Category: Behind the Byline

When “It’s Only a Rezoning” Doesn’t Match the Evidence

Source 

“The Kiama community is being treated like bystanders to their own future.”

Over the past three weeks, a small group of Kiama residents ( Kiama Depot Action Group) has achieved something remarkable. With almost no warning, a vast amount of technical documentation, and a submission window that barely lasted twenty days, they mobilised themselves and their neighbours. They read the fine print. They supported elderly residents who couldn’t navigate online documents. They shared expertise, compared notes, and helped hundreds of people lodge informed submissions.

This is what community looks like when people care deeply about their town.

And they did it under conditions that would have defeated most communities in New South Wales.

But here’s what many people don’t realise:

Submissions are not the end.

Submissions are the beginning.

Submissions happen quietly, behind closed doors.

Advocacy happens in full public view and this is where community influence is strongest.

Over the past few days, I’ve spoken with people in my networks, and they’ve spoken with theirs. What’s become obvious is the extraordinary depth of expertise sitting within Kiama. Engineers. Council planners. Senior local government team members. Infrastructure specialists. Flood experts. Communications professionals. People who understand how to challenge flawed processes and how to defend a community’s interests in a system that often feels impenetrable.

Kiama is overflowing with expertise.

And that is why the work begins now.

The window has opened.

The assessment process continues well into 2026. This is the phase where councillors feel public pressure, where MPs take notice, where the Minister monitors community sentiment, and where expert advice from residents can fundamentally shape the outcome.

The idea that “the window has closed” is simply incorrect.
The window has opened.

Why “It’s Only a Rezoning” Doesn’t Add Up

Residents concerned about the Shoalhaven Street proposal keep hearing the same calming line: “Don’t worry, it’s only a rezoning.”

As if rezoning is harmless.
As if nothing meaningful begins until a DA lands on someone’s desk.
As if the community has been “premature” in paying attention.

But anyone who has lived through a Kiama planning process knows better.

It’s worth remembering how planning issues in our area have been handled before. A recent example was the attempt to reclassify the Gerringong Surf Lifesaving Club land from Community to Operational land. 

It shows how major planning changes can be introduced without clear community communication, and how strongly residents react when transparency is lacking.

Now, when the outcome is likely to be six-to eight-storey towers opposite the Bowling Club, rezoning is being recast as something procedural, something harmless, something to ignore.

Rezoning becomes “just rezoning” only when it suits the narrative.

What the Government’s Own Documents Reveal

The Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) shows this proposal is not a neutral rezoning. It contains the elements of a fully formed redevelopment.

1. Detailed reference designs already exist

The EIE includes:
• an Urban Design Report
• a Flood Impact and Risk Assessment
• a Traffic and Transport Assessment
• an Economic Impact Assessment

No one commissions this level of study for a hypothetical.

2. A full 450-unit built form has been modelled

The reference scheme demonstrates exactly how the dwellings fit on the site.
The State describes this as the: “optimum built form”

When a government calls a design optimum, they are not playing theoretical games.

3. The rezoning sets the height – 22m and 30m

The proposal lifts the current 11-metre limit to:

  • 22 metres (six storeys)

  • 30 metres (eight storeys)

These heights appear directly in the draft LEP maps.
This is not speculative.

4. Floor Space Ratio increases from 0.9:1 to 2.1:1

This level of density aligns only with mid-rise buildings, not townhouses.

5. The DA stage will not negotiate scale

Once zoning, height and FSR are set, the DA stage fine-tunes the façade, not the form.

This is why calling this “only a rezoning” doesn’t pass the straight-face test.

What Council’s Own Papers Now Confirm

Council’s agenda for 16 December shows they are treating the rezoning as a given.

Council acknowledges eight storeys

From the CEO’s comments:

“While eight storeys is not currently found elsewhere in the LGA, it is generally consistent with the State’s Low- & Mid-Rise reforms.”

This is a significant admission.
If an ordinary resident built a fence 20cm too high, Council would not consider it “generally consistent”.

Council’s submission reinforces the scale

Council confirms the rezoning will:
• raise height from 11m to 22–30m
• raise FSR to 2.1:1
• enable approximately 450 dwellings

These are the controls that shape the outcome.
Not later.
Now.

A councillor’s Notice of Motion assumes rezoning approval

Cr Draisma has moved a motion about community involvement in the future DA.
The DA – not the rezoning.

