Local Government National Report

Transcription

1 Local Government National Report Report on the Operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995

2 Commonwealth of Australia 2007 ISSN ISBN X Information present in this document may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes, subject to the inclusion of acknowledgment of the source and provided no commercial use or sale of the material occurs. Reproduction for the purposes other than those given above requires the written permission of the Department of Transport and Regional Services. Requests for permission should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary, Local Government and Natural Disasters Branch at the address below. The report is also available on the Internet at < Acknowledgments This report has been compiled by: Mervyn Carter Fleur Leary Mark Mansfield Barry O Neill Diana Rankin Valentine Thurairaja For further information about this report contact: Department of Transport and Regional Services Local Government Section GPO Box 594 Canberra ACT 2601 Phone: Fax: (02) Editor: Jenny Cook, PenUltimate Designer: Philippa Lawrence, Sprout Design Indexer: Michael Harrington Printer: National Capital Printing, Fyshwick ACT

3 Foreword I am pleased to present to Parliament the report on the operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act In , the Australian Government provided $1.618 billion in financial assistance grants through state governments to councils in support of the services they provided to communities. These funds are distributed in accordance with the national principles and this report provides an account of how the states and the Northern Territory allocate these funds between councils. Importantly, these grants to councils are untied, so councils are able to devote these funds to the priorities they themselves have identified. The government s response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration s inquiry into local government, entitled Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government (known as the Hawker Report), was tabled on 22 June This national report includes an update on progress made by the Australian Government in addressing the recommendations of the Hawker Report it agreed to pursue. The most significant achievement in addressing the Hawker Report recommendations in was the signing of a tri-partite inter-governmental agreement on local government. The agreement, entitled The Inter-governmental Agreement Establishing Principles Guiding Inter-governmental Relations on Local Government Matters was finalised in April For the first time, the three spheres of government have agreed on a framework within which services are to be funded and delivered to the community at the local level. The inter-governmental agreement offers the possibility of a new relationship between local government and the other spheres of government. The agreement obtained in-principle agreement from governments that when a responsibility is devolved to local government, local government is consulted and the financial and other impacts on local government are taken into account. The objectives of the inter-governmental agreement include providing for greater financial transparency between the three spheres of government in relation to local government services and functions. In addition, the agreement aims to improve the relationship and consultation between governments on local government matters. The inter-governmental agreement also seeks to provide an overall framework for developing further agreements between local government and the other spheres of government. This includes consulting and making agreements with individual local governing bodies and, where appropriate, local government peak representative bodies. This report has been prepared with the cooperation of all spheres of government and I would like to thank the state and territory governments and the local government associations for their contributions. The Hon Jim Lloyd MP Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads iii

4 Contents Foreword Preface iii ix Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia 1 Local government roles 2 Local government functions 2 Size and diversity 3 Involvement in inter-governmental structures 9 National representation of local government 11 Local government finances 12 Local government revenue 12 Local government expenditure 18 State comparison of expenditure by purpose 19 Grant funding 20 State and territory funding 24 Assets and liabilities 25 Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government 27 Current arrangements 29 Determining the quantum of the grant 29 Determining entitlements for and Inter-jurisdictional distribution of the grants 34 Quantum of financial assistance grants allocations 36 Principles for determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions 41 Determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions 43 Bodies eligible to receive financial assistance grants 44 Local government grants commissions methods 45 Allocation of grants to councils in Councils on the minimum grant 49 Reviews of Grants Commission methods 52 Impact of grants commission capping policies 53 Acquittal of the grants 53 Chapter 3 Local government efficiency and performance 55 National Competition Policy and local government 56 A new National Reform Agenda 57 Local government performance and efficiency 58 Local government financial position 59 Summary 59 iv

5 Chapter 4 Local government infrastructure 61 Local government infrastructure responsibilities 62 Extent of council-managed local road network 64 Road funding by each sphere of government 65 Australian Government funding for local roads 65 State government funding 68 Chapter 5 Local government service provision to Indigenous communities 75 Reporting requirements 77 Australian Government expenditure and progress 82 National Awards for Local Government 83 Chapter 6 Australian Government response to Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government 85 A tri-partite inter-governmental agreement 86 A Parliamentary resolution on local government 87 Consultations on impediments to prudent borrowing 87 Enhancement of the National Awards for Local Government 88 Council amalgamations 88 Review of the financial assistance grants 89 The future financial governance of local government 89 Appendixes 91 A. National principles for allocating general purpose and local road grants 92 B. State methods for distributing financial assistance grants C. Comparison of local government grants commission distribution models 144 D. Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies in E. Ranking of local governing bodies on a relative needs basis F. Australian classification of local governments 212 G. Progress in improving efficiency of local government 215 H. Progress on performance of local government in service provision to Indigenous communities 249 I. Best practice in local government 269 Bibliography 294 Glossary 296 Index of local governments 300 General index 308 v

6 Tables Table 1.1: Local government employment, by jurisdiction, Table 1.2: Selected characteristics of local governing bodies by jurisdiction, as at 1 July Table 1.3: Characteristics of selected councils, Table 1.4: Share of taxation revenue by sphere of government and source of revenue, Table 1.5: Local government revenue sources by jurisdiction, Table 1.6: Local government revenue by source by jurisdiction, $ per capita, Table 1.7: Local government expenditure by purpose, by jurisdiction, Table 1.8: Local government expenditure by purpose, by jurisdiction, $ per capita, Table 1.9: Specific purpose payments from the Australian Government direct to local government, by jurisdiction, ($ 000) 22 Table 1.10: Regional Partnership grants approved for local government in by jurisdiction 23 Table 1.11: Grants from states to local government by purpose, ($m) 24 Table 1.12: Local government assets and liabilities, at 30 June 2005 ($m) 26 Table 2.1: Calculation of financial assistance grants actual entitlements and adjustments for Table 2.2: Calculation of financial assistance grants estimated entitlements and cash grant paid for Table 2.3: allocations of general purpose and local road grants among jurisdictions 35 Table 2.4: allocations of estimated grant entitlement among jurisdictions and percentage change from actual grant allocation 35 Table 2.5: National financial assistance grant allocation, to ($) 36 Table 2.6: Financial assistance grant allocation New South Wales and Victoria, to ($) 37 Table 2.7: Financial assistance grant allocation Queensland and Western Australia, to ($) 38 Table 2.8: Financial assistance grant allocation South Australia and Tasmania, to ($) 39 Table 2.9: Financial assistance grant allocation Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory, to ($) 40 Table 2.10: Distribution of local governing bodies by type by state at June Table 2.11: Average general purpose grant per capita to councils by state and ACLG category, ($) 47 Table 2.12: Average local road grant per kilometre to councils by state and ACLG category, ($) 48 Table 2.13: Minimum grant council statistics by jurisdiction, to Table 2.14: Status of major methodology reviews undertaken since July 1995, by state, as at 30 June Table 3.1: National Competition Policy payments, and ($m) 57 vi

7 Table 4.1: Estimated value of local roads and bridges 63 Table 4.2: Value of local government buildings, net of depreciation $m, Table 4.3: Local road statistics based on council data at June Table 4.4: Estimated spending on council-managed local roads, to Table 4.5: Australian Government funding for council-managed local roads, to Table 4.6: AusLink Roads to Recovery program planned expenditure 67 Table 4.7: Strategic Regional Program planned estimated expenditure 67 Table 4.8: Australian Government additional funds for local roads in South Australia, to Table 4.9: New South Wales state government funding for council-managed local roads 69 Table 4.10: Victoria state government funding for local roads 69 Table 4.11: Queensland state government funding for council-managed local roads, Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme 70 Table 4.12: Western Australia State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement 71 Table 4.13: Western Australian local road expenditure by source of funds, to Table 4.14: South Australia state government funding for council-managed local roads, to Table 4.15: South Australia council expenditure on local roads 72 Table 4.16: Tasmania state government direct spending on council-managed local roads, and Table 4.17: Tasmania council expenditure on local roads 73 Table 5.1: Distribution of Indigenous councils by eligibility type and by state, June Table B.1: Cost drivers and average expenditure per unit Victoria 104 Table B.2: Average grant revenue per unit Victoria 106 Table B.3: Standardised fees and charges per unit Victoria 108 Table B.4: Changes in general purpose grant entitlements from to Victoria 109 Table B.5: natural disaster assistance from general purpose grant funding Victoria 109 Table B.6: Changes in local road length from to Victoria 110 Table B.7: Average annual costs used in allocating local road grants for Victoria 111 Table B.8: Changes in local road grant entitlement from to Victoria 112 Table B.9: Outline of expenditure assessment for Queensland 115 Table B.10: Rural roads standards and cost adjustors Queensland 117 Table B.11: Urban roads standards and cost adjustors Queensland 117 Table B.12: Definition of terms used in formulae Western Australia 124 Table B.13: Local road grant funding Western Australia 125 Table B.14: Expenditure functions, standard cost and units of measure South Australia 128 Table B.15: Expenditure functions, standard cost, units of measure and aggregate units of measure South Australia 130 Table B.16: Description of non-road expenditure functions Tasmania 134 vii

8 Table B.17: Application of cost adjustors to expenditure standards Tasmania 135 Table C.1: Features of local government grants commission models for assessing local road need, Table C.2: Differences in the distribution models grants commissions use for the general purpose component for allocations 147 Table C.3: The scope of equalisation of grants commission general purpose models 148 Table C.4: Grants treated by inclusion in general purpose grant allocations for , by jurisdiction 154 Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population, and Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Table E.2: Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Table E.3: Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Table E.5: South Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Table E.6: Tasmanian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Table E.7: Northern Territory councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Table F.1: Structure of the classification system 213 Table F.2: Number of councils by ACLG by category and by state, June Table F.3: Changes in ACLG category for : reasons for change by state, June Table G.1: Actual payments to local governments under the National Competition Policy Financial Incentive Package, to Table G.2: ACT NOWaste benchmarks 245 Table G.3: Roads ACT benchmarked assets 246 Table H.1: Financial assistance grant entitlements to Indigenous councils for Table I.1: Categories for the 2006 National Awards for Local Government 271 Figures Figure 1.1: Local government revenue by source, by jurisdiction, Figure 1.2: Local government rate revenue per capita for to , expressed in $, by jurisdiction 15 Figure 1.3: Local government expenditure by jurisdiction, Figure 4.1: Australian Government local roads funding 66 Figure A.1: National Principles for allocating general purpose and local road grants 93 Figure G.1: General purpose grants as a proportion of local government revenue, to Figure G.2: Aggregate capital funding gap 224 viii

9 Preface The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 requires that the minister report to Parliament on the operation of the Act as soon as practicable after 30 June each year. This annual report to Parliament must include an assessment of: the extent to which allocation of financial assistance grants has been made on a full horizontal equalisation basis the methods local government grants commissions used in making their recommendations the performance by local governing bodies of their functions including: their efficiency services provided by them to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Submitting an annual report to Parliament seeks to achieve two of the government s goals in relation to the arrangements under the Act. They are: to increase the transparency and accountability of methodologies used in allocating the Australian Government s grants to local governing bodies to promote consistency in the methods by which grants are allocated to achieve equitable levels of services by local governing bodies. Reporting on local governing bodies performance helps to assess whether two of the Act s purposes are being achieved. These purposes are: to improve the efficiency of local government to improve the provision by local governing bodies of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The report covers all local governing bodies in receipt of grants under the Act. It fosters transparency and accountability by enabling an interstate and an intrastate comparison of the allocation of grants to local governing bodies. Chapter 1 provides an overview of local government in Australia, including its roles, functions, size and diversity, finances and governance arrangements. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the process and principles of apportioning funding between the states and between local governing bodies within a state. Appendix D sets out the financial outcomes for all local governing bodies in receipt of financial assistance grants. The National Principles for allocating the general purpose and local road components of the financial assistance grants is at Appendix A, and the methodologies each state adopted in allocating funding to local governing bodies are summarised at Appendix B. Appendix C provides a comparison of the distribution models used by the state and Northern Territory grants commissions. The grant outcomes for each council in is at Appendix D, while Appendix E shows the ranking of local governing bodies within a state on a relative needs basis. The classification system used in Appendixes D and E to categorise local governing bodies is described in Appendix F. ix

10 Local government efficiency and performance is discussed in Chapter 3, which reports on state developments, Australian Government activities to support local government performance improvement and application of the National Competition Policy. State reports on performance and reform are at Appendix G. Improved performance of local governing bodies continues to be promoted through the National Awards for Local Government. The 2006 Award winners are at Appendix I. Chapter 4 addresses infrastructure issues, primarily local roads, and asset management issues, and has a bearing on the efficiency and effectiveness aspects of local government performance. A report on delivery of local government services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is in Chapter 5 and the reports from the states and territories are at Appendix H. Also included in Appendix H is a table providing the financial assistance grants for to the 91 identified Indigenous councils. This year Chapter 6 is a report on the Australian Government s progress in addressing those recommendations of the report Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government (the Hawker Report) it agreed to pursue. x

11 Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia 1

12 Local Government National Report Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia In Australia, the division of responsibilities between the Commonwealth Government and the state governments flows from the Australian Constitution. Section 51 of the Constitution enumerates the areas of responsibility the states granted to the Commonwealth (or Australian) Government at the time of Federation in These powers included immigration, foreign affairs, defence, customs and excise, international and interstate trade, and currency. Later the Commonwealth also assumed responsibility for Australian territories that were not within any state at the time of Federation. The states reserved all other areas to themselves, including health, education, most rail transport, water and sewerage, land development, policing and justice. The area of control for the Australian Government has since been extended or clarified either by constitutional amendment or by High Court decisions. Local government is not one of the areas identified as an Australian Government responsibility and thus remains a state responsibility. Each state and the Northern Territory provide the legal and regulatory framework for council operations. As a consequence, there are significant differences between jurisdictions for overseeing the roles, functions and responsibilities of councils and the services they deliver. The Australian Government has recognised that the national interest is served through improving local governments capacity to deliver services to all Australians, while also enhancing the performance and efficiency of the sector. The Australian Government uses the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 as the primary means to achieve these goals. Local government roles State legislation provides the framework for local government roles. These roles are not prescribed, so local government bodies in all jurisdictions have the authority to provide generally for the good governance of their local government area. In effect, this confers on local government the powers of general competence, or the power to take action in any area not expressly precluded by other legislation. Local government has roles in governance, advocacy, service delivery, planning and community development, and regulation. Local government functions Councils determine service provision according to local needs and the requirements of the various state local government Acts and they are increasingly providing services above and beyond those traditionally associated with local government. Examples of local government functions and services include: 2

13 engineering (public works design, construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, footpaths, drainage, cleaning, waste collection and management) recreation (golf courses, swimming pools, sports courts, recreation centres, halls, kiosks, camping grounds and caravan parks) health (water sampling, food sampling, immunisation, toilets, noise control, meat inspection and animal control) community services (child care, elderly care and accommodation, refuge facilities, meals on wheels, counselling and welfare) building (inspection, licensing, certification and enforcement) planning and development approval administration (of aerodromes, quarries, cemeteries, parking stations and street parking) cultural/educational (libraries, art galleries and museums) water and sewerage (in some states) other (abattoirs, sale-yards, markets and group purchasing schemes). Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia Unlike local government in many other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, Australian local governments do not have primary responsibility for services such as education, policing and public housing in Australia, these are primarily state and territory government responsibilities. Size and diversity Local government has a small but significant role in the Australian economy, with local government expenditure around $19.43 billion in , representing 2.07 per cent of gross domestic product. In , 701 local governing bodies were eligible to receive financial assistance grants from the Australian Government and of these 91 were Indigenous bodies. The term local governing bodies is defined in the financial assistance grants legislation and includes councils established under state and territory legislation as well as declared bodies. Declared bodies are provided with financial assistance grants and are treated as councils for the purposes of grant allocations. However, declared bodies are not councils and do not have the same legislative requirements as councils. Declared bodies include the Outback Areas Community Development Trust in South Australia, the Roads Trust in the Northern Territory and certain Indigenous Community Councils. Due to differences in defining councils and local governing bodies, some of the data provided in tables and figures in this report that relate to councils may not be strictly comparable with those for local governing bodies. Employees In May 2006, people were estimated to be employed by the local government sector nationally (see Table 1.1). Between May 2002 and May 2006, local government in the Northern Territory (37.5%) had the largest increase in the number of employees, followed by South Australia (20.2%) and Victoria (18.8%). The smallest increase was in New South Wales (3.5%). The population served per employee varies considerably across jurisdictions from 62 in the Northern Territory to 154 in South Australia with the national average being 121. The differences between states reflect the relative size of the local government sector in the state, the extent of outsourcing, and the range of functions local government performs. 3

