As a local GP who has served the Deniliquin community since 2001, I feel compelled to speak out about the Edward River Council’s decision to terminate the lease of the Ochre Health clinic. This is my first public comment, made only after exhausting attempts to address my grave concerns through private, professional channels. I have spent decades caring for this town, yet when the council made a decision that directly impacts the healthcare of 4,000 patients, they did not reach out to me—or any of the other practitioners—once. Not before, not during, and not after.
My attempts to discuss this matter with the Mayor and the CEO have been met with silence and, eventually, open dismissal. When I requested a meeting to gain clarity on the future of our local health services, the CEO informed me that they saw no value in speaking with me. To be told by local government that there is no value in consulting a physician with 25 years of experience in the community is deeply offensive. It highlights a recurring theme: the council seems to view our medical staff not as independent professionals and valued community members, but as property to be moved or discarded at their convenience.
The central issue here is a profound lack of transparency and due diligence. For years, the council has harbored private grievances regarding Ochre Health’s operations behind closed doors, yet they never once asked the doctors actually delivering the care for their professional insight. When the lease was abruptly terminated a year early via an in-camera vote, the public and the staff were kept entirely in the dark. How can a council justify such a radical move without having a replacement provider secured or an Expression of Interest process ready? They have effectively gambled with the town’s health services without a safety net, ignoring the potential fallout for the hospital and our patients.
Furthermore, the council has felt emboldened to spread misleading information to justify their decision, casting aspersions on our work ethics and financial motives. They have falsely painted a picture of a practice driven by greed, claiming we prioritize 15-minute consultations and profit above patient care. As an independent contractor, I can tell you that no one dictates my appointment lengths or my financial targets. Moreover, with 85% of our patients being bulk-billed, the narrative that we are purely money-driven is a baseless smear. It is a disingenuous attempt to distract the public from the council’s own governance failures.
I have spent my career witnessing the realities of rural medicine, and I can confirm that the council’s assertions—ranging from claims of understaffing to accusations of frequent clinic closures—are factually incorrect. We have steadily added new doctors to the practice, maintained access through telehealth, and operated with a dedication to this town that the council has failed to reciprocate. By creating this chaotic environment, the council has not only disrupted patient care but has also unfairly tarnished the reputations of the hardworking doctors, nurses, and staff who have been the backbone of this clinic for years.
Ultimately, this is a matter of basic accountability. I am not suggesting that the council should avoid change, but they must be realistic about the challenges of rural healthcare. Their decision-making process feels remarkably detached from the reality of running a medical practice. I, along with my colleagues, will continue to put our patients first because that is our duty, but the community deserves better from their elected representatives. Transparency, due diligence, and respectful consultation are not optional extras in local government—they are the minimum requirement for the stewardship of our town’s wellbeing.