Category: Community Advocacy and Governance

Are councils across New South Wales reclassifying community land by stealth?

Shoalhaven Council’s decision to reclassify land used by a homeless shelter, youth centre and disability services made me wonder whether this was an isolated decision. It is not. Across New South Wales, councils under financial pressure are reviewing the land they own, changing some properties from community land to operational land and creating the legal pathway for sale, redevelopment or longer commercial leases.

The language sounds administrative. Its effect can be substantial. Under the Local Government Act, council-owned land is generally classified as either community land or operational land. Community land has been set aside for public use. It can include parks, sporting grounds, natural areas and buildings used for community purposes. It must be managed under a plan of management and cannot simply be sold.

Operational land has far fewer restrictions. It can be leased commercially, redeveloped or sold. Reclassification does not automatically mean that a property will be sold, though it removes one of the major legal barriers preventing a sale.

That distinction became important in Shoalhaven this week. The council voted to proceed with the reclassification of several properties used by community organisations, including Safe Shelter Shoalhaven, Nowra Youth Centre, Noah’s Inclusion Services and Werninck Craft Cottage.

Safe Shelter Shoalhaven provides crisis accommodation for up to 12 people experiencing homelessness. The youth centre provides a place for young people. Noah’s Inclusion Services supports children with disabilities and their families. These are not vacant blocks tucked behind a council depot. People are using them.

The ABC reported that the organisations learned their properties were being considered only when the council report became public. The council’s chief executive apologised for the lack of consultation. Shoalhaven Council manages more than 3,100 parcels of land. About 1,700 are already classified as operational. Its property sales program includes isolated and underused land, land with strategic development potential and what it describes as underperforming community facilities. Council says community land must first be reclassified before it can be sold.

The question is not whether councils should ever sell land. Councils acquire properties for many reasons. Some become surplus. A small block may have no public access. A former depot may no longer be required. Selling genuinely unused land can release money for services or infrastructure the community values more.

The problem starts when council looks at a building and sees only the land beneath it. A homeless shelter occupies a valuable site. A youth centre brings in little income. A disability service fails the spreadsheet test. The market calls that underperformance. The people who rely on those places may call it the difference between being supported and being abandoned.

Central Coast Council offers one of the clearest examples of how financial crisis can turn public land into a source of emergency cash. After the council’s financial collapse in 2020, administrators began an extensive asset sales program. Properties were divided into those already classified as operational land and those requiring reclassification before sale.

Council reports openly stated that some community land would be reclassified and sold for no less than market value.

The council knew the process could take up to 18 months, with public exhibition and formal planning approvals along the way. This was not a debate about the future of public land. It was a plan to raise cash.

Kiama followed a different path with Blue Haven Bonaira. The land contained a modern aged-care and retirement complex completed in 2019. It had become community land by default because the council failed to classify it as operational within the required period after acquiring it.

The Blue Haven Bonaira case shows why every reclassification deserves to be judged on its own facts. This was not a neighbourhood hall or a sporting field. It was an aged-care facility built with substantial public investment that also included the heritage-listed Barroul House. The project later became central to Kiama Council’s financial crisis after the Auditor-General found construction costs had been underestimated by around $30 million. Council argued the land had become community land through an administrative oversight and that reclassification corrected its legal status. Community submissions took a different view, arguing that the public investment and heritage value strengthened the case for keeping the land protected. Whatever position people took, reclassification was the legal step that made the eventual sale possible.

Sutherland Shire Council offers another scenario. When it proposed reclassifying land at North Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club, community consultation led to a narrower approach. Only the part of the site containing commercial tenancies was reclassified, while the rest remained community land. Instead of treating the whole property as a single financial asset, the council separated the income-producing area from the part used for community purposes.

Sutherland Shire Council showed that reclassification does not have to be an all-or-nothing decision. After consultation, it reclassified only the commercial section of the North Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club site and kept the rest as community land. That is the broader lesson. Councils can separate the parts of a property that generate income from the parts that serve the public. Reclassification should not become a blunt instrument for turning an entire community asset into something easier to sell.

Shoalhaven’s decision is not just about one council or one group of community organisations. It raises a broader question about how councils plan for the future.

Kiama’s experience is a reminder of what can happen when long-term asset management falls behind. After selling Blue Haven Bonaira to deal with one financial crisis, the council is now facing more than $50 million in identified upgrades at its remaining aged-care facilities, including major fire safety works.

Every council faces ageing infrastructure and rising costs. Community assets will sometimes need to be sold. The question is whether those decisions are part of a long-term strategy or whether they are being made one property at a time as the next financial pressure arrives.

Communities deserve that conversation before their local hall, youth centre, homeless shelter or disability service appears on a list. Once it does, planning has already failed and the community is left fighting to save what council should have planned to protect.

This article is part of a series examining the decisions that shape our communities long before most people hear about them. I am following the stories behind local government decisions to better understand how public assets are managed, how communities are involved and what those decisions mean for future generations. See my first blog in the series here 

The question Shoalhaven has every NSW community asking

Shoalhaven Council has voted to reclassify a group of council properties from community land to operational land, opening the way for them to be sold. Some of those buildings are used by a homeless shelter, a youth centre and disability services. The organisations affected reportedly learned their buildings were on the list only when the council report became public. I have spent years arguing that governments should speak to the people affected before making decisions. So my first question was simple. How does that happen?

