Abuse of Power Archives - Clover Hill Diaries

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/

Kiama Council – Two big plans. One deadline. Not enough time.

This morning I sent a formal submission on the Draft Employment Lands Strategy and yesterday on the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2026 to 27 to Kiama Municipal Council. Both close for public comment on 24 May 2026.

The Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2026 to 27 went to Joe Gaudiosi, Director Corporate and Commercial and Kimberley Norton, Head of Implementation, and every single councillor.

The Draft Employment Lands Strategy submission went to the Director of Strategies and Communities, the Manager of Planning and Development, the Strategic Planning Coordinator, and every single councillor.

Here is what I said and why it is important to you.

On the Delivery Program

The Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan is a new document. The community has had no prior opportunity to respond to it. It directly controls how every rate dollar gets spent this year, including the annual budget, revenue policy, rates, fees and charges.

I asked council to extend the submission period by a minimum of four weeks so residents can engage with it properly, independently of the Employment Lands Strategy. Two documents, one deadline, is not genuine consultation. It is a timetable designed to exhaust you.

On the Employment Lands Strategy

The community already submitted on this document in round one. Eighty-five people. The plan changed. The word UPDATED on the council website is proof that submissions work. Here is what they said

Three issues from round one were noted by council and left unresolved. I raised all three.

Businesses are leaving Kiama. Round one submissions from business owners said directly that the lack of suitable industrial land is forcing them to relocate to other LGAs. Council noted it and made no change. I asked council to include a clear business retention commitment in the final strategy, including how they will measure whether businesses are staying, growing, or being forced out.

The Shoalhaven Street rezoning creates a new problem on the Minnamurra River. The proposed rezoning of the Shoalhaven Street precinct removes existing industrial land from Kiama. To offset that loss, council is proposing to rezone the Minnamurra Waste Depot to General Industrial. The Minnamurra Waste Depot sits on the banks of the Minnamurra River. Rezoning land in that location to General Industrial raises serious environmental questions the engagement report does not address. I asked council to confirm in writing exactly how no net loss of industrial land will be achieved, including the site, the zoning pathway, the environmental assessment, the timing, and the replacement capacity. Proposing to solve one planning problem by creating another on the banks of the Minnamurra River is a question the community deserves a direct answer to.

63.2% of Kiama residents travel outside the LGA for work. The NSW Department of Planning told council the strategy should make a stronger case for change on this. I asked council to include measurable targets and a review timeline for improving that figure, rather than treating the loss of local jobs as something that just happens.

What the plans actually say

Before you submit, it helps to know what you are dealing with.

The Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2026 to 27 is the document that decides how your rates get spent this year. Think of it as council’s budget and to-do list rolled into one. An independent review found that a lot of the promises in it are written in a way that makes them impossible to check. How do you know if council did what it said it would? Often you can’t. Several items also depend on money council hasn’t got yet. And while it talks about getting finances back on track, there is nothing in it that shows how Kiama stays financially healthy for the long haul. One good year doesn’t fix years of problems.

A step by step guide to making your own submission, including a template and the questions worth asking, is here

Read my submission here.

The Draft Employment Lands Strategy is the document that decides where the jobs go, where businesses can set up, and what gets built where for the next 20 years. If you run a business in Kiama, want to work closer to home, care about what happens at Bombo Quarry, or live near the Minnamurra River, this document affects you. Read it here

Both close 24 May.

A submission on its own is a paper trail. Many submissions on the same issues are a pattern council cannot dismiss.

Have your say here: yoursay.kiama.nsw.gov.au

Why I am sharing this

I am not a lawyer or a planner. I am someone who lives here and got fed up. If I can do this, so can you. Pick one thing that affects your street, your kids, your business or your back pocket and write it down. Five minutes. 24 May. That’s it.

Kiama locals have a chance to make Council listen, use it

The Kiama Municipal Council Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2026 to 27 is open for submissions. Here’s why this one needs your voice and how five minutes of your time can make it harder for our council to pretend nobody cared.

You have until 24 May 2026 to be on record. After that, you handed your say to someone else.

Every four years, a newly elected council makes promises to the community. The Delivery Program is where those promises get written down, funded and turned into actual actions. The Operational Plan is the year by year version, spelling out exactly what gets done, when, and what it costs.

This is not a planning document for planners. This is the document that decides whether the footpath outside your house gets fixed, whether the community program your kids rely on keeps running, whether council is actually spending your rates on what it said it would.

