Piles of piles, and of problems
Judging by efforts of successive governments in New Zealand, building a hospital is a Herculean task, bordering on impossible.
Some years ago, Dunedin and the New Zealand populace were told Dunedin will get a new hospital and a new outpatient building. Almost immediately we were shown the artist's impression of the new buildings.
Ratepayers were told the total cost will be $1.4 billion — eight years ago.
We were told that the government formed a committee (what else than a good old money-wasting committee) with a task to decide the best location for the new hospital.
Mind you, no public consultation, no experts' opinion, only the good old committee. And said committee, like any other formal group, has to have a leader.
Who would be better suited than the trusting party cadre, a former minister? Like being a minister is a relevant occupation or guarantees expertise in the process of finding a location for a hospital.
A few meetings down the track the location was revealed with fanfare — the former Cadbury site. Luckily, Mondelez decided to vacate the factory and warehouse, leaving potential buyers with the cost of demolishing the same.
Officially $140 million was paid to Mondelez for the site (from $1.4b). The cost of demolition was not published.
With possession of the precious and very expensive site, time came to look at the soil which will hold the proposed eight-floor hospital building.
From then on unexplained delays kept pushing the beginning of the building further into the future.
Yes, over the years the outpatient building was erected slowly but securely, the Cadbury factory and warehouse were demolished and piles were hammered into the ground.
But the design of the main building has reportedly changed several times, seemingly always in response to public outcry to the cuts in promised services. The famous $1.4b figure was circulated from time to time — I think mainly to remind people that we cannot and should not be greedy.
The Covid epidemic and lockdowns were used for a while as an excuse for delays — but actual lockdown in Dunedin was four weeks, and tradies returned to work after three weeks. The local lolly factory worked through lockdown because someone decided lollies are essential food.
Further years passed. A new minister decided to appear on TV with the good news — the new hospital build was starting in earnest now.
We were told the government (this one and the subsequent one) would be happy to pay $1.8b — no more.
Well, some of initial $1.4b had already been spent on purchase of the site with buildings, demolition of the buildings, soil testing, consultations, consultations, projects, consultations, designs, consultations, business cases, consultations, redesigns, consultations, outpatient building, purchasing of material and equipment for outpatient building, consultations, wages for workers, water, power, workers' accommodation, food, consultation and I hope cheese rolls but not without consultation.
After the minister's TV appearance bulldozers and diggers swarmed the main hospital building site, roamed between the piles, removed about half a metre depth of dirt, and in an orderly fashion created a mound on the same site and left.
We were told through the news outlets that the contract with the earth-moving company was cancelled because, oh no, there are changes made to the original design.
To return to the beginning. One would expect that someone in the Labour government of the time had experience in building and knew that the first step before design is to know what the soil is like.
The quality and type of soil would determine the size and height of the building, but most importantly type and depth of foundation.
One would expect that someone in the government of the day would have looked at locations and commission geologists to drill the soil and find out which site was adequate for a new hospital. One would expect that the government would have had the means to negotiate with owners of potential sites to let the geological surveys take place.
Then there is a need to project population growth and utilisation of hospital beds 30 years into future.
Then a decision should be made regarding the extent of regional health services (what diseases should be treated and what surgeries should be performed in Dunedin), how many clinicians should the hospital employ (all of this is hypothetical but necessary to help decide the size of future hospital).
Then provisional design is sought — this should then inform the cost (or at least lowest and highest projected cost).
Then the Treasury should, based on this information, advise on how much money is going to be available.
Only then the minister could come in front of the public with a projected cost and time frames, location, foreseen problems (just to be on the safe side).
Most importantly, this should have been, from the beginning, a bipartisan project, because it is not a single political party achievement; it is a project that benefits the whole of New Zealand not only Otago and Southland.