14 Local Government National Report Table 1.1: Local government employment, by jurisdiction, Employees b ( 000) Population served Jurisdiction Population a March 2005 ( 000) May 2002 May 2004 May 2006 per employee May 2006 NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT Total Sources: a Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Demographic Statistics, cat. no , March b Australian Bureau of Statistics, Employed Wage and Salary Earners, Australia: Original Series, cat. no , various issues. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Wage and Salary Earners, Public Sector, Australia: Original Series, cat. no , May Population Table 1.2 shows that across all jurisdictions, the average population for local governing bodies at 30 June 2005 was just over However, 50 per cent of local governing bodies have less than 7293 residents. Population ranges from zero for the Roads Trust in the Northern Territory to for Brisbane City Council. Although the Roads Trust is considered a local governing body for the purpose of grants, it has no physical area and no responsibility for providing local government services other than roads. The average population size of local governing bodies by jurisdiction differs markedly, varying from 3016 in the Northern Territory, where there are many small Indigenous communities, to in Victoria. Table 1.2 shows different characteristics of the distribution of local governing bodies by population within jurisdictions. These different measures are provided because average population size can mask the variability of the population of local governing bodies within a jurisdiction. For instance, the average population for Queensland local governing bodies is around , but half of them have a population of less than The median population size for Western Australian local governing bodies is 2743 the smallest median for all the states. Western Australia is the only state not to have undergone major structural reform since the early 1990s. 4

15 Table 1.2: Selected characteristics of local governing bodies a by jurisdiction, as at 1 July 2006 Jurisdiction No. of bodies Characteristic Minimum First quartile b Median c Third quartile d Maximum Average Total NSW 155 Population (no) Road length (km) Area (sq km) Vic. 80 Population (no) Road length (km) Area (sq km) Qld 157 Population (no) Road length (km) Area (sq km) WA 142 Population (no) Road length (km) Area (sq km) SA 74 Population (no) Road length (km) Area (sq km) Tas. 29 Population (no) Road length (km) Area (sq km) NT 64 Population (no) Road length (km) Area (sq km) All jurisdictions 701 Population (no) Road length (km) Area (sq km) Notes: a Includes all local government bodies that received financial assistance grant funding in b The first quartile is the characteristic size at which 25 per cent of local governing bodies have smaller populations and 75 per cent are larger. c The median is the characteristic size at which 50 per cent of local governing bodies have smaller populations and 50 per cent are larger. d The third quartile is the characteristic size at which 75 per cent of local governing bodies have smaller populations and 25 per cent are larger. Source: Derived from local government grants commission s unpublished data. Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia 5

16 Local Government National Report Local road length maintained In , local governing bodies were responsible for around kilometres of local roads nationally. This is a significant proportion (over 80%) of the nation s roads by length. For all jurisdictions, except Queensland and the Northern Territory, the proportion of the length of local government roads that is sealed is around 33 per cent with the proportion varying from 14 per cent in the Northern Territory to 48 per cent in Tasmania. Table 1.2 shows the average length of road for which local governing bodies are responsible is 923 kilometres. However, 25 per cent of local governing bodies are responsible for less than 310 kilometres of local road and 25 per cent are responsible for more than 1273 kilometres. The local governing body responsible for the longest road length is Brisbane City Council with 5562 kilometres. Table 1.2 shows that in New South Wales and South Australia the minimum road length is zero. This is due to some local governing bodies, although eligible for financial assistance grants under the Act, not having a local roads responsibility. Area Table 1.2 highlights some of the variations in the area of local governing bodies in Australia. It shows that, like population, the area of local governing bodies varies considerably within and between states. Nationally, the average area of local governing bodies is 7833 square kilometres. However, 50 per cent of local governing bodies have an area of less than 1824 square kilometres. Nine local governing bodies in Western Australia and Queensland cover areas greater than square kilometres. The council with the largest area is East Pilbara in Western Australia with square kilometres. Table 1.2 shows that the minimum for many jurisdictions is zero square kilometres. Some local governing bodies are recorded as having no area because either their boundaries are not defined (for example, some Indigenous community councils) or they are not responsible for providing property services within a particular area of land, such as the Outback Areas Community Development Trust in South Australia. With 75 per cent of local governing bodies in the Northern Territory occupying less than 257 square kilometres, local governing bodies in the Northern Territory have the smallest areas. This is because a large proportion of the Northern Territory is unincorporated (that is, not included within the boundary of a local governing body) and many Indigenous community councils do not have their boundaries defined. The area of local governing bodies in South Australia is generally smaller than the area in other states and this reflects the fact that a large proportion (around 85%) of South Australia is unincorporated. Diversity Diversity can be great both within and between jurisdictions and goes beyond rural metropolitan differences. In addition to size and population, other significant differences between local governing bodies include: range and scale of functions councils fiscal position (including wide disparity in revenue-raising capacity), resources and skills base physical, economic, social and cultural environments of local government areas attitudes and aspirations of local communities legislative frameworks within which councils operate, including voting rights and electoral systems. 6

17 For instance, in relation to legislative frameworks, Indigenous councils are established under different arrangements. Indigenous councils can be established under the mainstream local government legislation of a jurisdiction, or through separate, specific legislation, or can be declared to be local governing bodies by the Australian Minister for Local Government, on advice from a state minister. Chapter 5 has more details on this issue. Table 1.3 gives some flavour of the physical and financial diversity showing, for a selection of councils, the range of areas, populations, local road lengths and income from rates and financial assistance grants. For instance, it shows the variation in population between an urban fringe council (Casey City in Victoria with people) and a rural remote council (Barcoo Shire in Queensland with 464 people). The population density of councils can vary significantly too. The City of Marion in South Australia with an area of 56 square kilometres has a population density of 1438 residents per square kilometre compared with Shark Bay Shire, a rural remote council in Western Australia, with an area of 2500 square kilometres and a population density of 0.39 residents per square kilometre. Table 1.3 shows that total grants per capita in rural areas are usually significantly higher than in urban areas. This can be explained by the need for assistance in accessing services in rural areas like Jerilderie Shire in New South Wales with a population of 1883 and an area of 3375 square kilometres. Jerilderie Shire received nearly $785 per capita in Some rural councils Jerilderie, Barcoo and Shark Bay shires received more in financial assistance grants than they received in rate income. Per capita grant versus per capita rate income also varies significantly. The grant per capita for Barcoo ($4195) is more than 98 times that of the grant per capita for the City of Hobart ($42.68). Conversely, rate income per capita for the City of Hobart ($1221) is nearly 4.4 times that of Wollondilly Shire ($278). Appendix D lists all local governing bodies, the area they cover, their population, their local road length and details of financial assistance grants they receive. Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia 7

18 Local Government National Report Table 1.3: Characteristics of selected councils, Council State Classifiation a Population Area (sq km) Road length (km) Rate income ($ 000) Rate income per capita ($) financial assistance grant entitlement General purpose ($) Local road ($) Total ($) Total grant per capita ($) Hobart City b Tas. UCC Marion City b SA UDL Bayswater City b WA UDM Casey City Vic. UFV Thuringowa City Qld UFM Wollondilly Shire NSW UFM Coffs Harbour City NSW URM Alice Springs Town NT URS Tennant Creek Town NT URS Surf Coast Shire Vic. RSG Moyne Shire Vic. RAV Dorset Municipal Tas. RAL Kingston District SA RAM Jerilderie Shire NSW RAS Barcoo Shire Qld RTS Shark Bay Shire WA RTS Notes: a Australian Classification of Local Governments see Appendix F. b These councils received the minimum per capita general purpose grant in Source: Derived from Department of Transport and Regional Services unpublished data. 8

19 Involvement in inter-governmental structures Council of Australian Governments COAG is the peak inter-governmental forum in Australia comprising the Prime Minister, state premiers, territory chief ministers and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) President. COAG s role is to initiate, develop and monitor the implementation of policy reforms which are of national significance and which require cooperative action by Australian governments. The issues COAG considers generally arise from international treaties that affect the states and territories, initiatives of one government that impact on other governments, and ministerial council deliberations. Ministerial councils are regular meetings of commonwealth, state and territory ministers sharing common responsibilities. Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia There are over 40 commonwealth state ministerial councils and forums currently facilitating consultation and cooperation between governments. Ministerial councils initiate, develop and monitor policy reform and take joint action to resolve issues that arise between governments. In particular, they develop policy reforms for COAG consideration and oversee implementation of COAG-agreed policy reforms. Local Government and Planning Ministers Council The Local Government and Planning Ministers Council includes federal, state and territory local government and planning ministers, the New Zealand local government minister and the ALGA President. The Council s primary objective is to lead debate and decision-making on key strategic policy matters for local government and planning in Australia and New Zealand that can be addressed at the national level. The Council s terms of reference are to: agree policy and strategic approaches for local government and planning issues exchange information and brief jurisdictions on significant current and emerging local government and planning issues, experiences and initiatives promote cooperation between all levels of government and encourage harmonisation across jurisdictional boundaries in the development and implementation of public policy, strategies and programs affecting local government and planning foster accountability to stakeholders through the monitoring and evaluation of policies, strategies and programs developed and implemented under the aegis of the Council provide leadership to all areas of government, industry and the community in working collaboratively to advance local government and planning issues liaise with other ministerial councils and other bodies on matters relevant to the activities of the Council. The Local Government and Planning Joint Committee supports the Council, with the Local Government Joint Officers Group and the Planning Officials Group as standing sub-committees. The Local Government and Planning Joint Committee consists of senior officers from the Australian Government, state, territory and the New Zealand departments with responsibility for local government and planning matters, and a senior representative from ALGA. 9

20 Local Government National Report In June 2004 the Council held a special roundtable meeting in Canberra with the Presidents of ALGA and the state and Northern Territory local government associations to discuss the recommendations of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration inquiry into Local Government and Cost Shifting, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government (the Hawker Report). During the Council met once in August 2005 (see Outcomes from the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council in for a report on the issues the Council considered during the year). A special meeting of the Council involving only the local government ministers and the President of ALGA was held on 12 April 2006 to consider a draft inter-governmental agreement to guide relations between local government, the Australian Government and the states and territories. This was one of the recommendations of the Hawker Report. At this meeting the Inter-Governmental Agreement Establishing Principles to Guide Inter-Governmental Relations on Local Government Matters, was agreed to and signed. The Council endorsed the objectives of the inter-governmental agreement that include providing for greater financial transparency between the three spheres of government in relation to local government services and functions. In addition, the agreement aims to improve the relationship by increasing consultation between governments on local government matters. The agreement contains an in-principle agreement from governments that when a responsibility is devolved to local government, local government is consulted and the financial and other impacts on local government are taken into account. Further details on the inter-governmental agreement are included in Chapter 6. OUTCOMES FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PLANNING MINISTERS COUNCIL 2005 The Local Government and Planning Ministers Council met in August 2005 in Melbourne. Prior to its meeting, it met jointly with the Housing Ministers Conference to discuss developing cross sectoral approaches for improving housing affordability. The key issues on the Council s agenda were: considering the Australian Government response to the Hawker Report recommendations and developing an inter-governmental agreement to guide relations between the states and territories, the Australian Government and local government supporting communities affected by rapid population growth (including sea change) developing strategies that might be adopted to address the impact of the Commonwealth s regulation of airport master planning under the Airports Act 1996 reviewing a draft leading practice model for development assessment prepared by the Development Assessment Forum considering urban infrastructure and related issues raised at the National Summit on the Future of Australian Cities and Towns and providing direction for a forward work program over the next five years for the Planning Officials Group. 10

21 Other ministerial councils In its 2001 review of ministerial councils, COAG agreed that the ALGA be represented on ministerial councils where there is a clear local government interest. Other than where membership is explicitly set out by statute or agreement, it is up to individual ministerial councils to decide whether ALGA should be a member or attend proceedings. Within the Transport and Regional Services portfolio, in addition to being a member of the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council, ALGA is also a member of the Regional Development Council and an observer on the Australian Transport Council. National representation of local government Australian Local Government Association ALGA is a federation of local governing body associations from each of Australia s six states and the Northern Territory. The Australian Capital Territory Government is also a member. The Association aims to add value, at the national level, to the work of state and territory associations and their member councils. ALGA represents the interests of local government through its participation in the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and membership of a number of ministerial councils. Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia Local Government Managers Australia Local Government Managers Australia is a professional association of local government managers throughout Australia and the Asia Pacific. Local Government Managers Australia is committed to developing and improving local government management, maintaining high professional and ethical standards and ensuring that its members are at the forefront of change and innovation. Local Government Managers Australia has state divisions in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania with a national office in Melbourne, Victoria. Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia is a professional organisation providing member services and advocacy for those involved in and delivering public works and engineering services to the community. Previously known as the Institute of Municipal Engineering Australia, the organisation has expanded its traditional local government engineering focus to public works and thereby covers all levels of government and private practice. The Institute has Divisions in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, with a national office in Sydney, New South Wales. 11

22 Local Government National Report Local government finances Share of taxation revenue by sphere of government In , local government directly raised $8920 million in taxation revenue that is 3.0 per cent of all taxes raised across all spheres of government in Australia. Local government s taxation revenue is raised through a tax on property (see Table 1.4) that is exclusively raised through land rates. Local government taxation revenue increased 7.4 per cent from $8306 million in to $8920 million in Compared with local government, the states and territories raised almost twice as much in taxes on property at $ million. This includes taxes on financial and capital transactions of almost $ million as well as land taxes of almost $3583 million. Table 1.4: Share of taxation revenue by sphere of government and source of revenue, Revenue source Federal (%) State (%) Local (%) Total (%) Taxes on income Employers payroll taxes Taxes on property Taxes on provision of goods and services Taxes on use of goods and performance of activities Total Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Taxation Revenue, Table 1, cat. no Local government revenue There is wide disparity in the ability of individual councils to raise revenue due largely to differences between urban, rural and remote councils, in population size, rating base and the ability or willingness of councils to levy user charges. The national averages for proportions of revenue from particular sources do, however, disguise the circumstances of individual councils that vary considerably. While a general indication of these variations can be obtained from Figure 1.1 and Table 1.5, significant variation in revenue raised between councils within the states and the Northern Territory remains. Table 1.6 shows the variation of revenue per capita across states for the various revenue sources. It shows, for example, that while South Australian councils collect the lowest total revenue per capita, they levy the highest rates per capita but raise the lowest revenue per capita for most other revenue sources. 12

23 Figure 1.1: Local government revenue by source, by jurisdiction, % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Other Interest Income Sale of Goods & Services Grants and Subsidies Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia 40% 30% 20% 10% Taxation Revenue 0% NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT Aust Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no Rates The only tax available to local government is rates on property. In , 39 per cent of local government revenue came from rates nationally. The proportion of revenue from rates varied appreciably between jurisdictions, from a high of 60 per cent for South Australia to a low of 24 per cent for the Northern Territory. Table 1.6 shows that, on a per capita basis, rates revenue was the lowest for the Northern Territory at $297; and for the states, rates revenue per capita varied from $385 for New South Wales to $503 for South Australia. 13

