Despite the 18 March Casey Council meeting being held online, more than 100 hundred people still attended the outside plaza at Bunjil Place, demanding that their voices be heard.
It was a silent and calm protest, with people speaking to one another, sharing their frustrations and expressing them to the centre’s security.
There was no erratic behaviour, no shouting, and a different atmosphere to the previous meeting, as the gathering was filled with mutual understanding and a joint dedication to express their distaste with the council.
Victoria Police were also present, where at the beginning, six officers were evenly spaced out, half monitoring the crowd, and the others on the opposite side monitoring from a distance.
The City of Casey’s mayor, Stefan Koomen, reiterated during the meeting it was decided to be held online through the advice of VicPol, a decision that was not made lightly adding that “we want to host our council meetings in person”.
“The key message was that it was a public meeting, it was open for residents to view online.
“Unfortunately we weren’t able to have a gallery, but we were able to conduct our business.
“I hope the residents can say that we’ve made significant decisions and we have addressed someone the long-standing concerns that people have had on historical issues before we were elected,” he said.
Koomen added that the council remains steadfast in working towards establishing themselves as a transparent and accountable body, taking into account the lack of representation over the last five years.
“I think it’s all about the actions that we’re taking and we hope the residents see and understand that we’re working in their best interests to make these decisions.
“If we didn’t have the meeting online, and it wasn’t able to go through because of disruptions, then we wouldn’t have been able to make the motions that we did,” he said.
Significant strides were made during the first actions of the meeting, with a comprehensive review underway for local laws, and other factors surrounding it.
There were also motions moved regarding infrastructure and funding, specifically relevant to the Growing Suburbs Fund and GAIC, and six local projects.
Details around capital works delays were also shared, where $24 million of works were delayed for the first half of the financial year.
Back at Bunjil, the expression of frustration to the security was met with a level of understanding, where a middle ground was met when one guard remarked that they “are not the people’s enemy”.
Other major media outlets were present, with 9News and 7News cameramen and journalists directed by facility staff to film outside the premises, as it was considered private property and permits were needed.
The Star News journalist who attended the protest was told the same.
Jai, the Hampton Park resident whose online post went viral after his mum found council officers removing his project car from their premises was also in attendance.
Speaking on the March meeting being online, he said he felt “angry, very angry”.
“Considering we were here during the last meeting and nothing was answered or resolved, we’re very angry that we’re not able to be there in person.
“So this is why we’re here today, to make sure our voices are heard,” he said.
Casey Council previously told Star News that no vehicles were removed from the Hampton Park property and that officers did not enter the premises.
According to Jai however, three cars, including his, were removed from their premises, and in order to do so, one would need to enter it.
The family claimed then that the three unregistered vehicles were towed away on the day without notice.
It was revealed, however, that the family first heard from the council in October 2024 regarding unregistered vehicles in their backyard, as well as shipping containers; to which the family said they moved the cars right away.
According to a statement provided by Casey Council, the family was storing their unregistered vehicles on the neighbouring property.
After three months of unfruitful communication, the council sent out a formal notice that provided details of the vehicles that were impounded and how they could be released.
Nevertheless, Jai felt that the family had been swept under the rug, with father-in-law, Geoff, adding that he is “concerned” with the online meeting.
“It shows a complete lack of character, you’re supposed to support the people, and the people have questions and you’ve just locked up the doors and you’ve got police everywhere,” he said.
Minutes before 6pm, three additional police officers arrived, and by around 6.15pm, there were a total of 11 police officers.
The protest remained quiet, serving more of a stand-in to cause public disturbance and spread awareness of their concerns, as compared to a replication of the February meeting’s development.
Geoff added that for the April meeting, he would “like to be there in person”, a sentiment which he was sure others resonated with.
“I’d like the councillors to actually listen and answer the questions properly rather than beating around the bush.
“We’d like questions to be answered, we’d like these issues (local law) to be resolved, and we’d like to be heard,” he said.
Geoff’s sentiments were widespread, with many hoping to see an in-person meeting, one that allows residents to speak their minds, in April.
