South Australian Public Health Act 2011 Discussion Paper. Regional Public Health Plans Governance Options for Partnership / Cooperative Arrangements

Transcription

1 South Australian Public Health Act 2011 Discussion Paper Regional Public Health Plans Governance Options for Partnership / Cooperative Arrangements October 2014

2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This Discussion Paper has been prepared by the Local Government Association of SA (LGA) with the assistance of Norman Waterhouse Lawyers and Frank Brennan Consulting Services. The LGA is the statutory peak body for Local Government in South Australia, representing all 68 Councils in the State. The discussion Paper was first issued in October Enquiries regarding this publication should be directed to the LGA on

3 1. INTRODUCTION This Discussion Paper has been prepared to provide information on options for governance arrangements to develop, implement, review and report on Regional Public Health Plans under the provisions of the South Australian Public Health Act It is acknowledged that the structure and content of Regional Public Health Plans has continued to evolve since the first Plans were prepared and in developing this Information Paper it is based on the current thinking about options for Council to establish governance arrangements to support their development, implementation, review and reporting on Regional Public Health Plans. This is written primarily for the benefit of Councils but is also available as a resource for the general public and students of environmental health and / or Local Government from the LGA website 2. BACKGROUND TO PUBLIC HEALTH PLANS The South Australian Public Health Act 2011 ( the Act ) was passed by Parliament in June 2011 and replaced the Public and Environmental Health Act A key feature of the SAPH Act is the requirement for Councils to develop a Regional Public Health Plan ( RPHP ) which will provide a strategic focus for public health activities within the region. The Act recognises Local Government s role in public health as: public health authorities for their areas; preserving, protecting and promoting public health within their areas; cooperating with other authorities involved in the administration of the Act; ensuring that adequate sanitation measures are in place in their areas; identifying risks to public health within their areas; assessing activities and development to determine and respond to public health impacts; providing or supporting activities within their areas to preserve, protect or promote public health; and providing or supporting the provision of immunisation programs for the protection of public health. The Act provides for the preparation of two types of Public Health Plans, the Minister s State Public Health Plan and Councils RPHPs. State Public Health Plan Pursuant to Section 50 of the SAPH Act, the Minister for Health and Ageing must prepare and maintain the State Public Health Plan (the State Plan). South Australia: A better place to live sets out the principles and polices for achieving the objects of the Act while attempting to comprehensively assess the state of public health in South Australia. It identifies existing and potential public health risks and develops strategies for addressing and eliminating or reducing those risks as well as identifying opportunities and outlining strategies for promoting public health in the state. Regional Public Health Plan Pursuant to section 51 of the Act, Councils are required to develop a RPHP. This plan must be prepared and maintained by a Council or, where appropriate a group of Councils, as determined or approved by the Minister for Health and Ageing. Regional Plans should be consistent with the State Public Health Plan. Section 51 of the Act states that: (8) A regional public health plan must (a) comprehensively assess the state of public health in the region; and - 1 -

4 (b) identify existing and potential public health risks and provide for strategies for addressing and eliminating or reducing those risks; and (c) identify opportunities and outline strategies for promoting public health in the region; and (d) address any public health issues specified by the Minister following consultation with SAPHC and the LGA; and (e) include information as to (i) the state and condition of public health within the relevant region, and related trends; and (ii) environmental, social, economic and practical considerations relating to public health within the relevant region; and (iii) other prescribed matters; and (f) include such other information or material contemplated by this Act or required by the regulations. (9) In addition, a plan must (a) include information about issues identified in any plan, policy or strategy specified by the Minister or SAPHC; and (b) address, and be consistent with, any intergovernmental agreement specified by the Minister. 2. COOPERATION BETWEEN COUNCILS Many Councils already share services across boundaries and Section 39 of the Act recognises that a Council may, in performing its functions or exercising its powers under the Act, act in conjunction or partner with one or more Councils. Section 39 of the Act provides that: A council may, in performing its functions or exercising its powers under this Act, act in conjunction or partnership with, or cooperate or coordinate its activities with, 1 or more other councils. Councils will therefore be able to act in conjunction or partnership with one or more other Councils in discharging its powers and functions under the Act. This paper describes the options available to Councils for entering into cooperative or partnership arrangements with another Council or number of Councils for managing the process for the development, implementation and reviewing of a RPHP. It should be noted that the establishment of a RPHP by a group of councils does not, itself, derogate from the fact that individual councils are ultimately the local public health authority for their area and are therefore individually responsible for carrying out the prescribed functions under the Act in their area. There are two primary opportunities for Councils to enter into cooperative or partnership arrangements; however these should not limit other Councils in exploring other cooperative or partnership arrangements that work for them

