Category: Abuse of Power

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.

Democracy does not arrive on the wings of fighter jets

The phrase “real men solve problems with bombs” is not strength. It is a recruitment slogan for other people’s funerals.

The news from the Gold Coast carried a familiar tone of celebration. Five Iranian women footballers, including captain Zahra Ghanbari, escaping their government minders and being granted humanitarian visas in Australia. There were photos, cheers, and, as the Home Affairs Minister cheerfully reported, a spontaneous chant of “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie”.

For many Australians it felt like a simple story. Brave women rescued. Freedom offered. A good ending.

Stories like this have a powerful pull. They tap into an old idea that runs deep through Western political culture. The idea that someone will ride in on a white horse and save the day.

The white knight.

Across history the script has repeated itself. Strong men, often described as decisive or tough, step forward declaring that they will fix another country’s problems. The language shifts between defence, liberation, stability or democracy. The outcome rarely matches the promise.

Think  Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Libya.

Each began with claims that intervention would deliver freedom. Each left societies fractured, institutions weakened and millions of ordinary people carrying the cost for generations.

What is missing from the white knight story is the people who actually live in those countries.

Iranians are not waiting for outsiders to rescue them. They have been debating the future of their country for decades. Students, women, writers, workers, clerics, reformers and conservatives all argue fiercely about what Iran should become. The struggle inside the country is real, complex and deeply Iranian.

History shows something else as well. Lasting change almost always grows from inside a society, not from outside armies.

South Africa dismantled apartheid through internal resistance and negotiation.
Indonesia moved away from dictatorship after mass civil pressure.
Eastern European countries rebuilt themselves after the collapse of the Soviet bloc through internal political movements and public demand for change.

External pressure can sometimes open space. It can support civil society. It can amplify voices that governments try to silence.

War does the opposite. It crushes the very people who might build a different future.

The phrase “real men solve problems with bombs” is not strength. It is a recruitment slogan for other people’s funerals.

Strength measured in explosions is a very old idea. It has left a trail of ruined cities and broken societies.

The Iranian footballers who escaped in Australia remind us of something far more hopeful. People everywhere want the same thing. The chance to live safely, to speak freely and to shape the future of their own country.

That future will not arrive on a white horse.

It will be built by Iranians themselves.

The Epstein Coalition wants to rule the world

Michael West Media has asked the question out loud we have all be thinking. Are we led by fools and sycophants?
MWM coverage is a welcome antidote to the desperate coverage of this epic balls-up, which is not being covered by the corporate media. Read it here. https://michaelwest.com.au/australia-and-the-epstein…/
The pix is a bit of a TL:DR image BUT do read it – its horrifying and to top it all off the Iranians are calling the US and their supporters the “Epstein Coalition”
The Israeli propaganda narrative that Iranians would sprinkle rose petals at the feet of their invaders has not come to pass. It has already been demolished in fact.

Yet here was Australia, Saturday night, first out of the blocks worldwide to throw its support behind Donald Trump and his preposterous “Operation Epic Fury”, a probable pedophile being blackmailed and led around by the genocidal Benjamin Netanyahu like a pony at the fairground show.

The cold facts of this debacle are that regime change does not work, that Iran did not want this war, that Iran appears to be exceptionally well prepared – even winning the war – that the Epstein Coalition, which Australia supports, is daily backing war crimes: blowing up hospitals, schools and civilian infrastructure.

Like George O, Grahame Parker nailed it with this song

When the paperwork ends and community democracy really begins

If you’ve ever read a council document and thought, that doesn’t quite say what it’s pretending to say, you’re not imagining things.

This is what my experience working with local government has taught me, first as a civics reporter and now as a citizen journalist. My aim is to help people feel confident engaging, asking questions, and standing up for the places they care about.

What’s unfolding in Kiama right now isn’t unique. Communities everywhere face the same challenge: decisions shaped by process and reassuring language, while the practical implications sit just out of view. What matters is how communities respond. This moment offers a clear example of community democracy in action, residents staying engaged after submissions close, asking informed questions, and drawing on institutional knowledge that often sits outside formal reports.

As the conversation around the Shoalhaven Street site continues, attention is turning to the fundamentals.  The basics.

First, process is not the same as truth. When councils say something has been reviewed or assessed, it usually means procedures have been followed. It does not mean all relevant questions were asked, all consequences examined, or all voices heard. A process can be tidy and still leave critical gaps.

