Opinion piece by Lynne Strong The recent decision by Transport for NSW to reduce the speed limit on Jamberoo Road to 60 km/h has sparked a mixed response in our community. Kiama MP Gareth Ward, responding to considerable feedback from concerned residents, has launched a petition to reinstate the 80 km/h speed limit, citing concerns that the reduction won’t improve safety and will result in fines for local commuters.While Mr Ward’s concerns about the impact on residents are understandable, it is crucial to remember that decisions like these are made with community safety in mind. Politicians are often caught between responding to immediate feedback and making choices for the long-term good. The reduction in speed limits on Jamberoo Road should be seen not as an inconvenience but as an essential measure to saving lives. Reducing speed limits is not a knee-jerk reaction; it’s backed by extensive research. Numerous studies have shown that lower speed limits directly lead to fewer accidents. According to the World Health Organization, a 5% reduction in average speed can result in a 30% decrease in fatal crashes. On roads where speed limits are reduced from 80 km/h to 60 km/h, the number of accidents drops by 25–40%.Jamberoo Road, like many rural roads, is frequently shared by cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. The lower speed limit gives drivers more time to react and significantly reduces the severity of accidents when they do occur. While Mr Ward is right that maintenance and roadworks are critical, lowering the speed limit is one of the most effective measures we can take to make this road safer for everyone. The decision to reduce the speed limit along Jamberoo Road will add just 1 minute and 39 seconds to the average commute — a minor inconvenience when weighed against the potential life-saving benefits. Many of us have loved ones in this community, and none of us want them to become a statistic on our roads. If lowering the speed limit by a small margin helps protect them, then it’s a step worth taking. It’s natural to be concerned about fines or small delays, the real question should be: What is the cost of doing nothing? The risk of serious accidents and fatalities far outweighs the extra minute added to the journey. One area where Australia could certainly improve is in its signage reminding drivers of speed limits. While travelling in Spain, I noticed impressive signage that serves as a constant reminder of the speed limits, helping to keep drivers aware of the road rules. It’s not just about reducing speeds but also about making sure motorists are consistently aware of their surroundings. This is definitely something that could be implemented more effectively in Australia to support safer driving habits. Mr Ward’s call for additional road works and better overtaking options is certainly valid. These are important components of improving road safety, and they should work in tandem with speed reductions, not as an alternative. A holistic approach that includes infrastructure improvements, better signage, and lower speeds will create the safest possible environment for all road users.However, focusing solely on issues like tourist and motorcyclist behaviour, as Mr Ward suggests, misses the broader point. Speed limits affect everyone, and slower speeds give all drivers more time to react, reducing the likelihood of fatal accidents. At the heart of this debate is our shared goal: to ensure that our roads are safe for everyone. While it’s understandable that Mr Ward, like many politicians, may feel the pressure of public feedback, it’s important to remember that road safety is not about popularity—it’s about protecting lives.No one enjoys receiving fines, but compliance with speed limits is a basic requirement of road safety. If the reduced speed limit saves even one life, isn’t it worth it? We should be prioritising the well-being of the community, not the potential inconvenience of a few extra minutes on the road.

