Tag: Public Accountability

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

How a 2000 Fix for One MP Is Now Protecting Gareth Ward from Expulsion

In recent weeks, many people have asked why the NSW Constitution allows a convicted Member of Parliament to stay in office while they appeal their case. The short answer is: because of a law change in the year 2000.

And here’s the story behind it.

The change was triggered by the case of Phillip Smiles, a former NSW Liberal MP and Assistant Treasurer who was convicted of tax evasion in the 1990s. Smiles resigned from Parliament after being found guilty of falsely claiming his nanny as a tax deduction. But on appeal, his conviction was overturned.

By the time that happened, his political career was over. His seat had been vacated. A by-election had been held. And he had lost his pension and entitlements.

That outcome caused a major stir. It felt unfair, both to Smiles, who had been legally cleared, and to his electorate, which had lost its elected representative over a conviction that didn’t stick.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) looked into the case and found no evidence of corruption, but did highlight a serious problem: the law wasn’t clear on what exactly “conviction” meant under section 13A of the Constitution Act. Was it the jury verdict? Was it after sentencing? Or did it only count once all appeals were exhausted?

ICAC and a Parliamentary Committee both recommended change. They called for a clearer, more precise definition that would protect MPs and voters from being punished for convictions that might not stand.

So in 2000, the NSW Government amended the Constitution. The change meant that a conviction would only count, for the purpose of disqualifying an MP, once the appeals process had concluded. This would stop someone from being wrongly removed if their conviction was later overturned.

It was, at the time, seen as a fix. A safeguard against what happened to Phillip Smiles.

But now we are seeing the downside.

Because of that 2000 amendment, a person found guilty of serious criminal offences, remanded in custody, and serving time in jail, can still hold office, draw a salary, and access entitlements, all while appealing their case.

It’s a loophole that was meant to protect fairness. But now, it’s protecting power.

And that’s why so many of us are calling for reform again. It’s time to respect the original intent of the law, to preserve justice, while ensuring Parliament isn’t held hostage by someone who has been convicted of serious crimes and remanded in custody.

The law was changed for good reasons. But the unintended consequences now demand action.

Further Reading

You can download and review the official “Constitution Amendment Bill 2000 — Explanatory Note” for the Constitution Amendment Bill 2000, which clearly outlines the reasons for the change and how it redefined “conviction” in the Constitution

 Why Gareth Ward’s challenge to the power to expel him from the NSW parliament failed

#NSWPolitics #ConstitutionReform #PhillipSmilesCase #Section13A #PublicAccountability #DemocracyMatters #AppealLoophole #IntegrityInOffice #DisqualificationDelay

Gareth Ward Wants Taxpayers to Fund His Appeal – This Is Unconscionable Conduct

Lawyers for convicted rapist MP Gareth Ward have sought an injunction to stop him being expelled from Parliament.

As a result, he remains, for now,  the sitting Member for Kiama, while held in custody at Silverwater Jail.

This is not a technicality. This is not a procedural hiccup. This is unconscionable conduct.

A man convicted of serious sexual offences should not be representing any community from behind bars. And yet, here we are.

Let’s be honest about what’s happening. I do not believe Gareth Ward is doing this because he thinks he can carry out the duties of a Member of Parliament from a maximum-security prison. I believe his entire reason for holding on to his seat is so that he can access public funding to cover the cost of his appeal.

It is about protecting his entitlements. It is about staying on the payroll. It is about using the system, not serving the people.

If I am wrong, then let him explain how he plans to do the job. Let him show us how he will meet with constituents, attend community events, vote in Parliament, and represent the people of Kiama, all while being held in custody.

There’s a name for what we’re seeing. It’s a kind of dissociative denial. The ability to disconnect from what you’ve done and still see yourself as the victim. Gareth Ward has been convicted of serious crimes, and yet he’s fighting to stay in Parliament. Not to represent his community, but to preserve his power and entitlements. That isn’t leadership. It’s delusion.

This situation should not be up for debate. It should not require legal games or political hesitation. A man who has been found guilty of sexual violence should not be sitting in Parliament , whether or not he plans to appeal. Being in jail and being in Parliament are not compatible roles.