Second, reassurance is not the same as accountability. Statements like “it’s only a rezoning” or “these issues will be dealt with later” sound calming, but they rarely explain what decisions are already locked in, what assumptions are being made, or how much room for change actually remains.

Third, councils work hard to control the narrative. Key decisions are often framed as minor or procedural, wrapped in technical language, or buried in attachments released late in the process. This is sometimes described as a shell game because attention is constantly shifted. The details are present, but they don’t sit still. By the time the implications are clear, momentum has already built. Once you recognise this pattern, you start reading past the headlines and paying closer attention to what’s being moved, when, and why.

This is where community advocacy matters. Formal processes move behind closed doors. Advocacy stays visible. It keeps questions alive, brings expertise to the table, and applies pressure at the point when it still matters.

In Kiama, that work is now focusing on a very simple question:

Where does the water from this site go?

Beneath the Shoalhaven Street site sits existing drainage infrastructure and an underlying watercourse. Water moves through this area during heavy rainfall via a system shaped over decades, not just by recent plans. Understanding how that system works, how it has been modified over time, and how it behaves under pressure is central to understanding what the site can realistically support.

Residents are now asking for clarity:

  • how water currently moves through and beneath the site

  • how engineered drainage interacts with natural water pathways

  • and how those systems would function if the site is excavated and built over

These are practical questions grounded in how infrastructure actually works. These questions simply ask for clarity before major planning controls are locked in.

Our investigation continues. What’s happening here shows how effective community democracy works when people stay engaged beyond the submission period, share expertise, and ask the questions that paperwork alone doesn’t answer. For background on how reassurance and process can obscure meaning, see When council reassurance isn’t the same as explanation:

Once you understand how these systems operate, you stop being a bystander to your own future. And that changes everything.

#CommunityDemocracy #LocalGovernment #PlanningTransparency #CivicEngagement #CitizenJournalism #InfrastructureMatters #FloodRisk #PublicInterest #CommunityVoice #Governance

 

Why integrity matters in Kiama, and who pays when it doesn’t

 

In this guest blog post former Kiama councillor Karen Renkema Lang reflects on integrity, accountability and the cost borne by communities. ……

Every now and then, life offers a flicker of hope. My evening with the Centre for Public Integrity in Melbourne last week was one of those moments. Because it told the truth about what happens when integrity fails, and why that truth matters locally.

The speakers were impressive, Harriet McCallum from Mannifera, Dr John Daley from the Grattan Institute, and Dr Catherine Williams from the Centre. The calm, unvarnished way they spoke about integrity made clear who carries the cost when it fails. Sitting there, I kept thinking of Kiama, and of how familiar that sounded.

For several years now, this community has lived with the consequences of financial stress, closed-door decision-making and prolonged state oversight. These are often described as governance issues, but locally they are experienced as something else entirely. Exhaustion. Division. A loss of trust.

Over a short period, Kiama Council sold community assets worth well over $100 million. Some of those sales may have been necessary to stabilise the balance sheet. All of them were permanent.

At the same time, legal costs climbed into the millions. Executive pay rose by more than $75,000, increasing from around $350,000 in 2021–22 to an estimated $428,000 by 2024–25.  Yet the scope of Council’s operational responsibilities narrowed significantly following the exit from aged care and a substantial reduction in staffing.

For residents watching from the outside, these facts did not sit separately. They formed a picture.

That picture raises reasonable questions. About priorities. About accountability. About why the Council recorded a deficit of more than $7 million in the most recent financial year, even after asset sales and years of intervention.

The Centre for Public Integrity talks often about what happens when transparency weakens. Problems build quietly. Early warnings lose urgency. By the time action becomes unavoidable, the financial and social costs are far higher than they needed to be.

That pattern resonates here. People who raised concerns found themselves labelled difficult. Others learned quickly that silence carried less risk. Over time, scrutiny narrowed, decisions hardened, and trust eroded.

The Centre also speaks plainly about whistleblowers.

Integrity systems fail when speaking up relies on personal courage alone. Without real protections, problems remain visible but untouched, because acknowledging them carries a price.

Integrity is about restoring confidence that decisions are made openly, that power is exercised fairly, and that people acting in the public interest are supported rather than sidelined.

That is why integrity matters in Kiama. Because when it is strong, communities hold together. And when it is weak, the cost is always paid locally.

