in) Britain where everyone involved with those was encouraged to come to the conclusion that PPPs are better value for money than the public sector option, regardless of whether that was actually true.

Given their background, do you really think they're competent to correctly identify how a hospital can be rebuilt efficiently?

The claim that it would be cheaper to rent a new hospital than to update our original one is extraordinary - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far we have no proof at all, but a credible explanation as to why an extraordinary claim has been made.

But then the media get involved to create and stir up interest and debate to sell more papers, and then Joe Bloggs from the suburbs writes into the advertiser opposing the hospital as he thinks he's the expert in health issues, and so on. Meanwhile the opposition rubs its hands with glee because of the mountain made out of a mouldhill, in the hope of getting into power with voters against the proposal, and then once in power, they will then be recommended by the health professionals and consultants to do what - build the new hospital

Recommended by which health professionals? There's no consensus on the issue. As for Durrow, I doubt their report is worth the paper it's printed on, but it hasn't even been made public. But rebuilding can be done as and when it's needed, instead of all at once.

[Aidan]

What false pretenses are you talking about?

See above.

Why is building a new hospital such a bad idea?

I've already explained it here today. Do I have to repeat everything again?

The will of the people? (the Libs lost the election and the save the RAH party got a similar vote to Gamers4Croydon)

And yet most people oppose moving the hospital and want it rebuilt on its existing site.

The reality is that the experts, including the AMA (a conservative organisation) and the nurses federation supported the plan.

Some supported it, some opposed it.

Are you saying you know more than such people? Now, that is arrogance personified. You parade on this forum as if you are an expert on everything.....

The difference is that I'm willing to justify my comments, whereas the government make information unavailable and try to shut down honest debate.

[Nort]

As a matter of interest, Rann claims that public opposition to the new RAH and the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is the result of ignorance on the part of the opponents, and that the projects will go ahead.

Not a very tactful way of putting it, but the majority of the public supported Labors plans, those developments should go ahead.

Have you got any evidence that the majority of the public actually supported Labor's plans, as opposed to merely preferring them to Liberal's plans?

And do you agree that if support for the new RAH is based on ignorance then it shouldn't go ahead?

The bolded part is exactly what politics and democracy is. It's often not about finding the option that makes everyone happy, but rather the one that most people are not actively opposed to.

[monotonehell]

And yet most people oppose moving the hospital and want it rebuilt on its existing site.

I don't think you could find a majority on any side of that debate. I've never seen a poll that showed the true feelings of everyone in the State. Not even a statistically representative poll. Any forum where the debate has raged has had fairly equal participants. There's very few who know what the truth is after all the rhetoric. I for one have found a convincing counter argument to almost every point that's ever been put forward. So I for one have admitted my ignorance and asked for more information. None has been offered.

So none of you can sit there and claim that you hold the correct position, unless you're completely privy to some document or other that has yet to be released. Nor can you claim that the election was won, lost or almost lost on this one point. Everyone who voted had their own pet reason for why they voted the way that they did, so no doing a Howard and claiming a mandate.

There still remain just too many questions raised by both the Government's plan and the Liberal's (original properly costed) plan (as opposed to the 'save a billion' plan they went to the election with).

[Will]

[

Recommended by which health professionals? There's no consensus on the issue. As for Durrow, I doubt their report is worth the paper it's printed on, but it hasn't even been made public. But rebuilding can be done as and when it's needed, instead of all at once.

The Labor proposal is not without its faults, however it was the better hospital option presented to the electorate. As I've said numerous times, the Labor proposal was backed by the AMA nad the nurses federation.

Whereas, I now turn the tables on you. Which health professional organisations supported the liberals proposal for the RAH? As far as I am aware, the most ardent supporters were a fishmonger, a brewer and a former board member of the Reserve Bank. (of which 2 of them are or have been members of the Liberal party).

I know you are dissapointed that the government did not consult you when deciding on its plans for the RAH, however, the reality is that they were returned to power, and a hospital will be built at the railyards.

There is no point debating its location. It is a futile arguement. People such as yourself, and indeed, all of us, should now focus our attention of holding the government accountable to delivering us a world class hospital, and one which has more beds than what is currently promised. These are the things that have not yet being set in stone and which can still change.

Furthermore, there is still plenty of other suitable sites for a soccer stadium. For example, the site where Santos Stadium currently is.

[Howie]

Will, I think the government needs to seriously look into the funding model for the new hospital. There have been union meetings with some current RAH workers, some of the first things to be outsourced will be catering. That will most likely goto Qantas food or Spotless. What that means for anyone staying at the RAH is that the nutritional value of their food will fall (the man i've spoken to is considered a foremost problem sorter when it comes to commercial food), it will most likely come frozen from interstate, there will be no kitchen at the new RAH just a big defroster.

With the issue of cleanliness, once again outsourced. The most likely outcome will be that where there are four cleaners there will be three, but they will end up charging the government for four cleaners because they can. Engineering and building services will most likely be outsourced as well. Right now there are two painters for the whole of the RAH (that's right just two). If you think the RAH is run down and debilitated now, just wait a few years after the new hospital opens - doesn't help that there won't be enough people servicing the place.

They're just a couple of examples, I can provide many more instances.

Final point i'd like to make about the new hospital is that it won't be public owned. We'll end up being charged a rather large servicing bill to Healthscope each year for the privilege of having a new hospital.

Like I said, I think the government should have another look at the hospital issue. Open the books, do some more consultation and costings. Because after this government has long gone, and the next one and the next one, we'll still be left with this legacy - let's make sure the decision is the right one.