Tag: Kiama Council

Kiama Council’s Gaslighting Didn’t End with the Report, It Got a Standing Ovation

 

Kiama Council’s latest report into 7.11/7.12 developer contributions might have skipped the $970,000 loss, but some councillors didn’t just let it slide, they applauded it. And now the video message tells us everything’s fine. The gaslighting hasn’t stopped. It’s evolving. I imagine the internal conversations, “Is this the hill I want to die on?” “Is it worth rocking the boat?” But every time that question wins out over accountability, the damage deepens. Not just to public trust, but to the reputation of anyone who stays silent. When do they call it out? When is enough finally enough?

What Happens to a $1 Million Developer Contribution That Was Never Collected?

Recently, a councillor dismissed community concerns about Kiama Council’s lost $1 million developer contribution from the Golden Valley project by saying, “Jamberoo didn’t need any extra roads.”

Let’s be clear: that’s not how Section 7.11 contributions work. And it’s not an excuse.

What Are Section 7.11 Contributions For?

Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act allows councils to charge developers for local infrastructure needed as a result of new development.

That includes:

  • Roads

  • Footpaths and cycleways

  • Drainage and stormwater upgrades

  • Community halls and libraries

  • Open space, parks and playgrounds

  • Traffic calming and local safety improvements

It’s not just about roads. It’s about ensuring our community services, infrastructure, and public spaces keep pace with population growth.

What Would Have Happened to the $1 Million?

If Kiama Council had maintained a valid Section 7.11 plan and the $1 million contribution had been collected from the Golden Valley development, here’s what would’ve happened:

  • The funds would have gone into a dedicated infrastructure reserve, separate from general council revenue.

  • The money could only be used for works listed in the adopted 7.11 plan, local projects identified as needed due to growth.

  • Even if the infrastructure wasn’t needed immediately, the money would remain in reserve and be used when the demand appeared.

  • Councils usually have up to 10 years to use the funds. If nothing is built in that time, they must return the funds, but that rarely happens with well-managed plans.

So Why Didn’t Council Collect It?

The developer had agreed to pay the $1 million. They considered it reasonable. But while the development was in the Land and Environment Court, Council repealed its 7.11 plan.

By the time the court made its final ruling, there was no legal mechanism to impose the original $1 million contribution. Instead, the court applied a Section 7.12 levy, which is capped at 1% of the development cost. The developer paid $30,000.

That’s a $970,000 shortfall to the Jamberoo community. Not because of a court loss. Not because of a loophole. But because of Council’s own failure to manage its planning instruments.

Why This Matters

This wasn’t a technical error. It was a preventable governance failure. And it’s been compounded by a refusal to explain what happened or who was responsible.

The community deserves more than a shrug and a video saying “Council did nothing wrong.”

The Jamberoo community  lost $970,000 in infrastructure funding and we’re being told not to ask why.

#DeveloperContributions #CouncilAccountability #GaslightingBySilence #InfrastructureFail #GoldenValley #KiamaCouncil #PlanningMatters #WhereDidTheMillionGo #ReputationByAssociation #WhenIsEnoughEnough

Kiama Council Housing Strategy called out for being Strategic in Name Only.

A local community member has just called out what many in the community have suspected – that Kiama’s Housing Strategy, despite its name, has little to do with genuine strategic planning.

In a blistering Facebook post, they point to the last-minute inclusion of land parcels not exhibited, a complete lack of proper studies, and a long pattern of bypassing community consultation. Their conclusion?

Council “sold out” on community input and called it strategy.

That’s not a fringe view. It’s a reflection of what happens when:

  • Community consultation becomes a formality, not a process,

  • “Strategic” means politically convenient, not evidence-based, and

  • Council fears losing control more than it values collaboration.

This former councillor also backed something many of us have pushed for  a community panel to help shape the strategy. It was voted down.

So again, we ask:
What is stopping Kiama Council from working with the talent in its own community?
We have planners, builders, policy experts, and everyday residents with deep local knowledge, and yet meaningful collaboration keeps getting shut down.

