‘Trial Under Fire’: Community Rejects Truganina-Only Security Plan

Wyndham City Council’s proposed Truganina Security Patrol Trial has drawn significant criticism from residents and former councillors, as concerns mount over transparency, fairness, and whether the initiative aligns with the Council’s core responsibilities.

F​ormer mayor Kim McAliney condemned the proposal as a “dangerous and dreadful precedent,” warning that the Council risks stepping beyond its remit by funding private security for one suburb using ratepayer money.

The backlash is supported by the Council’s own figures, which show that of all budget-related community responses, more than 42% opposed the trial entirely, while a further 23% only supported it if expanded or restructured. That means nearly two-thirds of submissions did not support the trial in its current form.

Fairness, Equity and Process Under Scrutiny

What has further angered residents is that the proposal is embedded within the broader 2025/26 draft budget, which is being presented for adoption as a single package. This approach has been criticised for reducing public influence over specific projects, especially controversial ones like the Truganina patrol.

Several residents questioned whether bundling every major initiative into one vote was an intentional move to limit scrutiny. “Why are we being forced to accept or reject the whole budget when it’s clear this patrol trial is not supported by the majority?” one Werribee resident asked.

While more than 1,200 submissions were made specifically about the draft budget, Council received a total of 4,797 pieces of feedback from 2,830 individuals across all exhibited plans. Critics argue that despite this large engagement, the structure of the bundled vote dilutes the community’s ability to oppose individual proposals like the patrol trial.

Residents Already Fund Their Own Patrols

The fairness issue becomes more stark when compared to other estates across Wyndham. Areas such as Jubilee, Mambourin, Hartland, and The Grove already privately fund their own security patrols through body corporate or residents’ associations. Many locals argue that the same principle should apply in Truganina.

“If residents in other estates are paying for their own patrols, why should public rates fund it just for Truganina?” one submission reads.

There’s also debate over whether the Council is intervening in a State Government responsibility. Community safety, critics argue, is the domain of police and state policy—not something to be patched with ratepayer-funded private patrols.

Council Acknowledges Risks

Even Council officers acknowledge the limitations of the initiative. The budget documents admit that “perceptions of safety vary by individual”, and that a 30-hour-per-week patrol across a limited area may not deliver uniform results. The trial is expected to run for 12 months but lacks a clear evaluation framework for measuring outcomes beyond perceptions.

The budget paper even notes the danger of setting “precedent expectations” and the challenge of rolling out a similar service in other suburbs. Despite this, the trial is set to move forward unless councillors reverse course at the upcoming vote.

Final Vote Looms on 24 June

The entire draft budget and strategic plan package—including the security patrol trial—is due to be presented for a vote at the Wyndham City Council meeting on 24 June 2025. Under the current format, councillors will vote on the entire bundle of plans in a single motion, with no individual items separated for amendment

Unless changes are made, the trial may proceed despite majority opposition, setting what some have described as a dangerous benchmark for how council resources are allocated and community feedback is handled.