Farmers are known for their resilience—after all, they battle unpredictable weather, fluctuating markets, and the occasional invasion of fall armyworm. But sometimes, they earn a reputation for expecting someone else to swoop in and fix their problems, like our good friend Farmer Joe.You’ve probably heard the story: the flood comes, Joe climbs onto his roof, waiting for God to save him, all the while turning down a truck, a boat, and a helicopter. When he gets to heaven, Joe’s a bit miffed with the Almighty.“Lord,” he asks, “Why didn’t you save me?” And God, perhaps with more patience than Joe deserved, replies, “I sent you a truck, a boat, and a helicopter—what more did you want?” It’s a classic tale and a warning against waiting for miracles while solutions float right by.Fortunately, the NSW dairy industry isn’t waiting for divine intervention. Faced with significant workforce shortages, dairy farmers across the region have chosen to take positive action rather than hope for a miracle.In recent years, attracting skilled workers to regional farms has been about as challenging as milking a bull. Farmers have struggled to find the right people, and the looming crisis has threatened the future of the industry.But rather than sitting on the metaphorical roof, waiting for someone to come along and fix it, the NSW dairy farmers, in partnership with DairyNSW, have been proactive in solving their workforce woes.Enter the Workforce Attraction and Retention Specialists—the heroes of this story. Among them is DairyNSW’s Tania Ketteringham, a local whizz who has been instrumental in delivering strategies to attract young workers to our regional dairy industry.With a background in employment services, Tania specialises in matching job seekers with sustainable employment opportunities. Through innovative programs like Dairy Ready—a pre-employment course that trains individuals in essential dairy skills—her efforts have led to over 85% of participants being placed into jobs, with all of them still employed three months later.DairyNSW has also introduced virtual training for workers in remote areas, helping to increase the number of traineeships and bring much-needed talent to the industry.This approach is tailored to meet the specific needs of the NSW dairy industry. Tania and the workforce specialist team collaborate with regional extension officers who specialise in areas such as finance and animal health, ensuring that farmers receive the support they need to create a positive working environment.The workforce specialist team has also been instrumental in delivering leadership and people management courses for farmers, ensuring that dairy farms are attractive places to work for both new entrants and experienced workers.Their efforts have paid off. By promoting opportunities in the dairy sector, offering training, and connecting potential employees with farms in need, Tania and her team have filled crucial job vacancies while sparking renewed interest in agricultural careers.One of the key successes has been the establishment of the Young Dairy Network, where young workers can connect with like-minded individuals, attend educational and social events, and develop supportive networks.Our region has become a shining example of what can happen when you engage the right experts. Local farms, once struggling to find workers, are now attracting fresh talent. Young people are staying on, building skills, and contributing to the community, making the dairy industry more sustainable and resilient for the future.Unlike Farmer Joe, the NSW dairy industry isn’t waiting for someone else to solve its problems. They’ve hopped into the metaphorical boat, taken the helicopter ride, and made sure they’re doing everything in their power to secure the future of dairy farming.It turns out, when you take action and work with experts like Tania Ketteringham, the results can be downright miraculous. See the previous article in The Bugle to hear from young people now working in our local dairy industry.

Opinion Piece by Lynne StrongAs the dust settles after the recent Kiama council elections, the final results offer some interesting insights into how our voting system works and what it means when candidates are elected without reaching the set quota.Out of the nine successful candidates, three—Matt Brown, Stuart Larkins, and Mike Cains—were elected despite not reaching the quota of 1,460 votes. This might raise questions: How did they get in, and what does this say about our democratic process?Understanding the QuotaIn local council elections, a quota is the number of votes a candidate needs to secure a seat outright. In this case, with 18,000 enrolled voters, the quota was set at 1,460 votes. Six candidates—Cameron McDonald, Imogen Draisma, Melinda Lawton, Yasmin Tatrai, Erica Warren, and Melissa Matters—reached the quota and were elected fairly early in the counting process.However, not all seats are filled by candidates meeting this quota. That’s where the importance of preference voting comes in.The Role of PreferencesCandidates like Matt Brown, Stuart Larkins, and Mike Cains didn’t receive enough first-preference votes to meet the quota. However, they were elected because, by the final rounds of counting, they had the highest number of remaining votes, even though they didn’t reach the quota.In a proportional representation system, as the candidate with the lowest number of votes is excluded in each round, their preferences are redistributed to other continuing candidates. This process continues until either candidates meet the quota or the remaining candidates’ vote totals are high enough that they can no longer be overtaken by others.This highlights the nuanced role of preferences—they can have a significant impact, but only if the margin between candidates is narrow enough for preference flows to make a difference.Understanding Preferences Across Different ElectionsIt appears that many people, including me and those who regularly engage in the political process, do not fully understand how preferences work. It’s important to remember that the way preferences are allocated differs across the three levels of government.At the Federal level (for the House of Representatives), it is compulsory to allocate preferences, meaning a voter must number every single box for their vote to count.At the state and local level, preferences are optional. In the NSW Lower House elections, voters can simply vote "1" and are not required to number additional boxes if they do not wish to.For local council elections, such as Kiama’s, the proportional representation system is used. This system, also applied in the Australian Senate and NSW Upper House, determines the outcome based on quotas and the redistribution of preferences.What Does This Say About the Election?Broad Community Support: Although these candidates didn’t reach the quota through first-preference votes, their election reflects broad support across the community. Voters might have chosen them as their second or third option, showing that they were seen as viable representatives, even if they weren’t the top choice for many.Fragmented Voting Patterns: The fact that three candidates were elected without reaching the quota suggests that voting was spread across many candidates. With so many individuals and groups running, voters likely had diverse views, leading to a fragmented first-preference vote. This fragmentation creates an opportunity for candidates to win seats through preference flows.Preference Allocations Can Be Critical: In some cases, like the 2021 election, every preference allocation made a difference to the final positions when candidates didn’t make quota. However, in 2024, the primary votes were more spread apart, meaning that while preferences played a role in determining the final order, the primary vote totals were decisive.It Is the Voter Who Determines Their Preferences: A crucial point to emphasise is that voters control their preferences. How voters choose to rank candidates—whether they stop at their first choice or continue ranking additional preferences—has a direct impact on the election’s outcome. Voters ultimately decide how their preferences will flow if their first-choice candidate is excluded.The Takeaway for Future ElectionsThe Kiama election is a powerful reminder of the importance of preference voting. It shows that elections aren’t just about the most popular candidates but about how the community as a whole distributes their votes. The candidates who understand the importance of preferences—and who engage with a wide range of voters—are the ones who stand the best chance of success.As we look ahead to future elections, it’s clear that preference voting can lead to more diverse representation. By giving weight to lower-preference votes, the system ensures that different voices and perspectives can still find their place on the council.For Kiama voters, this election serves as a call to action: don’t underestimate the power of your second and third preferences. They can make all the difference in shaping the future of our council.

