State Election 2010

[waz94]

Amen brother!!! Well said Howie.

The majority are against it, but lets just take one more look over the books to make sure this is the best option.

RANN has come out and said that he will once again listen to the views of the people, well this would be a great start.

[Will]

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.

Exactly Howie. The Labor proposal has its faults, and as I implied in my last post, with the election result, it is futile arguing for or against the location of the hospital.

We now need to focus our attention to ensuring the government addresses the valid issues you have highlighted as well as others. For example, the new RAH should have a medical school incorporated into it.

The Liberals now need to get over the location debate, and focus on these issues. Because, if they can force the government into building a desalination plant and a riverside precinct, they can generate enough public debate to convinve the government to address these issues.

[Howie]

We now need to focus our attention to ensuring the government addresses the valid issues you have highlighted as well as others. For example, the new RAH should have a medical school incorporated into it.

Unfortunately no one has been able to give a definitive answer to whether the med school on frome road will stay or go with a new RAH. It would make sense that a new Med school is incorporated into the new RAH, but who will pay for it - will it be the University of Adelaide who already have a significant building works program going on, or will it be the state government. There are also other seperate entities within the University who uses the resources of the RAH. Pharmacy, radiology, public health, clinical trials units. Each of these groups also have several sub groups including data management, warehousing, it support and so forth. Some of these units are not within the RAH itself, but spread around e.g. masonic building, frome road, pulteney street, north terrace. Once again, nothing has really been mentioned about what will happen to these groups - and it's impossible to plan for any move with so much uncertainty. And once again if they're going into a privatised hospital - there are issues of who's responsible for which area, who do you negotiate for more floorspace, at the moment it's all done through the RAH and the government.. but in the future will they have to beg Healthscope whenever there is a need for expansion. But if they are to stay (which I imagine they probably will, otherwise planning would have started a year ago), I would argue that the links to the new City West hospital be improved either by light rail or some other form - then how will that fit within the already extensive public infrastructure program the government has laid out?

So many issues still unresolved, so little time.

[rhino]

There are also other seperate entities within the University who uses the resources of the RAH. Pharmacy, radiology, public health, clinical trials units.

Remember the University also has other students, surveyors, for example, who have to travel into the field to do their prac work, civil engineers who have to go to wherever roads, bridges, or buildings are being built, teachers who get placed all over the state for pracs. If the med students are a little bit more disadvantaged than they have been up until now, I don't think they're going to get a whole lot of sympathy because they now have to stroll down North Terrace to access the hospital. What am I missing here?

[Howie]

There are also other seperate entities within the University who uses the resources of the RAH. Pharmacy, radiology, public health, clinical trials units.

Remember the University also has other students, surveyors, for example, who have to travel into the field to do their prac work, civil engineers who have to go to wherever roads, bridges, or buildings are being built, teachers who get placed all over the state for pracs. If the med students are a little bit more disadvantaged than they have been up until now, I don't think they're going to get a whole lot of sympathy because they now have to stroll down North Terrace to access the hospital. What am I missing here?

Perhaps Will can speak a little more on behalf of studying health professionals and their timetables. I can tell you from a IT and infrastructure point of view that servicing their needs will be impossible unless they have a permanent base at a new RAH. Contrary to how far technology has come, there's only so much you can do remotely and in a world where you need to be in more than one place at a time, at least if you're in the same building it helps.

[Aidan]

[

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.

Why should the public be restricted to the choices that politicians put to us? We should set the agenda, not them!

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).

Who cares which supporters were most ardent? A lot of supporters were doctors at the RAH, and AIUI they were the ones who formed the Save The RAH group in the first place.

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.

Nothing is set in stone until the stones are set in place!

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

Suitable maybe, but none are nearly as good.

[stumpjumper]

It seems to me that the government's hospital proposal is a classic case, in project management terms, of how not to do it.

In short, the government failed to bring the people with it - notably the taxpayers who will pay for the proposal.

Health reform is a major issue, especially as the bulge of baby boomers need aged care. According to the book, you establish the needs (not just the wants of a few vested interests), then you consider alternatives, All this can be done openly with full disclosure.

With needs and options established, we can make an informed choice then call for tenders.

To do otherwise, as we have done, is to invite dispute and obstruction, which is what we've got. Apart from anything else, dispute means delay, increased costs and so on.

The driver should be public need, with the government as facilitator. Instead we have as driver - who knows? Rent-seekers looking for a cushy PPP? As some wise person said: 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant'.

[Will]

There are also other seperate entities within the University who uses the resources of the RAH. Pharmacy, radiology, public health, clinical trials units.

Remember the University also has other students, surveyors, for example, who have to travel into the field to do their prac work, civil engineers who have to go to wherever roads, bridges, or buildings are being built, teachers who get placed all over the state for pracs. If the med students are a little bit more disadvantaged than they have been up until now, I don't think they're going to get a whole lot of sympathy because they now have to stroll down North Terrace to access the hospital. What am I missing here?

