Category: Follow the Money

The Local Scandal That Proves Communities Need Their Own Watchdogs

This story is about the evolution of political narrative, the rewriting of history, and the impact on communities who live with the consequences.

All the flying kicks were in the headlines. The real fight was locals landing truth where it counted.

There are moments in your life when you discover that the people holding power are not the ones holding the line. My time as the civics reporter at our local newspaper taught me that over and over again. It gave me a front-row seat to people who were brave, stubborn, principled and sometimes exhausted, and it showed me how far federal, state and local governments can blur the lines long before anyone steps in to hold them accountable.

Writing about these issues was never simple. But it introduced me to some extraordinary individuals, including three men whose names deserve far wider recognition: former MP John Hatton, community investigator Peter Alison, and researcher Alan Burrows. For more than 16 years, they have tracked, analysed, documented and repeatedly raised the alarm about one of the most extraordinary corruption scandals in regional NSW. Their work was sitting in folders, waiting to be shared, waiting for someone to pick it up again.

If Cat Holloway had not made the decision to publish their research on Spark Shoalhaven, that story would have slipped quietly into silence. See  her first exposé and the follow-up that dug even deeper   It certainly would not have been given oxygen by people like me, or debated on local platforms, or forced into the sunlight once the Shaolin abbot’s arrest made it impossible to ignore.

And this is the point. When we start handing out state funerals to figures like Graham Richardson, we shouldn’t be surprised that so many people feel powerless. We have normalised a culture where political misbehaviour is excused, sanitised or quietly forgotten. Communities watch this pattern repeat and begin to wonder whether anything they do matters.

A group of journalists and community advocates have decided it does, and I’m proud to stand with them. Over the next 12 months we will be spotlighting the people who refuse to give up, the people who keep speaking even when they’re ignored, the people who still believe integrity matters. These are the researchers, whistleblowers, campaigners and everyday residents who know their voice can cut through.

We have had enough of corruption being normalised. Enough of governments ignoring detailed, painstaking evidence while dismissing those who gather it. Enough of communities being told to move on.

This next chapter belongs to those who didn’t.

And now, for anyone who enjoys contrast, here’s a short chapter in “Things Said Out Loud Then, and Things Said Very Carefully Now.”

Then versus now: what they said in 2007 vs what they’re saying in 2025

Matt Brown — Then (2007, Sydney Morning Herald)

As NSW Tourism Minister, he championed the Shaolin proposal:

“It will be the first time in 1500 years that another Shaolin Temple will be built and to have it built in Australia is a huge coup.”

He assured the abbot the NSW Government would “do whatever it can for the project.”
He helped connect the monks with Shoalhaven Council and began the land conversation.

Matt Brown — Now (2025, ABC Illawarra)

Eighteen years later, the tone has shifted:

“There were just some practices I felt a little uneasy with… discomfort with what was said and then not followed up.”

A huge coup in 2007.
A vague uneasiness in 2025.
This is how political memory is revised.

Greg Watson — Then (2007)

When Brown told him the monks wanted land, Watson, then Shoalhaven Mayor, replied:

“Have I got a deal for you.”

He led delegations, promoted the land, and moved the project forward with enthusiasm.

Greg Watson — Now (2025)

His current position is that criticism is:

“politically-motivated electioneering to re-write history.”

But the history is written in their own words.

What happens now

Now that the Shaolin story has burst wide open, every key figure will step forward with their carefully crafted lines. Their PR advisers will try to airbrush the past, soften their role and retreat into the language of misgiving and hindsight.

But communities are smarter than that.
They remember.
And they recognise the people who kept the truth alive when no one in power wanted to hear it.

The real warriors weren’t performing flying kicks.
They were locals landing truth where it counted.

Disclaimer:

And because public commentary in NSW seems to require a legal pre-emptive strike:
I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing.
I am not alleging corruption, misconduct or illegal behaviour by any person named or quoted.
Everything referenced here comes from individuals’ own publicly recorded statements , from 2007 media coverage and from interviews given this week

#Shoalhaven #NSWPolitics #IntegrityMatters #DemocracyInAction #PublicInterestJournalism #CommunityPower #PlanningFailures #Accountability #LocalGovernment #TruthTellers

Creative Accounting or Community Gaslighting?