In the coming weeks, we will be sitting down with local dairy farmers to better understand the challenges they face, and more importantly, how our community and local government can step up to support them. Our dairy farmers are the lifeblood of our region, providing fresh, milk for Australian families while operating on prime agricultural land that sits just 10 minutes from the coastline – land that many desire to live on.The reality is that much of this prime land is now owned by lifestyle farmers, making it increasingly difficult for our working farmers to grow their businesses by acquiring more land. However, despite these challenges, our dairy farmers continue to innovate. They are adapting and leveraging opportunities that arise, making the most of the resources available to them.What is particularly remarkable about our region is that our dairy farmers are among the youngest in the state, and they are doing more than just maintaining their farms – they are employing young people from the community and embracing cutting-edge technology. This forward-thinking approach ensures the future of local dairy has the potential to be bright.But with the mounting pressure of developers purchasing prime agricultural land, finding ways to ensure our dairy farms can continue to operate and grow is vital. The solution is not as simple as stopping development. Instead, we should look at encouraging developers to give long-term leases to our dairy farmers. This gives farmers the confidence they need to plan for the future and continue contributing to the local economy.We have a lot to be proud of in our local dairy industry, and through collaborative efforts, we can support it to thrive in a changing landscape. Stay tuned as we explore how, together, we can help ensure the longevity of dairy farming in our region.

Opinion by Lynne Strong Let’s be honest, what do we really achieve by sitting at home, scrolling through Facebook, and sticking metaphorical pins into developer-styled voodoo dolls? Sure, it might feel satisfying for a moment, venting frustration at housing shortages or the latest high-rise development. But after the post has been liked, commented on, and buried in the endless feed, what has really changed?The housing crisis remains, the local economy hasn’t magically improved, and the decisions shaping our community are still happening—often without your input.If we truly care about these issues—and it’s clear many of us do—then it’s time to bring the conversation out from behind our screens. At some point, we need to come to the table, have the tough discussions, and ensure that every voice in our community is not just heard but understood.Developers are easy targets, and so are council members and policy makers. The problem is, when we draw battlelines, we only fuel division. Sticking pins in voodoo dolls might feel like taking a stand, but what we need is real engagement, not angry online posts. Because here’s the hard truth: if you’re not part of the conversation, decisions will be made for you, not with you.What are the key issues? Housing affordability, land release, and economic growth are just a few, but they’re not going to be solved by another snarky tweet. These issues need the input of residents, businesses, young people, and yes, even those you might not agree with. Real solutions come when everyone is involved in the dialogue.So, before logging on to rage about the latest development, ask yourself what could be achieved by turning that energy into real conversation? By working together, instead of against each other, we can build a community that works for all of us.After all, voodoo dolls might be fun, but they won’t fix the real-world problems our community faces. 

A recent visit to the local surgery revealed an issue that is putting unnecessary pressure on both patients and healthcare staff: the two-hour parking limit outside the clinic. During a routine iron infusion, I became aware of this problem when the staff expressed concern that I might receive a parking fine. The infusion had taken longer than I expected, and the nurses were clearly worried. “We’re always getting fined,” one staff member mentioned, highlighting just how often both they and patients are penalised.Healthcare Workers and Patients at RiskThe issue is not just about one or two patients overstaying their parking. Doctors, nurses, and even emergency patients are regularly receiving fines because they are unable to move their cars in time. Staff at the surgery are often caught in last-minute emergency situations, making it impossible to step away and move their vehicles. “When it’s really busy, especially with the markets across the street, we have to park quite a distance away,” one nurse explained. “And it’s concerning to return to our cars in the dark after a long shift.”The issue extends to emergency situations as well. There have been instances where patients rushed to hospital left their cars behind, only to return and find parking fines the next day. In a profession where every minute counts, worrying about parking tickets seems unreasonable and adds to the stress of already difficult situations.The Ethical ImplicationsThis raises a pressing ethical question: Is it fair to expect healthcare workers and emergency patients to be concerned about parking fines? In a town that clearly struggles with a lack of parking spaces, should we be putting further strain on our healthcare system by penalising those who are simply doing their jobs or seeking urgent medical care?While the town faces a shortage of parking spaces, there needs to be some flexibility for those dealing with medical emergencies. Staff members often have no choice but to prioritise their patients over moving their cars, and patients in emergency situations shouldn’t be left to worry about parking while they receive necessary care.A Call to Action for the CouncilThis is an issue that urgently needs the council’s attention. While parking is a limited resource, the current regulations are disproportionately affecting healthcare workers and patients. There are several possible solutions: perhaps the council could consider special parking permits for healthcare staff, or more flexible parking zones for medical facilities where unpredictable situations arise.It’s time we asked the hard questions about the ethics of these parking regulations. Should doctors, nurses, and emergency patients be penalised for circumstances beyond their control, or is there a better solution that balances the town’s parking needs with fairness and compassion?