If a homeless shelter, a youth service or a disability organisation is using a council building every day, how do they not get a phone call saying, “We’re under enormous financial pressure and we’re looking at every option. We need to talk.”

Maybe there is an explanation. I want to hear it. Yes a number of Councils are under enormous financial pressure. They are expected to deliver more services, maintain more assets and somehow make the numbers add up. I don’t envy them.

What I do struggle with is a decision-making process that appears to leave the people most affected reading about their future in a council agenda. That isn’t how trust is built.

My community  has seen this in action. People in Kiama have already watched community land become operational land before it was sold. We know these decisions divide communities because we’ve lived through one ourselves.

That made me wonder whether Shoalhaven is an isolated case, or whether we’re seeing the beginning of a much bigger trend across New South Wales. That’s what I’m going to find out.

This is the first of three articles. The next one looks at other councils that have reclassified community land and asks whether a precedent is emerging.

The third asks the question sitting underneath all of this. Why are councils reaching this point in the first place?

This article is part of a series examining the decisions that shape our communities long before most people hear about them. I am following the stories behind local government decisions to better understand how public assets are managed, how communities are involved and what those decisions mean for future generations. See my second blog in the series here 

Governments created the trust crisis feeding far right politics

Governments have worn people down by asking for their views and ignoring what they hear.

Kiama Council’s draft engagement strategy shows how the pattern works. It uses the language of participation, then says the community will rarely be given influence because councillors make the final decisions.

That is democracy reduced to voting day.

In a true democracy councillors can make a community informed final decision after they have helped the community define the question, examine the evidence and develop the options. Instead, residents are too often invited in after the answer has already been decided..

I have watched this model play out in consultation after consultation. Residents read the documents, give up their time, write detailed submissions backed by evidence and explain how a proposal will affect their lives and their community.

Council thanks them for participating, then adopts a policy that looks almost exactly as it did before the process began.

All we were offered was an opportunity to comment on someone else’s answer.

We elect people to represent us. They set priorities, approve policies, question advice and vote on decisions. They also choose what kind of relationship they have with the community.

You cannot represent people unless you are prepared to have conversations with them.

A conversation begins early. Elected representatives explain the problem, share the evidence, listen to the people affected, test assumptions and ask questions. They explain the competing pressures, show what changed because people participated and give clear reasons for the decision they make.

When that relationship breaks down, the damage spreads beyond council chambers.

People who lose trust in those they elected become more willing to listen to someone promising to sweep the whole system aside.

Their hero on the white horse. Someone who says the institutions have failed, the usual rules are useless and only they have the strength or courage to act. They offer simple answers to complex problems, blame a clear enemy and ask people to trust the person rather than the process.

Calling voters ignorant is easier than admitting elected representatives stopped listening. Blaming social media is easier than examining years of predetermined decisions, staged consultation and carefully controlled public meetings.

People turn towards political extremes because they are desperate to feel represented by someone.

Elected representatives have helped create the conditions in which far right groups grow. They cannot dismiss that rise as a failure of intelligence or judgement among voters.

This is also where government loses one of its most useful sources of information. A trusted consultation process allows elected representatives to read the room, hear what people are experiencing, test whether a proposal will achieve its purpose and adjust before damage is done.

Kiama Council’s Draft Community Engagement Strategy 2026 to 2030 adopts the International Association for Public Participation spectrum. It lists co-design, working groups, deliberative forums, consensus conferences and citizens’ juries.

Then it says the empower level will rarely be used because councillors make the final decisions. What do you make of that?

The methods are listed. The strategy does not say when council will use them. Without clear triggers, councillors can continue accepting another survey, another exhibition and another invitation to comment on a proposal already framed by staff.

In my submission, I asked council to identify which decisions will involve collaboration, co-design or deliberative participation.

I asked council to begin those processes early enough for the community to help define the problem.

I asked council to publish the engagement level chosen for each major project and explain why, set clear triggers for citizens’ juries, deliberative forums, working groups and co-design, and report what changed because people participated.

Kiama also has access to expertise through Twyfords, based in this region. Vivien Twyford and her colleagues helped establish the Australasian chapter of the International Association for Public Participation and build the use of the IAP2 model in Australia.

Twyfords helps organisations and communities explore an issue together, understand competing pressures and define the dilemma before developing responses. That experience addresses the gap in the draft strategy.

Council has named the methods. Twyfords understands when to use them, how early the process should begin and how to design engagement that earns trust.

The organisation also knows Kiama, its history, relationships, tensions and different communities of place.

The draft uses the language around consultation while leaving the existing decision-making model intact.

Elected people created this trust crisis.

They can fix it by returning democracy to what it is meant to be, people governing together through representatives who listen, explain, involve and remain accountable for the decisions they make

The secret is out, our Hidden Treasures are hidden no more

Every hour of every day, around 150,000 people across NSW are volunteering. If NSW volunteers were a company, they would be larger than the Commonwealth Bank. Right now, someone is driving a neighbour to chemotherapy, coaching a child, running a stall, checking on an older person, caring for an animal or setting up chairs in a hall.

On Thursday 23 July, the Kiama Pavilion filled with people determined to make that invisible work visible. The Inaugural Kiama Electorate Recognition Awards, hosted by the Member for Kiama, Katelin McInerney MP, celebrated the local women named on the NSW Government’s Hidden Treasures Honour Roll 2025, an initiative of the Rural Women’s Network that has honoured more than 1,300 women and girls volunteering across regional, rural and remote NSW since 2010.