The motion assumes R3 is already happening.
This is notable given her public support for the proposal and her employment in the offices of the Minister.

The CEO then states the motion is unnecessary, because the DA will be consulted on anyway.

This exchange only makes sense if both parties believe the rezoning is proceeding.

Residents deserve transparency, not minimisation

The Kiama community is full of informed, thoughtful people.
People who understand the planning system.
People who recognise when explanations don’t match the documentation.

The request being made of residents, to treat this as benign, does not reflect what the State has published or what Council has acknowledged.

And because this proposal sits in a flood-affected valley, overlooking a constrained road network, downstream of homes that have already flooded, these decisions carry real consequences.

Communities have power.
And this is where that power becomes visible.

ADDENDUM: Evidence Summary

Use the attachments below (also listed above) to explore the documents referenced in this post. These extracts show exactly how the proposal is framed and why the “only a rezoning” narrative cannot be sustained.

#Kiama #KiamaCommunity #ShoalhavenStreet #KiamaRezoning #PlanningTransparency #CommunityVoice #PublicInterest #NSWPlanning #LocalGovernmentAccountability #KiamaFuture #HaveYourSay #ProtectOurTown #UrbanPlanningNSW #CommunityMatters #AdvocacyInAction

Modern farming fails when councils do not understand the industry they regulate

Old planning rules and new farming realities do not match

During the last rewrite of Kiama Council’s Local Environmental Plan, I sat on the Economic Development Committee as the rural advisory representative. A local lawyer who regularly worked with farmers joined me. Our task was to examine how the LEP treated agriculture and to ensure the rules reflected the reality of farming in this region.

What we found was simple and concerning.
Most farming land had been zoned RU2 Rural Landscape, a zone intended for grazing and low intensity agriculture. Modern dairy farming across NSW sits in RU1 Primary Production, where planning frameworks recognise the infrastructure, inputs and animal welfare systems that contemporary operations require.

Modern agriculture cannot thrive under a planning system designed in 2011

On paper, existing dairy farmers in Kiama were protected by existing use rights. They could continue operating at their current scale. That protection ended the moment they wanted to expand, modernise or introduce infrastructure that improves environmental outcomes. Any new feed pad, shade structure or covered system was treated as a shift from extensive to intensive agriculture, triggering a development application process that can take years.

This is where planning rules collide with reality.

Kiama’s rural zoning was written for yesterday’s agriculture and we are living with the consequences

Ten years ago, setting up a modern dairy farm cost around ten thousand dollars per cow, and this figure did not include land purchase. I am aware of a local farmer who has since been offered twenty eight million dollars for their property, which shows how dramatically the landscape has changed and how high the stakes have become. No farmer can commit to this scale of investment while facing delays, conditions and uncertainty created by a council that does not understand modern agriculture. The risk is too great, the cost too high and the process too unreliable.

Recent discussions about local farming ventures show how easily these patterns repeat. My previous story highlighted one example, where a simple diversification effort took more than one hundred days to process and ultimately came back with conditions that made the project unviable. It was a textbook case of how agricultural misunderstanding inside councils translates into poor outcomes on the ground.

The real issue is not the zoning alone.
The issue is the people interpreting and applying the zoning, without real agricultural competence.

Modern agriculture depends on a planning system that understands the industry it regulates. Kiama has reached the point where the gap between intention and reality is harming farms, blocking innovation and pushing families away from the land. As the next LEP review approaches, this needs to be acknowledged and fixed. The region’s farming future depends on it.

There is a deeper problem sitting underneath all of this. We have non experts inside council making decisions that directly affect other people’s livelihoods. Modern agriculture is a technical field. It relies on science, engineering, animal welfare knowledge and environmental management. When the people applying the rules do not understand the industry they are regulating, the result is predictable. Projects stall, costs blow out and families are pushed into impossible positions. Planning should not be guesswork. It should not come down to personal preference or a fear of getting something wrong. Rural communities deserve decisions grounded in competence, not caution.

#KiamaCouncil #KiamaLEP #ModernAgriculture #NSWPlanning #RuralZoning #FarmInvestment #AgriculturalCompetence #RegionalPolicy #DairyFarming #CommunityImpact #PlanningReform #LocalGovernmentAccountability

When councils lack agricultural expertise, the whole region pays the price

Every so often a story lands on your desk that says something uncomfortable about the way we govern rural communities. This week it came from a local primary producer who, after months of delays, shifting expectations and an approval process that made no practical sense, decided to sell rather than continue the fight.