24 Local Government National Report Table 1.5: Local government revenue sources by jurisdiction, Revenue source NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total a Taxation revenue $m % Sale of goods $m and services % Interest $m % Current grants $m and subsidies % Other revenue $m % Total $m % Notes: a The sums of all individual state jurisdictions may not agree with total state figures due to transfers between jurisdictions. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no Table 1.6: Local government revenue by source by jurisdiction, $ per capita, Revenue source NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Average Taxation revenue Sale of goods and services Interest Current grants and subsidies Other revenue Total Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no and Australian Bureau of Statistics unpublished data. 14

25 Figure 1.2 shows the changes in rate revenue per capita, net of inflation, from to Nationally rates increased in real terms by 12.8 per cent per capita during this period, although there was significant variation between jurisdictions. Victoria had the greatest increase in real rates per capita at 38.8 per cent, while in New South Wales, where rate increases are capped, rates fell in real terms by 3.4 per cent. Rates in each state and the Northern Territory are based on a valuation of the land upon which they are charged. However, methods for assessing land value differ significantly between states (see Comparison of land value assessments used to calculate rates charges). New South Wales and Queensland have a statewide requirement that rates be based on the unimproved value of the land. Victoria, however, operates on a differential system where different valuation assessments are used depending on the type or the primary use of the land. In the Northern Territory a variety of systems may be used for rate assessments and the way they are applied is at the discretion of the individual council. Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia Figure 1.2: Local government rate revenue per capita from to , expressed in $, by jurisdiction SA Vic $ per capita Qld WA Aust Tas ACT NSW NT Year Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Taxation Revenue, cat. no and Australian Bureau of Statistics unpublished data. 15

26 Local Government National Report COMPARISON OF LAND VALUE ASSESSMENTS USED TO CALCULATE RATES CHARGES Property taxes, or rates, account for 39 per cent of the total revenue of local government across Australia and are the only direct source of taxation revenue available to this sphere of government. The methods by which rates are charged vary significantly between jurisdictions. Exemptions are provided to Crown land, including defence land and national parks in all jurisdictions. Charges for water and sewerage services for those jurisdictions where local government provide these services are excluded from the comparison. New South Wales rates are based on the unimproved value of the land. The structure of a rate may also include a base amount or be subject to a minimum amount. The amount of income that councils can raise through certain rates and charges is limited by the state government s rate-pegging legislation. Each year the government determines a percentage by which councils can increase their income from the previous year. This limit does not apply to individual rate assessments. Mandatory concessions are also provided for eligible pensioners. The structure, rate-pegging and concessions are all designed to ameliorate the impact of increased land values. Councils in Victoria can choose between three valuation systems capital improved value, net annual value or site value. Differential rates, where different rates in the dollar are struck for separate property classes, can be applied. Councils using net annual value or site value to determine rates are limited to applying three differential rates. However, councils using capital improved value can strike a wide range of differential rates, so long as the maximum differential rate is no more than four times the level of the lowest differential. In addition, councils must justify all differentials when they use the capital improved valuation system. Generally, all rural land is assessed on a capital improved value basis and differentials may be applied. Queensland follows a similar approach to New South Wales for rates using the unimproved value of the land as the basis for the rates. However, Queensland does not impose limits on rate increases councils can apply. Western Australia uses gross rental value of the land, that is, the amount that could potentially be charged should it be made available for rent, as the basis for non-rural rates charges. Rural land is predominantly assessed on the unimproved value of the land. However, this can change depending on the extent of improvements or the primary use of the land. Councils in South Australia, like Victorian councils, can use capital (improved) value, site (unimproved) value or annual (gross rental) value of the property. There is no differentiation for rural property, however, and 85 per cent of the state is unincorporated (that is, not included in a council area). 16

27 In Tasmania rates are also based on one of the three criteria used in South Australia and Victoria. However, recent agreements in Tasmania between the state government and councils means councils are now able to charge rates on selected state government-owned land. This will increase the amount of revenue local governments can realise from rates. The Northern Territory allows individual councils to determine the method and extent of rate charges in the council area, although the calculation of rates is still based on the unimproved capital value, the improved capital value or the annual rental value of the land. Rates can be charged on a flat parcel rate, where all land is charged at the same rate regardless of use or value. Alternatively, a differential rate similar to that used in Victoria, or a uniform rate can also be used. The Australian Capital Territory uses the unimproved land value of the property, averaged over the three previous years, to calculate rates. The calculation of rates for residential and commercial properties differs to that for rural properties. For residential and commercial properties, rates are determined as a fixed charge levied on all properties plus a rate charged on the amount that the average unimproved land value exceeds a rate-free threshold. For rural properties, a fixed charge is not applied. A differential rate applies for residential, commercial and rural properties but the same rate-free threshold applies across the three property types. Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia Other revenue sources for local governing bodies Local government received 30 per cent of its revenue in from the sale of goods and services. Councils in Tasmania and Queensland received around 40 per cent of their revenue in from these sources. This difference is likely to be because, in those states, local government is responsible for providing water and sewerage services. In , $2 117 million in local government revenue came from grants, which represented 9.2 per cent of local government revenue. Nationally, local government raised 90.8 per cent of its revenue from its own sources. Councils in the Northern Territory are more reliant on government grants and subsidies than are councils in other jurisdictions as they only raised 78.5 per cent of their own revenue. For the remaining states, the proportion of revenue raised from own sources varied from 88.2 per cent for South Australian councils to 93 per cent for Queensland councils. 17

28 Local Government National Report Local government expenditure Local government expenditure is dominated by housing and community amenities (23.8%) followed by transport and communications (22.2%) and general public services (17.8%) (see Table 1.7). Table 1.7: Local government expenditure by purpose, by jurisdiction, Expenditure NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total General public services $m % Public order and safety $m % Education $m % Health $m % Social security and welfare $m % Housing and community $m amenities % Recreation and culture $m % Fuel and energy $m % Agriculture, forestry and fishing $m % Mining, manufacturing and $m construction % Transport and communication $m % Other economic affairs $m % Public debt transactions $m % Other $m % Total $m % Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no

29 State comparison of expenditure by purpose Table 1.8 shows that, on a per capita basis, total local government expenditure averages $1014 and varies from $816 in South Australia to $1624 in the Northern Territory. There are differences between jurisdictions on expenditure per capita for expenditure categories. For instance: for general public services, expenditure in the Northern Territory is $393 per capita which is considerably higher than the next highest of $311 per capita in Queensland and the national average of $181 per capita Victoria s expenditure on social security and welfare is $144 per capita which is considerably more than expenditure in the other jurisdictions the national average is $63 Tasmania, Queensland and the Northern Territory record high per capita spending on housing and community amenities councils in Western Australia spend $210 per capita on recreation and culture compared with the national average of $152 spending on transport and communication averages $225 per capita nationally with Queensland the highest spender at $329 per capita, followed by Western Australia at $309 per capita. Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia Table 1.8: Local government expenditure by purpose, by jurisdiction, $ per capita, Expenditure NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Average General public services Public order and safety Education Health Social security and welfare Housing and community amenities Recreation and culture Fuel and energy Agriculture, forestry and fishing Mining, manufacturing and construction Transport and communications Other economic affairs Public debt transactions Other Total Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no

30 Local Government National Report Figure 1.3: Local government expenditure by jurisdiction, % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Other economic affairs Public debt transactions Other economic affairs Transport and communications Mining, manufacturing and construction Agriculture, forestry and fishing Fuel and energy Recreation and culture Housing and community amenities Social security and welfare Health Education Public order and safety General public services 0% NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT Aust Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no Grant funding Australian Government The Australian Government provides considerable financial assistance to local government through financial assistance grants (see details in Appendix D), specific purpose payments and direct program funding. Specific purpose payments Specific purpose payments to local governments from the Australian Government are either made direct to local governing bodies (for example, Roads to Recovery funding) or through the states (for example, local government financial assistance grants). Direct specific purpose payments to local governments in amounted to $710.6 million (see Table 1.9). This assistance recognises the work of local government in providing such services as childcare, care for the disabled and local roads. Of the direct specific purpose payments paid to local governing authorities, $607.6 million was provided under the Roads to Recovery program, which included supplementary funding of $307.5 million, including $7.5 million for roads in unincorporated areas. 20

31 The main specific purpose payments that provide funding through the states to local government are the financial assistance grants. In , the Australian Government provided around $1618 million in local government financial assistance grants to local governing bodies. These grants are administered through the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act More information on the means of distributing financial assistance grants is provided in Chapter 2. Other Australian Government program funding In , local government was eligible to apply for and receive funding from a wide range of Australian Government programs, such as the Natural Heritage Trust, the AusLink Black Spot program, the Australian Water Fund and the Regional Partnerships program. Generally, details of the funding local governments receive under such programs are not readily accessible but see Local government funding under Regional Partnerships program for information on the number and value of local government applications approved under this program in Information about the range of Australian Government funding programs available to local government can be found at < Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia 21

32 Local Government National Report Table 1.9: Specific purpose payments from the Australian Government direct to local government, by jurisdiction, ($ 000) Payment title NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT ACT Total Direct payments current Disability services Children s services a Roads to Recovery Program Weipa Structural Adjustment Package Regulation Reduction Incentive Fund Strengthening Tasmania Total current Direct payments capital Development of sewerage schemes for Boat Harbour and Sisters Beaches South Australian State Aquatic Centre Total capital Total direct payments Note: a The Children s services payment to local governments includes both current and capital expenses. Prior to capital expenses were identified as a separate grant. Source: Budget Paper No. 3,

33 LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING UNDER REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM Regional Partnerships is an Australian Government grants program that works in partnership with communities, government and the private sector to foster development of self-reliant communities and regions. Local government is eligible to apply for funding under the Regional Partnerships program, which the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) administers. The program targets initiatives under the four priorities of: strengthening growth and opportunities by investing in projects that strengthen and provide greater opportunities for economic and social participation in the community improving access to services by investing in projects that, in a cost effective and sustainable way, support communities to access services it will give priority to communities in regional Australia with a population of less than 5000 supporting planning by investing in projects that help communities identify and explore opportunities and develop strategies for action assisting structural adjustment by investing in projects that help specifically identified communities and regions adjust to major economic, social or environmental change. Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia In , about 43 per cent of the successful applications and 48 per cent of the value of the grants approved under the Regional Partnerships program came from local government. Table 1.10 shows the number and value of grants approved for local government by state in Table 1.10: Regional Partnership grants approved for local government in by jurisdiction State Number of local government grants approved Value of local government grants approved $m NSW Vic Qld WA a SA Tas NT Total Note: a Includes approvals for the Indian Ocean Territories. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services unpublished data. Further information on the program is available at < 23

34 Local Government National Report State and territory funding The states and the Northern Territory offer a variety of grants to local government for specific purposes and services. Table 1.11 details the grants made available to local government by purpose for using Australian Bureau of Statistics government finance statistics. This table also includes Australian Government funding provided to local governing bodies through the states, including more than $1618 million in Australian Government financial assistance grants provided in that year. The remaining state grants are directed to a variety of purposes, reflecting the different functions required of local governing bodies. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics data, the states provided $2132 million to local government out of their own funds in On a per capita basis, state grants vary considerably from $60.53 per capita in South Australia to $ per capita in the Northern Territory. Caution should be exercised when using the figures in Table 1.11 because the increase in states grants for is around 84 per cent on whereas state grants for had decreased by around 25 per cent on This degree of year-on-year variation is unexpected. Table 1.11: Grants from states to local government by purpose, ($m) Purpose NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total General public services Public order and safety Education Health Social security and welfare Housing and community amenity Recreation and culture Fuel and energy Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting Mining, manufacturing and construction Transport and communications Other economic affairs Other purposes Total Less Australian Government financial assistance grants a General purpose grants Local road grants Supplementary local road funding Net state grants Net state grants per capita Note: a These grants are included in the grants paid by states to local government although the purpose does not appear to be reported consistently across states in the table. These are the amounts actually paid as they include the adjustment from the previous year. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics unpublished data, Department and Transport and Regional Services. 24

35 Assets and liabilities At 30 June 2006 local government in Australia had a net worth of $ million, with assets of $ million and liabilities of $ million (see Table 1.12). Compared to 30 June 2005, local government assets grew by 3.46 per cent, while liabilities increased by 6.64 per cent. At 30 June 2006, local government nationally appeared to be in a strong financial position with total cash, deposits and lending exceeding gross debt. This continues the trend since 30 June 2000 of a net surplus position for local governments nationally. As at 30 June 2006 and on a state basis, councils in Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania had a net debt position while other states had a net surplus (see Table 1.12). Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia 25

36 Local Government National Report Table 1.12: Local government assets and liabilities, at 30 June 2006 ($m) NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total Assets Financial assets Cash and deposits Advances paid Investments, loans and replacements Other non-equity assets Equity Total Non-financial assets Land and fixed assets Other non-financial assets Total Total Liabilities Deposits held Advances received Borrowing Unfunded superannuation liability and other employee entitlement Other provisions Other non-equity liabilities Total Government finance statistics net worth Net debt Net financial worth Note: These figures may not add to totals due to rounding Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no

37 Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government 27

38 Local Government National Report Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government In , the Australian Government provided $ million in financial assistance grants to 701 local governing bodies an average of around $80 per capita or $2.31 million per local governing body. Australian Government financial assistance grants to local government comprise a general purpose grant and an identified local road grant. In the aggregate general purpose grant was $ million the aggregate identified local road grant was $497.5 million. Both grants are paid through the states and territories on condition that they are passed on to local government. The grants are untied in the hands of councils who are free to spend them according to local priorities. The purpose of the general purpose grant is to improve local governments capacity to provide their communities with an equitable level of services as well as increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of local governments. General purpose grants commenced in with allocations in the 1974 and 1975 Budgets distributed according to Commonwealth Grants Commission recommendations. This was followed, over the next two decades, by developments in legislative arrangements for providing financial assistance to local government. General purpose grants are currently provided under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (the Act), which replaced the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986 with effect from 1 July The 1990 Special Premiers Conference determined that road grants for local government would be provided in addition to general purpose grants from July These grants are intended to help councils with the cost of maintaining their local roads but, as they are also untied, councils are not specifically required to spend them on local roads. In June 2005, the Australian Government provided its response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration into local government and cost shifting Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government (the Hawker Report). During , the two Hawker Report recommendations relating to financial assistance grant arrangements were implemented. These were: The formulation of an additional National Principle for allocating general purpose grants so that councils formed as a result of amalgamation, would have their general purpose grant maintained at the aggregate level of the general purpose grant which the amalgamating councils would have received, for a period of four years after the amalgamation occurs. The additional Principle applies from 1 July 2006 onward. 28

