Tag: local government

Are they public toilets if the public can’t reach them?

New here?

This blog explores the messy, fascinating business of local democracy in the Kiama local government area. I’m not a councillor, not council staff, and not on anyone’s payroll. I’m a long-time community member and former civics reporter for the local paper. I care about transparency, process, and making sure public decisions actually serve the public.

The post below is part of an ongoing series tracking what’s happening at the new Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club building. This time, we’re asking a basic question: what good are public toilets if the public can’t use them?

If you care about access, accountability, or the difference between what’s promised and what’s delivered, welcome,  you’re in the right place.

On 23 April 2025, I wrote an article for The Bugle titled Let’s make Kiama beaches accessible to all ages, all abilities, all the time.

That article was the beginning of a conversation we will keep having until it becomes reality. I am continuing to work with John Maclean, who featured in the story, and with the wheelchair surfing community to help Kiama lead by example.

This is not a campaign for special treatment. It is about access for everyone.  Kiama beaches and public spaces that are accessible to all ages, all abilities, all the time.

In December 2024, a private certifier issued an Occupation Certificate for the new Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club building. That certificate was meant to confirm the building was complete and ready for lawful use, including access for all.

Kiama Council has said the project includes $180,000 worth of public infrastructure. That includes accessible public toilets. This claim was repeated in a joint press release issued by Council and Gerringong SLSC in 2023.

So what was delivered?

There are public toilets on the southern side of the building. They are open, but they are not easily accessed by people using mobility aids. Meanwhile, the fully accessible toilets on the northern side are locked. They are located behind doors, reserved for surf club members only.

A public building, on public land, with restricted access

This is a Council-owned facility, funded by multiple levels of government. It sits on public land. It was built with the help of the community, approved through the development system, and publicly promoted as a space that would benefit more than just members.

If you are not a member and you need level access, wide doorways, and accessible fittings, these facilities are simply not available to you.

How did this get signed off?

The Occupation Certificate was issued by a private certifier. That raises several questions.

Did the certifier inspect the site and assess the toilets that were actually open to the public? Were they informed that the accessible toilets would be locked? Did they assume accessibility shown on the plans matched accessibility in practice?

If the accessible toilets were counted as part of the required infrastructure and included in the justification for funding, then someone needs to explain why they are not usable by the public.

Council has practical ways to fix this

There are straightforward options available:

  1. Make the public toilets truly accessible by improving physical access to the toilets on the southern side

  2. Unlock the accessible toilets on the northern side so they are available to everyone, not just club members

  3. Do both, and clearly communicate the changes to the community

This is not a complex policy problem. It is a matter of following through on what was promised, and ensuring public infrastructure works for the public.

Right now, we have a building that looks finished but is failing to deliver on one of its most basic public promises.

This is about the gap between what is said and what is delivered. It is about the difference between ticking a compliance box and meeting a community standard. It is about whether we are prepared to speak up when public infrastructure does not serve everyone equally.

If you cannot access a toilet in a brand new  building, what confidence should you have in future upgrades, planning approvals, or public project delivery?

And if those in charge of building, certifying, or managing these facilities will not raise the issue, then the community must.

#Kiama #GerringongSLSC #PublicAccess #AccessibleDesign #InclusiveInfrastructure #LocalGovernment #CivicAccountability #ToiletAccess #CommunityMatters

Why I wouldn’t hire myself as CEO and why that matters

New here? Welcome.
This blog unpacks the inner workings of local democracy in the Kiama local government area. I am not a councillor or council staffer. I am a long-time community member, former civics writer for the local newspaper, and someone who has spent decades in leadership, founding a national charity, completing world-class leadership programs, and training hundreds of emerging changemakers.

What that experience gave me was not just confidence in my own skill set. It taught me something far more valuable. Great leadership is knowing what you bring to the table and then surrounding yourself with people who fill the gaps. It is building a team of “we” people, not “I” people. People who understand that progress is collaborative, that community outcomes are shared, and that leadership is not about being the smartest person in the room, but about listening to the smartest people in the room.

That is the standard we should expect from anyone who puts their hand up to lead.

This blog exists to ask hard questions, share hard truths, and shine a light where it is most needed.

Why I wouldn’t hire myself as CEO and why that matters

For 20 years, I led a charity that offered leadership training to hundreds of emerging voices across rural and regional Australia. I have completed extraordinary programs from the Melbourne Business School to global executive intensives and yet I still would not hire myself as the CEO of a major organisation.