Leadership, like many things in society, has evolved dramatically across generations. Those over 55 often see leadership through a traditional lens – something tied to formal positions of authority. They grew up in a world where managers, heads of organisations, and CEOs were synonymous with leadership. But in today’s world, particularly for younger generations, leadership isn’t confined to titles. It’s about stepping up, setting an example, and making an impact.This shift in perspective comes from how the workplace, education, and society itself have changed. In years gone by, workplaces were hierarchies – clear, rigid structures where leaders were appointed, and everyone knew their place. Climbing the corporate ladder was the path to leadership, and that path was linear. You earned your way up, and with each rung, you assumed more responsibility and authority.Today’s world couldn’t be more different. The emergence of flatter organisational structures, the rise of the gig economy, and the importance of collaboration have turned the old ideas of leadership on their head. It’s no longer about holding a position of power; it’s about having the ability to influence, guide, and motivate others. It’s about taking responsibility when needed, regardless of your official title.For younger generations, this fluid understanding of leadership reflects the value they place on empathy, social responsibility, and adaptability. It’s not about sitting in the corner office; it’s about the impact you have, whether that’s in a boardroom or on social media. For them, the real leaders are those who inspire, lead by example, and bring others along with them.The intergenerational divide in how leadership is perceived can create friction in workplaces and communities. Older generations, accustomed to a top-down structure, may question the authority of someone who hasn’t ‘paid their dues’ in the traditional sense. Younger generations, on the other hand, may struggle to see the relevance of hierarchies that don’t seem to reflect modern values of collaboration and inclusiveness.Yet, bridging this gap offers rich potential. Older generations can embrace the idea that leadership is no longer restricted to those in formal roles. In turn, younger generations can benefit from understanding the strengths of traditional leadership structures – accountability, responsibility, and the wisdom that comes from experience.At its core, the evolving perception of leadership reflects the shifting nature of influence and responsibility. It shows us that leadership is less about where you sit and more about what you stand for. And in that, both young and old have much to learn from each other

As local elections draw near, a critical question has emerged about the use of community telephone numbers by candidates affiliated with a particular political party. Concerns have been raised regarding how these phone numbers were obtained, the ethics of their usage, and what this means for privacy in an age where data protection is more important than ever. Local residents have turned to social media to voice their concerns after being contacted.  The first question we need to ask is: How did these candidates gain access to these numbers? It is essential for transparency that candidates disclose whether these phone numbers were acquired legally through public channels, purchased from data brokers, or accessed through less transparent means. Moreover, it is worth questioning if other parties or independent candidates have access to this data or if this is a privileged advantage. Using personal data such as phone numbers for campaign purposes raises serious ethical concerns, particularly in small communities where privacy is highly valued. Local residents have voiced their discomfort, with some questioning the lack of consent in sharing their personal details for political outreach. In an era when data privacy is paramount, candidates must answer whether this kind of targeted outreach is ethical or crosses a line. The practice of contacting voters directly through unsolicited calls is not only an issue of privacy but also a question of fairness. If one party has an advantage in accessing this data, it creates an uneven playing field. The implications for democratic fairness should not be ignored, as elections are meant to provide all candidates with equal opportunities to connect with the community. It’s time we asked the hard questions about the ethics of this practice, the origins of these phone lists, and whether the people whose numbers have been used gave their consent. Our community deserves answers before casting their votes.