39 Commissioning the Commonwealth Grants Commission to review the inter-jurisdictional distribution of the identified local road grant. The Commission provided its final report to the Australian Government on 30 June Current arrangements In determining the distribution of grants to councils, the current arrangements are: Before the start of each financial year, the Australian Government estimates the quantum of general purpose and local road grants that local government is entitled to nationally. This is equal to the national grant entitlement for the previous financial year multiplied by the estimated escalation factor of changes in population and the consumer price index (CPI). The states and territories are advised of their estimated quantum of general purpose and local road grants, calculated in accordance with the Act. Local government grants commissions in each state and the Northern Territory recommend to their local government minister the distribution of general purpose and local road grants among local governing bodies in their jurisdiction. The state and territory local government ministers forward the recommendations of the local government grants commission in their jurisdiction to the federal local government minister. When satisfied that all legislative requirements are met, the federal minister approves payment of the recommended grants. The Australian Government pays the grants in quarterly instalments to the states and territories that in turn pass them on to local governing bodies as untied grants without undue delay. When the actual changes in the CPI and population become available toward the end of the financial year, an actual escalation factor is calculated and the actual grant entitlement is determined. Any difference between the estimated and actual grant entitlements adjusts the estimated allocation to local governing bodies in the following financial year. Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government More details on each step are given below. Determining the quantum of the grant Section 8 of the Act specifies the formula the Federal Treasurer is to apply each year for calculating the escalation factor and determining the level of local government financial assistance grants. The escalation factor compensates for changes in CPI and population, so that the value of the grants is maintained in real per capita terms. This formula was incorporated into the Act when the goods and services tax (GST) was introduced in July Prior to this the states and territories received financial assistance grants and special revenue assistance. The escalation factor for local government financial assistance grants was based on the growth in these former grants to the states and territories in order to maintain the relativity between state territory and local government assistance. The Act provides the Treasurer with discretion to increase or decrease the escalation factor in special circumstances. In applying this discretion, the Treasurer is required to have regard to the objects of the Act (see Objects of the Act ) and any other matter the Treasurer thinks relevant. The same escalation factor is applied to both the general purpose and local road grant. 29

40 Local Government National Report OBJECTS OF THE ACT Subsection 3(2) of the Act states the objects of the Act: The Parliament wishes to provide financial assistance to the states for the purposes of improving: the financial capacity of local governing bodies; and the capacity of local governing bodies to provide their residents with an equitable level of services; and the certainty of funding for local governing bodies; and the efficiency and effectiveness of local governing bodies; and the provision by local governing bodies of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Determining entitlements for and Calculation of the actual grant entitlement and estimated grant entitlement using the final factor and estimated factor are set out in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 respectively. The basis for calculating the final factor for is explained in Determining the final factor for During , the Australian Government paid to local government, through the states and territories, the estimated financial assistance grant entitlement of $ million. This comprised $ million in general purpose grants and $496.9 million in local road grants (see Table 2.1). The final factor was calculated using the CPI for the year ending March 2006 and revised population growth figures to December This resulted in the actual entitlement being $ million, comprising $ million in general purpose grants and $497.5 million in local road grants. As the final factor was greater than the estimated factor, the actual entitlement for was $1.7 million more than the estimated entitlement. This difference comprised $1.2 million in general purpose grants and $0.5 million in local road grants. The estimated entitlement for is $ million comprising $ million in general purpose grants and $517.7 million in local road grants (see Table 2.2). The actual cash the Australian Government pays to local government in will be $ million. This consists of the estimated entitlement of $ million plus the $1.7 million by which the actual entitlement exceeded the estimated entitlement (see Table 2.2). In addition to the grants, the second instalment of supplementary funding to South Australian councils for local roads over the three years to was also paid (see Supplementary funding to South Australian councils for local roads ). 30

41 SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDING TO SOUTH AUSTRALIAN COUNCILS FOR LOCAL ROADS As an interim response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration inquiry, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government, the Australian Government announced in March 2004 increased local road funding for South Australian councils. South Australian councils received additional funding of $4.25 million in , $9 million in and will receive $13 million in , to address the state s current disadvantage in local road funding. The money is in addition to Australian Government funding for local roads provided to South Australian councils through local government financial assistance grants and the Roads to Recovery program. The supplementary funding arrangements are outside the legislation governing the local government financial assistance grants but the allocation and payment arrangements mirror those under the financial assistance grants for local roads. Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government 31

42 Local Government National Report Table 2.1: Calculation of financial assistance grants actual entitlements and adjustments for actual entitlement final factor actual entitlement estimated entitlement adjustment General purpose $ x = $ less $ = $ Local road $ x = $ less $ = $ Total $ x = $ less $ = $ General purpose 31 Dec 2004 population NSW $ $ less $ = $ Vic. $ $ less $ = $ Qld $ $ less $ = $ WA $ $ less $ = $ SA $ $ less $ = $ Tas. $ $ less $ = $ NT $ $ less $ = $ ACT $ $ less $ = $ Total $ $ less $ = $ Local road final factor NSW $ x = $ less $ = $ Vic. $ x = $ less $ = $ Qld $ x = $ less $ = $ WA $ x = $ less $ = $ SA $ x = $ less $ = $ Tas. $ x = $ less $ = $ NT $ x = $ less $ = $ ACT $ x = $ less $ = $ Total $ x = $ less $ = $

43 Table 2.2: Calculation of financial assistance grants estimated entitlements and cash grant paid for actual entitlement estimated factor estimated entitlement adjustment actual grant paid General purpose $ x = $ plus $ = $ Local road $ x = $ plus $ = $ Total $ x = $ plus $ = $ General purpose 31 Dec 2005 population NSW $ $ plus $ = $ Vic. $ $ plus $ = $ Qld $ $ plus $ = $ WA $ $ plus $ = $ SA $ $ plus $ = $ Tas. $ $ plus $ = $ NT $ $ plus $ = $ ACT $ $ plus $ = $ Total $ $ plus $ = $ Local road estimated factor NSW $ x = $ plus $ = $ Vic. $ x = $ plus $ = $ Qld $ x = $ plus $ = $ WA $ x = $ plus $ = $ SA $ x = $ plus $ = $ Tas. $ x = $ plus $ = $ NT $ x = $ plus $ = $ ACT $ x = $ plus $ = $ Total $ x = $ plus $ = $ Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government 33

44 Local Government National Report DETERMINING THE FINAL FACTOR FOR Under section 8 of the Act, the final factor for is calculated as: Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2004 CPI at March 2006 Final factor = X Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2003 CPI at March 2005 That is: Final factor = X = The increase in the CPI over this period was 2.98 per cent. VARIATIONS IN REPORTED GRANTS Each year, the quantum of the grant to local government is estimated before the start of the financial year, using a formula based on forecasts of the CPI and population increases for the year. Councils are usually advised in August of their estimated grant entitlement for that financial year. At the end of each year the actual (or final) grant for local government is calculated using the final CPI and population figures. Inevitably there is a difference between the estimated and actual grant entitlements. This difference is added to or subtracted from the grant paid in the following year. Consequently, each council has three different, reported grants: an estimated grant entitlement, an actual grant entitlement and the cash grant paid. The Australian Government normally reports on the actual grant entitlement. Inter-jurisdictional distribution of the grants The Act specifies that national allocation of the general purpose component of the grant is to be divided among the jurisdictions on a per capita basis. The allocation is based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimate of each jurisdiction s population and the estimated population of all states and territories as at 31 December of the previous year. By contrast, each jurisdiction s share of the local road component of the grant is fixed. The distribution is based on shares determined from the former, tied grant arrangements (see History of the Interstate Distribution of Local Road Grants in the Local Government National Report, pp. 25 6). Therefore the local road grant share for each state and territory is obtained by multiplying the previous year s funding by the escalation factor determined by the Treasurer. Table 2.3 shows the allocation of the actual entitlement for among the jurisdictions while Table 2.4 shows the allocation of the estimated entitlements for among jurisdictions. Table 2.4 also shows the percentage change in the grants from to

45 Table 2.3: allocations of general purpose and local road grants among jurisdictions General purpose grant Local road grant Total grant State $ % of total $ per capita $ % of total $ per capita $ % of total $ per capita NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT ACT Total Note: ABS estimate of jurisdictions populations as at 31 December 2004 used. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services. Table 2.4: allocations of estimated grant entitlement among jurisdictions and percentage change from actual grant allocation General purpose grant Local road grant Total grant State $ % change $ per capita $ % change $ per capita $ % change $ per capita NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT ACT Total Note: ABS estimate of jurisdictions populations as at 31 December 2005 used. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services. Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government 35

46 Local Government National Report Quantum of financial assistance grants allocations Table 2.5 shows the aggregate level of financial assistance grants since the Australian Government s provision of general purpose grants in and local road grants in Table 2.5: National financial assistance grant allocation, to ($) Year General purpose grants Local road grants Total grants n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a b c d e Total Notes: a Grants to the Northern Territory under the program commenced in , with the initial allocation being $ b Prior to local road grants were provided as tied grants under different legislation. c In part of the road grant entitlement of the Tasmanian and Northern Territory Governments was reallocated to local government in these jurisdictions. d Grants to the Australian Capital Territory under the program commenced in , with the initial allocation being $ in general purpose grants and $ in local road grants. e For the national grant allocation is the estimated entitlement. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services.

47 Tables 2.6 to 2.9 provide the level of general purpose grants, local road grants and total financial assistance grants for all jurisdictions over the years from to Table 2.6: Financial assistance grant allocation New South Wales and Victoria, to ($) New South Wales Victoria Year General Purpose Local Roads Total General Purpose Local Roads Total n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government Notes: All years are actual entitlement, other than , which is estimated entitlement. These figures may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services 37

48 Local Government National Report Table 2.7: Financial assistance grant allocation Queensland and Western Australia, to ($) Year Queensland Western Australia General Purpose Local Roads Total General Purpose Local Roads Total n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Notes: All years are actual entitlement, other than , which is estimated entitlement. These figures may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services 38

49 Table 2.8: Financial assistance grant allocation South Australia and Tasmania, to ($) Year South Australia Tasmania General Purpose Local Roads Total General Purpose Local Roads Total n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Notes: All years are actual entitlement, other than , which is estimated entitlement. These figures may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government 39

50 Local Government National Report Table 2.9: Financial assistance grant allocation Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory, to ($) Year Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory General Purpose Local Roads Total General Purpose Local Roads Total n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Notes: All years are actual entitlement, other than , which is estimated entitlement. These figures may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services 40

51 Principles for determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions The Act requires the federal minister to formulate National Principles in consultation with state and territory ministers and a body or bodies representative of local government. The National Principles provide guidance for the states and the Northern Territory in allocating the financial assistance grants to councils within their jurisdiction. The National Principles are set out in full in Appendix A. The National Principles came into effect from In the federal minister formulated an additional National Principle to take effect from 1 July 2006, with respect to councils formed as a result of amalgamation. The National Principles applying to the general purpose component provide additional criteria to the objectives of full horizontal equalisation and the minimum grant which are established in the Act (see What is horizontal equalisation? and What is the Minimum Grant? ). These principles are the: Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government 1. Horizontal Equalisation principle, which seeks to ensure that councils in a jurisdiction are, by reasonable effort, able to provide the average range, level and quality of services, while taking account of differences in councils capacities to raise revenue and their expenditure needed to provide average services. The effect of distributing general purpose grants between jurisdictions on a per capita basis means councils in different jurisdictions may be brought up to different fiscal levels. 2. Effort Neutrality principle, which requires that a council s grant be independent of its policies. This means the grant to a particular council is not influenced by that council s actual rates charged, its actual expenditure on particular functions or the extent of its reserves or debt. This process allows a council to decide its own spending priorities and revenue-raising policies knowing that the decisions it takes will not affect its grant entitlement. 3. Minimum Grant principle, which ensures that each council receives at least a minimum level of general purpose assistance as required by the Act. This minimum is set at 30 per cent of a council s per capita share of general purpose grants. 4. Other Grant Support principle, which requires other grants provided to a council by another sphere of government for provision of services to be regarded like any other source of revenue and taken into account when assessing the overall financial capacity of each council. In assessing each council s financial capacity, local road grants provided under this Act should be included as well as any other grants that relate to provision of local government services that are within the scope of services covered by the grant allocation process. 5. Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders principle, which seeks to address the specific needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in provision of council services. The principle requires that the level of grants councils receive should reflect the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population within council boundaries. This means that calculation of the grant for councils should reflect differences in the demand for services by Indigenous people, the cost of providing services to them and the capacity to raise revenue from them. 6. Amalgamation principle, which seeks to ensure that councils formed as a result of amalgamation will receive at least the quantum of the aggregate general purpose grant that the former amalgamating councils would have received, for a period of four years after amalgamation occurs. This principle applies to the allocation of general purpose grants from onward. 41

52 Local Government National Report WHAT IS HORIZONTAL EQUALISATION? Horizontal equalisation would be achieved if every council in a state, by means of reasonable revenue-raising effort, were able to afford to provide a similar range and quality of services. The Australian Government pursues a policy of horizontal equalisation when it distributes GST revenue to state and territory governments. More formally, section 6(3) of the Act defines horizontal equalisation as being an allocation of funds that: a) ensures each local governing body in a state is able to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not lower than the average standard of other local governing bodies in the state; and b) takes account of differences in the expenditure required to be incurred by local governing bodies in the performance of their functions and in their capacity to raise revenue. Distribution of grants on the basis of horizontal equalisation is determined by estimating the cost each council would incur in providing a normal range and standard of services, and estimating the revenue each council could obtain through the normal range and standard of rates and charges. The grant is then allocated to compensate for variations in expenditure and revenue to (ideally) bring all councils up to the same level of financial capacity. This means councils that would incur higher relative costs in providing normal services, for example, in remote areas (where transport costs are higher), or areas with a higher proportion of elderly or pre-school aged people (where there will be more demand for specific services) will receive relatively more grant monies. Similarly, councils with a strong rate base (highly valued residential properties, high proportion of industrial and/or commercial property) will tend to receive relatively less grant monies. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM GRANT? Section 6(2)(b) of the Act requires the minister to ensure that: No local governing body in a State will be allocated an amount under section 9 (the general purpose component of the grant) in a year that is less than the amount that would be allocated to the body if 30 per cent of the amount to which the State is entitled under that section in respect of the year were allocated among local governing bodies in the State on a per capita basis. There is one National Principle applying to the Identified Road Component. It requires distribution of this component on the basis of road expenditure needs, including consideration of factors such as length, type and use of roads. 42

53 Determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions Under sections 11 and 14 of the Act financial assistance grants can only be paid to jurisdictions (other than the Australian Capital Territory) which have established local government grants commissions (see Local government grants commissions ). In the Australian Capital Territory, local government is integrated with the Territory Government and there is no role for a commission. The grants commissions make recommendations, in accordance with the National Principles, on the quantum of financial assistance grants allocated to individual councils. The states and the Northern Territory determine the membership of and provide resources for their respective local government grants commissions. LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSIONS Section 6 of the Act specifies the eligibility criteria a body must satisfy to be recognised as a local government grants commission. These criteria are: the body is established by a law of a state or the Northern Territory the principal function of the body is to make recommendations to the state or territory government about provision of financial assistance to local governing bodies in the state or territory the federal minister is satisfied that the body includes at least two people who are or have been associated with local government in the state or territory, whether as members of a local governing body or otherwise. Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government Sections 11 and 14 of the Act require local government grants commissions to: hold public hearings in connection with their recommended grant allocations permit local governing bodies to make submissions to the commission in relation to the recommendations make their recommendations in accordance with the National Principles. The legislation establishing grants commissions in each state and the Northern Territory is: New South Wales Part 11 of Chapter 15 of the Local Government Act 1993 Victoria Victoria Grants Commission Act 1976 Queensland Part 3 of Chapter 3 of the Local Government Act 1993 Western Australia Local Government Grants Act 1978 South Australia South Australian Local Government Grants Commission Act 1992 Tasmania State Grants Commission Act 1976 Northern Territory Local Government Grants Commission Act