The NSW Office of Local Government sets out what a Delivery Program must contain. It must demonstrate commitment to the community. It must show how services will be prioritised and measured. It must address ongoing improvements to efficiency, financial management and governance. It must identify services council will review during its term.

This draft falls short of those requirements. This is a question of whether the document meets the standard it is legally required to meet.

“If your accountant handed you a budget this vague, you would find a new accountant. Kiama deserves better than this.”

This is your moment. Your name belongs on this. Get in the room

Maybe you’ve submitted before. Maybe you’ve spoken at meetings, written letters, shown up. And maybe it felt like your words went nowhere.

Submissions that name specific items, in your own words, from real residents, create a paper trail that cannot be buried. They go on the public record. They get read aloud at meetings. They become evidence.

And if you’ve never done it before and don’t know where to start, that’s exactly why this post exists. We’ll walk you through it, step by step. It’s simpler than you think.

Look at the draft sitting on the council website right now. See that word: UPDATED.

That happened because people spoke up, council listened, and the plan changed. This is exactly how it is supposed to work. And it worked here, in Kiama, because residents chose to show up.

So when you submit this time, you are adding your name to something that is already moving. You are part of a community that has already proved it can shift things.

And there is a second reason, just as important. Every submission goes on the public record. If any decision in this plan is later challenged, reviewed, or examined by the Office of Local Government, by a journalist, or by a future council, your submission is proof that the community was paying attention. That the people of Kiama saw this, understood it, and said something about it.

That record belongs to all of us. Make sure your name is in it.

Check yoursay.kiama.nsw.gov.au for confirmed dates as these can shift.

What to write

You don’t need to be a planner, a lawyer, or a political scientist. You need to be a resident who has noticed something.

Here’s a simple submission template (adapt freely)

Who you are. Your name and suburb. If you want to remain anonymous to the public but not council, say so. You can request your name be withheld from published submissions.
What you’re responding to. Name the specific item, project, or section of the plan you’re commenting on. Vague submissions are easier to dismiss.
What you want changed or protected. Are you asking for something to be added? Removed? Better resourced? More transparent in its reporting? Be specific.
Why it counts. One or two sentences. This is your voice. Use everyday language.
What you’d like council to do. End with a clear ask. “I ask council to…” is a sentence that’s hard to ignore in a formal process.

Things worth asking about

When council says it will improve community wellbeing, how will anyone know if that actually happened? What does success look like in a way a normal person can check?

When a commitment in this plan is not delivered, what happens? Who is responsible and what does the community get told about it?

When plans change mid year, how do residents find out? Is there a phone call, a letter, a post on Facebook? Or does it just get dropped without a word?

The plan talks about financial recovery. But is this council on track for long term financial sustainability, or just a one year result that looks good on paper? A single year back in the black is not a strategy. The community deserves to know the difference.

What does the executive leadership of this council cost, and how is that performance measured and reported to residents?

Is the community engagement in this plan genuine, or is it a checklist? What changes when the community says something council does not want to hear?

If those questions don’t have clear answers in the plan, that’s your submission.

The plan doesn’t just describe what council will do. It describes what council thinks the community will accept.

Should this plan go back to the drawing board?

Yes. And you are allowed to say so.

Councillors have the power to send this back for a rewrite before it is adopted. This is exactly what the process exists for. If you believe this plan is not good enough, tell council this. Tell your councillors this. Use these words:

“I ask council to defer adoption of this plan and rewrite it to meet the requirements set out by the NSW Office of Local Government.”

More voices, harder to ignore

Individual submissions are powerful. Collective submissions are formidable. Both count.

If you have neighbours, friends, or a local group who share your concerns, coordinate. Not to copy each other (unique submissions carry more weight), to ensure the same theme appears multiple times from multiple people. That volume is hard to dismiss as a fringe view.

Share this post. Print it. Leave it where people will see it. The consultation period is short. The plan is long. But you don’t need to read all of it. You just need to find the part that affects your street, your family, your community, and say something about it.

That’s democracy. And it works best when people actually use it.

How to submit

1. Visit yoursay.kiama.nsw.gov.auand find the Draft Delivery Program 2026 to 27 listing.

2. Download the draft plan. You don’t need to read all of it. Use the search function to find topics relevant to you.

3. Submit via the online form, or by email to council@kiama.nsw.gov.au AND councillors@kiama.nsw.gov.au.

4. Keep a copy of your submission so you can to refer to it later.

Your name on the record is harder to ignore than your opinion on Facebook

The $1 Million Plane, the $500K Donations, and the Three Words That Admit Everything

“Everybody Does It” is an admission, not an argument. And it tells you everything you need to know about whose interests our political system is actually serving.