This post is the part of a Follow the Money  series shining a light on Kiama Council’s ongoing failure to even interpret its own spreadsheets.

I’ve been digging into Kiama Council’s legal expenses and what I’ve found is confusing, frustrating, and frankly concerning.

Here are the comparisons that matter:

Council Population (approx.) 2023/24 Legal Costs Spend Per Resident
Kiama 23,400 $3,369,000 $144
Port Macquarie–Hastings 50,560 $250,000 $5
Shellharbour 76,200 $858,000 $11

Kiama, with the smallest population, spent by far the most on legal bills. At $144 per person, Kiama’s costs tower over Shellharbour ($11) and Port Macquarie–Hastings ($5).

A pattern of costly errors

This blowout is not an isolated issue. Council’s financial reporting on major risk areas keeps needing “fixes” after the fact:

If developer levies can be overcharged, and legal costs can be double-counted, what confidence can the public have in any top-line figure?

Meanwhile, “Other Legal Expenses” jumped from $204,000 in 2020/21 to $3.3 million in 2023/24 — a sixteen-fold increase in three years. In the same period, total legal expenses rose from $416,000 to $3.37 million.

Where Council points… and where the money actually goes

Council is very happy to outline where Land & Environment Court (LEC) costs are spent — case lists, updates, outcomes — and it is true that LEC matters account for around 53% of legal costs (excluding the Daoud Federal Court case).

But here’s the catch:

  • Probity/General legal advice soaks up another 37%.

  • When I asked for a breakdown of these “other” costs, the Public Officer refused to provide it.

This is the deflection at play.  Council points to the unavoidable LEC cases, but goes silent on the categories where the blowouts are happening.

Are LEC costs really unavoidable?

Council insists LEC costs are unavoidable. But the record shows many cases should never have reached court at all.

  • Yes, developers have a legal right to appeal to the LEC.

  • But how Council manages those appeals is absolutely within its control. If cases are lost because Council misapplied its own LEP or DCP, or if politically motivated decisions collapse under scrutiny, those costs are self-inflicted.

  • Time and again, matters defended at great expense have been lost or forced into costly conciliation — suggesting they should never have been taken to court.

LEC costs are not automatically unavoidable. Too often, they are the price we pay for poor governance.

Code of Conduct costs

On top of this, $69,080 was spent on Code of Conduct complaints in the past reporting year, even though:

  • 10 complaints were lodged,

  • only 2 reached investigation, and

  • 2 breaches were found (leading to councillor censure).

That is an extraordinary spend for very little outcome.

And the contradiction is glaring: the Mayor has claimed Codes of Conduct are being “weaponised” — yet he himself lodged the complaint that led to a censure later overturned in the Supreme Court, costing the community just over $200,000.

Why this matters

It all beggars belief.

Residents should not need to become forensic accountants to follow the money. When legal spend is this high — and when we keep seeing corrections across legal costs and developer contributions — the only responsible response is radical transparency.

So why isn’t it happening?

  • Why isn’t Kiama Council publishing legal spend by category, with clear totals, every quarter?

  • Why aren’t the Office of Local Government and the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee (ARIC) demanding answers on the developer contribution overcharge, the double-counting of legal costs, and the “Other Legal” blow-outs?

  • Why is it left to community members to do the oversight work that should already exist?

The bottom line

Transparency in legal and developer-contribution accounting is not optional — it is a core measure of good governance. Until figures are itemised clearly, corrected promptly, independently reviewed, and made public without community pressure, trust in Kiama Council will continue to slip away.

Disclaimer

I am a community member, not a forensic accountant. This post reflects in-depth analysis of Kiama Council reports, combined with concerns raised by community members and councillors. It is a genuine attempt to understand and explain how and why Council’s legal expenses have escalated.

I look forward to Kiama Council’s response.

#KiamaCouncil #Accountability #Transparency #Governance #LegalCosts #CommunityVoice #LocalGovernment

Getting to the Root Cause of the Wicked Problems at Kiama Council

This post is the part of a Follow the Money  series shining a light on Kiama Council’s ongoing failure to even interpret its own spreadsheets.

I am not an accountant. I am a community member, like the majority of our residents, reading the same public reports and trying to understand where our money goes. We should not need a crystal ball to interpret basic financial information. We deserve numbers that make sense.