54 Local Government National Report Once each local government grants commission determines the recommended allocation of grants to councils in its jurisdiction, the relevant state or territory minister recommends the allocation to the federal minister for approval. The Act requires that the federal minister is satisfied that the state or territory has adopted the recommendations of its local government grants commission. Section 15 of the Act requires that, as a condition for paying the grants to the states and the Northern Territory, that the states and the Northern Territory must pay the grants to local government without undue delay and without conditions, thus giving councils discretion to use the funds for local priorities. Further, the state and Northern Territory treasurers must give the federal minister, as soon as practicable after 30 June each year, a statement detailing payments made to councils during the previous financial year as well as the date the payments were made. The respective Auditor-General from each jurisdiction must certify the statement. The grants are paid to the states and the Northern Territory in equal instalments in the middle of each quarter. The first payment for a financial year is paid as soon as statutory conditions are met. One of the requirements of the Act is that the first payment cannot be made before 15 August. Bodies eligible to receive financial assistance grants Only local governing bodies are entitled to receive financial assistance grants. All councils constituted under state and territory local government Acts are automatically local governing bodies. In addition, section 4(2) of the Act provides for a body declared by the minister, on the advice of the relevant state minister, by notice published in the Gazette, to be a local governing body for the purposes of this Act. In total, 701 local governing bodies received grants in Included in this figure were 37 declared local governing bodies, made eligible under this provision. Table 2.10 shows the distribution of declared bodies by state. Table 2.10: Distribution of local governing bodies by type by state at June 2006 Type NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT b Total Councils established by legislation a Declared Total Notes: a These are local governing bodies, eligible under section 4(2)(a) of the Act, as they are constituted under state local government Acts. b Includes the Northern Territory Road Trust Account. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services. The Shires of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands are part of Australia s Indian Ocean Territories. They are not entitled to receive funding under the Act but receive the equivalent of financial assistance grant payments. For an explanation of the arrangements for these councils see Funding of councils in Australia s Indian Ocean Territories. 44

55 FUNDING OF COUNCILS IN AUSTRALIA S INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORIES Under an arrangement between the Australian and Western Australian governments, the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission provides an annual assessment of the general purpose and local road grants for the Shires of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The commission determines the grant allocation as if these councils were a council in Western Australia. This is done on the basis that funding from the Australian Government for these territories should allow them to provide services that align with similar communities in Western Australia. On the basis of these assessments, the Australian Government funds these councils from a separate Budget appropriation to that provided under the Act. The amounts provided in were: Christmas Island Shire Council $ in general purpose grants and $ in local road grants Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council $ in general purpose grants and $ in local road grants. Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government Local government grants commissions methods The respective local government grants commissions recommended allocation of the grants to councils in their jurisdiction in accordance with the National Principles while taking into account local circumstances. In recommending allocation of general purpose grants to councils in their jurisdictions, grants commissions assess the amount each council would need to be able to provide a standard range and quality of services, while raising revenue from a standard range of rates and other income sources. The commissions then develop recommendations for grant distribution by allocating the available grant to councils taking account of their assessed grant need, and the minimum grant requirement. The recommended allocation of the local road component is based on commissions assessments of councils road expenditure need. These are difficult tasks, requiring considerable experience and judgement. Grants commissions need to accurately and quantitatively assess the unique circumstances of a large number of councils in their jurisdiction in terms of providing a variety of services and raising a number of revenues. Local government grants commissions meet annually at a national conference to share insights and discuss common issues. The 2005 conference was held at Fremantle, Western Australia, in October. The conference included presentations on the Australian Government s response to the Hawker Report and local government sustainability. The Australian Government sponsors annual workshops for the executive officers of the local government grants commissions to enable them to share technical knowledge on methodology. These workshops arose out of a recommendation of the 1994 review of the then 1986 Act that an annual technical workshop was desirable. The report stated, the more that the few personnel with technical knowledge pool this experience, the greater the potential for improvements in methodology (Morton 1994 p. 15). 45

56 Local Government National Report The 13th meeting of executive officers was held in Canberra in April The workshop discussed work on a national local road database and treatment of depreciation and capital costs. A detailed description of each grants commission s methodology is in Appendix B. In addition to the summaries in the appendix, the grants commissions publish information about their methods in their annual reports and occasional publications. Copies of these are usually available on the Internet (see Internet addresses for local government grants commissions ). A comparison of the methodologies the commissions used in is in Appendix C. INTERNET ADDRESSES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSIONS Local government grants commission New South Wales Victoria Queensland Western Australia South Australia Tasmania Northern Territory Internet address areaindex=gc&index=21 CA25712E0016D1A8?OpenDocument grants_commission Allocation of grants to councils in The federal minister approved allocation of financial assistance grants to councils for , as recommended by grants commissions through state and territory ministers. Appendix D contains the final grant entitlements for all councils in and the estimated entitlements for Table 2.11 sets out the average general purpose grant per capita to councils by jurisdiction and the Australian Classification of Local Government (ACLG a description of the ACLG is in Appendix F), while Table 2.13 provides the average local road grant per kilometre by jurisdiction and ACLG. The ACLG has been developed to aid comparison of councils with like councils, and is used here to indicate trends and allow comparison of grants to individual councils with the average for their category. The results in Table 2.11 and Table 2.12 suggest there are some differences in outcomes between jurisdictions. Notwithstanding the capacity of the ACLG system to group like councils, it should be noted that there remains considerable scope for divergence within these categories, and for this reason the figures should only be taken as a starting point for enquiring into grant outcomes. This divergence can occur because of factors including isolation, population distribution, local economic performance, daily or seasonal population changes, age of population and geographic differences. Divergence can also occur because of variations between jurisdictions of the relative ranking within the jurisdiction on the basis of need of the different ACLG categories. 46

57 Table 2.11: Average general purpose grant per capita to councils by state and ACLG category, ($) State Classification NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT a Average Urban Capital City (UCC) Urban Developed Small (UDS) n/a n/a n/a Urban Developed Medium (UDM) n/a n/a Urban Developed Large (UDL) n/a n/a Urban Developed Very Large (UDV) n/a n/a Urban Regional Small (URS) Urban Regional Medium (URM) n/a n/a Urban Regional Large (URL) n/a n/a n/a n/a Urban Regional Very Large (URV) n/a n/a n/a n/a Urban Fringe Small (UFS) n/a Urban Fringe Medium (UFM) n/a n/a Urban Fringe Large (UFL) n/a n/a Urban Fringe Very Large (UFV) n/a n/a n/a Rural Significant Growth (RSG) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Rural Agricultural Small (RAS) n/a n/a Rural Agricultural Medium (RAM) n/a n/a Rural Agricultural Large (RAL) n/a Rural Agricultural Very Large (RAV) Rural Remote Extra Small (RTX) n/a n/a Rural Remote Small (RTS) n/a n/a n/a n/a Rural Remote Medium (RTM) n/a n/a Rural Remote Large (RTL) n/a n/a n/a Average Note: a Excludes Northern Territory Trust Fund. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services. Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government 47

58 Local Government National Report Table 2.12: Average local road grant per kilometre to councils by state and ACLG category, ($) State Classification NSW Vic. Qld WA a SA a Tas. NT Average Urban Capital City (UCC) Urban Developed Small (UDS) n/a n/a n/a Urban Developed Medium (UDM) n/a n/a Urban Developed Large (UDL) n/a n/a Urban Developed Very Large (UDV) n/a n/a n/a Urban Regional Small (URS) Urban Regional Medium (URM) n/a n/a Urban Regional Large (URL) n/a n/a n/a n/a Urban Regional Very Large (URV) n/a n/a n/a n/a Urban Fringe Small (UFS) n/a Urban Fringe Medium (UFM) n/a n/a Urban Fringe Large (UFL) n/a n/a Urban Fringe Very Large (UFV) n/a n/a n/a Rural Significant Growth (RSG) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Rural Agricultural Small (RAS) n/a n/a Rural Agricultural Medium (RAM) n/a n/a Rural Agricultural Large (RAL) n/a Rural Agricultural Very Large (RAV) Rural Remote Extra Small (RTX) n/a n/a n/a Rural Remote Small (RTS) n/a n/a n/a n/a Rural Remote Medium (RTM) n/a n/a Rural Remote Large (RTL) n/a n/a n/a n/a Northern Territory Trust fund n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Average Note: a Averages for all classifications in these states include special roads grants received by councils. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services. 48

59 Councils on the minimum grant Councils receiving the minimum grant entitlement generally fall within the classification of capital city, urban developed or urban fringe as described in the ACLG. Councils on the minimum grant are identified with a hash (#) in Appendix D. The per capita grant of these councils in was about $16.70, with slight differences between jurisdictions. The differences arise from variations in data for population used by the Australian Government to calculate jurisdictions share of general purpose grants and those used by local government grants commissions for allocations to individual councils. Table 2.13 provides the number of councils on the minimum grant, by jurisdiction from to It shows an upward trend nationally in the number of minimum grant councils, the proportion of the population covered by minimum grant councils and the share of the general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils. Despite the proportion of the general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils increasing, nationally there has been an increase in the per capita grant to non-minimum grant councils relative to that of minimum grant councils. This trend is consistent with the Act s objective of horizontal equalisation. In some jurisdictions, notably Western Australia and South Australia, continuation of this trend will be increasingly constrained as the number of urban councils on the minimum grant reaches a limit so that there is less scope for non-minimum grant councils to receive further increases in their share of general purpose grants. Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government Table 2.13: Minimum grant council statistics by jurisdiction, to NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total No. of councils % of population % of general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils Ratio of average per capita general purpose grant for non minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils n/a n/a n/a No. of councils % of population % of general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils Ratio of average per capita general purpose grant for non minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils n/a

60 Local Government National Report NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total No. of councils % of population % of general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils Ratio of average per capita general purpose grant for non minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils n/a No. of councils % of population % of general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils Ratio of average per capita general purpose grant for non minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils n/a No. of councils % of population % of general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils Ratio of average per capita general purpose grant for non minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils n/a No. of councils % of population % of general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils Ratio of average per capita general purpose grant for non minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils n/a No. of councils % of population % of general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils Ratio of average per capita general purpose grant for non minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils n/a

61 NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total No. of councils % of population % of general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils Ratio of average per capita general purpose grant for non minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils n/a No. of councils % of population % of general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils Ratio of average per capita general purpose grant for non minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils n/a No. of councils % of population % of general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils Ratio of average per capita general purpose grant for non minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils a No. of councils % of population % of general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils Ratio of average per capita general purpose grant for non minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government Note: a figures are based on estimated grant entitlement. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services. Table 2.13 also shows a wide variation between jurisdictions in the proportion of the population covered by councils receiving the minimum grant. In , the proportion ranged from 10 per cent in Tasmania to 74 per cent in Western Australia. This generally reflects the degree of concentration of a jurisdiction s population in their capital city, but can also arise because of the geographic structuring of local government and differences in the methodologies used by local government grants commissions. 51

62 Local Government National Report In , the proportion of the general purpose grant that went to councils on the minimum grant was just over 10 per cent nationally. It varied from 3 per cent in Tasmania to around 22 per cent in Western Australia. It is expected that, over time, there would be more consistency between jurisdictions in the ratio of the average per capita general purpose grant for non-minimum grant councils to that of minimum grant councils, if jurisdictions achieved similar horizontal equalisation outcomes. According to the commissions methodologies, councils on the minimum grant are able to afford above average standards of service and/or below standard revenue-raising efforts. This reflects the fact that minimum grant councils are relatively affluent compared to the non-minimum grant councils in their jurisdiction. Reviews of grants commission methods Local government grants commissions have programs for monitoring grant outcomes and refining aspects of their allocation methodologies. However, from time to time it is appropriate for grants commissions to undertake a thorough review of their allocation methodologies. Since the Act commenced in July 1995, most grants commissions have undertaken major reviews of their methodologies, are currently undertaking such examinations, or have such activities planned. The need to review methodologies was reinforced by the 2001 Commonwealth Grants Commission review of the operations of the Act. The review identified the need to revise methodologies to achieve consistency with the Relative Need, Other Grant Support and Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Principles (Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001, p. xii). Table 2.14 gives the status of local government grants commissions reviews of methods as at 30 June Table 2.14: Status of major methodology reviews undertaken since July 1995, by state, as at 30 June 2006 State General purpose grants Local road grants NSW None planned None planned Vic. Completed in May 2001 and implemented from Review of revenue component completed in 2004 and to be implemented Completed in July 1999 and implemented from in Qld Completed in December 2002 and implemented from Completed in December 2002 and implemented from WA Completed in None planned SA Completed in and implemented in None planned Tas. Completed in and implemented from Completed in and implemented from NT Review of methodology completed in and implemented in None planned Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services. Consistent with the requirements of the Act, such reviews should be undertaken in consultation with local governing bodies. 52

63 Impact of grants commission capping policies Year-to-year variations in the data grants commissions use to calculate allocation of grants can lead to significant fluctuations in grants for individual councils. Changes in grants commission methodologies for improving allocation of grants most likely to achieve horizontal equalisation can also lead to fluctuations. As unexpected changes in grants can impede councils efficient planning, grants commissions have adopted policies to ensure changes are not unacceptably large. Many commissions average the data of several years to reduce fluctuations. Nevertheless, they have found that policies to limit changes, by capping increases or decreases are needed to limit year-toyear variations. For example, capping may constrain the maximum year-to-year increase in grants to 15 per cent and the maximum decrease to 6 per cent. Under this regime, a council that would otherwise have received a 7.5 per cent reduction in its grant compared to the previous year would have its reduction limited to 6 per cent. No council receives less than the minimum grant, so councils on the minimum grant are exempt from capping. In some circumstances, a grants commission may decide a council s grant should not be capped. Usually, this is to allow a larger grant increase than would otherwise be possible. Commissions estimate the unconstrained grants in conformity with the National Principles for allocating grants. For this reason, capping changes the allocation from those consistent with the National Principles, although usually the extent of the divergence is relatively small. The Australian Government has accepted that phase-in arrangements, like capping to ensure reasonable stability of funding, play a useful role when allocating grants to councils. However, capping should allow phase-in of even large changes to grants within a reasonably short period of time. Unless the new level of grants is achieved within a maximum of five years, capping could be seen as impeding achievement of the National Principle objectives. Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government Acquittal of the grants Since the Australian Government pays the grants to the states and territories as tied grants for passing on to councils as untied grants, the Act requires that states and territories provide an audited statement confirming that the grant was paid to councils in accordance with the approved distribution and without undue delay. State and territory treasurers are required to provide this statement as soon as practicable after 30 June. In every jurisdiction, payment of financial assistance grants for was made in accordance with the recommendations of the state and territory ministers and approved by the federal minister. 53

64 Local Government National Report

65 Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia Chapter 3 Local government efficiency and performance 55

66 Local Government National Report Chapter 3 Local government efficiency and performance The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (the Act) requires an annual report on the operations of the Act to Parliament and for this report to include an assessment, using comparable national data, of the performance of local government including its efficiency. However, commenting on the role of the Australian Government in assessing local government performance, the Hawker Report (2003) Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share of Responsible Local Government, stated that: The Federal government is not in a position to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of local government s financial management; this is the role of the States. State Departments of Local Government monitor the financial management of local government and report on the performance of councils (p. 82). As outlined in previous National Reports, the lack of available comparable data at the national level on which to base an assessment has seen the need to rely on state and territory reports and to use secondary indicators of local government performance and efficiency. In previous years the National Report has assessed local government performance and efficiency according to the methodology recommended by the Industry Commission in The Industry Commission advised that the requirement to report on local government performance could be met by providing information on and analysis of: the application of the National Competition Policy to local government progress by the states in improving the use of performance indicators developments in areas such as competitive tendering and contracting, increased use of service charters and measures of customer satisfaction, and changes in the structure of local government. National Competition Policy and local government The National Competition Policy arrangements, entered into by the Australian, state and territory governments in 1995, have brought substantial benefit to the Australian community, including regional Australia. 56 Although local government was not formally a party to the National Competition Policy agreements, local government activities were specifically referred to in the Policy agreements. Under the Policy, the Australian Government has made payments to the states for successfully carrying out agreed reforms, as assessed by the National Competition Council. The National Competition Policy Payments are the final payments under current Policy arrangements. Suspensions of $43.2 million relating to the Policy payments may be increased or reduced subject to a satisfactory assessment of reform progress in 2007.