When supporters of any political party reach for “everybody does it,” they have already made the most important admission in the argument. The system is working for powerful interests, and ordinary Australians are footing the bill in ways most people simply do not realise.

Consider the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, which refunds mining companies for the diesel excise paid on their operations. In the 2024-25 financial year the scheme is projected to cost Australian taxpayers $10.2 billion, with $4.8 billion of that going directly to the mining industry. At roughly $10 billion per year, the scheme costs more than Australia spends on foreign aid and more than several major defence programs. Rinehart is also thought to be a major backer of the Institute of Public Affairs, the influential think tank that has called for the abolition of the minimum wage

This is what “footing the bill” actually looks like. Public money flowing to the most profitable industry in the country, workers denied the wages they have earned, and the political donations that help keep those arrangements in place. The connection between who donates and who benefits is a straight line.

The question voters should be asking it: do you want to be part of fixing it, or part of entrenching it?

This is a question about the kind of democracy we want, and whether we are willing to hold it to the same standards we apply everywhere else in life. We expect better from our children. We expect better in our workplaces. We expect better in a court of law. The moment “everybody does it” becomes acceptable in politics, we have handed the keys of public life to whoever has the deepest pockets and the least shame.

Nobody gives very large sums of money to a political party out of the goodness of their heart. That is common sense about how human relationships work.

Consider the difference between donating to a sporting group and donating to a political party. A donation to a netball association or a swimming club buys goodwill, perhaps a naming right on a scoreboard. A donation to a political party buys access to people who hold direct power over the donor’s business interests. Regulations. Approvals. Environmental protections. Workplace laws. The recipient of a political donation holds power that a sporting body simply does not.

AEC disclosures show that Hancock Prospecting channelled $500,000 in donations to the Coalition, with the then Opposition Leader also hosted at fundraisers where guests paid $14,000 a head, an amount kept deliberately just below the threshold requiring public disclosure. The relationship with One Nation runs just as deep. A company within the Rinehart empire gifted a $1 million plane to One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, and two executives from within the same Hancock empire separately donated $500,000 each to the party. This is a systemic pattern across multiple parties, and the people saying “everybody does it” are proving exactly that point.

When multiple parties are funded by the same powerful interests, the policy direction is already decided before you get to vote. Your ballot should mean something. It does not, when the people on both sides of the ballot paper answer to the same donors.

Australia passed electoral reform legislation, and new donation caps come into effect in January 2027. HOWEVER donors can still spread contributions across multiple state and federal branches of a party to reduce disclosure obligations, and peak industry bodies, including those representing the mining sector, can donate up to four times the standard gift cap. Reform and resolution are two very different things.

So how do we normalise doing the right thing?

This is the question at the heart of everything, and the one that gets pushed aside whenever politicians would rather argue with each other than answer to you.

Every norm we take for granted today was once considered idealistic. Equal voting rights. The end of child labour. Transparency in public life. Each became normal because enough people decided it should be, and then voted accordingly.

Morality in public life is a choice. It does not arrive on its own. Political integrity is what a functioning democracy looks like, and it is precisely what Climate 200 supported independents have built their platform around. The proposition is straightforward: your elected representative should answer to you, the voter, rather than to whoever funded their campaign.

That is the standard we should expect from everybody in public life. Voting for independents committed to that standard is the most direct way to say so.

“Everybody does it” is an admission that the system is broken. So let’s fix it. Read this article, share it with everybody you know, and when you get to the ballot box remember who answered to you and who answered to their donors.

Kiama Council’s Easter ambush sparks anger over cuts closed doors and police

Kiama Council dropped an extraordinary meeting agenda on the Thursday before a four day Easter break, then set the meeting on for the following Tuesday, the first day back. The agenda carried sweeping proposed savings across community life, including youth, cultural and community services, visitor services, tourism, library hours, Leisure Centre hours, the pensioner rebate, community donations and sponsorships, staff positions, and the proposed relocation of the Pilot’s Cottage Museum and Visitor Information Centre.

People in Kiama understand there is a budget problem. They understand Council is operating under a Performance Improvement Order and that difficult decisions are in front of it.

The anger has come from the way this was handled. Material of this scale was put into the public arena on the eve of a long weekend, when people were heading into Easter, then debated the moment the holiday ended. Councillors had already been through workshops and briefings. The community got a scramble.

