WHEN the “one city” concept for Albury-Wodonga was abandoned 11 years ago, The Border Mail regretted “negativity had triumphed” without the true merits of a merger being intelligently debated.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Instead, we concluded, public debate focused on whether a referendum should be held — after premiers Carr and Bracks had already determined beforehand the merger “will” happen.
With today’s release of Ian Sinclair’s pro-merger report, it is clear the two city councils could easily have become one if the state governments had taken Mr Sinclair’s advice and that of the state bureaucrats involved.
By now we would have had a single city of 85,000 people, able to speak as one voice to secure government funding, running a whole range of services under one umbrella, saving millions by cutting duplication and ending “appalling waste” — Mr Sinclair’s words.
It was a missed opportunity with the consequences still with us.
Sadly the two councils co-operate even less now than in 2002, having abandoned the cross-border library service and joint economic promotion and, more recently, tourism promotion.
When former Albury mayor Stuart Baker suggested Albury-Wodonga should get a single indoor aquatic centre built jointly by the two councils, he was laughed at.
Yet Albury Wodonga Health, for all its problems, is a shining example of what can be achieved by working as one combined service.
And on a rare occasion when the Border spoke as one voice, it achieved a $70 million regional integrated cancer centre that had first been refused when federal bureaucrats only took advice from state-focused advisers.
Headspace was another thing won by the “one voice” strategy.
Mr Sinclair conceded Mr Carr and Mr Bracks didn’t make a wise move in “announcing” the merger in March 2001 and then opening it up for debate, as some people suspected it was all a ploy to cut state services to the Border.
Being an old ministerial warhorse used to making massive decisions, Mr Sinclair himself advised firmly against holding a referendum.
It was Mr Bracks who finally agreed the people should have a say (11,000 had actually petitioned for a poll and how could he ignore that?) but then took it no further.
In 2010, when The Border Mail asked Mr Carr if the idea should be revived, he replied it was up to locals to do anything about it if they wished.
If there’s any value in releasing the Sinclair report, it’s that it contains all the arguments for a merger and shows how it could be done.
But Mr Carr is right when he says the impetus must come from the locals.