The real issue is what happens when decision-makers believe they’re the smartest people in the room. They stop listening, start defending, and shut the door on fresh ideas. That’s when consultation becomes performance, not process,  and trust quietly walks out.

It’s not rocket science you build trust by inviting people in.

#KiamaCouncil #HousingStrategy #CommunityConsultation #StrategicPlanning
#LocalVoices #CallItOut #DryHumourDemocracy #PlanningWithPurpose
#WeDeserveBetter #TickTheBoxPolitics

When Kiama Council stops listening, the community steps up

In Kiama, we pride ourselves on being engaged, fair-minded, and not afraid to speak up when something feels wrong. So when members of this community take the time to submit formal complaints to Council -backed by evidence, dates, and clear requests for action – it’s not done lightly.

It comes from a belief that our local democracy still matters. And that someone, somewhere inside the system, will listen.  to put their concerns in writing, cite documents, ask for a review  – there’s a basic expectation: that someone, somewhere, will respond.

 

A simple acknowledgement.

A record of receipt.

A sign that the system is functioning.

But that didn’t happen here.

 

I submitted a formal complaint to Kiama Council about the handling of the ICAC referral. So did others. We raised questions about process, timing, and accountability. We asked for a review.

 

The response? Silence.

Not even a note from the Public Officer to confirm the request had been received. No response from the CEO. No indication that the concerns were being treated with the seriousness they deserve.

And this is what makes people give up. Not disagreement. Not debate. But the sense that no one is listening.

 

So let me say this clearly:

We are listening to each other.

We are keeping records.

We are not going away.

The community sets the standard.

We expect better.

 

We expect that when three councillors are referred to an anti-corruption body and then cleared, someone in Council will have the decency to correct the record — not leave a misleading notice online for months, casting doubt long after the facts are known.

 

We expect that formal requests will be logged, replied to, and dealt with transparently – not ignored.

 

And we expect that those tasked with upholding the integrity of the system will do more than protect it when convenient. They will protect it when it’s hard. When it’s messy. When it means holding powerful people to account.

The question is not whether councillors or community members are brave enough to raise these issues.

 

We already have.

The question is whether Council is willing to deal with the answers.

 

#KiamaCouncil #LocalDemocracy #CouncilAccountability #ICACReferral #GovernanceMatters #CommunityVoice #TransparencyNow #PublicTrust #LeadershipStandards #CivicEngagement

When silence becomes complicity in local democracy

If you are new here, welcome. I write about issues affecting local democracy, governance, and accountability in the Kiama local government area, with a focus on asking the questions others might avoid.

Three councillors. A high-stakes development vote. A referral to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. An election three months away.

These are the facts. What followed was silence.

It is now publicly known that three Kiama councillors were referred to ICAC after a unanimous vote to reject a controversial development application. That referral became public knowledge not through formal channels, but through the media. The councillors themselves say they were not notified by Council. ICAC has since dismissed the referral.

No action. No investigation. No findings.
And still, no public correction.

For those watching closely, the timing felt less like coincidence and more like interference. A reputational blow landing just as the election campaign began, targeting councillors who had been vocal on governance, transparency, and community rights. If that was not an attempt to influence the election narrative, then what was it?

And yet here we are. New councillors have been elected. Fresh mandates have been claimed. And not one formal effort has been made to review what happened or ensure it never happens again.

This raises a harder question: why?

Why would any incoming councillor, elected to represent the interests of their community, not want to investigate a potential misuse of process? Why would they not want to protect future candidates and colleagues from the same kind of political weaponisation?

This is not about loyalty to the past council. It is about the future of local democracy. If elected officials can be referred to an anti-corruption body without due process, then left to wear the reputational damage even after dismissal, something is deeply wrong.

And if that damage can be timed to land just before an election, we are not talking about governance. We are talking about manipulation.

The community deserves better. Not in whispers, not behind closed doors, but in public.

If there is nothing to hide, there should be nothing to fear in a review. Silence may feel safe, but over time it corrodes trust. And trust, once lost, is difficult to regain.

Local democracy does not fail overnight. It fails when decent people say nothing because speaking up feels too risky. The real question now is not what happened then, but what our current leaders will do with what they know now.

