Mr Radich said there was little new yesterday in HNZ’s response to his earlier letter, which had asked for more information about announced changes to Dunedin hospital rebuild plans.
The response, penned by HNZ South Island region hospital and specialist services director Daniel Pallister-Coward, had not provided much more detail beyond the media release put out revealing the changes on December 20, Mr Radich said.
"There’s nothing fresh in there. It doesn’t explain anything much of the detail I was looking for," Mr Radich said.
The letter also failed to provide reassurance.
Because it had already taken an extra year to get the rebuild to the stage it was at, it was likely it would take another year or two to get to completion, he said.
HNZ was suggesting the delays had cost tens of millions of dollars extra, which further proved the council’s point there should not be any further delays through a redesign process, Mr Radich said.
"All delays cost money, especially in this inflationary environment."
In a nutshell, HNZ’s response was disappointing, he said.
"My preference would have been a letter to say they’re going to build the approved design and get on with the job forthwith."
The council felt strongly the proposed cuts would result in further delays and a marked reduction in capacity at the hospital rather than savings, he said.
The proposed changes would also prejudice the future proofing of the new hospital.
Air conditioning would be placed with the logistics building and some of the space for the pavilion building would be built over, ruining it for any future placement of the structure, Mr Radich said.
"It seems counterintuitive to prejudice the future of the hospital in the name of cuts which may well prove to be illusory."
His message to HNZ and the Government was: "Do it once and do it right — because health cuts don’t heal."
The HNZ letter said the design changes would not affect the core objectives of the build, which was to provide the southern region with a fit-for-purpose, state-of-the-art facility which supported the needs of the community into the future.
The focus of the changes had been to preserve as much clinical capacity as possible, so as not to impact the delivery of health services.
"Government infrastructure projects do not get an exemption from the construction cost pressures being felt here in New Zealand," the letter said.
The decision to remove the pavilion building was not taken lightly, but the construction, labour and resources required for one building instead of two was a practical compromise and a substantial part of the cost-saving.
The new hospital was still HNZ’s largest infrastructure project, the letter said.
