Appeal to Commonwealth Ombudsman over Kariong development

Community groups working to protect the Kariong Sacred Lands from what they see as inappropriate development have expressed deep disappointment in a recent response from the NSW Ombudsman.

The response referred to serious concerns about what the groups say was misleading information published by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) on its official website.

Complaints centre on the Frequently Asked Questions section of the Kariong Planning Proposal webpage, which local environmental and cultural heritage advocates say contains inaccurate and misleading statements regarding the impacts of the proposed rezoning by the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC).

Earlier this year, the Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA) and affiliated groups claimed the Planning Department appeared to be acting more as a promoter of the development than a neutral information provider.

Key concerns included the website’s claims that the proposed rezoning would have “no impact” on cultural heritage, endangered wetlands, and koala habitat, despite evidence to the contrary in environmental and cultural reports.

Following formal complaints, the NSW Ombudsman has replied to the groups, without providing any evidence to support the Department’s public claims, the groups say.

“The Ombudsman’s response stated that the Planning Department’s statements were ‘reasonable and supportable’, yet failed to justify how the Department arrived at such conclusions,” a spokesperson said.

The resident who lodged the original complaint is now preparing a follow-up response.

“We asked a very simple question: could the Ombudsman explain how the Department determined that this development would not impact cultural heritage, endangered species, or ecologically sensitive wetlands?” he said.

“We didn’t get an answer; we got a brush-off.”

Kariong Progress Association President and spokesperson for CEA Lisa Bellamy said the the Ombudsman’s vague reply undermined public trust.

“The community raised legitimate, well-documented concerns about the accuracy of government communications,” she said.

“Instead of investigating properly, the Ombudsman has rubber-stamped the Department’s narrative without any transparency.”

Community representatives have now escalated the matter to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, lodging a formal complaint about the NSW Ombudsman’s failure to adequately investigate serious issues of misinformation and public accountability.

Bellamy said the complaint highlighted how the current system enabled government departments and agencies to effectively regulate themselves, with legislation such as the State Environmental Planning Policy (Aboriginal Land) 2019 and accompanying local and state strategies explicitly designed to help Local Aboriginal Land Councils “unlock” conservation-zoned land for development.

“It’s like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse,” she said.

“When communities raise legitimate red flags, there’s nowhere to turn — because every level of the system is geared toward development outcomes.”

The submission to the Commonwealth Ombudsman includes a detailed timeline of community actions showing repeated attempts to raise concerns with DLALC, state and federal representatives, and relevant departments.

CEA has asked the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate: whether the NSW Ombudsman failed in its statutory duty to properly investigate a complaint regarding the accuracy of government communications; whether the current planning framework creates systemic conflicts of interest that disadvantage communities and Traditional Custodians who raise valid objections; what oversight, if any, exists at the federal level when state processes and watchdogs appear compromised or ineffective; and what options are available to escalate concerns regarding the use of public information platforms for what appears to be promotional rather than impartial content.

Community groups are now calling for: a retraction or correction of misleading statements on the Planning Department website; full disclosure of the evidence that underpins claims of “no impact”; and an independent review of the communication practices used during the planning proposal exhibition period.

“This is about truth and accountability,” Bellamy said.

“We expect government agencies and oversight bodies to act with integrity.

“Communities must be given honest and transparent information — especially when decisions involve the destruction of sacred Aboriginal sites, koala habitat, endangered wetlands and bushfire-prone land.”

With the Planning Proposal still under consideration and rezoning decisions pending, residents say they will not back down until “the public is told the truth”.