Ben Krikstolaitis: From Quiet Centrist to Council Challenger
How a reserved councillor found his voice—and what it means for Shoalhaven’s political future.
Councillor Ben Krikstolaitis once appeared to occupy the role of the polite centrist—measured, reserved, and seemingly content to work from the margins of the chamber. But recent events suggest a very different story is unfolding. Far from being a passive presence, Cr Krikstolaitis has stepped into the fray with a degree of contention that surprised even long-time observers of this Council.
The turning point came when the mayor threatened to have Cr Krikstolaitis removed from the chamber, a rare move that underscores the level of tension and breakdown in council decorum. As an observer of this incident, it appears to me that Cr White has a particular way of chairing meetings, that could be improved. While the precise trigger for the threat is not fully detailed in public records, such actions do not occur in a vacuum. They reflect rising discord within the council and possibly, a councillor who has become more willing to challenge the ruling SIG Party bloc or disrupt proceedings.
This episode casts Cr Krikstolaitis in a new light. No longer the background figure, he has taken a more assertive—even defiant—posture. And yet, the shift prompts a deeper question: is this a councillor finally finding his voice, or someone reacting emotionally to a governance structure he no longer feels in control of?
Either way, this departure from restraint requires scrutiny. Assertiveness can be a virtue in a system that rewards compliance over courage—but disruption without clear purpose risks being performative. It could be alleged that it would be hard to overturn Cr Proudfoot on this front, or even Cr Kemp.
The effectiveness of a councillor should not be judged on volume alone, but on the clarity and impact of their arguments, their commitment to principle, and their ability to steer the chamber toward better outcomes for residents.
If Cr Krikstolaitis is now positioning himself as an independent (still a Labor councillor) voice challenging the SIG-led majority, then clarity of position and consistency of voting record will matter more than ever. Throw away lines alone will not restore trust in council processes. Nor will opposition for its own sake.
Ultimately, Councillor Krikstolaitis stands at a crossroads: he can retreat into procedural defensiveness, or he can define a clear, principled alternative to the governance style currently dominating Shoalhaven. The community deserves to know which version of Cr Krikstolaitis will show up: the quiet conciliator, the disruptive dissenter, or the councillor prepared to challenge the status quo with vision and strategy.
It would be a positive outcome if he could be better prepared and hace more than a couple of sentences to say, and it is not necessary to congratulate other councillors on the quality of the debate, when often that quality is not in fact being demonstrated.
Cr Ben Krikstolaitis is an active member of the Council, participating in and voting on a wide range of issues over the period covered by the sources. His work often involves voting as part of a distinct bloc, particularly on contentious matters where he frequently finds himself in the minority. It is perhaps better to say that SIG with Cr Clancy has an iron grip on decisions, a very dishearting position, and one that is not for the benefit of the city overall.
Cr Krikstolaitis's Voting Bloc and Consistent Opposition: Cr Krikstolaitis frequently aligns his votes with a group of councillors, most consistently
· Cr Tribe,
· Cr Norris,
· Cr Boyd, and Cr Johnston.
· Cr Dunn also frequently votes with this group on key issues.
This collective often forms a minority in votes, meaning their stance is frequently "AGAINST" motions that are ultimately CARRIED or "FOR" motions that are ultimately LOST.
The councillors who most consistently vote in opposition are the SIG bloc, that includes the “run-away” Tribe Group member Cr Clancy, that gave up on that group almost immediately after being elected on their “ticket”, forming a prevailing SIG Party majority, are
· Cr White (Chairperson/mayor),
· Cr Clancy,
· Cr Kemp,
· Cr Casmiri,
· Cr Cox,
· Cr Wilkins, and
· Cr Proudfoot.
Cr Ben Krikstolaitis and Cr Kemp are frequently on opposing sides of votes, especially on contentious matters, which occasionally leads to direct clashes and Mayoral rulings. Their disagreements highlight different approaches to council governance, financial management, and development. It is also worth pointing out that it appears Cr Kemp has little real understanding of how to behave in the chamber, with repeated outbursts and call for assistance to understand how process works.
Here are the details of issues and rulings involving Cr Krikstolaitis and Cr Kemp:
Conflict Regarding Council's Agenda and Apology (February 18, 2025, and March 11, 2025):
During the discussion on the Ongoing Maintenance of Vegetation at Collingwood Beach (CL25.29) on February 18, 2025, Mayor White raised a Point of Order against Cr Krikstolaitis in relation to his comments about Council having an agenda1. The mayor then asked Cr Krikstolaitis to refrain from using those comments and apologise. Cr Krikstolaitis withdrew his comments and apologised. Immediately following this interaction, Cr Krikstolaitis voted AGAINST the motion, while Cr Kemp voted FOR it, demonstrating a substantive disagreement after the verbal clash.