5 Alternative 1 a group of Councils partnering in the development; implementation; review and reporting of a RPHP on a regional or sub-regional basis (see Diagram 1 below). Diagram 1: Group of Councils Developing & Implementing the RPHP on a Regional Basis A group of Councils partnering to develop a RPHP RPHP developed having an action plan at a Regional level Councils cooperating to implement action at a Regional level The review and reporting against actions / action plans at a regional level informs and updates RPHP This option allows Councils to enter into a partnership or cooperative arrangement on a regional or sub-regional basis to develop a RPHP and further use the partnership or cooperative arrangement to implement the Plan s actions, to review the Plan and report on the Plan s achievements. The partnership or cooperative arrangement negotiated by the participating Councils and approved / determined by the minister for Health and Ageing, will determine the collective and individual responsibilities of the member Councils for the implementation of the Plan s actions at either a local or regional level while collectively coming together to review and reporting on the RPHP on a regional basis

6 Alternative 2 Councils on a regional basis, having developed RPHP as individual Councils and a group of Councils, partnering in the implementation; and review of the RPHP on a regional basis (see Diagram 2 below). Diagram 2: A Group of Councils & Individual Councils Sharing the Implementation & Review on their RPHPs. 2 (or more) RPHPs have identified both individual Council and regional actions. The regional actions across each RPHP feed into a collective regional action plan 2 or more individual or groups of Councils cooperating to implement regional actions at a regional level The review against actions / action plans at a regional level informs and updates RPHP This option allows Councils on a regional basis (could be a LGA region), having developed RPHPs as individual Councils and a group of Councils, partnering in the implementation; and review of the RPHP on a regional basis The partnership or cooperative arrangement negotiated by the participating Councils will determine the collective and individual responsibilities of the member Councils for the implementation of the Plan s actions at either a local or regional level. However, each RPHP must be reported on by the Council or group of Councils who prepared them. 3. PARTNERSHIP / COOPERATION STRUCTURES COUNCIL BUY-IN In the first planning cycle following the commencement of the South Australian Public Health Act, some Councils made the decision to plan together jointly. These councils weighed up a range of options in determining the advantages of buying into a partnership or cooperative arrangement for the development, implementation, reviewing and reporting on their RPHP there was clear purpose and benefit for entering into such an arrangement. They also considered a range of questions which remain relevant for Councils that may consider entering into a RPHP partnership or cooperative arrangement in the future

7 Questions for Councils In seeking to enter into a RPHP partnership or cooperative arrangement Councils would need to justify such a decision and in doing so respond to questions including What would be the purpose of Council entering into a RPHP partnership or cooperative arrangement? What would be the benefits to Council of entering into a RPHP partnership or cooperative arrangement? What would be the benefits to the community arising from Council entering into a RPHP partnership or cooperative arrangement? Why would Council enter into a RPHP partnership or cooperative arrangement? What resource implications are there for Council from entering into a RPHP partnership or cooperative arrangement? Are there any risks (or barriers) to Council from entering into a RPHP partnership or cooperative arrangement? What is the most appropriate form of RPHP partnership or cooperative arrangement for Council to enter into? Benefits from a Partnership or Cooperative Arrangement The primary purpose of any strategic partnership / collaboration by Councils is to achieve benefits for their communities and in developing these arrangements the benefits arising to Councils and their communities need to be identified and measured. The benefits from a proposed partnership or cooperative arrangement between councils can include the following Financial Reduced operational costs Reduced staff costs Increased financial capacity Enhanced cost-effectiveness Service Delivery Increased range of services Better council services Wider range of services Improved Productivity Access to expertise not otherwise available More with same resources Increased service capacity Enhanced productivity and cost-effectiveness Community Outcomes New services available to the community that would not be available without a partnership Better geographic access to services Greater equity of access Greater community satisfaction - 5 -

