[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

[Will]

AtD; that is a gross infringement on our right to freedom of speech.

Further posts trying to argue the past will be deleted.

You have first hand experience that this website is a private enterprise.

[metro]

AtD; that is a gross infringement on our right to freedom of speech.

Further posts trying to argue the past will be deleted.

Shuz in Australia we do not have any rights to free speech, we only have the Privilege to it, furthermore this is not your forum and it is the Admins and Mods that decide what gets posted and because it is their forum they have every right to delete posts if they feel it is 'off-topic'


So i should make sure this post is relevant to the thread..

when does the decon/construction work start?

i havnt seen much progress on the railyard site so far, i guess some 'behind-the-scenes' things are still being worked out.

[Waewick]

AtD; that is a gross infringement on our right to freedom of speech.

Further posts trying to argue the past will be deleted.

Shuz in Australia we do not have any rights to free speech, we only have the Privilege to it, furthermore this is not your forum and it is the Admins and Mods that decide what gets posted and because it is their forum they have every right to delete posts if they feel it is 'off-topic'


So i should make sure this post is relevant to the thread..

when does the decon/construction work start?

i havnt seen much progress on the railyard site so far, i guess some 'behind-the-scenes' things are still being worked out.

Don’t tell me your one of those bill of rights people.

We have Freedom of Speech - we just don't have luntatics putting it on paper so that lawyers and judges can manipulate it in a way that best suits them

[Aidan]

I think I speak for most of us: we are sick of this debate, it's getting built.

I know my views are often unpopular, so I don't normally presume to speak for the majority. But if there's one person more unpopular than me here, it's Mike Rann. So I think I speak for most of us when I say we are sick of this state government!

I have no intention of arguing the past, but building a new hospital on the railyards site isn't something that's happened in the past. It will happen in the future unless the government backs down. And unless the government backs down, it will almost certainly bring the government down - though probably not until the next election, by which time there really will be nothing to gain by cancelling it.

[stumpjumper]

AtD I'm not 'arguing the past' here, but correcting your criticism of my figures. I apologise about the confusing lack of columns.

- Some of the equipment at RAH is ageing, but a high proportion has been replaced recently under the $1 billion renovation that was underway until the election, and continues. Almost none of the equipment will be transferred to the NRAH. It will either be scrapped or sent overseas.

- Counting the remediation of any chosen new site as a cost of relocation is legitimate. I can't understand the wide range of 'quotes' I was given for the work.

- The value of the existing site and the improvements depends and what is demolished and what use is made of the remaining improvements. The Botanic Garden has made a claim for return of the land at the eastern edge of the site which was taken from the Gardens in exchange for the former asylum site farther east. While the land itself is not government reserve but is Park Lands, there have been various proposals for civic use, a school. private or university accommodation etc.

- Development approval for any work there may not be necessary, in which case there would be no fees if that is what you are referring to. Have a look at the clauses in the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill now before the Lower House of Parliament. That Bill proposes a new category for development, 'Authorised Development', which is development authorised by ministerial authority without consents or reference to any planning laws or regulations. The new category is set out in Part 2, 6 - 'Development Authorisation', of the Bill:

(1) 'Any development...is by force of this section, authorised.'

(4) 'An authorisation under this section will have effect as if it were a development authorisation under the Development Act 1993 without the need for any other consent, approval or other authorisation or certificate.'

The new process of development by ministerial authorisation suspends or overrides any legislation which would otherwise control the development. If the process were used to redevelop the existing RAH site (which is likely if the 'Oval Bill' succeeds) then the suspension of law in relation to the RAH redevelopment would be similar to the suspensions in the case of Adelaide Oval, ie suspension of: Adelaide Parklands Management Strategy, Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005, Development Act 1993, Local Government Act 1999 etc.

- I didn't ignore operating cost of the refurb. I compared the estimated total costs over 30 years of the PPP at $7.11 billion with the cost of the refurb over the same period of $700 million cost plus 6% interest on that if all the money were borrowed plus operating costs. Lol.