The difference is that with engineers and teachers, when they are on prac, they are on prac for the whole day or week.

With the exception of med students in their final 2 years, they do not go on 'prac'. Rather, the timetable is divided between lectures, practical classes, as well as learning on the ward. The problem with this is, that a med student may have a lecture in the morning, then a ward practical class followed by an anatomy practical in the afternoon. Having to travel between one end of North Terrace and the other would be a major waste of their time. But in particular, such a cumbersome task will reduce the incentive for med students to practice what they have learnt on real patients.

I know the new RAH will have 'teaching space' however this aspect of the new RAH has not been planned extensively yet. Based on the size of the med school at Flinders, a med school does not neccesarily have to be a large area. And I feel one can be incorporated into the new RAH.

[stumpjumper]

Just heard - Foley has fended off Weatherill. The vote for Deputy Premier was on factional lines with one informal/abstention it seems - Tony Piccolo, formerly of the Left.

I also heard this afternoon that the $450 mill Adelaide Oval redevelopment may not go ahead after all. Apparently there are some problems which can't be resolved. What a surprise.

[crawf]

Source?

[Alyx]

On the leadership issue:

South Australian Treasurer Kevin Foley has survived a challenge to his deputy leadership of the Labor Party by Jay Weatherill.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 853894.htm

Ten News briefly mentioned Adelaide Oval during the sports report tonight. They suggested that it would cost more than the Government had estimated (at just over $500m), not that it had been cancelled.

[AtD]

Code: Select all

Counted  Counted  Esimated ALP TPP  Lib TPP  Margin  Margin   Lib   Postals   ABC's       ABC's TPP
% reg     Votes   Postals   count    count    TPP    % TPP   Swing  Required  Prediction  Prediction

--- BRIGHT
  71.0    16,733   5,020    7,931    7,887     44    50.1    +6.5   50.9%    ALP retain    50.4

--- HARTLEY
  70.4    15,632   4,863    7,571    6,707    864    52.5    +3.1   67.8%    ALP retain    52.5

--- NEWLAND
  74.6    17,049   4,045    8,543    7,686    857    52.6    +2.5   71.2%    ALP retain    52.8

At today's postal count, Bright has Libs just 6 votes ahead with 77.2% counted. The ALP's TPP in Hartley lead is has increased to 53.1 with 72% counted, whist it has decreased in Newland to 52.5 with 79.6% counted.

[stumpjumper]

crawf - hearsay only at this stage. The source was my mate at a major Adelaide building firm. I think the 'difficulties' he was aware of relate to cost, so he and the Channel 10 journo may be talking about the same issue.

[Alyx]

Liberal leader Isobel Redmond has conceded her party cannot form South Australia's next government, after Saturday's state poll.

She says the party could still win two seats which are in doubt, but she accepts there are not the numbers to form government.

Ms Redmond has offered her congratulations to SA Premier Mike Rann and Labor on its victory.

Labor will serve a third consecutive term under Mike Rann.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 855009.htm

[stumpjumper]

Rann said on 20th March that he would listen. Apparently the listening is now over - the 'hard men' remain, and the highly unpopular relocated RAH will go ahead, along with the Film Hub at Glenside and the Lang walker redevelopment at Buckland Park, both fast-tracked against considerable public opposition.

Rann said on ABC radio this afternoon that "listening to the people is one thing, but we were elected to govern, and government means making the tough decisions. If we were to just follow public opinion, it would make the whole thing incredibly shallow."

I'd say Rann, Foley and Conlon will ram through a number of unpopular projects early in their term, then 'soften up' if necessary to attract votes in 2014.

If that's the plan, it's a brave strategy for a government whose opposition scored 52% of the vote compared with the government's 48%, and which seems to have lost the goodwill of the media. Still, as Tom Kenyon the 'Labor hero' said "We f*cked them!" and as Kevin Foley said, "Politics is a tough business. No-one expects to be popular."

If the government continues to treat as its prime constituency the construction and development industries which so assiduously cultivate government decision-makers, Foley and friends will remain unpopular.

The full Adelaide Oval redevelopment is still on the cards, despite rumours that the plug has been pulled elsewhere, and despite its patent unsuitability for soccer. My own view is that this little charade will play out without the required agreement, that AOSMA will quietly disband and in four years' time, Labor will present a proposal for a new, international standard stadium as an election winner, probably to the west of the city.

The $5 million dollars 'pin money' has all but disappeared btw. There have been considerable costs, apparently, of a nature that can't be made public. If that is the case, I'd like to know what has happened to the principle of taxation with representation? The government has given $5 million to eight private citizens for their own unspecified use.