The gravity of this incident was underscored when, at the very next Ordinary Meeting on March 11, 2025, the Mayor opened the session by addressing an outstanding Point of Order from the previous meeting that remained unresolved against Cr Krikstolaitis. Cr Krikstolaitis was "requested again to apologise unreservedly and withdraw his comments under Section 15.11 of the Code of Meeting Practice. Cr Krikstolaitis apologised unreservedly and retracted his comments".
This re-emphasis by the mayor indicates the seriousness with which Cr Krikstolaitis's previous comments were viewed.
Allegations of "Corrupt" Councillors (February 25, 2025):
During the contentious discussion and vote on MM25.3, Mayoral Minute - Senior Staff Contractual Matters Committee - Appointment of a CEO, Cr Krikstolaitis voted AGAINST the resolved motion, while Cr Kemp voted FOR it. Immediately after this vote, "Cr Cox raised a Point of Order against Cr Krikstolaitis for calling Councillors corrupt. The mayor ruled it as a Point of Order and requested Cr Krikstolaitis to withdraw his statement about Councillors being corrupt and unreservedly apologise. Cr Krikstolaitis refused the request to withdraw his statement and apologise and promptly left the room before the close of the meeting, the time being 8.56pm".
This was a direct and significant confrontation, with Cr Krikstolaitis refusing to comply with the mayor’s ruling and exiting the meeting.
Comments on "Greens and Labor Eco Terrorism" (March 11, 2025):
Following a contentious vote on CL25.79, Post Exhibition Report - 'The Gordon Timbs 45 Degree Rule', where Cr Krikstolaitis voted AGAINST adopting the proposed amendment to the Development Control Plan, and Cr Kemp voted FOR it5, a separate incident involving Cr Kemp occurred. "Cr Boyd raised a Point of Order against Cr Kemp in relation to inference of Greens and Labor Eco Terrorism.
The mayor asked Cr Kemp to withdraw her comments and apologise. Cr Kemp withdrew her comments and apologised".
This direct disciplinary action against Cr Kemp followed a vote where she and Cr Krikstolaitis were on opposing sides.
Point of Order Regarding Petitioner Statements (June 10, 2025): ◦
During the debate on CL25.179, Notice of Motion - CL25.164 Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy - For Adoption, Cr Krikstolaitis raised a "Point of Order against Cr Kemp regarding her statements regarding the petitioner." The mayor ruled against the Point of Order. Following this, Cr Krikstolaitis voted AGAINST adopting the policy, while Cr Kemp voted FOR it, indicating their continued differing perspectives on councillor expenses. Disclosure, as the author of this article I disclose that I was the proponent of that petition.
Key Contentious Matters and Cr Krikstolaitis's Votes:
Cr Krikstolaitis voted on several significant and often contentious matters, demonstrating his consistent alignment with his bloc against the majority. These include:
Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014, Chapter G4 Tree and Vegetation Management - 45 Degree Rule (MIN24.498, 14 October 2024): Cr Krikstolaitis voted AGAINST this Mayoral Minute. His stance was against reverting the DCP back to the 45-Degree Rule Exemption, aligning with Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, and Cr Johnston. This motion was carried by the opposing bloc. He maintained this opposition in a later vote on the 'Gordon Timbs 45 Degree Rule' (MIN25.108, 11 March 2025), voting AGAINST the resolved motion and FOR a lost amendment.
Rescission Motion - Moratorium on Development that is not supported by Contemporary Studies (MIN24.499, 14 October 2024): Cr Krikstolaitis voted AGAINST the rescission motion, indicating his support for maintaining a moratorium on certain developments. The rescission motion was lost, which means the moratorium remained in place. He voted with Cr Dunn, Cr Cox, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, and Cr Johnston on this matter.
Establishment of a Finance Committee of Council (MM24.34, MIN24.493, 14 October 2024): While the initial motion to establish the Finance Committee was carried unanimously, a later motion to amend its terms (CL24.288 Proposed Finance Review Panel) saw Cr Krikstolaitis vote AGAINST the main motion that was lost, showing his alignment with Cr Tribe and Cr Boyd.
Rescission Motion / Notice of Motion related to Planning Proposal - Local Character - Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (PP073) (MIN24.654 and MIN24.655, 10 December 2024; MIN25.2, 21 January 2025; MIN25.246 and MIN25.247, 27 May 2025; MIN25.297 and MIN25.304, 10 & 17 June 2025): This was a highly contentious issue debated across multiple meetings. Cr Krikstolaitis consistently voted AGAINST motions to finalize or adopt Planning Proposal PP073 or rescissions of earlier decisions that paused or rejected it. This indicates his opposition to the specific character statements and design guidelines as proposed. He consistently voted with Cr Dunn, Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, and Cr Johnston on these matters.
