[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

[Pants]

The methodology and valuations developed in preparation of the public sector comparator would bear little resemblance to those used by the bidders in order to frame their responses to the project brief. Both the government and the market know the nature of the game and can depend on a ''friendly'' comparator that always establishes that the private sector alternative provides ''value for money''.

This hospital will cost far, far more than $1.7 billion.

You were involved with the bids then?

[stumpjumper]

You were involved with the bids then?

I know a bit about it, but not enough to say that the dodgy scenario described applies. But I bet it's a distinct possibility, given the track record of this government.

If there were any transparency, we'd know for sure. The lack of transparency is one of the issues here. We will know for sure in about 35 years.

[metro]

This hospital will cost far, far more than $1.7 billion.

i've got news for you stumpy, the Libs own hospital plan would have cost far, far more than $1.7bil too

and dont single out the Labor government for being dodgy, the Liberal opposition that you love are just as bad

[Aidan]

This hospital will cost far, far more than $1.7 billion.

i've got news for you stumpy, the Libs own hospital plan would have cost far, far more than $1.7bil too

and dont single out the Labor government for being dodgy, the Liberal opposition that you love are just as bad

While I agree the Liberal opposition are just as bad and much of Stumpy's criticism of Labor governments is unfair, in this particular case his criticism is spot on. Exempting PPP deals from scrutiny virtually guarantees that they will be poor value for money.

And you're wrong about the Libs' own hospital plan. Their plan was based on the do nothing option and so would've avoided most of the cost but left us with inadequate services.

But a sensible upgrade (which neither of the main parties promised) would be much cheaper.

[Aidan]

Today, the government announced that the new RAH project would not be subject to scrutiny by Parliament's Public Works Committee. In fact, as a PPP, all but the most basic details of the arrangements will be hidden for over 35 years by 'commercial in confidence' considerations.

Have the 'Tiser reported this yet?

[Waewick]

This hospital will cost far, far more than $1.7 billion.

i've got news for you stumpy, the Libs own hospital plan would have cost far, far more than $1.7bil too

and dont single out the Labor government for being dodgy, the Liberal opposition that you love are just as bad

his post didn't appear to be that politically motivated

but I guess this is the problem with modern politics where people support them like thier football team.

[Pants]

You were involved with the bids then?

I know a bit about it, but not enough to say that the dodgy scenario described applies. But I bet it's a distinct possibility...

So why's your post in absolute terms then?

[stumpjumper]

So why's your post in absolute terms then?

I was involved in a BOOT scheme (Build Own Operate Transfer) with John Holland a few years ago, and I've discussed PPPs and the RAH particularly with some of the people from that deal. I admit that I have no proof of any impending blowout at the new RAH, but the 'expert' opinion is that its very, very likely. Lack of transparency prevents any proper assessment by expert assessors or by informed amateurs.

I'm not a Lib diehard, by the way. I can't be - I just support good government with a minimum of politics. Dream on, you say...

I think the Tiser is onto this.

[dsriggs]

I have no proof of any impending blowout at the new RAH

Quoting the only line of the post that matters.

[crawf]

^+1

[Waewick]

I have no proof of any impending blowout at the new RAH

Quoting the only line of the post that matters.

I have no proof that sea water contains salt either

[Pants]

So why's your post in absolute terms then?

I was involved in a BOOT scheme (Build Own Operate Transfer) with John Holland a few years ago, and I've discussed PPPs and the RAH particularly with some of the people from that deal. I admit that I have no proof of any impending blowout at the new RAH, but the 'expert' opinion is that its very, very likely. Lack of transparency prevents any proper assessment by expert assessors or by informed amateurs.

There probably will be a cost blowout. There very often is in construction projects generally, let alone ones of this magnitude/complexity.

I don't expect you to have proof of any impending blowout at this early stage of the project, my problem was with this line:

The methodology and valuations developed in preparation of the public sector comparator would bear little resemblance to those used by the bidders in order to frame their responses to the project brief.

[stumpjumper]

Pants wrote:
my problem was with this line: "The methodology and valuations developed in preparation of the public sector comparator would bear little resemblance to those used by the bidders in order to frame their responses to the project brief."

Fair comment, Pants. I was going out on a bit of a limb. Here's my defence: I wasn't party to the process, but it was AFAIK very similar to the process used in several recent PPPs which have come unstuck in NSW, and the comment is in the light of those. Let's hope that there were measures in the RAH process to prevent a similar outcome.

The overarching concern is that without transparency, any deficiency in such areas are not discoverable, along with other concerns. It is possible that parts of a PPP deal could be deficient or risky, but would be accepted by the government or the private party or both for one reason or another. Review by bodies outside the deal, like the Public Works Committee, is intended to minimise such deficiencies.

I have attended several Public Works Committee hearings both as observer and to be make submissions. The ones I have attended have not been party political fights, but have been careful, rigorous examinations with all parties trying to ensure the success and financial stability of a project.

[Pants]

No problem SJ. I know your posts always have a lot of thought and rationale behind them, I'm just here to try to reign you in every now and then and keep the defamation lawyers at bay!

[Will]

From the Advertiser:

Trains make way for the new RAH

DANIEL WILLS From: AdelaideNow February 22, 2011 10:10AM



Train operations have been shifted from the North Tce railyards in preparation for construction of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. Picture: Brooke Whatnall Source: The Advertiser


ADELAIDE'S rail operations have been shifted to Dry Creek in preparation for the new city hospital.
Premier Mike Rann said the shift, finalised today, was the start of an "exciting new chapter" in the city's history.

Commencement of construction on the North Tce railyards site, expected this year, will deal a near-fatal blow to the Liberals' proposed covered city stadium, slated for building on the same site.

Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon is today expected to meet with AFL boss Andrew Demetriou to discuss the Adelaide Oval rebuild.

Adelaide City Council will tonight hold a confidential meeting to determine a collective position on the Oval plan.

As legal custodian of the park lands and landlord of the Oval, the council has the power to block the proposal or place strict regulations on the construction plans.

"The momentum continues to build - we have announced the SA Health Partnership consortium as the preferred bidder to build the new hospital and work is well underway on the adjacent South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute," he said.

"Site works for the brand new Royal Adelaide Hospital will begin this year."

The Opposition remains critical of the project, claiming cost blowouts are likely and reconstruction of the existing RAH in the city's east would allow more money to be spent on regional and suburban hospitals.

Health Minister John Hill said moving rail operations away from North Terrace means remediation of the site can proceed uninterrupted and the new RAH remained on track to be delivered by 2016.

Mr Rann today said the new Dry Creek train depot was open for business after maintenance crews, equipment and full train operations took two weeks to move from the old railyards.

"The network is being upgraded with new track, electrification and new stations so it's fantastic that our operations and maintenance facility is just as modern and functional," he said.

Mr Rann said the $1.4 billion desalination plant, new RAH and the $2.6 billion public transport overhaul were "flagships" of the state's "record breaking" infrastructure investment.

"Over the next four years we are rolling out a $10.7 billion capital investment program to make sure South Australia continues to be the best place in Australia to live, work and do business," Mr Rann said.