“These are the women who show up week after week, year after year, and who rarely seek the limelight,” Ms McInerney said. “They would prefer we not make a fuss about them. With this event, we are totally ignoring that.”

The women honoured show that volunteering looks different in every pair of hands.

It looks like Ebony Wilson of Jamberoo, whose first steps into volunteering were inspired by cows, helping young people see a future in agriculture through the Young Dairy Network and speaking openly about resilience and mental health in farming.

It looks like Dr Christa Wood of Gerringong, who co-founded Dementia Inclusive Dancing so people living with dementia can experience movement, music, joy and company.

It looks like Annette Young of Kiama, with more than fifty years of service to the Kiama Show Society, tennis, Meals on Wheels, her church and community organisations. Fifty years of seeing what needs doing and doing it.

It looks like Kate Whitworth of Jamberoo and Maree Shepherd of Kiama Downs, creating places where people find their voice through music, from the Flame Tree Project’s opportunities for hundreds of young people to the confidence and friendship of Sing Australia.

It looks like Jenny Ferguson of Kiama, leading a dementia-inclusive choir where singing becomes memory, movement, laughter and the feeling of still being part of something.

It looks like Karen Renkema Lang of Kiama, creating room for local voices through environmental protection, civic participation and Kiama Community Radio.

It looks like Esther Keenan of Kiama Downs, building a longer table. Through The Everyday Table, people find affordable pantry items, a shared meal and a place where everyone is welcome.

It looks like Rosemary Aldred of Kangaroo Valley, raising guide and therapy dogs and then helping other puppy-raisers do the same.

It looks like Sabrina Kelly of Kiama, creating a social club where neurodivergent teenagers feel accepted and understood, while leading a P&C and fundraising for the surf club.

It looks like Jessy Wiggins of Shoalhaven Heads, giving week after week to Girl Guides since 2013 so young girls can make friends, learn skills and test their courage.

And it looks like Nicole O’Brien of Kiama, running the sports club barbecue before heading off to champion local farmers, producers and small businesses at the next market.

Musical Director Antoinette Raynal, herself recognised as a Hidden Treasure in 2024, led the Katandra Women’s A Cappella Choir in a beautiful performance. Katandra brings women together through music, friendship and shared purpose, while also supporting local women’s initiatives through the proceeds of its performances.

The ceremony paid special tribute to the late Lorraine Ettingshausen, recognised posthumously.

Lorraine helped establish the Voluntary Home Nursing Service and gave decades to Camp Quality, supporting children with cancer and their families from the charity’s local beginnings until her retirement. She organised camps, trained volunteers, sat beside frightened parents and stayed with families as children were dying. She gave fifty-six eulogies, fifty of them for children. When poor health forced her retirement, three hundred people came to say goodbye. A year later she became a Volunteer in Policing and served another ten years.

Her granddaughter said it best: “She didn’t just fill her own life. She filled ours.”

The event also marked the first presentation of the Electorate Community Service Award, presented to the Sunday Community Group, founded by a group of Foxground-based women, in recognition of their dedication to supporting those doing it tough in our own community.

“Establishing this award means we now have a permanent way to say thank you to the groups, not just the individuals, who hold our community together,” Ms McInerney said.

People join to give. Along the way, they receive things they never expected: skills they never set out to learn, mentors, friendships and places where they belong. Every one of the women honoured has made her community stronger, warmer and more able to care for its own.

Think about the women and girls in your own community groups who give their time, energy and care without seeking recognition. Nominate one of them for the next Hidden Treasures Honour Roll at hiddentreasures.awardsplatform.com. Nominations close 31 December. The form takes ten minutes. The hardest part is choosing just one name.

 

 

Did you expect more courage from Labor?

I did not vote Labor, but I had hopes for them.

Clear-eyed hopes. By their second term, Labor knew exactly what government demands. They knew the difference between a promise made in opposition and a decision made with power in their hands.

I still hoped they might mean it when they talked about ending the culture of secrecy and doing politics differently.

The Coalition earned the loss in 2022. Labor had since earned a second term. That gave them more than a mandate. It gave them a test of character.

Like every voter who is not rusted on, I was waiting for Labor to show me they had the courage to do the right thing when it cost them something.

Last week, the gambling advertising bill went into parliament.

And there was the answer.

The reforms offer a partial ban. Three ads an hour on daytime and evening television. A block during live sport between 6 am and 8.30 pm. Some limits on radio during the school run. Racing carved out. A start date of 1 January 2027, more than a thousand days after the government received the report that told it what needed to happen.

A report Labor commissioned.

You win some, you lose more, chaired by the late Peta Murphy, one of their own, made 31 recommendations and called clearly for a total ban, phased in over three years.

The government’s own advice says partial bans fail. They had the evidence in their hands. They had the case for full reform written for them. They had the moral argument laid out in plain sight.

And they chose the smaller path.

Anthony Albanese then defended the bill by saying it exceeds the Murphy recommendations.

It does nothing of the sort.

A government proud of its decision does not need a cover story.

The cover story is the admission.

Labor knows exactly how this looks. They know the gap between the evidence and the bill. They know the gap between the promise and the decision. They know the gap between what children and families need, and what the gambling industry can live with.

And they went ahead.

This is calculation dressed up as principle.

It would almost be easier if this were a simple grubby deal, a cheque here and a favour there. This is deeper than that. The dependency is built into the system.

