This post is the part of a Follow the Money series shining a light on Kiama Council’s ongoing failure to even interpret its own spreadsheets.
I’ve been digging into Kiama Council’s legal expenses and what I’ve found is confusing, frustrating, and frankly concerning.
Here are the comparisons that matter:
| Council | Population (approx.) | 2023/24 Legal Costs | Spend Per Resident |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kiama | 23,400 | $3,369,000 | $144 |
| Port Macquarie–Hastings | 50,560 | $250,000 | $5 |
| Shellharbour | 76,200 | $858,000 | $11 |
Kiama, with the smallest population, spent by far the most on legal bills. At $144 per person, Kiama’s costs tower over Shellharbour ($11) and Port Macquarie–Hastings ($5).
A pattern of costly errors
This blowout is not an isolated issue. Council’s financial reporting on major risk areas keeps needing “fixes” after the fact:
-
A supposed $12 million in legal expenses became $2 million once spreadsheets were corrected.
-
A reported $400,000 Code of Conduct case — later overturned in the Supreme Court — was actually just over $200,000 after Council admitted to double-counting.
-
Council has also acknowledged overcharges in Developer Contributions (s7.11/s7.12).
If developer levies can be overcharged, and legal costs can be double-counted, what confidence can the public have in any top-line figure?
Meanwhile, “Other Legal Expenses” jumped from $204,000 in 2020/21 to $3.3 million in 2023/24 — a sixteen-fold increase in three years. In the same period, total legal expenses rose from $416,000 to $3.37 million.
Where Council points… and where the money actually goes
Council is very happy to outline where Land & Environment Court (LEC) costs are spent — case lists, updates, outcomes — and it is true that LEC matters account for around 53% of legal costs (excluding the Daoud Federal Court case).
But here’s the catch:
-
Probity/General legal advice soaks up another 37%.
-
When I asked for a breakdown of these “other” costs, the Public Officer refused to provide it.
This is the deflection at play. Council points to the unavoidable LEC cases, but goes silent on the categories where the blowouts are happening.
Are LEC costs really unavoidable?
Council insists LEC costs are unavoidable. But the record shows many cases should never have reached court at all.
-
Yes, developers have a legal right to appeal to the LEC.
-
But how Council manages those appeals is absolutely within its control. If cases are lost because Council misapplied its own LEP or DCP, or if politically motivated decisions collapse under scrutiny, those costs are self-inflicted.
-
Time and again, matters defended at great expense have been lost or forced into costly conciliation — suggesting they should never have been taken to court.
LEC costs are not automatically unavoidable. Too often, they are the price we pay for poor governance.
Code of Conduct costs
On top of this, $69,080 was spent on Code of Conduct complaints in the past reporting year, even though:
-
10 complaints were lodged,
-
only 2 reached investigation, and
-
2 breaches were found (leading to councillor censure).
That is an extraordinary spend for very little outcome.
And the contradiction is glaring: the Mayor has claimed Codes of Conduct are being “weaponised” — yet he himself lodged the complaint that led to a censure later overturned in the Supreme Court, costing the community just over $200,000.
Why this matters
It all beggars belief.
Residents should not need to become forensic accountants to follow the money. When legal spend is this high — and when we keep seeing corrections across legal costs and developer contributions — the only responsible response is radical transparency.
So why isn’t it happening?
-
Why isn’t Kiama Council publishing legal spend by category, with clear totals, every quarter?
-
Why aren’t the Office of Local Government and the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee (ARIC) demanding answers on the developer contribution overcharge, the double-counting of legal costs, and the “Other Legal” blow-outs?
-
Why is it left to community members to do the oversight work that should already exist?
The bottom line
Transparency in legal and developer-contribution accounting is not optional — it is a core measure of good governance. Until figures are itemised clearly, corrected promptly, independently reviewed, and made public without community pressure, trust in Kiama Council will continue to slip away.
Disclaimer
I am a community member, not a forensic accountant. This post reflects in-depth analysis of Kiama Council reports, combined with concerns raised by community members and councillors. It is a genuine attempt to understand and explain how and why Council’s legal expenses have escalated.
I look forward to Kiama Council’s response.
#KiamaCouncil #Accountability #Transparency #Governance #LegalCosts #CommunityVoice #LocalGovernment