This article reflects my personal views and interpretations, based on publicly available information and in the interest of fostering open and accountable local government. It is not my intention to accuse any individual of wrongdoing, but to encourage reflection and action on matters that affect trust in our democratic processes.

#Kiama #LocalGovernment #CouncilTransparency #DemocracyMatters #PublicTrust #AccountabilityNow #ICAC #Governance #CivicEngagement #CommunityVoice #LeadershipMatters

Local democracy shouldn’t feel like defiance

Why did it have to come to this

That’s the question I keep circling back to.

 Why was it necessary to write a blog post in the first place?

Why did councillors feel they couldn’t speak freely?

Why was silence the safest option for so many, when the real damage was being done out in the open?

 If local democracy was working as it should, none of this would’ve been needed. There would have been transparency from the beginning. There would have been open dialogue between council and community. And there would have been clear lines between power and accountability—not blurred ones.

But the moment I stepped into a role that involved naming what I saw and asking questions about how power operates, it became clear what kind of culture I was stepping into.

I’m not brave. I’m persistent.

And I’m someone who understands the value of truth, even when it’s inconvenient.

 Anyone stepping into a civic reporting role, especially in a small town, should expect to be met with pushback. But what they shouldn’t expect is silence from those with the power to make things better.

I wrote because I believe in democratic process.

Because I believe a community has a right to know how decisions are made, who is making them, and whether the process is fair.

 This shouldn’t require courage. It should be normal.

It should be part of how our systems work.

Instead, we have a system where saying something out loud feels like an act of defiance.

 I spoke up because I care too much to pretend nothing is wrong.

 And here’s the thing: if someone is willing to put in the hours, do the reading, follow the trail of decisions and connect the dots – why would anyone think they’re going to give up now?

#Kiama #RegionalMedia #CivicVoice #CommunityAdvocacy #LocalDemocracy #IndependentJournalism #GrassrootsLeadership #DoDemocracyDifferently

Jane Frawley, Jane Stroud and the lessons of failed governance

Kiama has developed a troubling habit of dealing with uncomfortable truths by going after the people who raise them.

It predates the current council. During the previous term, Code of Conduct complaints became part of the conflict between councillors, raising questions about whether processes designed to uphold standards were being used to discourage dissent.

Someone speaks out. A complaint follows. Someone challenges a censure decision, takes the matter to the Supreme Court and wins.

In July 2024, that same councillor was among three referred to ICAC by the council’s CEO, just two months before the September 2024 local government elections. The three councillors denied wrongdoing. The CEO maintained that the referrals were required under Section 11 of the ICAC Act.

The timing prompted questions about the use of ICAC referrals ahead of an election. ICAC Commissioner John Hatzistergos had previously warned against using referrals for political advantage.

Meanwhile, ratepayers faced legal costs exceeding $400,000 from the Supreme Court dispute, with the council also ordered to pay the councillor’s legal fees.

What did any of this achieve for the people of Kiama?  The consequences extend beyond legal bills. Councillors become wary of one another. Decisions risk becoming defensive. Time and energy that should be spent serving the community are consumed by disputes over who said what, who complained and who should be held responsible.

We have changed councils. I am still waiting to see convincing evidence that we have changed the culture.

The responsibility for establishing a culture of accountability extends beyond elected councillors to the council’s executive leadership. That brings us to Kiama Council’s CEO.

Meet Jane Frawley who was previously known as Jane Stroud. Before arriving in Kiama in 2021, she held senior positions at Logan City Council in Queensland. Her time there coincided with a period of serious controversy involving the council’s former mayor, Luke Smith.

In March 2023, the ABC reported that Smith had received a suspended sentence after pleading guilty to offences involving secret commissions, disclosure obligations and misconduct in public office.

One of those offences concerned his interference in the recruitment process for a senior council position.

The candidate was Jane Frawley.

The court heard that Smith had misused his position to favour his preferred candidate. It also heard that Frawley had the appropriate qualifications and experience, and that the three-person interview panel had unanimously supported her appointment.

Source 

Frawley was never charged with an offence in relation to the matter. It was the mayor’s interference in her recruitment process that resulted in a misconduct conviction.