8 Local Excellence Expert Panel Regional Collaboration and Partnership Model The Local Excellence Expert Panel ( LEEP ) in their Report (December 2013) 1 advised that a high priority needs to be given to developing new arrangements for Councils to enter into regional partnerships, both with their neighbours and with other key stakeholders. Factors that will influence the establishment of regional collaboration and partnership arrangements by Councils will include consistent regional decision making; benefits to our communities; efficiencies in service delivery and resultant costs savings; creating vibrant communities and regional advocacy. The following outcomes can be achieved from the implementation of a LEEP model for regional collaboration and partnership in relation to the development and implementation of a RPHP A Strategic Approach the social, economic and environmental influences that affect the quality of life of our communities have their origin across a broader geographical area than an individual local council area. A regional approach by councils to strategic planning and service delivery for RPHP can allow these influences to be harnessed and/or addressed to provide improved outcomes for communities. Formal Structures a regional collaboration or partnership arrangement for a RPHP needs to have a formal structure to remove the potential undoing of the arrangements by political whim or personalities. Improved capacity arising from a RPHP regional collaboration or partnership arrangement there will be opportunities for councils to achieve better social, environmental and economic outcomes at both a regional and local level due to an increased financial and advocacy capacity. GOVERNANCE OPTIONS FOR PARTNERSHIP / COOPERATION STRUCTURE The following partnership / cooperative structure options are proposed for a group of Councils to examine in managing the process for the implementation, and reviewing on a Regional Public Health Plan Councils that have entered into a RPHP partnership or cooperative arrangement could reference the LGA document LGA Financial Sustainability Program Information Paper 7 Service Delivery Framework Including the Role of Shared Services (August, 2006). 2 These partnership / cooperative structure options are explored further below and the features of these options are summarised in Appendix 1. 1 Local Excellence Expert Panel Report Strengthening South Australian Communities in a Changing World The Council of the Future." (December 2013) 2 LGA document LGA Financial Sustainability Program Information Paper 7 Service Delivery Framework Including the Role of Shared Services (August, 2006)

9 3.1 RPHP STEERING / PROJECT COMMITTEE The participating Councils agree to appoint a RPHP Steering Committee to manage the process for the development, implementation; reviewing and reporting of the RPHP. A RPHP Steering Committee would be a key body within the RPHP governance structure for ensuring the delivery of the Plan and the attainment of Plan outcomes. The individual Councils appointing members to the RPHP Steering Committee would remain responsible for implementing the RPHP in their own Council area; however the RPHP Steering Committee could have oversight over the individual and collective actions of the group councils. No Status as a Legal Entity A RPHP Steering Committee, as an informal Committee has no legal status or accountability and no ability to make decisions in its own right. Individual decisions on the implementation, review and reporting on the RPHP would have to be made by individual councils. How will the Structure Work? As the name suggests, the Steering / Project Committee provides support, guidance and oversight of progress of the RPHP and would comprise representatives of the partner Councils and/or independent members who have particular expertise to provide to the Committee. Members of the Steering Committee may or may not work on the delivery of the RPHP themselves as this role is undertaken by the Council Managers / staff who have been tasked with implementing the RPHP action plan or components of the action plan. The Council Managers / staff will normally attend meetings of the Steering Committee to report on progress and answer any questions raised by members. Diagram 3 (below) illustrates the process to establish a RPHP Steering / Project Committee structure and its role in guiding the implementation of the RPHP Action Plan and the potential for a group of Councils to share and undertake implementation. Diagram 3: Steering Committee Structure Councils agree to Cooperate to establish a RPHP Steering Committee Councils appoint Members to the RPHP Steering Committee RPHP Steering Committee guide implementation of the RPHP Action Plan Council Staff implement designated RPHP Actions The Steering Committee s role is to provide advice and monitor the achievement of the RPHP outcomes. This may include such tasks as Providing support, guidance and oversight of progress of the RPHP Providing input to the development of the RPHP actions and their implementation Providing advice on the RPHP budget - 7 -