OpinionAs we approach the upcoming local elections, I’m reminded of some powerful words from Nick Cave, which speak directly to the challenges we face during these times of election chatter. He reflects that while cynicism is destructive and easy to fall into, hope is a hard-earned, warrior emotion that requires action and resilience.We need to ask ourselves: Are we letting cynicism dictate our conversations about the future of our community? Too often, local elections become a hotbed of negativity, focused on party affiliations and minor grievances. This is a time when we should be focusing on the big issues—housing, sustainability, and the long-term financial strain on local governments.Let’s embrace the hopeful path. Rather than letting cynicism take over, let’s ask more meaningful questions of our candidates, engage in real dialogue about the future, and remember that each of us plays a role in shaping our community for the better.These elections are our chance to keep the devil of cynicism down in the hole and build something better, together. Cynicism can be seductive and easy, but it’s far from neutral—it's contagious and destructive. While it asks little of us, it can damage those around us, especially our children. I learned this the hard way, having once held the world in contempt, not realising the impact it would have. It took a profound loss to teach me the value of life and the goodness in people. That devastation made me realise the fragility of the world and the importance of hope.Unlike cynicism, hope requires effort, yet it is essential. Every small act of love, like reading to your child or sharing something meaningful, fights against the pull of despair. These moments affirm the world’s worth and remind us it is worth protecting and believing in. Through these acts, we find that hope is not just a response—it is a powerful force for change. Nick Cave The Red Hand Files Issue #190 / April 2022 Condensed Version 

As election day approaches, many of us find ourselves in a familiar dilemma: who do we vote for when none of the candidates seem to align with our values? It’s not uncommon to feel disconnected from the names on the ballot, especially when campaign tactics leave much to be desired.Recently, I had a personal wake-up call. I discovered that the candidate I was planning to put first on my ticket was behind a campaign I find utterly cringe-worthy. It left me questioning whether I could really stand behind someone whose approach to politics feels so disconnected from the issues I care about.It seems that many voters are facing a similar struggle. In a time when political campaigning is often focused on discrediting opponents rather than proposing constructive ideas, it’s easy to feel like you’re being asked to choose the lesser of evils. But should voting be about picking someone simply because they're not as bad as the alternative?Here’s the thing: elections shouldn’t be about just avoiding the worst option. They should be about finding someone who truly represents your values and your vision for the community. Yet, in an environment where many candidates seem more focused on criticising others than offering real solutions, it’s becoming harder to make that choice.So, what can we do? We can start by looking beyond the surface of the campaign noise and asking ourselves some tough questions:What are the issues that matter most to me?Which candidate has a clear stance on these issues?Are they offering real solutions, or just playing politics?Yes, it’s hard when a candidate’s campaign style puts you off, but at the end of the day, it’s their policies and ability to deliver on them that should matter most.If you’re finding it difficult to navigate the election and make an informed choice, you’re not alone. Many of us are struggling to cut through the noise. But by focusing on the issues and what each candidate stands for, we can still make a decision that reflects our values—and ultimately helps shape the community we all want to live in.

As we head towards the local council elections, it's easy to get caught up in the noise. Campaigns are filled with promises, accusations, and critiques, and it can be difficult to sort out what really matters. One piece of advice as you consider your vote: look for candidates who focus on what they will do, not just what they won’t.There’s a difference between tearing something down and building something up. Candidates who spend their time telling you what they oppose, what they’ll stop, or what they won’t allow may sound strong in the moment. But when the dust settles, what’s left? Opposition without a plan is just an empty promise. Leadership is not about pointing fingers or drawing lines in the sand—it’s about paving a way forward, even when the path isn’t clear.We need leaders who have a vision for our community—candidates who will tell you what they plan to achieve, not what they will avoid. The reality is, progress comes from positive, forward-thinking ideas, not from standing in the way of something else.This is especially true in local government, where practical solutions to real-world problems are what matter most. Whether it’s sustainable development, better infrastructure, or improved community services, we need representatives who can tell us exactly how they will contribute to making our community a better place—not what they’ll block or reject.So, as you listen to candidates over the next few weeks, ask yourself: do they have a plan, or are they simply opposed to someone else’s? Because when the time comes, we need leaders with solutions, not just critics with complaints.

