Rates Pay Officers to Watch Dogs Poo

Wyndham City Council has once again demonstrated that no issue is too small to receive a full and proper airing, especially when it involves dog poo.

The item before councillors was simple enough: receive and note a report outlining how Council manages dog waste in public spaces.

The report detailed 1,320 public waste bins across Wyndham, 36 dog bag dispensers at 29 sites, education campaigns, compliance measures and 35 complaints received since April 2025.

Cr Jasmine Hill proposed an amendment asking officers to review existing bin placement against complaint trends and high-use walking corridors within existing resources.

The amendment did not call for new funding or additional infrastructure; it simply asked that officers assess whether bins are positioned where they are most needed.

That was enough to spark a lively debate.

Mayor Josh Gilligan stepped in to ensure one particular detail was firmly etched into the minutes.

“Council officer time for a period of five business days was sent out to count the total number of times a dog defecated at a Point Cook Park.

“Like, we need to get with reality about whether that is appropriate use of ratepayers’ funds, whether or not it’s an existing resource where feasible.”

The trial in question had tested whether additional bag dispensers changed behaviour. According to officers, they did not produce any observable improvement.

Cr Jennie Barrera summed up the fatigue in the room, saying, “We’ve put a lot of time and effort into talking about dog poo.”

While the debate in the chamber ran for around 25 minutes, councillors acknowledged that the issue had already been the subject of multiple briefings in recent months, giving the topic far more airtime than most would have predicted when they first ran for office.

Statistics were dissected, including the 35 complaints and five submissions during community engagement.

Some councillors argued that those figures suggested the issue was relatively minor, while others maintained that high-traffic walking corridors and visible amenity concerns justified a practical review.

At one point, Cr Robert Szatkowski sharpened the tone by stating, “I think there’s a lot of people in this room who do a lot of talking, not a lot of reading,” prompting a point of order and adding procedural spice to an already detailed discussion.

Supporters of the amendment described it as a modest, data-driven refinement that respected budget constraints.

Opponents insisted that responsible pet ownership, rather than bin placement, was the real solution.

After discussion that ranged from behavioural change campaigns to ratepayer value, councillors voted and the amendment passed 6–5.

Gender-neutral dog bathrooms have not been ruled out of future discussions.