67 Table 3.1: National Competition Policy payments, and ($m) Jurisdiction NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total Chapter 3 Local government efficiency and performance Source: The Commonwealth Treasury, November A new National Reform Agenda The 1995 National Competition Policy arrangement was a 10-year agreement that ended in At its February 2006 meeting COAG, on which local government is represented, agreed to deliver a substantial new National Reform Agenda, embracing human capital, competition and regulatory reform streams. The competition stream will boost competition, productivity and the efficient functioning of markets by focusing on further reform and initiatives in the areas of energy, transport, and infrastructure regulation and planning. Various initiatives under the competition stream will have local government implications, including: agreement that all jurisdictions will recommit to the principles contained in the Competition Principles Agreement agreement that state and territory governments will publish a new statement, prepared in consultation with local government, specifying application of the principles contained in the Competition Principles Agreement to particular local government activities and functions a commitment to enhance the application of competitive neutrality principles to government business enterprises engaged in significant business activities with the private sector. The regulatory reform stream of the National Reform Agenda focuses on reducing the regulatory burden imposed by all spheres of government. This includes agreeing to a range of measures to ensure bestpractice regulation making and review, and action to address specific regulation hotspots where crossjurisdictional overlap is impeding economic activity. Actions relating to hotspots of particular relevance to local government included asking the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council to: recommend and implement strategies to encourage each jurisdiction to systematically review its local government development assessment legislation, policies and objectives report back on the content and timetable for implementing further building regulation reforms including a nationally consistent building code. 57

68 Local Government National Report The Australian Government will provide funding to the states and territories and, where appropriate, to local government, on a case-by-case basis once specific implementation plans have been developed if funding is needed to ensure a fair sharing of the costs and benefits of reform. Payments are to be linked to achieving agreed actions or progress measures and to demonstrable economic benefits, and will take into account the relative costs and proportional financial benefits to the commonwealth, states, territories and local government of specific reform proposals. Local government performance and efficiency State and territory reporting The level of benchmarking of the local government sector varies across states and territories. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania appear to provide the most comprehensive series of data, enabling some comparison between their local governments. Appendix G contains the full state and territory reports. Some progress has been made in resource sharing models and arrangements among local councils to cut costs and increase efficiency particularly in New South Wales and Queensland. In New South Wales, the state government now has a formal policy to encourage resource-sharing arrangements. Local Government and Planning Ministers Council Agreement on Nationally Consistent Frameworks A series of state-based inquiries into local government financial sustainability sponsored by local government associations indicate that a significant number of local governments, particularly small rural and remote local governments, may not be financially viable in the short to medium term. The issue of the financial sustainability of local government has been raised at the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council. The Council has agreed to implement frameworks to help assess financial sustainability, asset management and financial reporting of local government. The Council has prepared three nationally consistent frameworks. They are: Criteria for Assessing Financial Sustainability Asset Planning and Management Financial Planning and Reporting. The Australian Government believes that, depending on the extent of their adoption in the various jurisdictions, these frameworks have the potential to provide information to assess local government performance and reporting in future years. State reports on local government financial sustainability Recent inquiries and studies sponsored by the local government associations in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia have raised concerns that as many as 163 of Australia s 700 councils may be financially unviable 38 in New South Wales, 16 in Victoria, 83 in Western Australia, and 26 in South Australia. This is almost one-quarter of Australia s local governments. Up to another half of the councils in these states may be financially vulnerable. The major themes arising from these inquiries are that many councils: 58

69 are facing rising community expectations, increasing responsibilities and compliance requirements but have modest revenue growth are constrained in their revenue-raising capacity do not take a sufficiently strategic approach to expenditure decisions or adopt long-term asset and financial management plans, leading to operating deficits and significant infrastructure renewal and replacement backlogs do not focus sufficiently on the need for continuous improvement in the provision of services. Some councils have undertaken major reforms in their financial management to address these issues (see Salisbury City Council Financial governance model ). Local government financial position Overall local government in Australia is in a strong financial position. It is a net lender; it has no debt, see Table Local government also owns and maintains infrastructure worth more than $110 billion (net of depreciation), including local roads worth $75 billion. Chapter 3 Local government efficiency and performance The positions of individual councils vary and this strong financial position is not necessarily true for each council. Summary The reports from the states and territories indicate that local government is performing its role satisfactorily and with reasonable efficiency. Other indicators that show local government is in a strong financial position with a sound foundation upon which to carry out its functions support this assessment. There are concerns about the long-term financial viability of some councils. The states and territories are aware of these concerns and have a responsibility to address them. Concerns about long-term sustainability have also raised the issue of the structure of local governments. The issue is currently under consideration in Western Australia. Queensland and the Northern Territory have announced major structural reforms of local government to take effect in

70 Local Government National Report SALISBURY CITY COUNCIL FINANCIAL GOVERNANCE MODEL The Salisbury City Council in South Australia was plagued by financial ills common to many regional councils. But the council has significantly improved its fiscal health by successfully implementing long-term financial management strategies providing a useful model for other councils facing financial sustainability issues. The key elements of the council s long-term financial strategy are: Sustainability: To achieve an operating surplus, before capital revenues (including depreciation) by Financial health: To achieve a debt-servicing ratio of debt to rate revenue of 10 to 12 per cent by 2013, a goal which was achieved by Acceptable taxation: To ensure that the average residential rate remains within the lower half of that charged by metropolitan Adelaide councils. Reducing debt: Councils debt servicing costs as a percentage of rate revenue peaked at 23 per cent in the late 1990s, but has been steadily reduced to a manageable 12 per cent by Sale of non-performing assets: Assessment of land and buildings that are serving few people while costing a substantial amount in maintenance costs. Capital works program based on long-term timeframe: Adoption of a four year rolling budget cycle, wherein forward commitments are made for years two to four and revised if necessary each financial year. Efficiency and effectiveness: Implementing a program of reviews, benchmarking and application of quality management through the business excellence framework. Council s financial strategy requires that significant new services be matched with rate increases to pay for them. 60

71 Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia Chapter 4 Local government infrastructure 61

72 Local Government National Report Chapter 4 Local government infrastructure This chapter provides information on local government infrastructure. It focuses on providing data on the extent, value and funding of local roads and buildings. Infrastructure comprises the assets needed to provide people with access to economic and social facilities and services. In general, infrastructure facilities are fixed in place, are costly and time consuming to plan and build, are durable and have low operating costs, and are often networks. They require routine maintenance and periodic upgrading to prolong their lives. Such assets often have environmental or social benefits that cannot be fully recovered by user charges. Asset management aims to maintain assets to deliver services in the most cost effective manner for present and future consumers. Sound asset management will prolong the life of assets and minimise their whole-of-life costs. The proper management of local government assets has implications for the financial sustainability of many local governments. Local government infrastructure responsibilities Local government plans, develops and maintains key infrastructure for its communities. This infrastructure includes local roads, bridges, footpaths, water and sewerage (in Queensland, regional New South Wales and Tasmania), stormwater drainage, waste disposal, public buildings, parks, regional aerodromes and recreational and cultural facilities. Local government also has planning responsibilities that affect provision of infrastructure, whether by government or by business. These responsibilities include town planning, land rezoning, subdivision approval, development assessment and building regulation. Local government is asset rich, with about $182 billion in land and fixed assets in (ABS, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no , Table 30). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), $50.4 billion of this was land and $14.8 billion was buildings. Other construction infrastructure, including local roads, was worth $104.8 billion, net of depreciation (ABS, personal communication, 2006). ABS data do not itemise the value of local roads and bridges but, from state sources, it is possible to estimate they are worth nearly $82 billion, calculated (mainly) in current replacement terms (see Table 4.1). 62

73 Table 4.1: Estimated value of local roads and bridges State Estimated replacement value of local roads and bridges ($b) Estimated written down value ($b) Estimated written down value/ replacement cost (%) c NSW a Vic. b na 63 Qld a na 73 WA b SA b Tas. b NT a 0.27 na na ACT a 1.23 na na Total na 62 Chapter 4 Local government infrastructure Sources: a Local Government National Report, p. 80 (there is no new information since that report). b State Local Government Grants Commissions c Australian Local Government Association National Local Roads Database at Local government is responsible for constructing and maintaining local roads within their own boundaries. Transport and communications account for about 23.5 per cent of local government expenditure (ABS, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no ). Local roads are important to national transport safety, efficiency and overall economic performance. They provide basic access from farms, factories and homes to schools, hospitals, work and shopping, and to families and friends. The mining, grain, horticulture and plantation industries are particularly reliant on local roads. Deterioration of local roads affects the cost and timeliness of transport in the immediate locality and throughout Australia. All spheres of government are concerned that local government is not devoting sufficient resources to preserving its assets, particularly its local road network. According to Main Roads Western Australia, a well-managed road network should have a written down value of about 75 per cent of its replacement cost. Table 4.1 shows that in several states the written down value of local roads is about 60 per cent of replacement cost. Local government s other major asset buildings is also subject to depreciation. The value of local government buildings in each state, net of depreciation, is shown in Table

74 Local Government National Report Table 4.2: Value of local government buildings, net of depreciation $m, State $m NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas. 436 NT 222 Subtotal ACT Total Note: ACT includes territory and local government buildings. Source: ABS personal communication Extent of council-managed local road network Australia has about kilometres of public roads. About kilometres (80%) of these are local roads for which local government is responsible. About one-third of this network is sealed and two-thirds is unsealed (unformed, formed or gravel roads). Despite vast differences in population and area, the length of sealed roads per 1000 people is remarkably consistent among the states and territories, averaging about 11 kilometres per 1000 people. Table 4.3 provides comparative data on local roads for each state. Table 4.3: Local road statistics based on council data at June 2006 Total sealed local road length (kms) Total unsealed local road length (kms) Sealed (%) Share of Local Government Area (%) Length of sealed road per 1000 people (kms) Length of unsealed road per 1000 people (kms) Total local State road length (kms) Population (m) NSW a Vic Qld b b 28.4 a b b WA SA Tas NT ACT c Notes: a New South Wales road length excludes kilometres of regional roads and 2900 kilometres of regional and local roads in unincorporated areas. b DOTARS Estimate for Queensland: See Local Government National Report p. 79 for methodology. c ACT data are from June Totals do not add to 100 due to rounding. Source: State local government grants commissions and Roads ACT unpublished data. 64

75 Road funding by each sphere of government Local governments are responsible for local roads within their council area. States are responsible for local roads in unincorporated areas (areas where no local government is established). The Australian Government contributes to local road funding through the Roads to Recovery program, through local government financial assistance grants identified for local roads, through the Strategic Regional program, and through the Black Spot program (see Table 4.5). State governments in Queensland and Western Australia also contribute significant funds towards council-managed local roads. Data for are not yet available. It is estimated that in local governments spent $4322 million on local roads (see Table 4.4). About one-third of local road spending is on new capital works and about two-thirds is on road maintenance and renewal. Chapter 4 Local government infrastructure Table 4.4: Estimated spending on council-managed local roads, to ($m) ($m) ($m) Urban Rural Total local road expenditure Less spending on local roads in unincorporated areas na Estimated spending on council-managed local roads na Source: National Transport Commission Annual Reports , pp ; , p. 31; and , p. 31. Of the estimated $4322 million spent in on council-managed local roads, the Australian Government contributed $779 million (see Table 4.5) and state governments contributed about $245 million. This means local government provided the balance about $3298 million (76%) from its own sources (including private sector developer contributions, predominantly on new housing estates). A significant amount of the $245 million in state government funding in came from Queensland s Transport and Infrastructure Development Scheme ($43 million) and Western Australia s State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement ($62 million). Budget papers for Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania for report on state funding for local government. The South Australian budget provides a one-page summary of all state funding for local government specifically identifying the funding available for local roads (SA State Budget Inter-governmental Finances, Table 4.6, p. 4.17). Australian Government funding for local roads The Australian Government has introduced a national land transport plan called AusLink. The objectives of AusLink include improving logistics, boosting trade, enhancing health, safety and security and sustaining the environment. AusLink also aims to promote regional economic growth, development and connectivity. The Roads to Recovery program, the Black Spot program and the Strategic Regional program are all components of AusLink. 65

76 Local Government National Report In , the Australian Government will contribute $1108 million towards council-managed local roads through programs such as the local government financial assistance grants, the Roads to Recovery program, Strategic Regional program and the Black Spot program. Total Australian Government local road funding will grow from $746 million in to $1108 million in (see Table 4.5 and Figure 4.1). Table 4.5: Australian Government funding for council-managed local roads, to ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) (estimated) ($m) Local road financial assistance grants Supplementary local road funds for South Australia AusLink Roads to Recovery program formula component Supplementary AusLink Roads to * 0 Recovery program formula component Black Spot program local roads Strategic Regional program local roads Total Note: An additional $7.5 million was provided to the states and the Northern Territory for local roads in unincorporated areas. Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services. Figure 4.1: Australian Government local roads funding $ million Local roads financial assistance grants AusLink Roads to Recovery program formula component Supplementary AusLink Roads to Recovery program formula component Black Spot program local roads Strategic Regional program local roads estimated Supplementary local road funds for South Australia ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) Financial year ($m) estimated ($m) Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services. 66

77 Roads to Recovery program The Australian Government renewed the AusLink Roads to Recovery program for a further four years from to at a cost of $1230 million. Of this, $1200 million ($300 million a year) will be provided by direct formula allocation to local government (see Table 4.6) and $30 million ($7.5 million a year) will be distributed, on a formula basis, to states and territories for roads in unincorporated areas. In , the Australian Government provided a supplementary Roads to Recovery grant of $307.5 million. Table 4.6: AusLink Roads to Recovery program planned expenditure ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) Council grants based on formula Grants for unincorporated areas Supplementary Roads to Recovery Chapter 4 Local government infrastructure Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services. Strategic Regional Program The Australian Government also allocated $220 million over the period to for land transport infrastructure projects of strategic regional importance (see Table 4.7). The Australian Government recently announced 86 successful projects to be funded from the $127 million competitive component of the Strategic Regional Program, 84 of which are projects submitted by local councils. Table 4.7: Strategic Regional Program planned estimated expenditure ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) Strategic regional program funding Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services. In the context of the 2007 Budget, the Australian Government announced an additional $250 million under the program for Almost $240 million of this was allocated to local governments for 99 projects while the balance went to projects in the unincorporated areas of South Australia. Australian Government additional funds for local roads in South Australia The Australian Government is providing an additional $26.25 million over the three years ending in to address the state s current disadvantage in local road funding (see Table 4.8). Providing these additional funds more closely aligns the state s share in local government financial assistance grants to its 8.3 per cent share under the Roads to Recovery program. The decision was an interim response to the findings of the Hawker inquiry into local government finances by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration (Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government, November 2003). The government will distribute 85 per cent of the funds to South Australian councils on a formula basis and 15 per cent as special local road grants. In May 2007, the Australian Government decided to extend the program for a further four years at a cost of $57 million. 67