The last Council agenda included a “quarterly update” on legal costs that, when added together, came to $12 million. Days later, Council issued a media release saying the number was wrong, that the real figure was $2.275 million.

But that is not what the agenda papers said, and not what any reasonable resident would have understood.

And here is the deeper issue:

🙋‍♀️Why did the error have to be picked up by the community?

🙋‍♂️Why was it not identified earlier? Why was it not raised in councillor briefings?

🙋‍♀️Why was it not corrected before the agenda went public?

This goes to the heart of a wicked problem in local government.

The councillor’s impossible workload

Council agendas are released six days before each meeting. Councillors are provided with briefing sessions where they can ask for clarification on complex issues. But how many councillors have the time to attend these sessions? Most have full-time jobs.

And even if they do attend, they face the daunting task of wading through agendas that, once supplementary papers are included, can run to 800 pages or more. How can councillors reasonably be expected to spot errors buried deep in financial tables or misleading cumulative totals?

Why accuracy matters

Councillors can only make sound decisions if they are given timely, accurate, and complete information. When they are forced to second-guess whether the numbers in front of them are right or wrong, they cannot do their jobs effectively.

That responsibility does not lie with councillors. It lies with the executive team. Their role is to ensure the data provided to councillors, and to the public, is clear, concise, and correct.

The wicked problem

This is why the $12 million legal cost debacle matters so much. Not just because the number was wrong, but because it shows how fragile the system is. If councillors cannot trust the information they are given, and if the community has to play watchdog just to keep the books straight, then we do not have transparency. We have a system that is exhausting, confusing, and corrosive to trust.

The financial year before last, Council’s own financial statements showed that 37 percent of all legal costs were grouped into “Other”. With no clear breakdown, ratepayers have no idea what “Other” really means or how that money was spent and when questioned the Council Public Officer refused to answer the question.

Where to from here?

In our next posts, we will dig into specific examples of how these failures in reporting play out:

  • The weaponisation of the Code of Conduct and the hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted as a result.
  • The ballooning of “Other” legal costs and what sits behind them.

Getting to the root of this wicked problem means demanding better.  Councillors, and the community, deserve information they can rely on. Nothing less.

🤑Did you know that for a family of four in Kiama, $576 a year is effectively going straight to Council’s legal bills?

In my next blog, we will unpack what this figure really means, how it compares to other councils, and why residents deserve to know where their money is going.

Stay tuned — because when it comes to Council’s finances, it is time we all started asking tougher questions.

#KiamaCouncil #LegalCosts #Accountability #Transparency #CommunityVoice

When $12 Million Becomes $2 Million, Trust Becomes Zero

This post is the part of a Follow the Money  series shining a light on Kiama Council’s ongoing failure to even interpret its own spreadsheets.

I am not an accountant. I am a community member, like the majority of our residents, reading the same public reports and trying to understand where our money goes. We should not need a crystal ball to interpret basic financial information. We deserve numbers that make sense.

But this isn’t just about numbers. It goes to the heart of governance. Councillors cannot make sound decisions without timely, accurate and complete information.

And it raises a bigger question: are governance bodies such as the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC), the Auditor-General, and the Office of Local Government (OLG) fully informed of these matters – particularly in the context of the Performance Improvement Order (PIO)?

🙋‍♀️If they are, why haven’t they intervened?

🤔If they aren’t, then Council’s failures go deeper than poor spreadsheets.

The Legal Fees Debacle

On 19 August 2025, Council tabled its agenda papers showing the following “quarterly update of current legal matters”:

  • June 2024 – $4.50m

  • September 2024 – $5.01m

  • December 2024 – $1.32m

  • March 2025 – $1.20m

Those four quarters alone add up to $12.04 million. That is the figure residents saw in Council’s own agenda papers.

Even when Council later admitted the reporting was wrong , claiming the total legal spend for 2024–25 was just $2.275 million and that earlier figures were “cumulative since 2020”,  the explanation did not stack up.

If the figures were cumulative, they would only ever go up. Instead, they go up and then down again, which looks exactly like quarterly spending, not a rolling total.

But that is not what the agenda papers said, and not what any reasonable community member would have understood.

🙋‍♂️Why wasn’t this identified earlier?