The people of Kiama deserve representation. Real representation. Not a legal fiction.

 This is about the integrity of our institutions. It is about the message we send when we allow someone convicted of predatory crimes to retain a position of power, status, and influence.

Gareth Ward cannot represent this community from gaol.

And the fact that he is trying to do so should be a wake-up call to every voter, every politician, and every journalist watching this unfold.

It is time for Parliament to act.

#GarethWard #NSWPolitics #UnconscionableConduct #PublicAccountability #JusticeAndIntegrity #MPInCustody #NoRepresentationFromJail #TaxpayerMoneyMatters #KiamaDeservesBetter

Are we being gaslit by our own Council?

Moving On Without Looking Back Isn’t Leadership. It’s Evasion.

There’s a growing call within Kiama Council to “move forward” on developer contributions, to focus on new frameworks, technical capabilities, and future improvements. That instinct is understandable. For newly elected councillors, the pressure to defend decisions they didn’t make must be exhausting. No one expects them to carry that weight alone.

But the issue here isn’t the future. It’s the refusal to face the past.

The latest Council report into Section 7.11 and 7.12 developer contributions presents itself as a review. It’s not. It’s an administrative summary, a carefully curated narrative that avoids the most troubling questions.

  • It does not explain why Council allowed legally required contribution plans to lapse without replacement.
  • It does not acknowledge the nearly $1 million in lost infrastructure funding from developments like Golden Valley. See previous blog post: How Kiama lost $970,000 in developer contributions and no one explained why
  • It does not explain why staff continued applying 7.11 levies after the plans had expired, resulting in $1.5 million in overcharges.
  • And it certainly does not address why this information was omitted from the CEO’s public statements earlier this year.

Instead, we are told that everything is under control. That staff have the skills to prepare new plans. That forward planning is happening “across all departments.”

But if no one inside Council can admit what went wrong, how can we trust that the same systems and staff will get it right this time?

While the report confirms the repeal of the 7.11 plans and notes that overcharges have been refunded, it still fails to address the most critical issues:

  • Why the required five-year review process was ignored

  • Why Council allowed the plans to lapse without any replacement

  • Why the Golden Valley development, with its $1 million 7.11 condition, is excluded entirely from the analysis

  • Why the CEO’s earlier response omitted this development

  • What steps are being taken to prevent this kind of governance failure from happening again

  • Why the review ignored key issues raised by councillors and the community, including those I raised in good faith

  • It also fails to acknowledge the damage caused when a CEO publicly undermines the credibility of an elected councillor, then commissions a review that examines only what suits the executive agenda. This was not a full or independent review. It was a tightly controlled exercise in reputation management, not truth-telling.

The people responsible for these failures should not be allowed to rewrite history with a few carefully worded lines in a report.

If Council is serious about moving forward with the community, it must first confront what went wrong, tell the truth, and start rebuilding trust from there.

BTW If you’ve ever read a council report and found yourself more confused than when you started, don’t worry, it’s not you. It’s working as intended.

#KiamaCouncil #AccountabilityMatters #DeveloperContributions #GoldenValley #PlanningFail #Governance #LocalGovernment #TransparencyNow #CommunityDeservesBetter #InfrastructureFunding

When leadership fails, culture tells the truth

As I’ve said before, you can do all the leadership training in the world. It doesn’t always make you a leader. But what it does do, importantly, is help you recognise the difference. It helps you identify real leaders when you see them. More importantly, it sharpens your ability to spot toxic cultures. It teaches you to recognise when someone has enough self-awareness to grow, and when someone doesn’t. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

Leadership is hard. Public leadership is harder. But when harm is done, whether through action or silence, real leadership requires something more than defensiveness. It requires self-reflection.

If a CEO were to pause and look inward, here is what genuine self-awareness might sound like.

How did I get here?
I have spent my career navigating complicated political environments. I have seen corruption up close. I have worked in organisations where things went very wrong. I was not charged, but I was part of that system. I saw what unchecked power does. I know what it costs communities. I know what it costs people.

Did I bring that culture with me, even unknowingly?
Did I carry forward habits shaped by survival in a dysfunctional system? Did I seek control where I should have encouraged transparency? Have I mistaken compliance for leadership?