Suggested additional reading – Be Careful What You Wish For by Cat Holloway 

#IntegrityAndAccountability #TransparencyInGovernment #LocalGovernmentNSW #CouncilGovernance #PublicScrutiny #WhistleblowerProtection #CivicIntegrity #AustralianDemocracy

 

Karen Renkema Lang is a former Kiama councillor, public policy practitioner and community advocate. Motivated by the world future generations will inherit, she has worked across local and federal government, community organisations and integrity initiatives, with a consistent focus on transparency, accountability and speaking up in the public interest.

Councils rely on silence until a community remembers its voice

The three arrows represent the choices communities face when they encounter a council that holds all the authority and none of the curiosity. The left and right paths symbolise the familiar reactions that come with frustration, blame or fatigue. The path labelled Forward shows something different. It marks the moment a community steps out of the noise and moves with clarity and principle. Forward is the empowerment choice. It is the reminder that while we cannot control council’s behaviour, we can control how we act, how we respond, our character and how we treat others. It is the road that stays true to who we are.

When council forgets who the power belongs to

Power imbalance appears when a council begins to behave as if authority is ownership.
Information becomes selective. Access becomes conditional. The community is treated as an audience rather than the owner.

People feel the shift long before they name it. Straightforward questions turn into complicated pathways. Residents are managed instead of respected. Accountability starts to look optional.

How people get pushed toward the victim triangle

When the field is uneven, communities can slide into powerless roles. They feel dismissed or stonewalled and begin reacting from frustration, fatigue, or blame.
This is a predictable response to a system that holds all the levers.


The moment a community shifts from powerless to unstoppable

The way back is the empowerment triangle

Communities regain their footing when they centre the only things they control:
• how they act
• how they respond
• their character
• how they treat others

This is where agency settles in.
People organise. They ask precise questions. They document facts. They refuse drama. They stand in clarity rather than reaction.
The power imbalance may still exist, but it no longer defines the community’s stance.

 The simple principles that turn frustration into power

The shift that matters

Once people anchor themselves in principle, the dynamic changes.
Council can still try to shape the story or slow the process, but they cannot control a community that knows its rights, its voice, and its values.

The forward road belongs to all of us  –  if we make courage a shared act 
And even though some people cannot speak openly because they depend on Council, the community can still walk that road together. Forward is not the loudest choice, it is the principled one. It is how we hold our ground, protect each other and keep insisting on the standards our local government was meant to uphold.

#Kiama #CommunityVoice #GoodGovernance #Transparency #Empowerment #CivicEngagement #Accountability #LocalGovernment #PowerImbalance

I also acknowledge advocating/truth-telling at this level is easier for me. Once their actions forced me to leave a job I loved, I don’t rely on Council for anything, and I know many people who want to speak up but worry they will be punished for it. We all know examples of that happening in our community.

 

The Woodcraft Group showed leadership when Council did not

I have done more leadership and negotiation courses than I can count. They do not make me a good leader. They do not make me a good negotiator. What they do give me is the ability to recognise leadership when I see it, and to recognise when it is missing.

And looking at this Woodcraft Group mess, leadership has been missing from the very people who should have shown it.

Here is the truth.
There were phone calls.
There were meetings.
There were chances to resolve this early, quietly and respectfully.
None of it made a difference.
Those conversations ended up being a waste of time because the people in the room were not prepared to act.

Leadership is not complicated.
It is not a twenty page report or a confidential motion.
It is not silence dressed as process.

Leadership is the ability to say, I hear you.
It is the courage to face a mistake, even a small one.
It is the strength to stay open when closing ranks feels safer.
It is the discipline to choose honesty over convenience.

The Woodcraft Group did not receive leadership.
They received delays, contradictions and closed doors.

And yet the most powerful leadership in this story came from the people with the least influence.
The people who stayed calm.
The people who kept asking fair questions.
The people who followed their values when they had every reason to give up.

That is leadership.
That is integrity.
That is character.

Leadership is not a title.
It is a behaviour.
And in this case, the only real leadership came from the people who had no authority at all, only a belief in doing the right thing.

#Kiama #KiamaCouncil #Leadership #CommunityLeadership #Transparency #Accountability #LocalGovernment #Jamberoo #KiamaWoodcraftGroup #CommunityAdvocacy #CouncilCulture

Council thought they’d close the lid. But you can’t lock out a community that knows right from wrong

“Integrity is doing the right thing even when the process is stacked against you.”

It has been in the newspaper. It has been on TV. All of Kiama knows about it and, thanks to WIN News, most of Wollongong does too.

And still, somehow, this simple matter became secret squirrel business. Council pushed it behind a confidentiality motion and the community was shut out. What happened behind those closed doors that led every councillor to vote against giving the Kiama Woodcraft Group two and a half thousand dollars. It is a question that deserves an answer.