The football codes run on gambling money. Commercial television runs on gambling advertising. A real ban would tear a hole in professional sport and free-to-air media at the same time.

Those are two rooms a government wants on side before an election.

That is the power this bill exposes. The easy reform, the popular reform, the evidence-backed reform, is the reform they stepped around because too many powerful interests had arranged themselves around the harm.

My disappointment sends me nowhere near One Nation. Anger that only wants to break things has no appeal to me. I have no interest in the politics of the wrecking ball.

But it will make me think very carefully about who gets my vote at the federal election.

The disappointment is larger than one bill.

Labor promised to be something different. They promised to be the party that had learned from the secrecy, arrogance and cynicism of the last government. They promised a different standard.

What this bill says to me is that the different standard applies when the cost is low.

Almost nothing worth doing comes without cost.

That is why this is more than a policy failure. It is a character question.

Character is revealed when the evidence is clear, when the harm is obvious, when the powerful rooms push back, and when a government has to decide whether it means what it said.

On gambling advertising, Labor has answered.

And yes other countries have had the courage

Italy banned gambling advertising outright in 2019. Belgium followed in 2023. Lithuania has gone further again. They have shown us what Labor could have/should have done.

The three ads an hour Labor is presenting as reform is the same number Lithuania allows only as a temporary step on the way to a full ban.

Lithuania also set aside four million euros to help broadcasters absorb the lost revenue.

None of those countries faced a softer lobby than ours. The sport and media money in Europe is bigger, not smaller.

They legislated anyway. Other countries had already shown the way. The evidence was there. The reform was available.

What was missing here was the will to act.

Further reading.

Shoutout to my readers who have  the sharper point.

The dependency is no accident. It is the system.

The NRL is heading towards a broadcast deal worth more than $5 billion, the richest in Australian history. That money comes from wall-to-wall sport, sold to broadcasters and streamers in a market now soaked in gambling advertising.

When the codes, networks and streaming platforms all depend on the same river of revenue, a real gambling ad ban means taking on the business model of Australian sport and media at the same time.

This is the scale of what Labor stepped around.

Read the ABC article here 

And then there is the SMH piece, which turns disappointment into alarm.

The streaming carve-out means Labor’s bill does more than fall short of a ban. It loosens the rules that already exist. The current blackout on gambling ads during live sport, the five minutes either side, and the quarter and half-time breaks, will be lifted for streaming services, where more than half of us now watch.

In its place, a betting ad can run at every break, at any hour, and the burden of stopping it is handed to the viewer. Register, prove your age, find the setting, opt out.

When 12.9 million people are registered with SBS On Demand and 16,000 have opted out, about one in a thousand, you can see exactly who that design serves.

Communications Minister Anika Wells calls it a triple lock. It locks the family in and the ads on, unless the parent does the job the government avoided.

That is no loophole in the reform. It is the reform. And it is the clearest answer yet to the question of whose interests were in the room.

 

The Paddock That Grew Nothing

On why “save our farmland” is the wrong fight for the right reason.

Wollongong Railway Station, 1900. 

Take a good look at that old photo of the railway station. Timber and tin, a scatter of weatherboard cottages, and open paddock rolling away in every direction. Now go and stand where the photographer stood. There isn’t a vacant block for miles. Every one of those paddocks filled in, one approval at a time, and nobody felt the loss on the day it happened. That’s how it always goes. The green doesn’t vanish in a single bad decision. It goes in slices, each one too small to argue about, until one day you look up and the hills have a rash.

The same station, 1920. Twenty years on

And it didn’t stop in 1920. Local residents Lesley East and Annette Young and their now husbands still remember driving into Wollongong in the early 1960s to see Psycho at the Regent Theatre on Keira Street, then a grand Art Deco picture palace only a few years old. They parked in a paddock right near the cinema. A paddock, in the middle of town. Today Wollongong is a city of more than 200,000 people, the Regent has been a church since 2005, Crown Street is a pedestrian mall, and the idea of an open field to leave your car in near the main street sounds like a tall tale. But that’s the whole point. Every one of those paddocks was “just one block” once.

Nobody stood in it the day it was lost.

So I have a lot of sympathy for the worry behind Graham Pike’s comment on one of my Catch-Up posts. He was referring to a development application on Minnamurra Lane, Jamberoo, a house and a farm shed on a vacant block, the one Cr Lawton sensibly sent off for a second look and independent legal advice at the May Council meeting. Here’s part of what he said:

“We might not be using the vacant lands or the land in question for food production right now. but most of these lands have been used for farming within the past century or less and, most importantly, we’ll need them for food production again as the human population, even in our area, increases uncontrollably and unsustainably and the resulting suburbanisation sprawls across and fragments this same agricultural/food producing land. The zoning of the land as RU1 or RU2 is a human construct and immaterial. It is still land that we have used and will in future need to use, if any is left uncovered by concrete and asphalt, for food production.” Graham Pike, Jamberoo

I’ve turned that over for days, because there’s a lot in it I agree with. The slow creep of houses and sheds across those hills is real. I’ve watched it happen. And his bigger worry, that we keep paving over the very ground we’ll need to feed ourselves one day, is a serious one.

In a later note, Graham went further and put his finger on what he sees as the root of it all: too many people. Human overpopulation, driving an economy that chews through the natural world. It’s a heartfelt view and plenty of thoughtful people share it.