10 Assist in identifying the priorities for actions in the RPHP Action Plan where the most energy should be directed Identifying potential risks and their monitoring Evaluating the achievement of the RPHP Action Plan against KPIs Monitoring RPHP timelines Monitoring the quality of the delivery of the RPHP actions/projects Providing an advisory or monitoring role for the respective member Councils on the implementation of the RPHP and achievement of outcomes Align the programs of the member Councils with the implementation of the RPHP Providing member Councils with guidance and feedback on issues arising from the implementation of the RPHP Governance Arrangements for the Steering Committee In entering into the RPHP Steering Committee arrangement the member Councils would need to consider the following matters from a governance perspective the terms of reference and role of the Steering Committee; the membership of the Steering Committee; meeting procedure and frequency for the Steering Committee; reporting obligations for the Steering Committee back to the member councils; the resolution of disputes between group councils; and the making of recommendations and referral of decisions to group councils. The membership of the RPHP Steering Committee could consist of Council Members; Council staff or independent members or mix of all. (Note Council Staff should include a mix of staff ie: CEOs; Managers/Directors; EHOs; Development Planners; Social/Community Workers; Strategic Planners or other Public Health related discipline). There may be an existing executive structure that could also be utilised, without establishing a new body, for example, the South East Local Government Association s Chief Executive Officers Group currently act as the Steering Committee for the management and implementation of regionally based projects and programs. 3.2 SECTION 39 (COUNCIL COOPERATION), SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 2011 Section 39 of the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 ( SAPH Act ) provides statutory authority for councils, in performing functions or exercising powers under the SAPH Act, to act in conjunction or partnership with, or cooperate or coordinate their activities with, one or more councils. Councils can enter into formal agreements about how matters under the SAPH Act will be carried out in a cooperative or coordinated basis. Establishment of a RPHP Coordinating Group Where Councils or groups of councils have adopted a RPHP, they could potentially join together on a regional or sub-regional basis to enter into a formal agreement under Section 39 of the SAPH Act to establish a RPHP coordinating group to undertake the implementation, review and reporting on the RPHP. A Section 39 agreement could include details regarding the governance arrangements for a cooperative or coordinating group that could consist of Council Members; Council staff or independent members or mix of all. (Note Council Staff should include a mix of staff ie: CEOs; Managers/Directors; EHOs; Development Planners; Social/Community Workers; Strategic Planners or other Public Health related discipline). The agreement could make provision for (amongst other things): - 8 -

11 the membership of the coordinating group; the terms of reference and role of the coordinating group; meeting procedure and frequency for the coordinating group; reporting obligations for the coordinating group back to group councils; responsibility for implementing individual specified actions of the RPHP by each group council; staffing and resources to be committed by each group council to the implementation of the RPHP; the resolution of disputes between group councils; and the making of recommendations and referral of decisions to group councils. No Status as a Legal Entity An agreement under Section 39 of the Act does not allow for the formation of a separate legal entity; however an agreement by a group of councils under this section would provide a suitable accountability framework for the oversight of the implementation of a RPHP. It should be noted that under the Act all individual councils would remain responsible for implementing the RPHP in their area, however the coordinating group could have continued oversight over the individual actions of the group councils and, depending on the terms of the agreement, may have authority to make certain limited decisions on behalf of the group. With the coordinating group not having status as a separate legal entity, it could not enter into contracts, spend money or make decisions for which councils have the statutory authority in their own right. Legal Advice Delegation Subject to legal advice it could be possible for an agreement to: make provision for the appointment and indemnification of an auspicing council to enter into contractual arrangements on behalf of the group; and/or contemplate the appointment of a member of the coordinating group (e.g. the Chairperson) as authorised person for each of the group councils to make those decisions for which statutory authority is required, as a delegate of those councils. A Section 39 agreement would provide a more accountable and robust mechanism for the implementation, review and reporting on the RPHP than the informal arrangements, a Steering Committee or MOU arrangement, as discussed above. Civil Liability Councils seeking to enter into a Section 39 Agreement should seek advice from the LGA Mutual Liability Scheme regarding any civil liability issues that may arise by virtue of such an agreement. The extent of the liability that may arise will depend on the terms of any agreement prepared and adopted. 3.3 SECTION 41 COUNCIL COMMITTEE Section 41 of the Local Government Act 1999 ( the LG Act ) provides for the establishment by individual councils of committees to, amongst other things, assist a council in the performance of its functions. Legal advice obtained by the Local Government Association indicated that it would be possible for one of the councils in the RPHP group to establish and then host a Section 41 Committee under the LG Act for the purposes of providing a legal framework for monitoring the implementation of the RPHP