This is not a one-off. It is what happens when a council with no agricultural expertise is asked to regulate agricultural businesses.

What makes this even harder to accept is that the solution was both simple and available. Our region has a respected agricultural consultant, someone council could draw on whenever a farm development needs specialist assessment. Farmers have suggested this repeatedly. Council has chosen not to use that resource.

And so the pattern repeats.

A producer who tried to upgrade infrastructure to improve animal welfare, environmental outcomes and business viability became trapped in a process designed for suburban building projects. Without agricultural literacy, council defaulted to caution. Not informed caution, but uncertainty disguised as regulation.

He could take the matter to the Land and Environment Court.

He would probably win.

But why should he have to?

No primary producer should be forced into legal action because council lacks the capacity to understand the industry it is regulating.

The consequences reach further than one property. When agricultural investment becomes too risky or too slow, people stop investing. When conditions become unreasonable, people walk away. Over time, the region loses its producers, its knowledge base and its economic diversity.

#KiamaCouncil #Jamberoo #LocalFarming #PlanningFailure #RegionalLeadership #EnergyTransition #SmallBusinessReality #PaddockToPlate #CommunityImpact #CivicAccountability

 

Essential Media Tools for Community Groups

Media can give you the edge you need. This guide shows you how to use it well.

For community groups seeking impact, clarity and control, these principles are non negotiable.

These tools give you influence. They sharpen your message, protect your credibility and keep you in control of your story, even when power sits on the other side of the table.

This is the same thorough list you would be taught in an intensive media training course, adapted for community groups who are dealing with Council, navigating power imbalances or trying to communicate clearly under pressure. u.

The five principles every community group needs to understand

(Each point is explained fully in the sections below.)

1. Power imbalance and what it does to communities

When Council holds all the information and controls the process, communities can feel powerless, dismissed or silenced.
People sense the imbalance long before they can name it.
This is the foundation for every other challenge they face.
See below for full explanation.

2. The empowerment path – what you can control

When formal pathways fail, the only things people can rely on are their principles:
• how they act
• how they respond
• their character
• how they treat others
This shifts people out of the victim triangle and into agency.
See below for full explanation.

Source 

3. The danger of negative framing

If you slip into the trap of using negative framing this gives Council an escape route, weakens your credibility, and frightens supporters who prefer to stay unseen.
It is one of the fastest ways a community can lose control of its message.
See below for full explanation.

4. The 10-second and 30-second grabs

Prepare, Prepare, Prepare

If you don’t prepare them, journalists will pull whatever you say and compress it for you.
This is how groups lose control of their story.
Short, calm, factual grabs are your protection.
See below for full explanation.

5. The risk of reinforcing someone else’s frame

Correcting a claim by repeating it – even with “not” – strengthens it.
If the media are listening, that negative phrase can become your 10-second grab.
This is why reframing is essential.
See below for full explanation.

Full article with explanations and example

Why this matters now

This statement shows, in real time, the dangers of negative framing (a frame is the automatic story people’s minds jump to when they hear specific words)  and the risk of repeating someone else’s message.

Hope is not soft, it is strategic, and positive framing is the doorway that lets people walk toward it.


So when Council responded with a lengthy statement accusing the article of containing “numerous false facts and misleading information,” the very first thing they did was repeat the headline and repeat the claims they wanted people to forget.

This is the first mistake in crisis communication.
And it’s the perfect example to help community groups understand the key principles that will protect them when dealing with a powerful organisation.

Positive framing:. “Everything I wrote in my original article on developer contributions involved six months of research. I stand by every word.”

Below is what the Council statement teaches us, and what communities can learn from it.

1. Power imbalance and what it does to communities

See key point above.

A power imbalance exists when one side controls:
• the information
• the process
• the timeline
• the definition of what “counts”

Council’s statement is a textbook illustration. It speaks inwards, to its team, its acronyms, its internal processes, not to the community. It positions the organisation as the sole interpreter of truth.

When people feel that dynamic, even if they can’t articulate it, they experience:
• frustration
• confusion
• fatigue
• self-doubt

Understanding the imbalance is the first step in shifting it.

2. The empowerment path – what you can control

See key point above.