🙋‍♀️Why wasn’t it raised at the council meeting itself?

🤔Why wasn’t it fixed then and there?

We all look forward to these matters being clarified in the next agenda. But in the meantime, councillors, oversight bodies and the community are left making decisions based on faulty information. This is the very opposite of transparency and accountability.

Without corrected figures, councillors, oversight bodies and the community are left making decisions based on faulty information – the very opposite of transparency and accountability.

The Overcharging Fiasco

Lets not forget December 2024.

Council admitted that, between July 2022 and June 2023, around 20 development applications by developers were overcharged a total of $1.5 million under Section 7.11 because of a spreadsheet error.

  • Refunds totalling $625,000 were proposed.

  • Landowners were to be contacted, consents modified, or payments refunded.

  • The overcharges were only identified as part of a later review of Council’s processes.

This is not a minor slip. It is hundreds of thousands of dollars wrongly charged, only corrected after the fact.

The Pattern We Cannot Ignore

Whether it is legal fees or development contributions, the story is the same:

  • Shifting numbers.

  • Confusing explanations, offered only after the community starts asking questions.

  • Major financial consequences for residents and ratepayers.

Transparency is not about cleaning up after the fact. It is about consistent, honest communication in the first place.

Until Council learns how to read and report its own spreadsheets, the community will keep paying the price. And until oversight bodies such as ARIC, the Auditor-General and OLG demand accuracy and accountability, residents will be left wondering: who is really watching over Council, and when will they step in?

#KiamaCouncil #Accountability #Transparency #LegalCosts #PublicMoney #GoodGovernance #Audit #CommunityTrust #Oversight

Lawyers at the Beach !!!!! Why is Kiama Council in Dispute with Gerringong Surf Club?

Yes, you read that correctly Kiama Council is in a formal legal dispute with the Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club — a  volunteer-based organisation that patrols our beaches, trains young lifesavers, and shows up for the community when it matters most.

Council’s own legal report lists the matter as:

“Gerringong SLSC – Licence dispute”
Status: In a meeting held with the club, they confirmed that following advice received from Council, they would withdraw their dispute. To date this hasn’t occurred. Council to follow up.

This post is the part of a Follow the Money  series shining a light on Kiama Council’s ongoing failure to even interpret its own spreadsheets.

I’ve been digging into Kiama Council’s legal expenses and what I’ve found is confusing, frustrating, and frankly concerning.

Why it matters

This is not vague or hypothetical. A community surf club and the local Council are in a formal dispute, with lawyers in the middle. However it unfolded, the fact remains that volunteers and ratepayers are now caught up in a process that should have been solved with better communication and collaboration.

And let’s talk about cost. Council spent more than $12 million on legal matters in 12 months, ( see Item 13.7 Legals Agenda of Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday, 19 August 2025), including nearly $5 million in a single quarter. If that doesn’t tell us it’s time to upgrade our negotiation skills, I don’t know what does. (Maybe TAFE should run a course called How Not to Spend $12 Million on Lawyers.)

What’s at stake

  • The surf club exists to save lives.

  • Council exists to serve the community.

  • Neither should be wasting time and money battling each other.

A Pattern of Escalation

The Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club isn’t the only example.

Council’s legal report also lists:

“KMC v Morgan Lewis – Failure to comply with terms of DA, Fillmore’s Manning Street, Kiama.”
This case went all the way to a contested hearing, with a fine of $3000 recorded. Council spent $88,000 plus to the end of June that only resulted in a $3000 fine.

Yes, rules need to be enforced. But when so many disagreements between Council and the community ends up in front of lawyers, something’s broken.

Instead of being solved across a desk, these matters are being fought across a courtroom.

And that’s how we end up with Council spending more than $12 million on legal matters in 12 months. 

Disputes can happen. But when they escalate into legal wrangling rather than being solved face to face, the community loses twice, first in trust, and then in money.

It’s time to get serious about collaboration. Because if we can’t negotiate with our lifesavers, what hope do we have on bigger challenges?

See previous post “No lease, no answers. What is Kiama Council hiding?” for backstory

#KiamaCouncil #Gerringong #SurfLifeSaving #CommunityFirst #Accountability #Collaboration #GoodGovernance #LegalCosts #Negotiation #CivicLeadership