Frawley previously worked at a council where serious governance failures ultimately led to criminal proceedings.   Against that background, the way Kiama Council responds to disagreement and scrutiny warrants close examination.

Residents should be able to question their council without fearing that legitimate disagreement will escalate into expensive legal disputes. They should also be confident that complaints, investigations and referrals are handled fairly, consistently and with proper regard for the public interest.

Kiama has spent considerable time and money dealing with internal conflict.

The measure of good governance is how a council responds when its decisions are challenged.

Residents have every reason to expect better.

Where can residents turn when accountability fails?

If you’ve ever tried to raise concerns about local government, you’ll know that finding the right organisation to listen can be an exercise in patience.

There are several avenues available, although each has different responsibilities and limits on what it can investigate.

Office of Local Government (OLG)

The OLG oversees aspects of the NSW local government system and deals with certain complaints about councils. Most complaints should first be raised directly with the council concerned. The OLG also explains which matters fall within the responsibilities of other agencies.

Complaints about councils

NSW Ombudsman

The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about how NSW councils administer services, follow procedures and treat members of the public. You can complain directly to the Ombudsman, generally after giving the council an opportunity to resolve the issue.

NSW Ombudsman

Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC)

ICAC investigates and works to prevent corrupt conduct involving NSW public officials, including those in local government.

Anyone can report suspected corrupt conduct. An ICAC referral does not establish that corruption occurred, and not every allegation results in an investigation.

How and what to report to ICAC

Email: icac@icac.nsw.gov.au

Your local MP

Your state MP can raise concerns with ministers, seek explanations and advocate for improvements to government oversight. MPs do not have the power to overturn council decisions themselves.

Find your NSW MP

The Listening Tree

And when every avenue has been exhausted, there’s always the Listening Tree. No complaint forms. No reference numbers. No automated acknowledgement thanking you for your patience.

The tree may not be able to fix council governance, although at least it won’t interrupt you.

 

 

When power pushes back, who speaks for the public?

More than 20 percent of Kiama’s adult population now reads this blog. That tells me one thing loud and clear, people want to know what’s going on. They want facts, context, and the confidence to ask questions that matter.

Which brings me to what’s happening now.

On 28 May, I wrote to Kiama Council to raise a formal complaint about a public statement titled “Bugle article correction” that remains live on their website. That statement discredits a piece of reporting I wrote about developer contributions, reporting that was based entirely on public documents, and which no one has ever asked me to correct.

 I’m speaking as someone who has spent over a year digging into Council reports, explaining how local decisions are made, and making civic processes easier to understand.

Council told me I’d receive a response to my complaint within ten days. It’s approaching three weeks. Nothing.

What makes this harder to ignore is that the article Council tried to discredit contained facts that the Mayor found concerning enough to launch an internal investigation. The Deputy Mayor also backed the call. In fact, both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor formally asked for the correction notice to be taken down. It’s still there.

Which raises a question, not just for the public, but for every councillor.

How does it feel to be elected to represent your community, and then discover you have no power to correct a public statement you believe is misleading?


How does it feel to know your request can be ignored, even when it’s clear the original article was accurate?

Since then, Council has added its Media Policy (April 2025) as a reference under the statement. If that’s meant to justify keeping it online, it misses the point. I’m not a Council official. I’m not bound by internal media rules. And if the policy really does promote “accuracy and professionalism,” Council should be asking itself why it’s still hosting content that undermines both.

 This is not just about process. This is about power. Someone is using their position to silence voices that challenge them, and they are sending a strong message to others, including councillors, that getting in the way will have consequences. That is not leadership. It is bullying.

The best way to shut that down is not to wait for external bodies to act. It is for councillors to step up. The community is watching. So are others in the media.

If this can’t be resolved properly within Council, I’ll take it further, through the union, through formal complaints, through national media. But we all know that everyone’s time is better spent improving transparency, not justifying the unjustifiable on ABC radio.

I have a voice. Let’s make sure the community has one too.

#Kiama #KiamaCouncil #LocalGovernment #PressFreedom #CivicEngagement #TheBugle #RegionalMedia #PublicInterestJournalism