I agree with Cr Gash that councillors must assess applications which come before them, however do councillors consider all the factors including zone objectives, the LEP and other relevant guidelines? 

If they had then the decision would have to have been against Woolworths. The economic ramifications of approving Woolworths at the Bomaderry site will be felt by every ratepaying business in that town. The jobs argument will not stack up either, as one is gained at the new complex more will go in the local shopping precinct.

I would like to hear those councillors who supported this awful decision explain to the community why they voted as they did. Furthermore can someone please explain why Woolworths needs three stores in a two-kilometre radius?

While I have been against council amalgamations, decisions like this make me review my position.

As stated by our Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, it is an exciting time to be an Australian but look at what may be ahead for us in the Shoalhaven.

Possibly new state and federal members, an amalgamated council, new shopping centre in the north and a new bridge too boot. A new police commander and an enlarged correctional centre.

Wow, what is happening in the Shoalhaven as progress is thrust upon us as we move forward? Yes it is good to be a ratepayer getting value for money.

I have heard people say that Malcolm Turnbull and his government are completely out of touch with the people of Australia and don't understand the daily struggle to house, feed and clothe a family with our hard earned wages. I think this is far too generous.

I believe that they do understand exactly what ordinary, hard working Australians face but sadly choose to ignore it.

It is far more agreeable to them to continue to negatively gear multiple properties, while many Australians struggle to pay the rent or buy a home to live in.

They argue that Labor's negatively gearing proposals will reduce property prices and negatively effect Mum and Dad investors but I would argue that a fall in property prices would perhaps help our children to enter the property market and that this is more important than the wealthy and statistically it is mostly the wealthy, being able to accumulate bigger property portfolios whilst they price our children out of the property market.

The recent inquiry into the CFMEU’s indiscretions and contrived fraud has not changed the course of history – in fact, the disclosures, made public, should have come before the courts not a taxpayer funded $80 million Royal Commission.

Recent failings of banking and financial sectors has seen tens of thousands of consumers affected by financial advice scandals, and it would be fair to say every person in Australia would have been affected by alleged interest rate rigging. Yet the Turnbull government does not consider these offences serious enough to warrant investigation by a Royal Commission.

Government attitude might be excused, to an extent, if the banks were struggling. This is not the case – last year; the big four banks posted record profits of $30 billion after tax. From the facts, it is apparent government treatment of unions differs from that taken when dealing with banking and financial institutions.