That’s too big for me to sort out. What I’d say is simpler: whatever any of us thinks about how many people there ought to be, they’re already here. They were born, they need a roof, and saying “there are too many of them” doesn’t put one over a single head. So my mind goes to the thing we can actually do something about, which isn’t the number of people, but where they’re going to live.

The thing is, all that green didn’t go in one big decision anyone could point to. It went in slices, a block here, a shed there, each one too small to worry over on the day. Nobody ever stood up and voted to lose it. It just happened while we weren’t looking.

So maybe the better thing isn’t to fight every single house, but to decide on purpose where the houses should go, instead of letting them turn up one at a time until the hills are full again and we’re left wondering how.

And there’s a part of these “save our farmland” conversations that almost never gets said out loud. Farming is a business. For most farmers, the land isn’t only where they work. It’s the biggest thing they own, the nest egg meant to see them through old age after a lifetime of hard years and thin margins.

So when we say a paddock must stay green forever, I think we should stop and hear what we’re really asking. We’re asking that farmer, and only that farmer, to lock away the worth of their own land so the rest of us can enjoy the view on the drive past. A person in town can sell their house for whatever it’ll fetch. The farmer gets told their paddock is a community treasure and they ought to keep it green for a fraction of what it’s worth. I’m not sure that’s protecting farming. It feels more like asking one family to foot the bill for everyone else’s nice outlook.

I’ve stood on that side of the fence. I dairy farmed for decades, and I know what it is to look at a paddock and see both a lifetime’s work and the only retirement you’ve got. So I find myself asking the question that doesn’t get asked much: is that fair?

And it’s a slippery word, fair. Everyone in this thinks they’re on its side. The people in town feel it’s only fair the hills stay green, they get the view and lose nothing. The farmer feels it’s only fair they get to realise the worth of the land they’ve worked their whole life, the same as anyone else can with what they own. Both are sincere. Both are “fair.” They just can’t both have their way.

And it tends to be the farmer’s fairness that gets left out, because the farmer’s usually not in the room when the rest of us decide their paddock is too precious to touch.

So where does that leave me? Not where you might think. I’m not saying build everywhere. And I’m not saying the green hills don’t count, they’re a good part of why people love this place, and why the visitors come. The slow spread of sheds and houses across those ridgelines is real, and worth watching very closely.

But if we want our farmers to keep the hills green for the rest of us, the least we can do is be honest that we’re asking them to give something up, and decent enough to talk about who carries that cost rather than pretending it’s free.

Lock the gate on a farmer’s land and we haven’t saved farming. We’ve decided their retirement is a fair price for our view.

Good on Cr Lawton for asking for a proper look before anyone signs anything. That’s the kind of careful, eyes-open thinking this deserves, on this block and the next one. The conversation I’d like us to have isn’t “green or houses.” It’s “if we want the green, who pays for it, and is that fair on them?”

I don’t have a tidy answer. I’m not sure there is one. But I think we owe the farmers at least the courtesy of asking.

A note on the photos: I came across these two images on Facebook, where they were dated 1900 and 1920 and identified as Wollongong Railway Station. I haven’t been able to independently verify the dates or the photographer, so if anyone can confirm the details or knows the original source, I’d love to hear from you, please get in touch.

Should Kiama Council Be the Developer?

Blue Haven Bonaira – Image source Archipro

Should Kiama Council build its own developments on its catalyst sites? The lessons of Blue Haven Bonaira and Blue Haven Terralong suggest not.

Yesterday I wrote about Kiama’s catalyst sites and what we could build if we got smart about the land council already owns. A thoughtful commenter, Graham, responded with a different idea. Don’t sell anything, don’t partner with developers, don’t do public/private anything. Instead, have council build the buildings itself, retain ownership of the land and the buildings, and lease the spaces out for long-term recurring income.

It’s a position you hear often in community conversations about council assets. Keep everything. Build it ourselves. Lease it forever. The ratepayers win.

In principle, Graham is right. Retaining ownership and capturing long-term rental income is, on paper, the best possible return for ratepayers over a thirty or fifty year horizon. No developer profit margin. No one else taking a slice. Pure value for the community.

The problem is that we already know how that story ends in Kiama, because we lived it.

Blue Haven Bonaira

The last time Kiama Council decided to be its own developer at scale, we built Blue Haven Bonaira. The cost blew out badly. By the time the dust settled, council had taken on debt it couldn’t service from the operating income of the facility itself. That debt is one of the reasons we are now under a Performance Improvement Order. Council eventually sold Bonaira to a Perth-based aged care operator in April 2025, well below what was needed to recoup the build cost.

This isn’t ancient history. It happened in this council, within memory, with consequences the community is still paying for.

Blue Haven Terralong

The Minister’s recent media release on the proposed PIO variation named Blue Haven Terralong by name. See my blog here. The Minister noted that council has advised “major investment is required at Blue Haven Terralong to address maintenance and fire safety compliance issues.”

The number behind that sentence is significant. The facility needs $51.2 million in maintenance and capital works over the next ten years just to bring it from a poor condition rating up to an average one.

That is what happens when a council owns a building it can’t afford to maintain. The asset deteriorates. Compliance becomes a problem. The people who live there, in this case vulnerable older residents, end up housed in something the institution cannot keep up.

Council didn’t fail to maintain Blue Haven Terralong because anyone wanted that outcome. It failed because councils, structurally, are not set up to be long-term property owners and operators of complex assets. That’s not a Kiama problem. It’s a council problem.