The public forum timing sharpened the sense that this was being pushed through rather than opened up. Instead of the breathing space most people would expect before a decision of this size, public access was held immediately before the meeting itself.

People were expected to absorb complex proposals, organise their thoughts, speak, and watch councillors move into debate, all in the same late afternoon.

Then came the access arrangements. On the afternoon of the meeting, Council announced that the administration building would close at 4 pm, the public gallery would be limited to 20 attendees, protest material would not be permitted inside chambers or council workplaces, security would manage access, and NSW Police had been advised of the intended protest. That combination told its own story.

Community anger was being managed as a risk event at the very moment residents were trying to be heard.

This is the part Council seems not to have understood. When you put youth services, community services, library hours, tourism functions, the pensioner rebate, staff positions and local heritage on the table, people will react. When you do it before a four day break and bring it on for the first day back, they will react harder. When you then tighten access and prepare for protest, they draw their own conclusions.

Watch community concerns on WIN4 News here

The question now is larger than one difficult meeting. Kiama has already seen police called to a tense council gathering in recent years. That gives this latest episode a wider significance. Residents are entitled to ask whether this is becoming a pattern, late release of major decisions, compressed opportunities for public response, and a readiness to treat dissent as a security problem rather than a democratic reality.

No one expects budget repair to be painless. People do expect honesty, time and respect. They expect to see the problem clearly, weigh the trade offs, and speak before the process tightens around them. That did not happen here.

You would hope this is not how Kiama Council plans to handle major public decisions from here. It looks too much like another way of shutting down community voices. And once a council starts hearing community anger as a threat instead of a message, it has lost sight of the room.

In what parallel universe is history a discount code for present day suffering!

There is something almost impressive about the confidence it takes to defend a present day war by reaching for a greatest hits list of other disasters.

World War I lasted longer.
World War II lasted longer.
Vietnam lasted longer.
Korea lasted longer.
Iraq lasted longer.

Thank goodness that has cleared things up.

By that standard, the public is not supposed to ask whether this war is justified, whether the goals keep shifting, whether families can afford to live through it, or whether turning whole regions into trauma zones counts as a problem. We are apparently meant to calm down because, in the grand timeline of human ruin, this one has not yet made the podium. Reuters and ABC both reported Trump framing the current war that way, urging Americans to “keep this conflict in perspective” and calling it “an investment in your children and your grandchildren’s future.”

It is a remarkable political trick. Take a fresh wound, stand it beside several amputations, then announce that everyone is being dramatic.

Perspective, it is not. It is comparative minimisation with a flag wrapped around it.

A shorter war can still be grotesque. A newer war can still be catastrophic. A war that has not yet reached the age of Vietnam does not become wise, noble or economically sensible through the simple passage of fewer months.

This is were it goes beyond the pale ( as if it could get worse). It asks ordinary people to lower their standards in real time. Do not ask whether this should be happening. Ask whether it is, historically speaking, long enough to deserve your concern. Do not measure the dead, the displaced, the fear, the cost of groceries, the cost of fuel, the cost of public trust. Measure the calendar.

It is the politics of lowered expectations. Your power bill is up, your food bill is up, global tensions are up, and the sales pitch is that other wars were even worse.

How reassuring.

History is not meant to be used as a discount code for present day suffering.

We live in a world where petrol prices have become our moral compass

There is something bleakly revealing that the NYTimes tell us pollsters are wondering whether petrol at more than US$4 a gallon will finally dent Donald Trump’s support. In the United States, the national average has just moved above that mark for the first time since 2022, driven by war with Iran and the disruption of oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Reuters reported the shift this week.

Think about what that says.

A president can help drag the world into another ruinous conflict. Thousands can die. Billions can be burned. The White House can be treated like a developer’s vanity project. Washington’s cultural and historic institutions can be pushed around as if they are items on a personal mood board. Yet the thing that may finally make the rusted on pause is the cost of filling the car.

This is hedonism. It is a form of citizenship so narrowed by self interest that mass suffering, public waste and institutional vandalism barely register until the pain arrives at the petrol bowser.

This week a federal judge halted Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom project, finding he lacked authority to push ahead without congressional approval. The project had already involved demolition of the East Wing and formed part of a broader push to remake Washington landmarks, including the Kennedy Center.

So this is the picture. A leader can preside over war abroad and grandiosity at home, and for many supporters the real test still comes down to whether the weekly drive costs a bit more.

