28/06/2026
It's Sunday and I've had a few days to decompress after what was a very long Tuesday night. I know most people have better things to do than watch six hours of council proceedings, so here's my honest account of what happened and where I stood.
Full warning this is a long one.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁.
The big item on Tuesday was the 2026-27 budget, which passed with a 6.5% rate increase. I want to flag something for residents. For some households that figure will feel higher than 6.5%. This year is also a Gross Rental Value revaluation year, which means if your property's GRV has increased, your actual bill may have gone up by more than the headline number suggests. The City's own website acknowledges this, noting that "individual outcomes vary." It is worth checking your notice when it arrives.
I voted against the budget. My preference was for a gentler increase spread over a number of years to ease pressure on households during a genuinely difficult cost of living period. I want to be clear though. Council has taken the recommendation of the City to turn around its operating deficit more quickly, reducing it from $13.1 million toward a more sustainable position. That is a legitimate financial objective and I respect that Council has chosen to pursue it at this pace. My difference was one of approach, not of principle.
The budget debate did highlight some genuine wins for ratepayers over recent years, including savings achieved through my Notices of Motion that have returned money to the City year on year. That is exactly the kind of work I am here to do and I will keep doing it.
What I could not support were two specific cuts that I believe target our most vulnerable community members.
The funding for the Constable Care Foundation, which delivers youth safety and crime prevention education to young people in our community, has been cut. At a time when we are seeing real concern about youth disengagement and antisocial behaviour, I do not believe this is the right place to find savings. The young people who benefit from Constable Care are exactly the cohort we should be protecting.
Discovery Outbound, the City's excursions and outings program for over-50s, has also been cut. For many participants this is not a leisure activity. It is a lifeline for social connection, particularly for those who are isolated. Cutting it in a cost of living year, when loneliness and social isolation are already rising, troubles me deeply.
Both cuts are now in the passed budget. I put my concerns on the record and I will continue to advocate for these groups.
𝗔 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗶𝗻 — 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge something genuinely positive from this budget cycle.
Earlier this year the City proposed cutting evening opening hours at the Duncraig, Whitford and Woodvale library branches. The community responded loudly, clearly, and constructively. Susan North and George Cowcher led a petition that gathered over 600 signatures from residents who rely on those hours and wanted Council to know it.
I advocated strongly for the hours to be retained and for the City to find the equivalent savings within the library service rather than at the frontline. The CEO committed to exactly that. The evening hours are retained.
This outcome happened because of two things working together, a community that spoke up, and an administration that proactively listened. That combination is what good local government looks like. Thank you to Susan, George, and every resident who signed that petition. You made a difference.
𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.
I lodged this Notice of Motion almost a month before the meeting. I would have welcomed the opportunity to work collaboratively with any colleague who had concerns about my motion before the meeting. That conversation did not happen and my door remains open.
The question I was asking is a simple one. When ratepayers fund an $8,000 professional development course, should they be able to see in black and white that it was completed, not just attended? The AICD Company Directors Course awards two very different credentials. A Certificate of Attendance for those who don't complete the assessments. And the Graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the GAICD post-nominal, for those who do. A reasonable ratepayer funding an $8,000 course I believe would expect the higher credential. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.
Another Councillor moved an alternate motion that was debated and passed earlier in the night. I voted against it because I believed my original motion provided stronger and clearer accountability. My motion has been referred to Policy Committee and I look forward to making the case there with the City's own data.
𝗠𝗮𝘆𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘃𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲.
Some of what has been written about this motion this week has not been accurate, so let me be clear.
My motion did not propose removing the current Mayor's vehicle. It applied from the next Mayoral term beginning in October 2029. The sitting Mayor's entitlement was completely untouched.
One of my concerns was about the initial capital outlay, something that received very little attention in the debate. In December 2025 the City spent $48,999.65 of ratepayer money purchasing a vehicle to provide this entitlement. Under a mileage reimbursement model, the same model every other Elected Member already uses, and which the City of Vincent already applies to their Mayor, that capital expenditure simply doesn't happen.
I want to put this in real world terms. I am a registered nurse. I earn considerably less than a substantial Mayoral allowance. I cannot claim mileage. I am not provided with a car. I do not expect to be. That is simply the reality of working, as it is for so many people in this community doing important and demanding work.
I consider myself a fairly reasonable gauge of what ratepayers expect. And I think most people doing it tough right now, paying a 6.5% rate increase, managing rising household costs, would expect the same level of scrutiny to be applied to elected member benefits as they apply to their own working lives. I don't think that's unreasonable. I think it's fair.
Council considered this and the majority were not persuaded. I respect that decision.
𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀' 𝗟𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗡𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀.
Two related items came before Council on Tuesday, ratepayer-funded alcohol in the Elected Members' Lounge, and the elected member networking dinners.
On the alcohol, my position has always been straightforward. I have no objection to alcohol being available after a long council meeting. My objection is to ratepayers funding it. Those are two different things and I want to be clear about that distinction. Council made its decision and I respect it.
On the dinners, I do not attend these dinners. I do not host them. I advocate for my community in a more personal and direct way, connecting people and groups, showing up, being available. That is how I prefer to work.
But I also have a responsibility to represent more than my own preferences. Community members who volunteer their time for this city, people who give generously of themselves to make Joondalup a better place, have reached out to me personally and told me that they have found those dinners genuinely beneficial for the work they do. I listened to them. My job is not simply to vote my own views. It is to represent the full range of community interests, including those I don't personally share.
I advocated for a reduced model and that is what passed. That is where Council landed and I respect that outcome.
Tuesday was a long and at times difficult meeting. The conversations about entitlements, transparency, and accountability matter, even when they are uncomfortable. Especially when they are uncomfortable. The library hours win showed what is possible when community speaks up and is genuinely heard. I will keep asking the hard questions and advocating for the residents of Central Ward, particularly those who are most vulnerable.
If you want to talk through any of this, please reach out. My door is genuinely open.