Opinion Piece by Lynne Strong I find myself deeply disappointed by the recent stance taken by Yasmin Tatrai, the leader of one of the Independent teams for the Kiama LGA council election, in which she has urged voters to put the Greens last on their ballots. Her remarks, which cast the Greens as extreme and out of touch, are not only divisive but also fail to acknowledge the valuable contributions of those who have served our community with dedication and integrity.Let me be clear: I am apolitical. I vote for whoever I believe will represent my values, regardless of party affiliation. At the local level, I have the utmost admiration for our previous Greens councillors, Kathy Rice and Jodi Keast. These women have shown what it means to have the courage of their convictions. They have stood up, been counted, and refused to succumb to the toxic “stay in line or be silenced” culture that pervades so much of our political discourse.Kathy Rice and Jodi Keast have consistently demonstrated their commitment to the community. They have advocated for sustainable development, practical conservationism, and the long-term well-being of Kiama. They have done so not because it was easy, but because it was right. Their integrity and bravery in the face of pressure are qualities we should celebrate, not diminish.Yasmin Tatrai’s rhetoric, which encourages voters to sideline the Greens, is not only a disservice to the individuals who have fought tirelessly for our community but also an oversimplification of the complex issues facing our council. To suggest that the Greens are synonymous with higher rates, budget chaos, and unnecessary bureaucracy is a misrepresentation of their record and their values.Furthermore, while standing as independents, Tatrai and her team have been transparent about their political leanings. In her own words, "I want to be up-front and transparent about our political beliefs. Whilst we are all members of the Liberal Party, we are not running an official Liberal Party ticket so we can respond to local issues, but we want to be up-front about the values we represent." It’s essential for voters to understand this context when considering their choices.I am a conservationist at heart. I believe in the importance of practical conservationism—measures that save money and protect the environment, like waste reduction, recycling, and efficient energy and water usage. These are initiatives that are not only good for our planet but also beneficial for our community’s financial health. The idea that these goals are mutually exclusive with sustainable development and fiscal responsibility is simply untrue.Moreover, the suggestion that the Greens are an obstacle to small business and progress is, in my view, unfounded. The Greens have been strong advocates for the very kinds of balanced and thoughtful development that ensure Kiama remains a vibrant and sustainable place to live and work.While I respect Yasmin Tatrai’s right to her views and her enthusiasm for serving on the council, I cannot endorse her call to marginalise a group that has shown such unwavering commitment to our community’s values. The strength of our democracy lies in its diversity of voices, and we should be wary of attempts to silence those who advocate for different approaches.In this election, I encourage everyone to vote based on the issues that matter most to them and to consider the track record of all candidates. Let us remember that a healthy council is one that includes a range of perspectives, and that true leadership is about more than just winning—it’s about standing up for what you believe in and serving the community with integrity.

Reflecting on this situation, “Jamberoo Pool entry fees create confusion” there’s an important question we, as residents, need to ask ourselves: do we truly understand the real costs of maintaining facilities like the Jamberoo Pool? It’s easy to focus on the new entry fees and feel frustrated by the changes, but the bigger issue may be that we’re not fully aware of the financial burden on the council to keep these services running. Are we being naive to the true costs involved in providing a service that benefits some ratepayers, while others may not have similar facilities, like a library, in their area?The fees may seem unfair at first glance, especially for families who rely on this affordable community resource. However, what we may not always consider is the maintenance and operational costs associated with keeping the pool open, especially if it remains under utilised for a large part of the year. As pointed out in the debate, funding for essential upkeep—like covering the pool to prevent it from becoming a “duck pond”—also requires revenue, and these fees are likely part of that balancing act.It’s also worth considering whether enough transparency and consultation happened before these changes were introduced. If the community feels left out of the decision-making process, that can erode trust. However, as residents, it’s essential that we not only voice our concerns but also educate ourselves on the financial realities facing the council, ensuring that services are equitable for all ratepayers, not just for those fortunate enough to have facilities like the pool in their area.

I am really cranky—no, scratch that—I am livid.Why? Because Kiama Municipal Council has taken it upon themselves to include two of my articles in their report to the Australian Press Council and, as if that wasn’t enough, they’ve demanded that another one be taken down altogether.Let me give you some context.On July 9th, 2024, I wrote an article titled “Toxic times as council discredits dissent.” In it, I addressed what I saw as an ongoing campaign by our council to discredit dissenting voices within the community. The Council’s response? They claimed that my article didn’t provide a “fair and balanced representation of the facts” because they weren’t contacted for comment. As if that’s the real issue here.Then, there’s my July 6th article, “Courage and integrity.” This time, the Council’s beef is that I didn’t reach out to them regarding court costs in a Supreme Court matter involving Cr Renkema-Lang. They conveniently gloss over the fact that this same Council has wasted over hundreds of thousands of dollars of ratepayers’ money trying to silence a dissenting voice—a fact that somehow doesn’t require “balance” in their eyes.This week, my concerns have been verified in the most frustrating way possible.Kiama Councillors Jodi Keast, Kathy Rice, and Karen Renkema-Lang are demanding that Kiama Council release a letter from the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which informs the Council that ICAC will not investigate them. You read that right—the ICAC found no grounds to investigate, yet the Council has kept that under wraps, all while keeping a media release on their website proclaiming that these Councillors had been referred to ICAC. This is nothing short of a strategic move to suppress dissent, using the very systems meant to protect democracy to undermine it.This situation is a textbook example of what’s known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)—a tactic where those in power use legal threats, or the burden of potential legal costs, to intimidate and silence critics. It’s not about winning the case; it’s about wearing down the opposition until they have no choice but to back down. The fact that our local Council is engaging in this kind of behaviour is not just disappointing—it’s downright infuriating.SLAPP suits are a plague on democracy. They are used to stifle free speech and quash public discourse, turning the legal system into a weapon against those who dare to speak up. And make no mistake, this isn’t just about me. It’s about every single person in our community who has the courage to stand up and say, “This isn’t right.”This latest episode, where the ICAC referral was quietly dismissed and yet kept from public knowledge, is just another layer of this toxic cake. Councillors Keast, Rice, and Renkema-Lang have every right to demand transparency, and the Council has every obligation to provide it.What we’re seeing here is a clear attempt to silence dissenting voices, to suppress the truth, and to manipulate the narrative to maintain control. It’s not just unethical—it’s dangerous. And it’s exactly why we need to keep fighting, keep writing, and keep speaking out. Because if we don’t, if we let them get away with this, we’re handing over the keys to our democracy to those who would rather keep us in the dark.So, yes, I’m livid. And I won’t be silenced. Not now, not ever.