12 The terms of reference for that committee could provide for the membership of the committee to include persons from each RPHP group council. The disadvantage with this model is twofold. Firstly, only one of the group councils carries the liability for the operation of the committee; the committee is a committee of the establishing council and is not a separate legal entity. Secondly, the council that establishes the committee is ultimately able to appoint or remove members of the committee at its discretion and adopt and vary the terms of reference. The legal advice concluded that a Section 41 Committee would not provide an appropriately accountable governance framework for the implementation of a RPHP. 3.4 SECTION 43 (REGIONAL SUBSIDIARY), LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1999 Section 43 of the Local Government Act 1999 ( the LG Act ) provides for two or more councils to establish a regional subsidiaries to perform a function of a councils under the LG Act or any other Act including the SAPH Act. A regional subsidiary is an entity which, although established by the councils, is largely autonomous and is a separate legal entity able to make its own decisions without the need to obtain approval from the constituent councils (although decisions are subject to joint direction of the councils). Charter for a Regional Subsidiary Schedule 2 (Part 2) of the LG Act provides that the councils seeking to establish a regional subsidiary must apply to the Minister for approval and such an application must be accompanied by a Charter for the subsidiary. Further Schedule 2 (Part 2) of the LG Act details the matters to be addressed in preparing a Regional Subsidiary Charter. To the extent necessary, the Charter for the regional subsidiary could provide for all those matters that could be included in an agreement under Section 39 of the SAPH Act. Delegation to Regional Subsidiary In accordance with Section 44 of the LG Act, the constituent councils of the regional subsidiary are able to delegate relevant powers or functions vested on the councils under the SAPH Act to the regional subsidiary. This would include the delegable powers and functions contained within Section 51 (Regional Public Health Plans) of the Act, amongst others. As such, we consider that group RPHP councils could establish regional subsidiaries (or, alternatively, alter the Charter of any existing regional subsidiaries of which the group councils are, exclusively, the constituent councils, such as a regional LGA) to provide a suitable accountability framework for the implementation of a RPHP. It should be noted that under this model the constituent councils would still ultimately be responsible for carrying out their prescribed functions. The establishment of a regional subsidiary would provide for the most robust and rigorous governance arrangements for the implementation of a RPHP. Example The Eastern Health Authority ( EHA ) is a regional subsidiary established by five metropolitan Councils for the purpose of providing public and environmental health services to their 150,000 residents. The functions delivered by the EHA include immunisation services, food safety services, infection waste disposal and monitoring and hygiene and sanitation services. For more information, please visit Another example of a regional subsidiary is Regional Organisations of Local Government in South Australia. There are six primary regional organisations in country SA and the LGA Metropolitan Group. The six country regions work together as an LGA

13 group called the SA Regional Organisations of Councils (SAROC). A specific example is the Eyre Peninsula Local Government Association. For more information, or to view their charter. please visit In addition, Local Governments use Section 43 of the LG Act to form waste managagement authorities. An example is Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority (NAWMA). NAWMA manages waste and resource recovery activities for the Town of Gawler, the Cities of Playford and Salisbury, The Barossa Council and other regional Councils. They work closely with Local Government, industry and residents in developing a sustainable and integrated, long-term approach to recycling and environmentally responsible waste disposal. For more information, please visit 4. FUNDING A RPHP PARTNERSHIP OR COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT When establishing a RPHP partnership or collaboration, the member Councils need to consider and agree the funding arrangements for the new RPHP entity. These include (but not entirely) the following financial matters the preparation; form and content of the annual business plan how budgets will be approved and varied the formula for the contribution of funds by member Councils the regularity and requirement for financial and performance reporting Entity Funding Comments / Issues Steering / Project Committee Section 39 SAPH Act Committee minimal funding required as Steering /Project Committee s role is to manage or oversee the agreed RPHP processes the hosting or auspicing Council will incur some administrative costs these costs should be shared by the member Councils unable to spend funds in own right each Council to implement their own RPHP actions and providing funding within their own budgets without a formal agreement or establishment of a regional subsidiary, decisions regarding the allocation of funding and resources will be for individual councils to consider on a caseby-case basis without a formal governance structure, individual councils remain individually responsible for implementing and funding the requirements of a RPHP in their area a section 39 SAPH Act coordinating group would not be a separate legal entity and could not enter into contracts, spend money or make decisions for which statutory authority is required Section 41 LG Act Committee the Council establishing the Committee will singularly incur the administrative and operating costs for the Committee a contribution by member Councils towards the agreed share of budget to implement RPHP actions (alternatively) each Council to a single council must establish the committee and carries the liability for the operation of the committee the committee is not a separate legal entity the committee exists and operates at the discretion of the establishing Council without a formal agreement or