78 Local Government National Report Table 4.8: Australian Government additional funds for local roads in South Australia, to ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) Funds for South Australian local roads Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services. GEORGE TOWN COUNCIL RESTORES COMMUNITY FACILITIES USING FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF UNDER-UTILISED BUILDINGS George Town Council in Tasmania won the small council award for asset management in the 2006 National Awards for Local Government. The council s project was straightforward and took a whole-of-life view of asset utilisation and costs. Over five years, the council developed an inventory of all of its assets including roads, bridges, footpaths, buildings, kerb and channel, parks, sporting facilities, sewer and water assets. It identified the current and future costs of maintaining, rehabilitating and renewing all of its assets. The council now has accurate condition and valuation data for all its assets. It has identified the current and future risks of asset failure and put in place strategies to deal with them. The council has developed manuals for all maintenance standards and activities. Information is accessible on all maintenance and renewal activities for each individual asset. As a result all essential assets are kept in good condition and maintained or renewed at the right time. The council has disposed of assets that are surplus to community requirements. Seven buildings were demolished, another was gifted to the Navy Cadets and three country halls were closed. One hall was transferred to the Fire Service. The savings achieved permitted the community to upgrade higher-use facilities such as the Memorial Hall. The council intends to apply its new approach to other asset classes such as roads and parks. This award-winning project illustrates the benefits of reviewing and disposing of assets that are surplus to community needs, redeveloping under-utilised assets and engaging in consultation with the local community about service level standards. State government funding New South Wales In , the state government will provide $153 million in road funding to councils. Most of the funds are grants to assist councils to manage their secondary arterial road network and most will be spent on kilometres of regional roads, where there is a blurring of responsibility between state and local governments. Regional roads are council owned and managed, but because of their regional significance they qualify for state government assistance. 68

79 State government funding has three components (see Table 4.9): $119.1 million is a block grant, which is allocated in metropolitan areas on a formula basis according to road length, traffic usage and heavy vehicle usage and, in the country, on the length of timber bridges. The second component is repair program grants of $24.1 million, which provide assistance to councils for larger works of rehabilitation and development on regional roads to minimise long-term maintenance costs. Councils match these grants dollar-for-dollar and regionally-based consultative committees of councils prioritise projects. The remaining $9.8 million the third component of state government funding is for high merit projects. In , the state government will provide an additional $32 million in operating expenditure for councils to employ road safety officers, erect traffic signs, meet street lighting costs on major traffic routes, check vehicle loadings, fix road safety black spots, improve pedestrian safety and provide new bicycle paths. Additional funds are available to restore regional and local roads damaged in natural disasters (at a cost of $36 million in ). Chapter 4 Local government infrastructure Table 4.9: New South Wales state government funding for council-managed local roads ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) Block grant for local government Repair program grant for local government High merit projects na na na Total council local roads Source: Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales, Local Government Liaison Committee, information paper to councils: Regional Road Funding Assistance to Local Government , p. 2. Victoria In , Victoria s councils spent $912 million on local roads and bridges (an increase of 11.9 per cent from ) including operational expenditure of $633 million and capital expenditure of $272 million. This continues a trend of significantly rising expenditure on local roads by councils over recent years. By contrast, state funding is slowly declining. State government funding is provided primarily for accident prevention. The main contribution is provided through the Better Roads Victoria program. In , $7.75 million is available under the program for reconstructing and upgrading local roads where the nature and volume of traffic has been, or is predicted to be, significantly affected by state government initiatives, such as changes in grain transport routes or timber cartage from Crown lands (see Table 4.10). Table 4.10: Victoria state government funding for local roads ($m) ($m) ($m) Better Roads Victoria program Natural disaster funds Local road crossings over the Murray River Unincorporated areas Total council local roads and bridges Source: Victorian Local Government Grants Commission. 69

80 Local Government National Report Queensland Queensland (along with Western Australia) makes a significant financial contribution towards funding council-managed local roads. The Queensland Roads Management and Investment Alliance is a formal agreement between the state and local government to jointly manage Queensland s local roads of regional significance. In , the Queensland Government allocated $67 million in grants to local governing bodies for council-managed roads and bikeways under its Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme (see Table 4.11). Funding has almost doubled since when $34 million was available under the scheme. Some of the money is spent on upgrading local roads of regional significance under the Roads Alliance. Funds for local roads of regional significance and other council-managed roads are generally available on a 50:50 funding basis with local councils, while for access roads to Indigenous communities the state provides 100 per cent of the funds. This allocation will rise to $76 million in , reflecting an additional $10 million per year to be provided for Roads Alliance safety improvement initiatives and $1 million per year for capability training. In addition, $25 million per year is allocated for roads and drainage grants. These grants, administered by the Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation, are designed to encourage capital works expenditure by local governments on road and urban stormwater drainage infrastructure. Table 4.11: Queensland state government funding for council-managed local roads, Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme ($m) ($m) ($m) Base allocation Roads Alliance Special allocation for high priority local road projects Total Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme Source: Queensland Local Government Grants Commission and Local Government Association of Queensland. Western Australia Western Australia has a five-year State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement (from to ) that is funded by hypothecation of 27 per cent of vehicle licence fees, enabling local government to better plan its local road network. The Western Australian Local Government Association publishes an annual Report on Local Government Road Assets and Expenditure that provides the most comprehensive data on local road funding in any state in Australia. The State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement will deliver $94 million for local roads in (see Table 4.12). Under the agreement, 10 regional road groups, drawing membership from elected local government representatives, identify, prioritise and propose funding for key regional roads. The groups use multi-criteria analysis, incorporating transport, social, economic, financial, road safety and environmental factors to rank road projects. They make recommendations to the State Road Funds to Local Government Advisory Committee. This committee, comprising representatives of Main Roads WA and the Western Australian Local Government Association, makes recommendations 70

81 to the State Minister for Planning and Infrastructure on the distribution of Local Government State Road Funds. Table 4.12: Western Australia State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) State roads funding agreement a a a Note: a Forecast. Source: Western Australian State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement, 23 November The Report on Local Government Road Assets and Expenditure shows that in total council local road expenditure rose by $20.1 million to $391 million. This comprised $148.4 million on maintenance, $118.0 million on renewal of existing roads, $99.3 million on upgrading and $25.3 million on capital expansion. The $118.0 million that councils spent on asset renewal in represented 0.9 per cent of the current replacement value of the state s local road infrastructure. This is less than half the 2 per cent that wears out each year. Council spending on maintenance and renewal was $86.3 million less than the $351.2 million the Association believes is needed to keep local roads in their current condition. The funding shortfall has increased from $50.3 million in mainly due to state road funding cuts in to (see Table 4.13). Chapter 4 Local government infrastructure Table 4.13: Western Australian local road expenditure by source of funds, to Source ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) % change from Australian Government State government Local government Private Total Local road deficit Source: Western Australian Local Government Association, Report on Local Government Road Assets and Expenditure , pp. 4, 15 and 23. South Australia South Australia s State Local Government Relations Agreement does not identify local road funding. However, the state budget publishes a statement of all specific purpose budgetary assistance to local government, which is unique among state budgets. In , the state will contribute $6 million in grants to local government for council-managed local roads (see Table 4.14). The state will also spend $12.6 million on local roads in unincorporated areas (which are a state government responsibility). 71

82 Local Government National Report Table 4.14: South Australia state government funding for council-managed local roads, to ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) Total state grants for council local roads Total state spending local roads and ferries Source: South Australian Local Government Grants Commission. South Australian council expenditure on local roads is gradually rising. In , the councils spent $228 million on local roads and road-related infrastructure (see Table 4.15). Table 4.15: South Australia council expenditure on local roads ($m) ($m) ($m) Total council expenditure on local roads Source: South Australian Local Government Grants Commission. In November 2005, the South Australian Government amended the Local Government Act 1999 to require councils to develop and adopt 10-year infrastructure and asset management plans. The Local Government Association of South Australia has a program to assist all councils in the state in adopting the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia Infrastructure Management Manual as the basis for their asset management plans. Tasmania The Tasmanian Government does not provide grants to councils for council-managed roads, but it does make some direct expenditure on local roads (see Table 4.16). Local government also receives about $1.5 million per annum in heavy vehicle licence fees to help compensate for damage to local roads. This arrangement appears to be unique to Tasmania. In , local government spent $89.9 million on its local roads, an increase of almost $5 million from (see Table 4.17). Table 4.16: Tasmania state government direct spending on council-managed local roads, and ($m) ($m) Assistance to councils for strategic links to state roads Line marking and signs on local roads Signal maintenance/operation on local roads Total Source: Tasmanian Local Government Grants Commission. 72

83 Table 4.17: Tasmania council expenditure on local roads ($m) ($m) ($m) Total council expenditure on local roads Source: Tasmanian Local Government Grants Commission. Northern Territory There is no new data on local road spending in the Northern Territory, but as data is otherwise difficult to obtain, this paragraph restates data from last year s report. Sixty-three local governments in the Northern Territory maintain a local road asset register. In , local governing bodies spent $12.7 million on their local roads, but they need to spend about $38 million to $40 million a year to maintain them in a fit-for-purpose condition. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory have signed a Local Road Management Alliance Agreement to work together to improve road access in the territory. Chapter 4 Local government infrastructure Australian Capital Territory The current written down replacement value of ACT roads is about $2800 million, with municipal roads that provide property access valued at $1227 million and arterial roads valued at $1157 million. In , $32.2 million was spent on local road assets and about 5 per cent of the municipal road network was resealed. The long-term benchmark is to resurface about 7 per cent to 10 per cent of the municipal network annually. 73

84 Local Government National Report

85 Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia Chapter 5 Local government service provision to Indigenous communities 75

86 Local Government National Report Chapter 5 Local government service provision to Indigenous communities Since 1 July 2004, mainstream agencies, under a whole-of-government approach, have administered delivery of Australian Government services to Indigenous Australians. This approach relies on cooperation between the Australian Government, the states and territories and local government, and the Indigenous communities themselves, for effective service delivery to Indigenous Australians. To assist in establishing a whole-of-government approach to service delivery for Indigenous communities, 30 Indigenous Coordination Centres were set up across Australia in metropolitan, regional and rural areas; they operate as multi-agency offices. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has appointed portfolio experts, known as solution brokers, to each Centre to promote and implement innovative employment, training and enterprise opportunities for Indigenous people within each region. The brokers work with Centre managers to help negotiate partnerships between government agencies, including local governments in the region, and other organisations, including the private sector. The new approach relies on the conviction that successful implementation of services must be based on shared responsibility between Indigenous communities and government. Through these agreements the Australian Government invests in the priority needs of those entering into the agreement (usually a community group or a family) in return for implementing solutions that promote outcomes such as good health, family stability, community safety and education. By 2005 over 100 Shared Responsibility Agreements had been made in over 80 communities across Australia. The new arrangements also include Regional Partnership Agreements, which operate across a whole region. In support of these new arrangements there is a range of funding programs aimed at delivering services that Indigenous Australians need. Such services include education and vocational training, improved capacity of health workers and improved access to health care services in Indigenous communities, improved sustainability of community stores, and reduced substance abuse, in particular petrol sniffing. Some of the funding programs are: Community Housing and Infrastructure program Indigenous Higher Education Partnerships projects Indigenous Broadcasting program Family Violence Prevention Legal Services Fixing Houses for Better Health 76

87 Home Ownership on Indigenous Land program Natural Heritage Trust Indigenous Protected Areas program Scaffolding Literacy Indigenous Youth Leadership program. In total Australian Government funding for Indigenous programs reached $3.144 billion. Further information on these and other programs is available from the Australian Government s Indigenous portal at < Reporting requirements The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 requires an assessment, based on comparable national data, of the delivery of local government services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Measures to assess councils performance in providing services to Indigenous people have not been developed; however, all states, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory provide reports on progress in this area. Chapter 5 Local government service provision to Indigenous communities Full progress reports for from state agencies and some local government associations on provision of local government services to Indigenous communities are at Appendix H. A summary is provided below. These reports identify a range of priorities, strategies and actions, and a variety of differing approaches. New South Wales In New South Wales the Department of Local Government continues to participate in the annual Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference. Since 2000 the Department of Local Government has conducted surveys to collect data on specific Aboriginal and disability initiatives being undertaken by New South Wales councils. The data councils provided in these surveys about their Aboriginal initiatives for 2004 and 2005 are currently being analysed. Under the Local Government Act 1993 all councils in New South Wales are required to develop a social/community plan at least every five years. A social/community plan examines the needs of the local community and formulates strategies that council and/or other agencies could facilitate or implement to address these identified needs. The social plan identifies specific policies and action plans for seven mandatory target groups, one of which is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Social and community planning provides an effective mechanism for councils to plan for the current and future needs of their diverse local communities. The Department of Local Government has started a review of council social plans, which will also involve a review of management plans and annual reports, to assess the inclusion of recommended actions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The New South Wales Government has developed a 10-year plan of action, Two Ways Together, Partnerships: a new way of doing business with Aboriginal people , to improve service delivery by both state and local government to Aboriginal people. As part of the Two Ways Together plan, the department has identified the key action of developing a resource kit to help councils work 77

88 Local Government National Report more effectively with local Aboriginal communities. The kit is being developed in consultation with councils and key Aboriginal agencies and will be finalised during Victoria The Municipal Association of Victoria Local Government Indigenous Network, comprising councillors and council officers interested in Indigenous issues within local government, is a continuing program. In the Victorian Government enacted the new framework for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage preservation through the Aboriginal Heritage Act Local government participated in development of this framework by responding to a discussion paper prepared by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. Councils continue to use Toomnangi, an initiative of the Municipal Association of Victoria s Indigenous Interagency Coordination Committee, as a useful resource for the sector to share its ideas and initiatives in Victorian local governments involvement in Indigenous affairs. Queensland The Queensland Government developed the Community Governance Improvement Strategy to support Aboriginal shires and Island councils in their endeavours to improve their operations and thus deliver effective local government services to their communities and improve compliance with relevant legislation. Implementation of the strategy commenced during A range of strategies has been developed under the Community Governance Improvement Strategy, including strategies for skills development, business system improvement and stakeholder engagement. The Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation has continued to work with the Aboriginal shires and the Island councils on various projects and staff have made 250 visits to the councils over the past 12 months. The department is developing a White Paper reviewing community governance in the 17 Torres Strait Island communities. The objective of the review is to develop a new legislative model to improve community governance. The Queensland State Library is implementing a series of Indigenous Library Services initiatives comprising Indigenous Knowledge Centres, information and communications technology in Indigenous Knowledge Centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Training and Employment Strategy , reconciliation strategy, and protocols for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander collections. The State Library has been supporting development of partnerships between Indigenous Knowledge Centres and other government departments and community organisations to improve service delivery to communities and to enhance the sustainability of Indigenous Knowledge Centres. After-school and homework programs for children and young people have become an important component of daily activities at many Indigenous Knowledge Centres. Some centres have started weekly movie sessions to entice new community members to the centres. The State Library undertook an independent audit during 2006 to ascertain the information and communications technology capacity at each Indigenous Knowledge Centre. Recommendations contained in the audit report are now being discussed with councils. The State Library continues to provide regular training opportunities to enhance the knowledge and skills of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders working in Indigenous Knowledge Centres. 78

89 The Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) Executive reports a continuing increase in Indigenous council membership of the Association. During the LGAQ conducted regular dialogue with the Aboriginal Local Government Association and the Island Coordinating Council. In all, 15 community councils are members of the LGAQ. During the Australian Attorney-General s Department continued to fund the LGAQ to act as the group representative for a number of regional groups of councils negotiating Native Title outcomes. The model s aim is to provide efficiencies sought by the Attorney-General while ensuring local government continues to have access to the level of representation it needs. Under a contract with the Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation the LGAQ operates the Indigenous Councils Councillor Training Program. This program provides Indigenous councillors with the opportunity to earn the Certificate IV in Local Government (Administration). There has been strong response to this initiative. To date the department has delivered this program to 16 out of 32 councils. Western Australia During the Department of Local Government and Regional Development facilitated a range of initiatives to strengthen the relationship between local government and Indigenous communities to improve service delivery. The department is committed to working with local governments to develop Indigenous councillors capacity to strengthen local government systems. In August 2005, the Human Services Director Generals Group, through the Wiluna Development Project, mandated the department as lead state agency to address the levels of disadvantage suffered by Indigenous communities. The project focuses on the department supporting the shire in developing a partnership approach between government, industry and the community to improve the townsite of Wiluna. In addition, the department has formed a partnership with the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia to provide greater support to local governments who are coordinating emergency management plans with discrete communities. Across Western Australia, the department has improved Indigenous service delivery by facilitating ways of increasing the capacity of local governments and their Indigenous communities to enter into service agreements. To improve Indigenous representation in local government, the department delivered a comprehensive Indigenous local government election strategy. The strategy ensured broad Indigenous community exposure to the role of local government through departmental field visits, radio advertising and development and dissemination of written material designed for an Indigenous audience. The strategy also included developing an ongoing partnership with the Australian Electoral Commission and the Western Australian Electoral Commission to increase enrolments and voter turnout. The Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission continues to recognise the social and economic implications of having Indigenous communities within councils in Western Australia. The Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission s methodology provides comprehensive recognition of Indigenous factors and allowances. Other programs the department operates include Young Indigenous Local Government Scholarships and the Indigenous Leadership Fund. Chapter 5 Local government service provision to Indigenous communities 79