In every community, there comes a time when the voices of its people rise up to speak truth to power, to defend the values and the environment they hold dear, and to push back against decisions that may not serve the collective good. These voices, often dismissed as dissent, are in fact the heartbeat of democracy, reminding those in power that governance is a responsibility, not a right.But what happens when these voices are systematically silenced? Why do those who hold power and control often fear the very community they are meant to serve? The recent history of community activism, from the Northern Rivers to our own backyards, offers a sobering insight into the lengths some will go to suppress the voices of the people.Take the case of Di Morrissey, the beloved Australian author who took a stand against a controversial development in the Northern Rivers. Morrissey, like many others, recognised the potential harm that large-scale developments could inflict on the environment and the character of the community. She used her platform to rally support and bring attention to an issue that mattered deeply to local residents. But in return, she faced a barrage of legal threats and bureaucratic obstacles that eventually forced her to step back. Her story is not just about one woman's fight against development; it is about the broader struggle to maintain a space for community voices in the face of overwhelming power.Yet, there are stories of communities fighting back and winning, proving that collective action and public support can indeed challenge even the most formidable adversaries. A shining example of this is Crikey’s recent battle with the Murdoch press. In 2022, Crikey published an article implicating Lachlan Murdoch in the dangerous rhetoric surrounding the January 6 Capitol riots. What followed was a defamation lawsuit filed by Murdoch himself, aiming to silence Crikey's critical voice.But instead of backing down, Crikey took the fight to the people. They turned to their readers and the broader community, crowd-sourcing the funds needed for their legal defence. What emerged was not just financial support but a groundswell of public voices rallying behind Crikey's right to free speech and fearless journalism. The power of these combined efforts was undeniable. In the end, Lachlan Murdoch walked away from the lawsuit, a significant victory for independent media and a powerful testament to what communities can achieve when they come together.These examples, from Morrissey's quieted activism to Crikey's triumphant stand, highlight a critical question: Why do those in power fear community voices? Perhaps it’s because these voices represent something uncontrollable and unpredictable. They embody the collective will of the people, a force that can challenge established power structures and demand accountability. They are a fundamental reminder that the community, when united, holds real power.But the efforts to silence us should only strengthen our resolve. For every Di Morrissey who is pressured into silence, there are countless others ready to take up the mantle. For every attempt to suppress our voices, there is an opportunity to come together, louder and stronger than before.The message to those who seek to silence us is clear: the more you try to quiet the community, the more you reveal your fear of its power. And that power, once awakened, is not easily subdued.As we move forward, let us remember the importance of our collective voice. Let us continue to speak out, to organise, and to demand that those in power listen—not because we seek conflict, but because we seek a community that is just, equitable, and sustainable for all.In the end, the question isn't why they fear us, but why we must never stop speaking up. For when the community is silent, power goes unchecked, and the very fabric of our democracy begins to unravel.So, let us continue to raise our voices. Let us continue to fight for what is right. And let us never forget that the power of the community is the foundation upon which all true change is built. 