Why councils struggle as developers in 2026

The construction sector today is a difficult place for any inexperienced client to stand, and councils are inexperienced clients by definition.

Builders quote a price to win the job. Then, mid-project, they can come back with variation claims and escalation costs that can add millions to the original contract price. This happens because of scope change, events like Covid/Middle-East conflict or even legislative changes in the application of the construction code during the delivery period. Sometimes they threaten to walk if the new numbers aren’t accepted. A commercial developer with a portfolio of projects absorbs that risk across multiple buildings and has the commercial muscle, the legal team, and the market relationships to push back hard.

A council doing one building has none of that. They have one project, one contract, one builder, and limited internal expertise when the variation claim lands. The outcome is predictable, and the public record across NSW is full of examples. Government projects routinely come in well over budget when the client doesn’t have the in-house capability to manage construction risk professionally.

Delivering complex buildings in 2026 is a specialist business. Councils are in the business of running communities, and that’s a full job in itself.

What this means for the catalyst sites

I’m not arguing against ratepayer ownership of long-term value. That’s exactly the right goal. Graham is right about the goal.

The question is the mechanism. How do we capture that value without putting council in the position of carrying development risk, construction risk, leasing risk, and maintenance risk on assets it doesn’t have the capability to manage?

The answer is somewhere in the middle of “sell everything” and “council does everything.” It probably looks like this.

Council retains ownership of the land. The land is the asset that appreciates, and the asset that gives council long-term leverage. Council does not need to sell it.

The buildings are delivered by a partner with the expertise, the balance sheet, and the risk management to actually deliver them on budget and on time. That partner could be a private developer, a not-for-profit community housing provider like Housing Trust, a state government delivery agency, or some combination. The point is that whoever holds the delivery risk should be someone equipped to manage it.

Council captures long-term revenue through the structure of the deal. A ground lease pays rent over 49 or 99 years. A development partnership shares revenue. An arrangement with a community housing provider can include a council ownership share of completed units that produces rental income forever. None of these models require council to be the builder or take all of the development risk.

Manning Street, where it ultimately makes sense to realise capital, can be brought to market at full development potential to fund the parts of the precinct that need council capital.

This is the conversation Graham’s question opens up. He’s right that ratepayer value shouldn’t be handed to developers. The interesting question is how to protect that value while also protecting council from risks it isn’t equipped to carry. There’s a third path between selling everything and council doing it all itself, and that’s probably where the real answer lives.

The lesson worth learning

The hardest thing about Blue Haven Bonaira and Blue Haven Terralong is that they were built with good intentions. Nobody set out to put council under a PIO or to leave vulnerable residents in a facility that needs $51 million in repairs. The people who made those decisions believed, like Graham does now, that council ownership and operation was the right answer.

The lesson isn’t that they were wrong about the goal. The lesson is that the model doesn’t work in 21st century construction conditions, and pretending otherwise just produces more Blue Haven Bonairas.

The current Finance and Major Projects Committee has, I hope, learned that lesson. The right path for the catalyst sites is one that captures long-term value for ratepayers without exposing council to risks it can’t manage. That’s not a compromise position. It’s the only sustainable one.

Thanks Graham for raising the question. The answer is imperative and it deserves the serious conversation you’ve started.

Kiama Council wants submissions on a dead budget

A timeline of the farce. More time for the process, less time for the public.

The federal budget had a good run on the front page. Then Kiama Council kept asking the community to make submissions on a draft budget the CEO had already confirmed was obsolete, and stole the show. You can’t write this stuff. Except they did. In two media releases on the same day. Then again on social media. And again. And again.

This is my understanding of the timeline from the public record. Happy to be corrected.

  • 7 May  Mayor McDonald and CEO Stroud annouce they met Minister Hoenig at Parliament House. Mayor says he is “confident of a positive outcome” on the PIO.
  • 13 May  Council posts on social media that “budgets are officially having a moment” and asks the community to submit on the draft budget by 24 May
  • 14 May  Council publishes first media release of the day. It announces an Extraordinary Meeting on 30 June and mentions a “potential” ministerial extension to the PIO. The reason given for the delay: staff need more time to read community submissions.
  • 14 May, 3:25 PM  Member for Kiama Katelin McInerney issues a statement welcoming the extension and acknowledging the United Services Union, staff and community members who advocated against the proposed budget cuts.
  • 14 May Council publishes its second media release of the day, welcoming the PIO  extension. The CEO confirms the services proposed for cutting in the draft budget will now be retained. This is very interesting and I will give it some more thought. Council CEOs do not, as a rule, publicly thank the union that has been campaigning against their own draft budget. That is not standard practice
  • 14 May, 4:26 PM The Minister’s office issues a media release proposing the extension.
  • 24 May Submissions still close. On a budget the CEO has confirmed needs to change.
  • 30 June  Extraordinary Meeting. Staff get the extra time. The community does not.

Read that again.

The CEO has given herself and council staff extra time to read submissions. She has not given the community extra time to write them on a budget that now reflects the actual situation.

The draft budget on exhibition was built around a deadline that moved on 14 May. The services it proposed cutting are no longer being cut. Council is still asking you to submit on it before 24 May.

The submission period should be extended. Full stop.

This is all your submission needs to say. Copy it. Send it.