Lastly, I added some figures which might lead a prudent person to think, 'Can we afford this when there is a cheaper option?'

After all, no-one has suggested that the medical services delivered in the new RAH will be better medically than those in the old one.

But as you say, it's a done deal. Let's see what the future brings.

[Pikey]

In other, RELEVANT news, Earthwork equipment has returned to the site, with excavators being unloaded today.

I would say soil remediation and excavation of the disused pits are about to commence.

[crawf]

Of course it's going to look cheaper to upgrade if you use the same aging equipment, leave the pollution in the ground in the rail yards, pretend the existing site and structures are of no value, don't get development approval for the work (lol), include 30 years operating costs (double lol) in the build option but not the refurb option and totally ignore operating outcome.

I think I speak for most of us: we are sick of this debate, it's getting built. Further posts trying to argue the past will be deleted.

Agree.

[Matt]

I think I speak for most of us: we are sick of this debate, it's getting built.

I know my views are often unpopular, so I don't normally presume to speak for the majority. But if there's one person more unpopular than me here, it's Mike Rann. So I think I speak for most of us when I say we are sick of this state government!

Don't assume.
"On the nose" he may be, but I'd sure as fuck rather have Rann and his cronies actually doing/investing/building, than an opposition who offers absolutely nothing but negativity.

[Waewick]

I think I speak for most of us: we are sick of this debate, it's getting built.

I know my views are often unpopular, so I don't normally presume to speak for the majority. But if there's one person more unpopular than me here, it's Mike Rann. So I think I speak for most of us when I say we are sick of this state government!

Don't assume.
"On the nose" he may be, but I'd sure as fuck rather have Rann and his cronies actually doing/investing/building, than an opposition who offers absolutely nothing but negativity.

that is because they are in opposition - you can't assume they wouldn't be doing anything if they were in power.

[rhino]

I think I speak for most of us: we are sick of this debate, it's getting built.

I know my views are often unpopular, so I don't normally presume to speak for the majority. But if there's one person more unpopular than me here, it's Mike Rann. So I think I speak for most of us when I say we are sick of this state government!

Don't assume.
"On the nose" he may be, but I'd sure as fuck rather have Rann and his cronies actually doing/investing/building, than an opposition who offers absolutely nothing but negativity.

What he said.

that is because they are in opposition - you can't assume they wouldn't be doing anything if they were in power.

No, but what they offered at the last election did not get them into power, and they haven't come up with anything since.

[Waewick]

well it isn't their job to provide policy guidance for the Government is it.

[rhino]

Is their job to just slam everything the Government puts forward? And should they win government because of their ability to do that? It reminds me of the old Monty Python sketch "That's not an argument - it's the simple gainsaying of anything your opponent says".

[Waewick]

That I believe is a result of the media influence on Politics as well as Australians continued devolvement in robust political debate.

The general masses are simpletons (the individuals are not) if Party A gets something done even with the full support of Party B – it will always be remembered as something Party A did – there is no incentive for either political parties to offer bipartisan support for anything.


So basically, modern governments win (IMO) because they disagreed with the right thing at the right time to get them elected whilst in oppoistion.

[stumpjumper]

No, but what they (Libs) offered at the last election did not get them into power

It got them an 8.4% swing against Labor with Rann currently the most unpopular leader in Australia.

Relevant to NRAH - the piece of public land between North Tce and the rail yards which the hospital team forgot to include in the site is likely to be removed from the Park Lands by ministerial declaration using absolute ministerial powers to suspend all legislation pertaining to a piece of land.

[rhino]

No, but what they (Libs) offered at the last election did not get them into power

It got them an 8.4% swing against Labor with Rann currently the most unpopular leader in Australia.

Yeah, well ... if that makes you feel better.

They still lost.

against "the most unpopular leader in Australia"