The Kiama Woodcraft Group never asked for a fight. They asked a simple question. What happened to their library module. A heavy, lockable box they were told would be kept safe during the Joyce Wheatley Centre refurbishment. They returned months later to find it gone. Read the background story here 

What followed is a study in how a straightforward problem becomes something much bigger.

They were given shifting explanations. First, that the box fell over and burst open. Later, that it was opened with keys at the Works Depot. Books were placed in a skip under a disposal order. Some were salvaged by a staff member who recognised their value and later returned them. Others turned up at a Lifeline book fair. The rest were lost.

Throughout this, the outdoor and maintenance staff who were involved have been honest about what happened. Leadership has not shown the same clarity. That contrast is at the core of this story.

When the Group tried to find out what had happened, communication slowed, then stopped. Emails went unanswered. Calls were not returned. Councillors said they could not discuss the matter because it had been declared confidential.

A councillor reportedly suggested the library may never have existed. That is the moment a small loss becomes something much larger.

The Group was later told no books were taken, despite the fact that several had been returned and identified by the Group’s own library markings. They were told there was no liability. They were told the matter was closed.

They persisted anyway. Not because they enjoy conflict, but because they know right from wrong and they were not prepared to be dismissed.

 “Council controlled the motion. The Woodcraft Group controlled their character.”

When an organisation struggles to admit small mistakes, everything becomes harder than it needs to be. Staff learn to defend decisions rather than discuss them. Questions that could be answered in a day get pushed into process. Confidentiality becomes a default shield, even when openness would resolve the issue instantly.

The community sees this. People know when they are being stonewalled. They know when a simple problem has been made complicated.

They know when they are being treated as the problem, rather than people seeking a fair response.

This case shows what happens when the balance of power leans too heavily to one side. When a major venue raises concerns, partnerships are formed to resolve the issue. When a volunteer group raises concerns, the doors close. You cannot miss the contrast.

It is enough to make any resident wonder whether the Kiama Woodcraft Group should hire the same professional negotiators or public relations support that Jamberoo Action Park used. The difference in response is striking.

At one point the suggestion was made that the Woodcraft Group had invented the entire story. As if a community group would spend months gathering evidence, obtaining legal guidance, retrieving returned books and speaking to media outlets for the sake of two and a half thousand dollars. The idea does not withstand a moment’s scrutiny.

When an elected representative accepts a story like that, it reveals a deeper issue. It shows how easily people adopt the most convenient version of events. It shows how uncomfortable it can be to challenge information presented from within the system. This is not personal. It is cultural.

I am not a lawyer or the police but I know people who are and this is what they told me

Fault Clarification

  • Police role: Police investigate whether a crime has occurred (e.g., theft, fraud, misappropriation). Their conclusion that council was not at fault means they found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
  • Council responsibility: Even if no crime was committed, councils can still be responsible in a governance or civil sense. For example, failing to manage property properly, poor communication, or not resolving issues with the previous council.
  • Key point: Police findings clear the council of criminal fault, but they don’t resolve questions of administrative responsibility or duty of care. Those are matters for the council itself, or potentially civil claims.

Insurance Responsibility

  • Community group insurance: Councils often require groups to insure their own property when stored in council facilities. That covers risks while the group has custody or use of the items.
  • Council custody: Once the council removed the property and stored it at their works depot, the risk shifted. At that point, the council had custody and control, so they assumed responsibility for safeguarding the goods.
  • Damage at depot: If damage occurred while the property was at the depot, it would generally fall under the council’s insurance or liability – not the group’s. The group’s insurance wouldn’t reasonably apply to items outside their possession.
  • Key point: Responsibility for insuring and protecting the goods transferred to the council once they took possession. Damage at their depot becomes a council issue.

Summary:

  • Fault: Police cleared the council of criminal fault, but governance responsibility remains a council matter.
  • Insurance: Once the council took the property into their depot, they assumed liability for any damage.

I think often about councillors who entered public life because they wanted transparency, fairness and a better way of doing things. Many ran on that promise. Many told me they wanted to lift the standard. Yet here we are. A simple matter spiralled into silence. People with good intentions have found themselves surrounded by the very habits they hoped to change.

The Kiama Woodcraft Group’s experience is not isolated. It is part of a broader pattern in which bureaucracy attempts to control the narrative and shut down dissenting voices instead of addressing the issue directly.

