I attended the Council meeting on 17 June and spoke to my petition regarding the ‘Roadmap to Zero’ road safety strategy and left genuinely underwhelmed, frustrated and disappointed by both the process and the outcome.

Nearly 600 residents supported a petition simply requesting that the strategy be delayed until more detailed information could be provided and genuine consultation undertaken. Despite this significant community concern, four councillors voted against delaying the strategy beyond the rescheduled date of 5 August (Council was expected to vote on the motion on 17 June). I find that deeply disappointing and difficult to reconcile with Council’s stated commitment to community engagement.

What was particularly concerning throughout the meeting was the inability of Council staff to answer straightforward questions from residents. Time and again, questions were met with vague responses, deferrals or no answers at all. Residents attended seeking evidence, facts and clarity. Instead, many left with more questions than answers.

One example was the discussion regarding the 104-year-old resident birthday . Rather than showing empathy and acknowledging the milestone in a meaningful way, Council staff appeared unable to offer any practical response. A simple commitment to contact the resident directly, send a card, flowers, or otherwise acknowledge their circumstances would have demonstrated that Council values its oldest residents. Instead, the response felt bureaucratic and detached.

I was equally surprised that Council staff did not appear to know that both Coles and Woolworths operate dedicated trolley collection services and will generally retrieve abandoned trolleys within 24 hours of a report being made. These are practical, everyday solutions that many residents are aware of, yet Council officers discussing local amenity issues seemed unfamiliar with them.

These examples may appear small, but they contribute to a broader concern that Council staff were not adequately prepared to answer questions from the community on matters that directly affect residents.

I also found parts of the debate frustratingly disconnected from the concerns being raised by residents. One councillor spent considerable time discussing her personal concerns regarding her child’s safety. While every parent wants their child to be safe, I did not attend the meeting to hear personal anecdotes. I attended to hear evidence, data, analysis and practical responses to the concerns raised by hundreds of residents. Road safety planning should be based on objective evidence and community-wide outcomes, not individual experiences.

Similarly, another speaker spent several minutes discussing what other councils are doing. With respect, residents are concerned about Port Phillip. References to other municipalities did nothing to address the legitimate questions being raised about this strategy and its potential impact on our community.

The overall impression left by the meeting was that the outcome had been decided long before residents entered the chamber. The process felt contrived rather than consultative.

I want to be very clear: I will not stop opposing the Roadmap to Zero in its current form. The meeting strengthened rather than alleviated my concerns about transparency, consultation and accountability. I will continue engaging with residents, businesses and community groups and will continue advocating for greater scrutiny of this strategy and the decisions that flow from it.

Nearly 600 residents took the time to support the petition. They deserve more than a token consultation process. They deserve clear answers, meaningful engagement and a Council willing to genuinely listen before making decisions that will affect the entire municipality.