Given the Minister for Local Government proposed a variation to the Performance Improvement Order on 14 May 2026 extending the budget deadline by twelve months, I ask Council to pause the exhibition period, revise the draft budget to reflect the new timeline, and give the community adequate time to respond.

Add your name and address. Send it to yoursay.kiama.nsw.gov.au and council@kiama.nsw.gov.au and councillors@kiama.nsw.gov.au

before 24 May.

Want to say more? Step by step submission guide here

Media releases referenced: Minister for Local Government Ron Hoenig, 14 May 2026, 4:26 PM. Kiama Municipal Council, “Kiama Council to hold Extraordinary Meeting for Budget,” 14 May 2026. Kiama Municipal Council, “Kiama Council welcomes Performance Improvement Order extension,” 14 May 2026.

A note from me. I am a community member, not a council spokesperson and not a journalist on a deadline. I am doing my very best to make sense of this bombardment of information and what it means for our town and our families. If I have got something wrong, tell me and I will fix it. If I have got something right, send your submission before 24 May.

Ron Hoenig just put Kiama Council on notice

The Hon. Ron Hoenig MP, Minister for Local Government has given Kiama Council more time to fix its budget. That means there is no longer any reason to rush decisions about the holiday parks, Blue Haven Terralong, or waste collection. The community has until 24 May to make a submission, and this post explains what to ask for and why it matters.

Today the Minister for Local Government Ron Hoenig sent out a media release proposing changes to Kiama Council’s Performance Improvement Order. His office made sure it reached the community directly.

Here is what it says and why every person in Kiama should read it carefully.

First, the good news

The minister is giving council an extra twelve months to balance the budget. The new deadline is 2027-28 instead of 2026-27.

That sounds dry. Here is what it actually means.

The reason council was moving so fast on the Reflections holiday parks deal, from a Friday proposal to a secret Tuesday night vote, was budget pressure. Get a deal done, fix the deficit, move on.

That pressure has just been reduced by twelve months.

And the extended deadline means council will not have to cut libraries, youth services, the Leisure Centre, the Visitor Information Centre or the Pilot’s Cottage Museum. That matters to a lot of Kiama families and it is genuinely good news worth acknowledging.

So the community can now reasonably ask why council would keep rushing a decision about its most valuable community assets when the minister has just said there is time to do this properly.

Blue Haven Terralong

The minister is requiring council to get an independent business case done for Blue Haven Terralong. Not a council business case. An independent one.

Why is this distinction important? Because Blue Haven Terralong needs $51.2 million in maintenance and capital works over the next ten years just to get from a poor condition rating to an average one. There are fire safety compliance issues. The people who live there are some of Kiama’s most vulnerable residents. It is their home.

Council already sold Blue Haven Bonaira, its aged care home, to a Perth based operator last year. The community needs to watch carefully what the independent business case recommends for Terralong and whether residents get a genuine say before anything changes.

It is also worth knowing that the draft Operational Plan currently on public exhibition opens its Retirement Village Operations section with the phrase “pending market sounding.” That language sits in a document about a service for vulnerable residents, and it is a fair question to ask what market sounding has been done, with whom, and on what terms.

An independent report recommending a sale or transfer to a private operator is not the same as the community agreeing that is the right outcome. One is a document. The other is a decision. Do not let anyone confuse them.

The waste services question and why this stands out

This is the part of the media release that deserves the most attention and has received the least.

The minister is explicitly requiring council to keep domestic waste services in house.

In November last year council’s CEO issued a public statement saying council was not outsourcing domestic waste services and that anyone suggesting otherwise was wrong.

Then the minister put the prohibition in writing as a formal condition.

Those two things do not sit comfortably together. And here is what makes the gap harder to explain away.

Council’s own draft Operational Plan for 2026-27, the document currently on public exhibition and inviting your submissions, contains the following deliverables:

2.3.2.4.1 – Undertake planning work and design for merged depot at Minnamurra

2.3.2.4.2 – Prepare for regional/testing market for waste collection services. Undertake testing and document results

4.1.3.2.1 – Specifications for waste collection trucks reviewed and ready for tender, including improved telematics and data capture technology

Testing the market is the language councils use when they are sounding out external providers. It is the step that comes before a tender. Reviewing truck specifications ready for tender is the step after that.

These are not hypothetical. They are scheduled deliverables in a draft plan dated 30 April 2026, published by council, sitting on the council website right now.

The minister’s prohibition is not addressing something theoretical. It is addressing something council had written down.

The community deserves a straight answer about how the CEO’s November statement and the deliverables in the draft Operational Plan are meant to be reconciled. One of them needs to be revised. The community is entitled to know which one.

The holiday parks. What the media releases have not told you.

The minister’s proposed variation includes one line about the parks. It says the extra time will allow council to investigate opportunities for the long term management of its tourist parks which could improve its budget position over time.

Notice the words. Investigate. Over time. Not rush. Not this year. Not before 24 May.

It is also worth noting that the draft Operational Plan contains a deliverable under holiday parks for “new management contracts developed for upcoming year and Management Model review as per the Service Review to be progressed.” That is council scheduling new management contracts for the parks within the financial year covered by this plan. The minister has just said investigate over time. Those two timelines do not match.

Here is the context most people in Kiama do not have.

Four of the five holiday parks are on Crown land. Under the Crown Lands Management Act 2016 the state government can remove council as manager of those parks for no reason and pay council nothing in compensation. That is not a worst case scenario. That is what the law actually says.