14 implement their own RPHP actions and providing funding within their own budgets establishment of a regional subsidiary, decisions regarding the allocation of funding and resources will be for individual councils to consider on a caseby-case basis without a formal governance structure, individual councils remain individually responsible for implementing and funding the requirements of a RPHP in their area Section 43 LG Act Regional Subsidiary required to adopt an annual Business Plan required to adopt an annual Budget a contribution by member Councils towards the agreed share of budget to implement RPHP actions in accordance with adopted annual Business Plan and Budget the Regional Subsidiary could be an existing Regional LGA the Regional Subsidiary is required to operate within the statutory framework set out in Schedule 2 (Part 2) of the LG Act and the Charter approved by the Minister. 5. RPHP IMPLEMENTATION & REPORTING Councils are required to report on their RPHP biannually by September 30 to the Chief Public Health Officer. The first report is due 30 September 2014, and subsequent reporting period is 1 July June 2016, with the next report being due 30 September Each RPHP must be reported on by the Council or group of Councils who prepared them. Upon discussion and negotiation with a Regional LGA, it is possible that Councils could aggregate a number of RPHP for the purpose of possibly sharing the implementation of Plans actions. There are two primary opportunities for Councils who have entered into cooperative or partnership arrangements to undertake the reviewing and reporting on their respective RPHP. Alternative 1 a group of Councils partnering in the development; implementation and review of a RPHP (see Diagram 4 below). Diagram 4: Group of Council Model for Developing; Implementing; Reviewing & Reporting on the RPHP Regional Public Health Plan adopted by a Group Action Plans & Reporting from RPHPs are coordinated on a regional and individual Council basis Delivery of RPHP Regional implementation by individual Councils reporting back up to Regional LGA

15 Alternative 2 Councils on a regional basis, having developed RPHP as individual Councils and a group of Councils, partnering in the implementation, and review of the RPHP on a regional basis (see Diagram 5 below). Diagram 5: Regional Model for Implementing RPHP Actions & Reporting on RPHPs Regional Public Health Plans adopted by an individual Council & Group of Councils Regional Action Plan \ from RPHPs are coordinated through the Regional LGA Report on the RPHPs to be undertaken by respective RPHP units Delivery of RPHP Regional implementation by individual Councils progress fed back up to Regional LGA This option allows Councils on a regional basis (could be via the Regional LGA), having developed RPHPs as individual Councils and a group of Councils, partnering in the implementation; and review of the RPHP on a regional basis. The Regional LGA may be approached, as a Regional Subsidiary, to co-ordinate and resource specific actions, by agreement. The Regional LGA's agenda may consider, amongst other things, tourism; regional development; and natural resource management. At the highest level, the Regional LGA could (informally) work collectively to implement / deliver the outcomes of the public health plan(s). The partnership or cooperative arrangement negotiated by the participating Councils will determine the collective and individual responsibilities of the member Councils for the implementation of the Plan s actions at either a local or regional level

16 APPENDIX 1 Summary of Governance Options South Australian Public Health Act Regional Public Health Plan Cooperative Arrangements Option Legal Status Cost Level of Control Establishment RPHP Steering/Project Committee Agreement under section 39 SAPH Act No legal status, informal No separate legal status. Depending on the nature of the agreement, enforceable only as a contract between the parties. Costs retained in-house; could be more expensive as it does not take advantage of economies of scale Minimal for establishment cost of drafting and implementing agreement Councils likely to bear their own costs of implementation. High individual Council only Liability remains with Council Each Council retains control to the extent specified in the agreement. Liability identified in agreement. Requires no special establishment By agreement of participating Councils Should include governance structure (e.g. Steering Committee) Potentially a host Council would bear higher administrative costs. Will only be able to change through a further agreement Might require some delegations if actions are to be taken on behalf of Councils Section 41 (LG Act) Committee by one Council Legal status through the host Council only. Not a separate legal entity. Would need to be supported by an agreement Higher costs for the host Council, could be offset by contributions from other participating Councils Higher level of control for the host Council, but also liability rests with host Council. Each Council retains control to the extent specified in the agreement. By the host Council, resolution of Council and agreement Non-host Councils would need to delegate authority Regional Subsidiary (section 43 LG Act) Separate legal entity, subject to the terms of its Charter and Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act Councils required to fund ongoing operation of regional subsidiary dependent on the terms of the Charter. Level of control by individual Councils set by the Charter. Regional subsidiary is subject to the joint control Requires Ministerial approval, or could be achieved through amendment of the Charter of an existing regional subsidiary - 1 -

17 APPENDIX 1 Summary of Governance Options South Australian Public Health Act Regional Public Health Plan Cooperative Arrangements Option Legal Status Cost Level of Control Establishment Higher legal compliance expenses than other options (e.g. requirements for annual business plans etc) Likely to be more expensive in the set up than other options but possible economies of scale could be achieved and direction of the constituent Councils