As the months have dragged on with little sign of life, it has been difficult not to feel uneasy about the project’s progress.
In April, Health Minister Simeon Brown said capping of the piles on the site would begin mid-year, followed by work on the perimeter of the basement to form the base for the substructure.
The most recent move from the government, Mr Brown’s announcement this month of the appointment of Evan Davies as Crown manager to oversee the delivery of the inpatient building, was bizarrely handled.
The press release listed many of Mr Davies’ former roles, including involvement with the Christchurch Hospital redevelopment.
Curiously, it overlooked his chairmanship of the Dunedin hospital project’s governance board for more than two years from 2020.
Maybe acknowledging that did not fit with the government narrative the whole project has been bungled so far.
Minutes from a June 2023 meeting of the hospital’s Project Steering Group (PSG) Mr Davies chaired state he felt compelled to step down then because a work promotion had caused "an increase in workload".
Questions remain about his ability to give the new role the attention it needs, given that situation.
It is not clear how much time the government expects him to spend as Crown manager, but he will be paid $2500 a day plus expenses for it.
At his final PSG meeting in 2023, Mr Davies "wished everyone the best and good fortune" to complete the hospital build, adding that he considered it an "aspirational programme".
It would be interesting to know whether, two years on, given the delays, the changes and the politicking, he would use a much stronger adjective.
For those unfamiliar with the term Crown manager, it is a position specified in the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act.
The minister can make such an appointment if he or she believes on reasonable grounds there is a risk to the operation or long-term viability of Health New Zealand.
Before making the appointment, the minister has to give HNZ written notice of their intention and allow HNZ reasonable time (depending on the urgency of the situation) to respond.
That information around this has not been released, but Mr Brown has said he believed on reasonable grounds the project posed a risk to the operation or long-term viability of HNZ given the size and scale of the project, the fiscal risks arising from the cost pressures on the project and the likely impact on health services if those cost pressures are not adequately addressed and delivery is further delayed.
In the New Zealand Gazette notice of the appointment, Mr Brown blames HNZ for the project woes, saying it has struggled to maintain momentum on the project and identify a path forward following consistent cost pressure and extensions to the estimated delivery time for the project.
These delays have also created delays and additional costs.
Not surprisingly, there is no mention of the contribution last year’s scaremongering on costs and political shenanigans, which led to changes to the project’s scope, made to this debacle, or of their impact on the cost, delays and uncertainty for prospective contractors.
It is hard to see how the government’s beatings-will-continue-until-morale-improves approach to HNZ will be effective at attracting and retaining good staff there in the long run.
In that regard, the government’s enthusiasm for such overarching appointments should be closely monitored and evaluated.
They may begin with a hiss and a roar (think health commissioner Lester Levy) but risk ending with much whimpering.
It might be rather convenient for the government to have Mr Davies as a scapegoat, albeit a well-paid one, to blame if, as has been widely suggested, the project fails to come in on budget.
Among Mr Davies’ functions will be negotiating the final contract for the main works package of the inpatient building, along with delivering an implementation business case to Cabinet for approval within the next three months.
Action cannot come soon enough.