Have I confused being right with being in charge?
Leadership is not about managing perception. It is about creating space for accountability and trust. When people around me challenged decisions or asked difficult questions, did I see that as threat instead of engagement?

What role have I played in the harm others say they’ve experienced?
When people say they felt targeted, silenced, or undermined during my leadership, do I hear that as a personal attack or as something to sit with? Have I considered that harm does not require intention, that impact matters more than defence?

What am I afraid will happen if I admit I got it wrong?
Is it fear of looking weak? Fear of being held to account? Or is it fear of stepping into the unknown, into a space where control is replaced by vulnerability?

What would it look like to lead differently, now?
It would mean opening space for truth. It would mean commissioning an independent review. It would mean picking up the phone to those who were hurt and saying, “I want to understand.” It would mean listening, not defending. Owning, not spinning. Rebuilding, not retreating.

Because surviving a broken system is not the same as transforming one.

And if we do not break the cycle, we become it.

#LeadershipMatters #ToxicCulture #CouncilAccountability #TrueLeadership #CommunityWellbeing #EthicalGovernance #PublicTrust

What the Kiama surf club saga reveals about Council culture

New here?
This blog is part of a series that explores how local government decisions affect everyday people in the Kiama area. I’m a long-time resident and former civics reporter, and I write to help our community stay informed, ask better questions and understand how things are meant to work – especially when they don’t.

In a 2024 media release, Kiama Council CEO Jane Stroud responded to community concern about the Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club build.

At the time, she said:

“There are several important lessons to be learnt in this project in terms of community driven replacement of Council owned facilities versus planned strategic replacement and renewal of Council assets.”

That’s a loaded sentence.

On the surface, it sounds like collaboration. But read between the lines and you’ll spot a recurring theme in how this Council operates: control, deflection, and carefully curated language that shifts accountability without ever saying the word.

When the CEO refers to community-driven replacement versus planned strategic replacement, she is drawing a line between Council’s preferred way of working – slow, top-down, internal – and what actually happened: a local surf club took initiative, secured $6 million in funding, and managed a major public project on community land.

The club did what Council didn’t. And instead of asking what Council could learn from that, the statement subtly positions the community effort as the problem. As if the real issue is that the community acted – not that Council failed to meet its own development consent conditions, failed to date the construction agreement, and allowed the building to be occupied while key access issues were unresolved.

When asbestos was discovered during construction, Council agreed to contribute an additional $370,000 to help cover remediation costs. It was a necessary move, but also a telling one, especially when paired with what the CEO said next:

“We hope this half-million-dollar shortfall serves as an important lesson and a model for better collaboration in future community projects.”

This reads like gratitude wrapped in a warning. A way of saying, thanks for doing the hard work,  but don’t do it like this again.

This is the heart of the problem. At Kiama Council, there is a pattern. When something doesn’t go to plan, the instinct is not to own the issue or bring the right people to the table. It is to recast the story. Reframe the facts. And remind everyone who holds the pen.

That might pass in internal briefings. But in a community? People notice. Because they remember who showed up. Who fundraised. Who built the thing. And who quietly waited for Council to catch up or come clean.

And let’s not forget, this wasn’t a private build on private land. The new surf club was constructed on community land, managed by Council. That means Council was the landowner, the regulator, and the eventual asset holder. So when asbestos was discovered during construction, the obvious question is: why didn’t Council already know it was there?

If Council had done the necessary environmental due diligence, it should have been flagged long before the project started. Instead, the cost of that oversight was shifted, again, to the community group doing the heavy lifting.

This is what happens when governance loses sight of its core job: to serve, support, and safeguard the public interest. Not to act surprised when the cracks show.

It’s time we stopped mistaking polished press releases for leadership. Real leadership is about working with the community, not against it. It’s about learning lessons, not assigning them.

And most of all, it’s about being honest – especially when it’s inconvenient.

#KiamaCouncil #LocalLeadership #CommunityAccountability #PublicLand #SurfClubBuild #AsbestosOversight #GovernanceMatters #CivicEngagement #DevelopmentConsent #InfrastructureTransparency

$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