Why? Because those courses taught me something uncomfortable and essential. Great leadership is not about confidence. It is about having the capacity to recognise the people who can deliver the outcomes our community deserves, and, most importantly, to identify the “I” people. The ones who have not done the work and do not understand what shared leadership truly means.

This matters because communities pay the price when leadership becomes about ego.

“I” people focus on self-preservation, not solutions. They stall progress, weaken trust, and erode the culture of shared responsibility. Real leadership ensures the right people are empowered, the community’s needs are prioritised, and decisions are guided by collaboration rather than personal ambition.

What I find deeply troubling is this. In all my observations of Kiama Municipal Council, I am not seeing anyone who has put themselves forward for any form of recognised leadership training. Not one. And we are expected to trust them to lead a one hundred million dollar organisation.

That is not brave. That is not capable. That is reckless.

So what should we look for in a 21st century leader, especially one applying to run a council?

Here is the skill set I believe should be non-negotiable.

  • Emotional intelligence and self-awareness

  • Systems thinking

  • Stakeholder engagement

  • Adaptive leadership

  • Transparency and accountability

  • Public value mindset

  • Commitment to lifelong learning

Let us stop accepting untrained leadership as good enough.

If you were hiring a surgeon, you would check their qualifications. If you were hiring a pilot, you would want to know they had done the flight hours. But with leadership, qualifications alone are not enough. The real test is capacity, the ability to bring people together, set a clear direction, and deliver outcomes with integrity.

Why should the CEO of a local government, responsible for planning, services, staff culture, finances, and infrastructure, be held to a lower standard? Communities need leaders who can demonstrate both the knowledge and the skill to lead, not simply hold a credential or a title. Anything less puts the community at risk.

It is time we asked for more. And it starts by asking one simple question.
Is the leadership we have what our community needs and deserves?

#LeadershipMatters #PublicLeadership #LocalGovernment #KiamaCouncil #CivicAccountability #CommunityFirst #EthicalLeadership

$1 million on the table, $30,000 collected. Let’s talk about why

Cr Erica  Warren calls for governance reform after developer contribution failures

We live in a world where most of us are juggling more than we can hold. Family, work, community, finances. In the thick of it, we trust that someone, somewhere, is keeping watch over the systems that shape our lives. We hope decisions are made fairly, money is spent wisely, and when mistakes happen, someone tells the truth.

But that trust only works when people are willing to shine a light on what is really going on.

That is what this blog is about. It is not written by a planner or a lawyer, and it is not written for them either. It is for people who care about what happens in their community, especially when public money and public trust are at stake.

This issue came to light after Kiama Municipal councillor Erica Warren asked a reasonable question. Why had Council shifted from one type of developer contribution to another, (19.4 7.11 20-May-2025-Ordinary-Council-agenda-3 ) and what impact did that have?

The response from Council left out a key fact. A Golden Valley Draft Consent Feb 2023  recommended a $1 million developer contribution under Section 7.11.

However, a majority of councillors at the time voted to reject the application, triggering an appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

While the matter was still before the Court, Council repealed its Section 7.11 contribution plans. By the time the Court ruled, there was no valid Section 7.11 in place. Instead, a Section 7.12 contribution applied, which meant just over $30,000 was collected at subdivision.

Additional contributions, up to $350,000, may be collected from individual homeowners as they lodge development applications to build. But the community still faces a shortfall of around $650,000. And the cost burden has shifted from developer to future residents.

When this shift was reported publicly, Council issued a statement accusing the article of spreading false facts. It did not address the existence of the original $1 million contribution recommendation. And it did not explain the implications of repealing the 7.11 plan while the DA was still under appeal.

This is not about technicalities. It is about transparency.

You do not need to be an expert to understand why this matters. You only need to ask whether important information is being left out, and why.

In the next post, I will walk you through the documents and decisions so you can judge for yourself.

Disclaimer: I am not a developer, a town planner, or a property lawyer. My blog posts are written in good faith and based on publicly available documents, council records, and conversations with professionals who work in planning, development, and legal fields. Every effort is made to ensure accuracy and clarity. These posts are offered to support greater public understanding of complex issues that affect our community.

#Kiama #Section711 #DeveloperContributions #LocalGovernmentTransparency #CommunityInfrastructure #PlanningMatters #PublicInterest #AccountabilityInCouncil #IndependentVoices #KiamaCouncil