• Dejan Mandich is a consultant psychiatrist.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
3 hours ago
- 1News
Jetstar apologises for misleading NZ customers as hefty fine looms
Budget airline Jetstar has apologised to New Zealand customers as it anticipates a hefty fine after pleading guilty to misleading passengers about their rights. The Commerce Commission took Jetstar to court over charges that it discouraged consumers from seeking compensation they were legally entitled to for delayed or cancelled flights. Representatives from both parties appeared in the Auckland District Court on Thursday for sentencing, however Judge Brooke Gibson reserved his decision for a later date. The Commerce Commission argued that Jetstar's offending was not just careless but reckless, and continued despite multiple warnings and similar charges from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in 2018. Jetstar's lawyer Joe Edwards argued that his client had shown remorse and done everything it could to refund customers. ADVERTISEMENT As of March of 2025, Jetstar had refunded $843,000. Judge Gibson commended the airline and noted this number had risen to more than $1 million in the following months. Both parties agreed to a starting point of $2.5 million and a 25 percent uplift in recognition of Jetstar's financial position, Judge Gibson reserving his decision as to the discounts he will apply to the fine. 'Deeply sorry' - Airline misled fliers on compensation, denied others, watch on TVNZ+ Jetstar apologised in a written statement. "We are deeply sorry for letting our New Zealand customers down during our Covid restart by incorrectly assessing some compensation claims for cancelled flights in 2022 and 2023," the airline said. "We know this caused frustration, stress and financial impact, and we take full responsibility for these mistakes." It said that, in the previous two years, staff had reviewed thousands of past claims and been in contact with customers impacted by the "errors". ADVERTISEMENT "For anyone who still feels they may not have received the correct compensation for a past flight disruption in Aotearoa, please get in touch with us here so we can review your case," it said. "We've made significant changes to prevent this from happening again, including updating our website and communications so New Zealand customer rights are clear, improving training and strengthening our claims review process."
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Jetstar sorry for misleading Kiwi passengers
The Commerce Commission took Jetstar to court over charges it discouraged consumers from seeking compensation they were entitled to for delayed or cancelled flights. Photo: ODT files Budget airline Jetstar has apologised to New Zealand customers, as it anticipates a hefty fine after pleading guilty to misleading passengers about their rights. The Commerce Commission took Jetstar to court over charges that it discouraged consumers from seeking compensation they were legally entitled to for delayed or cancelled flights. Representatives from both parties appeared in the Auckland District Court today for sentencing, however Judge Gibson reserved his decision for a later date. The New Zealand watchdog argued that Jetstar's offending was not just careless but reckless, and continued despite multiple warnings and similar charges from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in 2018. Jetstar's lawyer Joe Edwards argued that his client had shown remorse and done everything it could to refund customers. As of March this year, Jetstar had refunded $843,000. Judge Gibson commended the airline and noted this number had risen to more than $1 million in the following months. Both parties agreed to a starting point of $2.5 million and a 25% uplift in recognition of Jetstar's financial position. Judge Gibson reserved his decision as to the discounts he would apply to the fine. Jetstar has apologised in a written statement. "We are deeply sorry for letting our New Zealand customers down during our Covid restart by incorrectly assessing some compensation claims for cancelled flights in 2022 and 2023. "We know this caused frustration, stress and financial impact, and we take full responsibility for these mistakes." The airline said that in the previous two years, staff had reviewed thousands of past claims and been in contact with customers affected by the "errors." "For anyone who still feels they may not have received the correct compensation for a past flight disruption in Aotearoa, please get in touch with us here so we can review your case," it said. "We've made significant changes to prevent this from happening again, including updating our website and communications so New Zealand customer rights are clear, improving training and strengthening our claims review process."
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Jetstar apology for misleading Kiwi customers
The Commerce Commission took Jetstar to court over charges it discouraged consumers from seeking compensation they were entitled to for delayed or cancelled flights. Photo: ODT files Budget airline Jetstar has apologised to New Zealand customers, as it anticipates a hefty fine after pleading guilty to misleading passengers about their rights. The Commerce Commission took Jetstar to court over charges that it discouraged consumers from seeking compensation they were legally entitled to for delayed or cancelled flights. Representatives from both parties appeared in the Auckland District Court today for sentencing, however Judge Gibson reserved his decision for a later date. The New Zealand watchdog argued that Jetstar's offending was not just careless but reckless, and continued despite multiple warnings and similar charges from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in 2018. Jetstar's lawyer Joe Edwards argued that his client had shown remorse and done everything it could to refund customers. As of March this year, Jetstar had refunded $843,000. Judge Gibson commended the airline and noted this number had risen to more than $1 million in the following months. Both parties agreed to a starting point of $2.5 million and a 25% uplift in recognition of Jetstar's financial position. Judge Gibson reserved his decision as to the discounts he would apply to the fine. Jetstar has apologised in a written statement. "We are deeply sorry for letting our New Zealand customers down during our Covid restart by incorrectly assessing some compensation claims for cancelled flights in 2022 and 2023. "We know this caused frustration, stress and financial impact, and we take full responsibility for these mistakes." The airline said that in the previous two years, staff had reviewed thousands of past claims and been in contact with customers affected by the "errors." "For anyone who still feels they may not have received the correct compensation for a past flight disruption in Aotearoa, please get in touch with us here so we can review your case," it said. "We've made significant changes to prevent this from happening again, including updating our website and communications so New Zealand customer rights are clear, improving training and strengthening our claims review process."