Communities do not control Council’s behaviour.
But they do control:
• how they act
• how they respond
• their character
• how they treat others

The Council example shows why this matters. Their reaction was defensive, rigid and power-protective.
Make the pathway is different. Be grounded, factual and principled.
This is how communities shift themselves out of the victim triangle.
Agency comes from calm, deliberate choices, not from emotion or escalation.

3. The danger of negative framing

As George Lakoff explains with “Don’t think of an elephant,” the moment you answer inside someone else’s mental picture – their frame –  you strengthen it. Once the frame is activated, even denial reinforces it. That is exactly what happened here.

See key point above.

Council’s response is built almost entirely on negative framing:
“false facts”, “misleading”, “incorrect”, repeated over and over.
The result is predictable:
• they sound combative
• they appear threatened
• they close off community empathy

Negative framing repels the very people who might otherwise support them.
For community groups, the lesson is simple:
negative language might feel satisfying in the moment, but it weakens your long-term position.

The safer choice is principled framing:
• “We followed every step of the process and still have no explanation.”
• “We want clarity, fairness and transparency.”
This invites the public into the story rather than pushing them away.

4. The 10-second and 30-second grabs

See key point above.

If a journalist needed a quote from Council’s statement, the most likely 10-second grab would have been:

“The Bugle claims Council failed to renew its developer contribution plans on time.”

That one sentence would have become the public message.

This is why community groups must prepare their own:
• 10-second grab: the one clear sentence that sums up the issue
• 30-second grab: the calm, factual explanation that adds context

If you do not prepare them, the media will pull whatever stands out.
And often the loudest or most emotional line becomes the quote – even if it is not what you wanted to emphasise.

Practice, Practice Practice

5. The risk of reinforcing someone else’s frame

See key point above.

The most important lesson from Council’s statement is this:
they repeated the issue they wanted to erase.

By restating the concerns in the article, line by line, they cemented the association in the public mind:
Council + governance failures + developer contributions + missed renewal deadlines.

Repeating a criticism strengthens it.
Especially when you say “incorrect.”

Communities must avoid this trap at all costs.
Do not repeat the negative claim.
Step into your own frame (a frame is the mental picture people form the moment certain words are used):

• “Here is what happened, what should have happened, and what it means for the community.”
• “Our concern is transparency and process.”
• “We want clear answers and fair treatment.”

This protects you.
It prevents the negative claim becoming your quote.
And it keeps your voice grounded and credible

Rider on choosing the right spokesperson

I have had extensive media training and I can recognise strong communication as easily as I can spot poor media practice. That does not mean I should be the voice of any organisation. Every group needs to choose the person best suited to speak on its behalf, and that choice should be intentional.

A good spokesperson is someone who:
• stays calm under pressure, even when the questions are sharp
• can hold the key messages without drifting into emotion or frustration
• speaks clearly, briefly and without jargon
• understands the issue well enough to answer safely, but not so personally that they sound defensive
• sounds grounded, respectful and consistent across every interview
• remembers they are representing the group, not themselves

This person might be:
• someone with a calm, measured voice who doesn’t get rattled
• a committee member who is trusted internally and externally
• a community advocate who can explain complex issues in simple language
• a member who isn’t directly harmed by visibility, unlike others who may rely on Council approvals or services
• someone who naturally projects confidence without aggression

This spokesperson does not need to be the most senior person, the person with the most knowledge or the person who did the most work. They simply need to be the person who helps the group’s message land in a clear, credible and constructive way.

#Kiama #KiamaCouncil #CouncilAccountability #CommunityAdvocacy #MediaSkills #Framing #PublicCommunication #CommunityVoice #GovernanceMatters #Transparency #MessagingMatters #MediaTraining #OLG #CommunityRights #SpeakUpSafe

What to say when Council stops listening and OLG needs to step in

Over the past few days a lot of people have contacted me asking the same question:


What is the best way to raise a concern with the Office of Local Government when Council will not resolve an issue?

Read the original blog post  for the pathway below

When residents need a guidebook to deal with their own Council

Here’s a simple guide to help you write a clear, effective complaint that the OLG can act on.

The most important thing

OLG cannot intervene just because something feels unfair. They step in when there’s evidence that Council has not followed its own policies or the NSW Local Government Act.
Your letter needs to show this plainly.

What to include

• A short summary of the issue, including the timeline
• What you asked Council to do and when
• Council’s response or lack of response
• The specific policy, procedure or legislation you believe Council has not followed. If you don’t know try Google
• Any documents, emails or screenshots that support your claim
• The outcome you are seeking
• Your contact details

Keep it factual, calm and organised.
This helps OLG assess whether the matter sits within their responsibilities.