Note on source inconsistency: For CL25.159 Notice of Motion - CL25.152 Post exhibition report - Planning Proposal: 131 St Vincent Street, Ulladulla (MIN25.247, 27 May 2025), Cr Krikstolaitis is listed in both the "FOR" and "AGAINST" vote tallies. Based on his consistent voting on similar planning proposals, it is highly likely he voted AGAINST this motion to adopt the planning proposal.
Public Exhibition of Revised Resourcing Strategy including Special Rate Variation Scenarios (CL24.345, MIN24.591, 5 November 2024): He voted AGAINST the motion to publicly exhibit the revised resourcing strategy, which included proposed special rate variation scenarios. He continued this trend by voting AGAINST the application to lodge a special variation with the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (MIN24.691, 17 December 2024). In both cases, his voting partners included Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, and Cr Johnston.
Caring For Indigenous Culture (CAFIC) - Pilot Program (CL24.347, MIN24.601, 12 November 2024): Cr Krikstolaitis voted FOR this motion, which was ultimately lost. This vote saw him align with Cr Tribe, Cr Norris, Cr Boyd, and Cr Johnston, against the majority who voted against supporting the pilot program.
Community Consultation for Shoalhaven Family Day Care (CL25.65, MIN25.94, 11 March 2025) and Administrative Function Transfer (CL25.66, MIN25.95, 11 March 2025): Cr Krikstolaitis consistently voted with his bloc FOR motions to pause the exiting of the Family Day Care service and to hold community consultations, and FOR amendments to delay the administrative function transfer. He then voted AGAINST the resolved motion to transition the service by an earlier date. This indicates his preference for continued Council operation or a slower transition process with more community input.
Budget Strategies and Parameters - 2025/26 (CL25.22, MIN25.27, 28 January 2025) and 2025/2026 Budget Review (FR25.28, MIN25.287, 10 June 2025): Cr Krikstolaitis voted FOR a motion on budget strategies that was lost, and consistently voted AGAINST the final adoption of budget measures and related financial reports (e.g., FR25.28 and FR25.31). This suggests his disagreement with the financial direction or proposed targets set by the majority.
Councillor Expenses and Facilities Policy (CL25.51, MIN25.81, 25 February 2025; CL25.178, MIN25.278 and CL25.179, MIN25.279, 10 June 2025): He voted FOR amendments aimed at restricting Councillor expenses (which were lost), and later voted AGAINST rescinding an earlier adoption of the policy (meaning he preferred the version with a specific amendment regarding "Meetings with ratepayers and residents" removed from official business definitions). He then voted AGAINST the subsequent motion to adopt the policy as publicly exhibited. These votes indicate his advocacy for stricter controls on councillor expenses.
Ulladulla Leisure Centre - Operating Hours Extension Request (CL25.115, MIN25.176, 15 April 2025): Cr Krikstolaitis voted AGAINST maintaining the adopted winter schedule for the Ulladulla Leisure Centre, aligning with Cr Norris in a small minority. This suggests his support for extended operating hours.
While Cr Krikstolaitis frequently voted with his consistent bloc, he occasionally deviated, joining larger majorities, such as on the unanimous vote to call in a Development Application for the Huskisson Hotel (CL24.385, MIN24.656, 10 December 2024), or voting for a motion related to local charities where his usual allies were in the minority (CL24.401, MIN24.685, 17 December 2024).
Because in times like these, Shoalhaven doesn’t just need a different tone—it needs a different direction.
Overview of the series on our Councillors
The Councillor was provided with a draft of the article, he was happy with the content and did respond. Thank you Ben.
In any healthy democracy, it is not only appropriate—but essential—for citizens to reflect on the performance of their elected representatives. This essay offers a considered, good-faith assessment of Shoalhaven City councillors based on publicly available information, council records, media reporting, and direct observations from council proceedings.
The views expressed here are not intended to attack individuals, but to critique public actions, decisions, and patterns of behaviour that have tangible consequences for ratepayers and the wider community. Where opinions are offered, they are clearly distinguished from matters of fact and are grounded in observable conduct such as voting records, policy positions, public statements, and meeting participation. Criticism, where made, relates strictly to a councillor’s public role, not to their personal life or character.
Every effort has been made to present information truthfully, and to ensure that commentary is fair and balanced. This essay is written in the spirit of civic engagement and democratic accountability. It is my belief that elected officials, particularly at the local level where decisions have immediate and lasting effects, should be open to scrutiny and public dialogue. That is not defamation—it is democracy. The councillor was given a pre-publication version of this article.
Should any councillor believe that something here is inaccurate or lacks context, I welcome correction. This document is not fixed in stone. Like public service itself, it benefits from transparency, feedback, and the continual pursuit of clarity. My intention is not to cause harm, but to raise the level of informed discussion about the future of our city and the conduct of those entrusted to lead it.
It is through open dialogue—not silence—that trust in public institutions is either built or eroded. This contribution, however imperfect, seeks to foster the former.