In a world awash with political slogans and campaign promises, it is worth asking: do we really need the glitz and glamour of catchy phrases to understand who we are voting for? While local elections in Australia often lack the dramatic flair of their international counterparts, does this make it harder for us to feel connected to or informed about the candidates vying for our votes?The contrast with the United States could not be starker. Take the recent Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Outside the venue, a bold sign proclaimed, “A New Way Forward,” echoing Kamala Harris’s campaign trail rhetoric. It was a phrase designed to inspire hope and signal change, reminiscent of the slogans that have defined U.S. presidential campaigns for decades. By the time Barack Obama took the stage, urging the crowd to chant “yes she can,” it was clear the audience felt swept up in the fervour—a reminder of the powerful role that well-crafted messaging can play in shaping political narratives.Meanwhile, back home, the press handles our local elections in a vastly different manner. Coverage tends to be more subdued, focusing on practical, community-based issues rather than the grandiose visions we see splashed across American headlines. But this quieter approach raises an important question: does the lack of intense media scrutiny and political commentary impact our ability to truly get to know the candidates?Without the spectacle and saturation coverage, it can be challenging for voters to form strong impressions of who is standing for office. The issues may be closer to home, but are we as informed about them as we could be? It is a question worth pondering, especially when local elections determine who will be making decisions that directly affect our daily lives.It is not about the catchphrase, but about who is genuinely prepared to represent our best interests.

Opinion piece by Lynne Strong As we approach the upcoming council elections, it's vital that we think about what makes our community not just functional, but truly liveable. Liveability isn't just about having our rubbish collected on time or fixing a parking issue – it's about creating a place where we all thrive, where our environment supports our wellbeing, and where we feel connected and valued.Some groups are focusing on single issues, like waste management or parking, which, while important, only address immediate needs. However, true liveability requires a broader vision. It involves thinking about how our community will evolve over the next decade and ensuring that we’re planning for a future that enhances our quality of life.What we really need are councillors who understand that improving liveability means addressing current issues with a view to the future – ensuring our community remains vibrant, sustainable, and welcoming for years to come.Let’s encourage our candidates to discuss liveability in ways that everyone can understand, and to present plans that aren’t just about today, but about the kind of community we want to live in tomorrow.To kick off, here’s a couple of questions you could ask to cut through the noise and help you sort out the big picture leaders from the small issues fixers. "How do you plan to ensure that our community remains liveable and sustainable over the next 10 to 20 years, beyond addressing immediate concerns like waste management or parking?""How would you approach making decisions that might be unpopular in the short term but are necessary for the long-term liveability of our community?"

It’s a sad day when fear trumps public engagement, and yet that’s exactly what I’ve been hearing from many residents of our community. Over the past few weeks, as the deadline for submissions to the Council's draft Growth and Housing Strategy approached, I had countless conversations with people who wanted to contribute their thoughts and ideas but hesitated. The reason? Fear. Not fear of the Council or fear of change, but fear of backlash—from their friends, neighbours, or, worse yet, the faceless keyboard warriors who have made our public discourse increasingly toxic. This should be a time for open debate, where everyone can share their vision for Kiama’s future. Yet, the rise of online hostility and a divisive culture has silenced too many voices. When people are afraid to speak up, we all lose—the Council misses out on diverse perspectives, and our community loses the chance to shape its future collectively. We must ask ourselves: What kind of community are we building if people feel they can’t participate? The strength of Kiama lies in its diversity, and it’s crucial that our future is shaped by all voices, not just the loudest or most intimidating. It’s easy to say that we should all stand up and be counted, to encourage more people to submit their thoughts and ideas without fear. But it’s much harder to change the culture that has made so many people hesitant to speak up. In the end, our community thrives when all opinions are heard. Let’s not allow fear to silence the very voices that make Kiama unique.

OpinionIn the wake of recent developments where three of our councillors have been reported to the ICAC, it is important to consider integrity in local governance.The ICAC Chief Commissioner’s timely reminder about the perils of ‘weaponising’ former and current electoral contenders, serves as a  warning to all.ICAC investigates genuine instances of corruption and ensures accountability in the public sector. However, if  the Commission is manipulated for political ends, it becomes a tool not of justice, but of electoral strategy.This misuse may damage individual reputations and it risks undermining the democratic process and eroding public trust in our local institutions.It is incumbent upon all candidates and councillors seeking re-election, to uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and integrity.Our town has long been a strong supporter of good governance, where transparency is not just a goal but a daily practice.We must do more to reaffirm our commitment to these values.For voters, this is a moment to be particularly vigilant. The choice we make at the ballot box should reflect not just our hopes for the future, but our commitment to integrity in public office.Looking ahead, our local government must seize this opportunity to rebuild lost trust. One way to achieve this is through close collaboration with the ICAC to provide comprehensive training for elected officials, so they are well-versed in ethical governance and the importance of maintaining the public’s trust.These measures will not only prevent future missteps but also reinforce Kiama’s reputation as a town that values integrity above all else.While the ICAC remains a vital institution for safeguarding public integrity, it is ultimately up to us, the community, to ensure that its powers are not misappropriated.The strength and legitimacy of our local government, and the trust that we as residents place in it, depends on our commitment to these principles.