This means the Reflections proposal is not a straightforward commercial negotiation between two equal parties. It is a council that knows it could lose the parks anyway sitting across the table from a government owned corporation. That changes everything about how you assess the deal.

Here is the part that should make every ratepayer sit up.

If the four Crown land parks go to Reflections, the revenue from those parks goes to Crown Lands, not to Kiama Council. The only financial benefit to council is that it no longer has to pay to run them. That is a cost saving, not a revenue generator. It is a very different thing from what the mayor has been saying about eliminating the deficit and generating revenue.

Council’s own published financial statements show exactly how much the parks earn each year. Those figures are in the Special Purpose Statements. The community should be asking council to explain, using those actual numbers, how handing the parks to a government owned corporation improves the budget when council stops receiving the income.

And then there is Kendalls Beach.

Kendalls Beach is the only park not on Crown land. Council owns it outright. It is the only park where council keeps all the money regardless of what happens. The community deserves to know what is being proposed specifically for Kendalls. Because if Kendalls is being bundled into a deal with the Crown land parks, council is giving away the one asset in the group it actually has full commercial control over.

The Snowy Valleys precedent. Read this carefully.

There is a precedent worth knowing about and every Kiama ratepayer should read it carefully.

Snowy Valleys Council ran a similar EOI process for its caravan parks. Reflections put in an offer. The council’s own assessment panel looked at all the offers on the table and found Reflections’ offer was below market rate compared with what other operators had submitted. The panel recommended council reject it. Council followed its panel’s advice and said no.

Then the Minister removed Snowy Valleys Council as Crown Land Manager of the parks. Not because council had done anything wrong. Because the Minister can. The law says so. Reflections was appointed in council’s place.

The council said no. The minister overrode them anyway.

That is the legal reality sitting behind every conversation Kiama Council is having with Reflections right now. A voluntary deal that is the alternative to an involuntary one is not genuinely voluntary.

The bigger picture

The PIO extension gives council time and it gives the minister political cover. If council rushes the holiday parks deal anyway that is council’s call to make and council’s consequences to wear. The minister has put the careful path on the record.

The community’s job is to make sure council takes it.

Update: Council has now responded

Council welcomed the minister’s proposed variation today and the mayor confirmed he met Minister Hoenig directly at Parliament House last week before this announcement was made.

But the CEO’s response raises a question that needs a plain language answer before 24 May.

She says the holiday parks deal is the mechanism for clearing the deficit. Her words: our ability to clear the projected deficit is certain, provided we can get through the tender process with a successful outcome.

If that is true, the community deserves to understand exactly how the deal clears the deficit when revenue from the four Crown land parks would flow to Crown Lands rather than to Kiama Council under the Crown Lands Management Act.

The numbers are in the published financial statements. The community is entitled to a straight answer before the submission window closes on 24 May.

The CEO also thanked the United Services Union for lobbying the minister directly to include the requirement that waste services stay in house. The union that represents waste workers felt it necessary to go to the minister themselves to get that protection in writing. If outsourcing was genuinely never being considered, why did the union need to do that?

And one more thing. Premier Chris Minns and his ministers are coming to Kiama next Tuesday for a Community Cabinet at The Pavilion. That is a direct opportunity for the community to ask the questions that have not yet been answered about the holiday parks, Blue Haven Terralong and waste services.

Be there. Bring your questions.

What the community should be asking right now

Before any decision is made on the holiday parks, council should answer these questions publicly.

Using the actual figures from the published financial statements, how does handing the Crown land parks to Reflections improve the budget when the revenue stops coming to council?

What is being offered specifically for Kendalls Beach and why?

Were there any discussions between Reflections, Crown Lands or the NSW Government and council before the unsolicited proposal arrived on 17 April? The mayor has confirmed he met the minister at Parliament House last week. Were the holiday parks part of that conversation?

Will there be a dedicated community engagement process on the Crown land parks before any lease is signed, separate from the current budget submission window which closes 24 May?

How are the waste collection market testing and tender preparation deliverables in the draft Operational Plan to be reconciled with the CEO’s November statement that domestic waste outsourcing was not being considered?

What does the independent business case process for Blue Haven Terralong look like, what does pending market sounding in the draft Operational Plan refer to, and how will residents and the broader community have a genuine say before any decision about its future is made?

The bottom line

The minister has done several things today that are genuinely in this community’s interest. He has required an independent assessment of Blue Haven Terralong. He has explicitly stopped council from outsourcing waste services. He has slowed down the holiday parks process and named it as something to investigate properly rather than urgently.

He has also, without quite saying so, raised a serious question about the gap between what community members were told about waste services in November and what is written down in council’s own draft Operational Plan today.

The community now has more time and more information than it did yesterday. The question is whether council will use both honestly.

The information exists. The honest conversation about what it means has not happened yet.

A step by step guide to making a submission on the current budget and Delivery Program before 24 May is here 

Want to go deeper?

Kiama Council released its next meeting agenda today. All 1000 pages of it. A community member has analysed the key sections relevant to the holiday parks, the budget and Blue Haven Terralong. Read their analysis here

And if you want the devil in the detail:

Crown Lands Management Act 2016: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2016-058

Kiama Council Annual Financial Statements (Special Purpose Statements are in Part 2): https://www.kiama.nsw.gov.au/Council/Community-Reports/Annual-Reports-and-Financial-Statements

NSW Office of Local Government Performance Improvement Orders: https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/councils/performance-improvement-orders/