Wodonga council concerned upgrades to Albury hospital campus insufficient

Wodonga council says the community “deserves better” in regard to millions of dollars of state government health funding. Read more.

The City of Wodonga is asking the state government to reconsider the decision to renovate a cross-border hospital and wants Albury to back it up.

At its meeting on Monday, the council decided to continue advocating for a one-campus hospital on an undeveloped, believing it would provide improved and safer treatment for the two communities and the wider region.

Wodonga councillor Kev Poulton said Wodonga had not been given “due respect and consideration” and that the community was left feeling “melancholy”.

“Since the announcement from our two premiers of the states and their health ministers in tow, it’s become more evident to me that the community are sick of the madness in terms of where things are better for the entire community as a decision centre for politics,” Cr Poulton said.

“We really need more than two cities one community approach: we need an entire regional approach in the best possible outcome for our health.”

Councillor Danny Chamberlain said the community of Wodonga “deserved better”.

“It appeared to me that the announcement had more to do with upcoming elections instead of the best interests of the people of Albury Wodonga and surrounding areas,” he said.

“We need to advocate for the people of Wodonga specifically.”

The council has concerns that the state government’s $558m redevelopment of the current Albury Wodonga Health site in NSW would leave Wodonga with poor access to health care – partly because of a lack of bus routes between the city and Albury.

“Public transport is needed between Wodonga and Albury seven days a week for extended hours to suit Victorians’ demand for travel to and from the hospital while being suitable for all abilities and people with medical needs,” council documents said.

Among worries regarding future pandemics and border restrictions, including road closures and floods, the council is troubled by the potential legal implications of taking a person in custody out of Victoria’s jurisdiction for health care.

“Based on our discussions with government agencies, it is not evident to council that any of these had been considered in [the state government] decision,” the council said.

“The council calls on the state government to reconsider this significant investment redirected to a greenfield site and on the Victorian Government to demonstrate transparency.”