I know this pattern well. I raised concerns of my own in the past. I was assured the matter would be investigated. I provided every document and every detail. Council already held information confirming what had taken place. Yet when a councillor tried to raise fair questions, they were silenced. That was the day I realised what I was dealing with. I left a job I cared about because it became clear that truth was negotiable and silence was preferred.

I will not be silent now.

The Woodcraft Group has shown what accountability looks like from the ground up. They stayed calm. They stayed factual. They stayed polite. Their account has been consistent and supported by several sources. They kept going when the system hoped they would give up.

They were treated as if the real problem here was their persistence rather than the mistake that caused it all. Yet they kept going. And that, more than anything, is why this story matters.

Addendum

A councillor reportedly said to the Woodcraft Group, “You cannot even prove the books existed.”

For the sake of accuracy, here is what the Group can prove.

They have a full catalogue list maintained by their librarian, showing every book and magazine stored in the library module. They have long term members willing to sign statutory declarations confirming the library’s existence and contents. They have 45 books returned by a Council employee, all carrying the Group’s own library markings. They have another eight books retrieved from Lifeline, also marked as belonging to the Group. They have staff witnesses who saw the module opened, saw the books inside and saw what followed. And they have a valuation list that was shown to the CEO, who agreed it was fair and reasonable.

If the books never existed, none of this evidence would exist either.

The Woodcraft Group has provided everything a reasonable person would accept as proof.
The issue was never the evidence.
The issue was the willingness to acknowledge it.

#KiamaCouncil #CommunityAdvocacy #LocalGovernment #Transparency #Accountability #Kiama #Jamberoo #KiamaWoodcraftGroup #CouncilCulture #NSWLocalGov #CommunityVoices

Kiama Council cannot fix decay by polishing the enamel

Kiama is flossing the symptoms while the infection spreads

Kiama Council has spent years patching over problems that sit far deeper than any one budget line, policy decision or change of leadership. The most important question right now is whether anyone is willing to look beneath the surface and address the actual root cause of the mess.

That point is captured perfectly in a line from Sydney barrister and Liberal Party officeholder Jane Buncle, writing in today’s Sydney Morning Herald:
“This time…. it is a struggle over what the party stands for. And a new leader won’t fix a party that has forgotten what it stands for. The problem is the horse, not the jockey.”

Kiama knows that feeling.

When the council’s dire financial position finally came into view, the response was not to examine systems, culture or long term risks. Instead, the former mayor and the CEO called a meeting with several former mayors and former CEOs. Not to seek advice. Not to draw on their experience. Those who were there have told me the purpose was to tell them they were all fools. The exact word may not have been used, but the message was the same.

The Mayor at the time and the CEO wanted the world to know –  This crisis was not theirs. It was decades of other people’s mistakes. Decades of mismanagement. Decades of problems created by everyone except the people now in charge.

The message was clear and it was repeated over and over again in the press until our current councillors said “enough”

It was much easier to point backwards than to own the present. Easier to ridicule those who had left than answer for decisions being made now. Easier to perform strength than practise accountability.

And for anyone thinking this is overstated, it is not. The former mayor has publicly confirmed the attitude behind it. Only this week he said that serving on Council requires “a strength of character you simply do not possess”, as if the real problem is ordinary residents daring to ask questions instead of the decisions that landed us in this position.

From a leadership perspective, this is the classic mistake. Best practice tells us you cannot solve structural problems with blame, defensiveness or personality politics. Root-cause leadership begins with the opposite: curiosity, humility and a willingness to sit with the evidence rather than distort it.

Modern governance frameworks call this systems thinking. High performing organisations use it every day. Instead of polishing the enamel to hide the decay, they ask:
• What created this problem
• What conditions allowed it to continue
• What blind spots did we protect
• What decisions were made for short term comfort rather than long term stability

When leaders default to blame, the culture becomes fearful. When leaders choose clarity and accountability, the culture becomes stronger. It is not complicated, but it is confronting.

And as for calling a roomful of former leaders fools, one could only observe that it is certainly a way to begin a working relationship with people who might have been able to help you. Not wise, not strategic, but a choice.

Kiama will not recover through reshuffling faces or repeating old speeches. It will recover the moment it commits to understanding the actual problem and fixing it at the root.

Rider
Everything in this piece draws on what is already on the public record and on conversations I have had with trusted voices directly involved. These accounts are consistent, clear, and supported by public statements made over several years.

#Kiama #LocalGovernment #Accountability #Leadership #CommunityVoice #CouncilCulture #RootCause #Transparency