In any rational world pollsters would focus on food prices. Food hits every household, whether they drive or not. But petrol has always had unusual political power because people see it in giant numbers on roadside signs. It is immediate, public and emotional. Pollsters know that. Politicians know that. It becomes shorthand for pain, even when far greater harms are unfolding in plain sight.

What if we put the weekly cost of bread, milk, fruit, school lunches and basic groceries on billboards the way we do petrol, and people might start talking about cost of living in a way that reflects actual life.

It would expose the absurdity, wouldn’t it.

So yes, there is something in that.

Petrol has political power partly because it is turned into public theatre. Food, even though it is more fundamental, stays tucked inside receipts, shopping trolleys and household stress.

If petrol prices are what finally cracks the rusted on, it will not be because they have reflected deeply on leadership, democracy or human suffering. It will be because the consequences have at last reached their own windscreen.

No way, Jose – Trump does not get to smash the region and then pose as the man who came to save global trade.

Media heading this morning “Trump needs troops to seize the Strait of Hormuz. These are his options”

This is exactly how war gets laundered. The person who lit the fire is recast as the man arriving with the hose.

Once the story shifts to strategy, capability and whether America can pull it off, the original act of aggression starts to slip out of frame. The public is invited to admire the logistics, the resolve, the sheer competence of the response.

Suddenly the question is no longer why this war began. The question becomes whether Trump can deliver a win.

That is how leaders escape responsibility. The destruction they set in motion is folded into a new storyline where they get to play rescuer, defender and strongman all at once.

At between US$1.6 and US$1.9 billion a day, this war is already consuming money on a scale most people can barely picture. That money could have gone into health, housing, education, renewable energy, disaster recovery, food security and public transport.

It could have strengthened lives instead of tearing them apart.

And the meter is still running.

We do not yet know how many lives will be lost.

We do know who made this possible.

We do know who chose escalation.

We do know that media language matters.

The moment coverage starts treating the author of a crisis as the hero of its resolution, journalism stops asking the most important question.

Who created this mess in the first place?

No way, Jose – He does not get to smash the region and then pose as the man who came to save global trade.

When power starts suing its way through democracy

As a citizen journalist, one of the key things I write about is abuse of power. It shows up in local councils, institutions, corporations and political systems. It shows up wherever people with status, money or authority decide the rules should protect them more than the public.

Watching court case after court case announced by the Trump administration, I cannot think of a clearer modern example.

Its become an embedded governing style. As of 20 March 2026, Lawfare was tracking 233 active cases challenging Trump administration actions and 22 suits brought by the administration against states or local governments. Reuters reported on 20 March that the administration had also sued Harvard, seeking to recover billions in federal funds over allegations of antisemitism.

This scale shows how lawsuits work far beyond the courtroom. They operate in the imagination. Every new case carries a message. If you resist, this can become expensive. If you push back, we can drain your time, your focus and your resources. Even when a defendant eventually wins, the punishment has already started.

A courtroom becomes a theatre of intimidation. The people in the gallery take the message home.

The Harvard case lays out the playbook. Take an institution in public view, threaten its funding, force it into a costly fight and let everyone else watch. Universities will see exactly what is being demonstrated. So will every organisation tied to public money.

Australia uses a different model, and some parts of that model offer stronger democratic safeguards. We channel many disputes through administrative review rather than permanent courtroom war. The Administrative Review Tribunal recorded 59,752 lodgements between 14 October 2024 and 30 June 2025. 0 We have a structure that, at least in theory, allows citizens to challenge government decisions through review rather than spectacle.

Still, Australia leaves people exposed in another way. The Human Rights Law Centre says the ACT remains the only Australian jurisdiction with anti SLAPP laws, and even those protections are narrower than stronger overseas models. So while our politics may be less theatrical, wealthy people and powerful institutions can still use legal threat to intimidate critics, campaigners, journalists and ordinary citizens.

Abuse of power often arrives in polished form, a statement of claim, a demand for documents, a threat over costs, a lawyer’s letter written to sound reasonable while applying pressure. The language is formal. The intention is unmistakable.

Do what I want, or I will make this hurt.

A healthy democracy needs courts. It also needs limits on the use of law as a weapon. It needs strong anti SLAPP protections. It needs independent media. It needs citizens willing to keep speaking when power would prefer quiet.

That is one of the reasons I keep writing about abuse of power. Once you learn to recognise the pattern, you start seeing it everywhere.