Contact details for OLG

Email: olg@olg.nsw.gov.au
Phone: 02 4428 4100
Postal: Office of Local Government, Locked Bag 3015, Nowra NSW 2541

My suggestion is you email them, send them a snail mail copy and also send an email copy to your MP – in the case of Kiama that is Katelin McInerney

Kiama Electorate Office
A Ms Katelin McInerney, MP
102 Terralong Street
KIAMA NSW 2533
P (02) 4232 1082
F (02) 4232 3577
E kiama@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Why this matters

When the community follows a clear process, it is harder for any organisation to dismiss concerns or pretend the issue is complicated.
A well-written complaint demonstrates that residents know their rights and expect the standards set out in the Act to be upheld.

#OLG #LocalGovernment #CommunityRights #CouncilAccountability #Transparency #GoodGovernance #NSWOLG #CivicEngagement #KnowYourRights #CommunityAdvocacy

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.

 

When residents need a guidebook to deal with their own Council

I am now getting at least one message a day from community members asking if I can help them raise concerns with Council because their own attempts have gone nowhere. Different people, different issues, the same story. Long silences. No clear answers. Doors closing instead of opening.

This is not how community engagement is meant to work.

And it should never have reached this point.

This pathway exists for difficult, complex issues.
It exists for serious failures of governance.
It exists for situations where the facts are unclear or the stakes are high.

It should not be necessary for something as simple as a community group asking what happened to their property.
It should not be necessary when the evidence is clear, the police report exists and the matter could have been resolved with one respectful conversation.

And yet here we are, building a guide for the community because a straightforward mistake became a maze.

Yes, it is sad that this is necessary.
But sunlight is a powerful thing.
The more people understand the system, the less the system can ignore them.

Where the community can go when Council will not resolve an issue

When a matter cannot be resolved directly with Council, there are proper pathways available.
The order matters because each agency plays a different role.

1. Office of Local Government (OLG)

This is always the first step.

OLG oversees how councils operate. They look at:
• governance
• fairness
• use of confidentiality
• whether councillors received accurate information
• whether proper process was followed
• whether the community was shut out

They must receive the complaint before any other body, because they decide whether the matter needs referral or review.

2. NSW Ombudsman

The Ombudsman becomes involved only after OLG has assessed the matter.

They examine administrative fairness, including:
• was the decision reasonable
• was the process appropriate
• did the community have a fair opportunity to be heard
• were decisions based on correct information

The Ombudsman does not overturn decisions.
They assess whether the system worked the way it was meant to.

3. Your local Member of Parliament

An MP cannot change a Council vote, but they can:
• ask questions
• seek clarification from the Minister
• request updates from OLG
• support community groups who feel excluded

Sometimes a single enquiry from an MP changes the tone completely.

4. NSW Police (when relevant)

Police involvement is appropriate only when:
• property has been lost
• facts are unclear
• a timeline needs to be confirmed

Police do not decide compensation or policy.
They clarify what happened so other processes can function.

5. Community Legal Centres NSW

For people needing independent advice on their rights, Community Legal Centres NSW and their local member centres remain a strong option. They offer free or low cost support and can help residents understand which laws or policies apply to their situation.

6. Media and community advocacy

Not the first choice for most groups, but a necessary one when all formal pathways lead to silence.

Media is effective when:
• the facts are clear
• the documentation is strong
• the group has acted in good faith

Community advocacy helps residents understand their rights and supports groups who feel dismissed.

See Essential Media Tools for Community Groups here

Why the order matters

Many people go straight to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman will send them back to OLG.

The correct sequence is:
Council → OLG → Ombudsman (if OLG decides it is appropriate)

Following the proper order avoids delays and gives the issue the best chance of being handled properly.

Rider

This information is based on my research and on the publicly available guidance for residents navigating unresolved Council matters.
If anyone has further insights, corrections or additional information that could help the community understand this pathway more clearly, please contact me.
My goal is accuracy, clarity and support for anyone who feels their issue has stalled.

#Kiama #KiamaCouncil #CommunityRights #LocalGovernmentNSW
#CouncilAccountability #GovernanceMatters #CommunityAdvocacy
#Transparency #PublicInterest #HaveYourSay #CivicEngagement

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