More than 800 locals sign petition to cut off Joondalup councillors’ alcohol

Joondalup councillors will consider the contents of their liquor cabinet at next week’s meeting at the behest of disgruntled locals who don’t believe they should pick up the $1000 tab.

However, according to Mayor Daniel Kingston, more than half the elected members don’t even drink in the elected members lounge, where residents want the booze banned from.

A list of drinks provided in the minutes from the May 26 ordinary council meeting shows the contents of the bar is not full of top-shelf tipples.

And none of them, other than a bottle of Sherry, has been purchased since 2024.

At the council’s agenda briefing session on Tuesday night, it was revealed that approximately $1000 is spent on alcohol and refreshments per year.

But locals were adamant that booze paid for by ratepayers should not be offered to councillors in the elected members lounge at any time.

“Ratepayers asked me to put the petition together. I drafted one. We received over 900 signatures in literally eight days, no effort, on social media, no door knocking, none of those things that I would normally do,” resident Suzanne Apps said.

“The clear message from ratepayers is that they do not want to subsidise alcohol, including the wine, the beer, and the top-shelf spirits in the councillors’ private lounge after meetings and after briefing sessions.

“On the argument around just how much it costs, they don’t want it to continue at any price.”

The petition, which closed on Monday, called on the council to “vote to end ratepayer-funded alcohol consumption in the elected members’ lounge outside of formal functions and events.”

Fellow local Faye Gilbert told council members the community “cannot believe” they are still debating self-service alcohol in the councillors lounge, a year after it was initially brought up.

She said that councillors should be able to work in an “alcohol-free environment”.

“Your own policy says alcohol must not be consumed while undertaking the role, if that rule is being followed, then this alcohol serves no official purpose. It is simply for personal enjoyment,” Gilbert said.

“Using public funds to supply alcohol in this way is outdated and inappropriate. I have worked with state government boards responsible for multi-million dollar portfolios, they operate effectively without alcohol, just tea, coffee, juice and water, and they do fine.

“They couldn’t justify spending public money on a luxury like alcohol. End this culture of entitlement and focus on the job you are elected to do.”

An alcohol holdings stocktake was undertaken on April 1 in relation to spiri