90 Local Government National Report South Australia South Australia continues the approach characterised by collaboration between the spheres of government in program design and implementation. For several years the Australian Local Government Association, the Local Government Association of South Australia and the South Australian Government have encouraged councils to consider developing agreements with Indigenous bodies located within their areas. Agreement making supports the role of councils in coordinated forward planning strategies, sets out areas of mutual interest for the overall benefit of the local council area, and provides a structured framework to promote effective working relationships and offer community capacity-building opportunities. Three significant agreements are now in place in South Australia. They are the Land Use Agreement between Yorke Peninsula and Narungga Nations Aboriginal Corporation; the reconciliation agreement between the cities of Holdfast Bay, Marion and Onkaparinga, the District Council of Yankalilla and Southern Kaurna; and the alliance agreement between Coorong District Council and the Raukkan Community Council. South Australia is continuing to progress agreements over Native Title claims and promotion and education projects to increase knowledge of and participation in local government elections. Five Aboriginal local governing authorities are located in out-of-local-government-act areas of South Australia. They are Anangu Pitjantjatjara, Gerard Community Council, Nepabunna Community Council, Yalata Community Council, and Maralinga Tjarutja. A South Australian Local Government Grants Commission review of funding of these authorities commenced in September 2004 and considered current sources of funding for local government type services, data collection and reporting arrangements and other state and territory funding models. To identify each community s funding needs, the commission undertook additional investigations during into the extent (that is, range and depth) of funding the communities received. Tasmania The Tasmanian Government continues a major program of negotiating Partnership Agreements with individual councils and regional groupings of local governments across the state. As part of negotiating some agreements, the Tasmanian Government is seeking to promote links between local government and the Aboriginal community. The aim is to identify key issues that affect Aboriginal people in the local government area and develop strategies to address them. The Tasmanian Government maintains a cooperative and collaborative working relationship with the Australian Government to progress Tasmania s COAG trial that focuses on Aboriginal family violence. The Tasmanian Government recently returned Cape Barren and Clarke Islands to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. With the agreement of Flinders Council, the Cape Barren Islanders Aboriginal Association will take responsibility for maintaining the road network on Cape Barren Island. Additionally, Flinders Council has indicated a willingness to negotiate a service agreement with the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association to maintain the rubbish tip and cemetery on the island. The Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association provides municipal services on Cape Barren Island. It is responsible for power, water and sewerage infrastructure and services, and is funded by the Australian Government to provide these services. The Tasmanian Government has recognised the unique situation presented by the return of Cape Barren Island to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people by negotiating the Cape Barren Island Road Maintenance Contract and the Cape Barren Island Renewable Energy Project, and by providing education for Years 7 to 10 on Cape Barren Island. 80

91 Northern Territory In , the Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Northern Territory of Australia has been the primary vehicle for progressing microeconomic reforms to local government and measures to improve Indigenous service delivery. The Prime Minister and the Northern Territory Chief Minister signed the agreement in April The agreement sets out the collaborative approach the Northern Territory and Australian governments will take when working with Indigenous communities to improve government service delivery and key social and economic outcomes for Indigenous Territorians. The standard of governance and leadership in remote and regional communities still needs improvement. Without strong governance, the best efforts to lift the standard of service delivery will continue to face enormous hurdles. The Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport recently entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Reconciliation Australia to develop an Indigenous governance program. This program will provide an accessible, entry-level approach to Indigenous governance development that will cater for elected members on large councils as well as governing bodies of smaller Indigenous organisations. The program will allow for immediate access to resources to enable Indigenous representatives to solve common governance problems, such as reaching quorums, avoiding conflicts of interest and separating administrative and elected member functions. It will also provide avenues for Indigenous elected members to participate in established accredited training that registered training organisations are providing. Since 2003, the Northern Territory has encouraged a process of voluntary regionalisation of local government under the Stronger Regions Stronger Futures strategy; however, the pace of voluntary change through this initiative has been disappointing. Accordingly, the Northern Territory Cabinet is considering proposals for a more directed approach to local government reform. Chapter 5 Local government service provision to Indigenous communities Australian Capital Territory During the ACT Chief Minister s Department worked with other ACT government agencies to develop a draft framework to guide whole-of-government policy and actions in addressing the social, economic and cultural needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the ACT. The draft framework identifies a range of critical outcome indicators that, to a large extent, mirror the headline and strategic indicators within the COAG-endorsed Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Framework. The draft framework also accords with the Canberra Social Plan and its goals and targets. The department s activities toward achieving priority areas of the framework include establishing a representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, continuing to support the ACT COAG trial Strong Safe Cohesive Communities, building capacity within the local Ngunnawal Aboriginal community, and providing education and training opportunities designed to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children achieve positive educational outcomes. 81

92 Local Government National Report Australian Government expenditure and progress Financial assistance grants to Indigenous councils under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 In , 91 Indigenous councils received financial assistance grants. Indigenous councils can be established in one of three ways to be eligible for financial assistance grants. Councils can be established under mainstream local government legislation in the state, such as the Shires of Aurukun and Mornington in Queensland and Ngaanyatjarraku in Western Australia; or under separate state legislation such as the Deed of Grant in Trust councils in Queensland; or as bodies that the Australian Government minister, on advice from the state minister, has declared to be local governing bodies that can receive financial assistance grants. Indigenous councils eligible to receive financial assistance grants are established in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. Table 5.1 shows the distribution of Indigenous councils by state and the way in which they have become eligible for financial assistance grants. Table 5.1: Distribution of Indigenous councils by eligibility type and by state, June 2006 Established State under state local government legislation Established under separate state legislation Declared local governing bodies Total Indigenous councils Qld WA SA NT Total Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services, unpublished data. In , $28.48 million in financial assistance grants was provided to these 91 councils. Of this, $20.92 million was in general purpose grants and $7.56 million in local roads grants. The financial assistance grants entitlements for these councils are provided in Table H.1. Allocation of general purpose payments to mainstream councils in relation to their Indigenous population Mainstream councils that have Indigenous people within their boundaries received some of the $1617 million in financial assistance grants funding in respect of their Indigenous populations. While the special needs of Indigenous communities are recognised when assessing a council s cost of providing services and hence the impact on the level of general purpose grant it receives, it remains a decision for each council how the grant will be spent and what services will be provided for its Indigenous residents. In assessing grant need, local government grants commissions must comply with agreed distribution guidelines, called National Principles (see Appendix A), when they allocate financial assistance grants to councils. For the general purpose grants, local government grants commissions apply cost adjusters where it has been determined that the cost of providing a local government service is affected by a recognisable factor, such as demographic profile, remoteness, or climate. 82

93 In addition to a National Principle requiring grants commissions to allocate the general purpose grant on the basis of relative needs, Principle 5 relates specifically to Indigenous people: 5. Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders Financial assistance shall be allocated to councils in a way, which recognises the needs of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders within their boundaries. In complying with this National Principle, some grants commissions apply cost adjusters for the Indigenous population in assessing the cost of providing certain services. This may be the result of Indigenous people having a different average level of demand for certain services or there may be higher costs associated with delivering the service to Indigenous people, perhaps for language and/or cultural reasons, or distance factors. Grants commissions also recognise that councils are often unable to charge rates for the land on which some Indigenous communities reside. This reduces the revenue these councils are able to raise. In this way grants commissions should take into account the impact of Indigenous people on a council s finances, both in terms of reduced revenue received and higher expenditure requirements, when determining the financial assistance grant to be allocated to the council. Grants commissions stipulate the additional level of financial assistance grant that individual mainstream councils receive in respect of Indigenous people. However, there are conceptual difficulties in using these estimates as a measure of the financial assistance grants that mainstream councils receive to provide local government services to Indigenous people. This is because the financial assistance grant funding is untied and is being provided to give local governing bodies the capacity to provide a standard range and average quality of local government services. Whether that funding is used to achieve a particular outcome, for example to provide services for its Indigenous residents, is left to the local governing bodies to determine. Chapter 5 Local government service provision to Indigenous communities Funding for roads servicing Aboriginal communities in Western Australia The Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission allocates 7 per cent of its local road grants received through the financial assistance grants for Special Road Works. Although these funds are untied, councils have accepted arrangements that appear to involve a degree of tying the funds. One-third of the Special Road Works funding is directed to councils for roads servicing Aboriginal communities. In this amounted to $ The Aboriginal Roads Committee, comprising representatives from the Western Australian Local Government Association, Main Roads WA, the Department of Indigenous Affairs, the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination and the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission, advises on the allocation of funds according to the needs of the Aboriginal communities. The Committee has established funding criteria based on factors including the number of Aboriginal people served by a road, the distance of a community from a sealed road, the condition of the road, the proportion of traffic servicing Aboriginal communities and the availability of alternative access. National Awards for Local Government The 2006 National Awards for Local Government included the category Strengthening Indigenous Communities, which was sponsored by the Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The award aims to highlight local government and community council initiatives that demonstrate innovation and/or excellence in their approach to increasing opportunities 83

94 Local Government National Report for Indigenous people to engage and participate in the affairs of the local community. It also aims to highlight improved community governance and service delivery arrangements for Indigenous people. There were 10 entries in this category. Projects entered included a diverse range of activities such as: a reconciliation garden incorporating Aboriginal designs and interpretative plaques a golf program a driver s licence and road safety program establishment of Aboriginal advisory groups/committees to councils council participation in reconciliation and National Aboriginal and Islander Observance Committee (NAIDOC) week events establishment of Indigenous land use agreements involving various parties, including local and state governments and business/industry organisations programs for Indigenous people in education and training rural skills training for young Indigenous people a small grants program for Indigenous projects an eco-tourism venture. Full details of all the projects are available at <dynamic.dotars.gov.au/nolg/nalg/index.aspx>. The City of Playford in South Australia won the category with its project Marni Waeindi Indigenous Transition Pathways Centre; and the Carpentaria Shire Council in Queensland won the category award for a council with a ratepayer base under for the Normanton Youth Rural Training Program. Both projects also won National Awards (see Appendix I). The Marni Waeindi project is a learning node, connected to a network of other agencies and local industry, that provides a comprehensive range of education, training and other support services to engage Indigenous young people in seamless, aspirational action-based learning with a strong emphasis on employment, social inclusion and cultural participation. The Normanton Youth Rural Training Program provided skills training for over 100 young Aboriginal people with assistance from the Murr Murr Corporation, the leaders of the Gkuthaarn and Kuktj peoples and the Yargin and Bynoe Aboriginal Corporations, Delta Downs cattle station and local police. Port Stephens Council in New South Wales and Kwinana Town Council in Western Australia were each awarded commendations in the Strengthening Indigenous Communities category. Port Stephens Council established the Aboriginal Project Fund to satisfy the needs and wishes of the Port Stephens Indigenous community and in response to a recommendation from a review conducted in conjunction with the council s Indigenous Strategic Committee. The fund offers grants for community-based programs, projects and initiatives of the local Indigenous community, that focus on youth issues such as work skills, parenting, participation in sport and staying in school. Kwinana Town Council helped establish the Spectacles Cultural Tours, a unique eco-cultural tourism venture offering a rich Indigenous experience in a bushland setting at the Spectacles Wetland area in Kwinana. The tours provide an infrastructure for local Indigenous people to share knowledge, language and history while preserving and promoting a vibrant traditional and contemporary Indigenous culture. 84

95 Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia Chapter 6 Australian Government response to Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government 85

96 Local Government National Report Chapter 6 Australian Government response to Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government In 2002 the Australian Government asked the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration to conduct an inquiry into the financial position of local government and its roles and responsibilities. The Hon. David Hawker MP chaired the Committee and the Committee s report, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government, became known as the Hawker Report. The report, tabled in Parliament on 24 November 2003, made 18 recommendations aimed at improving the relationship between local government and the other two spheres of government in Australia. The report is available at < The government consulted widely on the recommendations and also discussed the report with the states and territories and the Australian Local Government Association through the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council. The Australian Government s response to the Hawker Report was tabled in Parliament on 22 June It was reproduced in full in the Local Government National Report. The government has been working to implement the initiatives it agreed to adopt in its June 2005 response to recommendations made in the Hawker report (see < publications/index.aspx>). This chapter provides an update on progress with these initiatives. A tri-partite inter-governmental agreement Recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 6 of the Hawker Report sought the development of a tri-partite intergovernmental agreement. The government agreed to pursue an agreement on local government aimed at improving outcomes for local communities. It liaised with the Australian Local Government Association and the state and territory governments. On 12 April 2006, The Inter-governmental Agreement Establishing Principles for Guiding Inter-Governmental Relations on Local Government Matters was endorsed and signed at a special meeting of Local Government Ministers. 1 All local 1 The Western Australian Minister for Local Government and the Tasmanian Minister for Local Government were not able to attend this meeting. They signed the Inter-governmental Agreement after the meeting on 21 and 24 April 2006 respectively. 86

97 governments and local government stakeholders throughout Australia received a copy of the Intergovernmental Agreement. It is available at < The Local Government and Planning Ministers Council agreed to consider regular reports on progress in implementing the Inter-governmental Agreement. Officials will develop a reporting framework for consideration by ministers in A Parliamentary resolution on local government Recommendation 3 of the Hawker Report proposed that a resolution be put to the House of Representatives recognising local government as an integral part of governance in Australia. The Australian Government agreed to propose a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and this took place on 6 September 2006 in the House of Representatives and 7 September 2006 in the Senate (see Parliamentary resolution on local government ). The motion was passed in the Senate on 7 September 2006 and in the House of Representatives on 17 October PARLIAMENTARY RESOLUTION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT That the House/Senate: 1. recognises that local government is part of the governance of Australia, serving communities through locally elected councils 2. values the rich diversity of councils around Australia, reflecting the varied communities they serve 3. acknowledges the role of local government in governance, advocacy, the provision of infrastructure, service delivery, planning, community development and regulation 4. acknowledges the importance of cooperating with and consulting with local government on the priorities of their local communities 5. acknowledges the significant Australian Government funding that is provided to local government to spend on locally determined priorities, such as roads and other local government services 6. commends local government elected officials who give their time to serve their communities. Chapter 6 Australian Government response to Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government Consultations on impediments to prudent borrowing Recommendation 9 of the Hawker Report proposed that local governments be required to audit the state of their infrastructure and provide status reports to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and that this data be used to adjust financial assistance grants to councils that were considered negligent in managing their infrastructure. 87

98 Local Government National Report While the Australian Government did not support this recommendation, it agreed that the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads would facilitate consultation between stakeholders, including state and territory governments and local government, on impediments to prudent borrowings to finance infrastructure. On 23 September 2005, the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, the Hon Jim Lloyd MP, wrote to state and Northern Territory ministers, the ALGA, and state and Northern Territory local government associations to seek advice on any impediments to borrowings to fund infrastructure needs. The state and Northern Territory responses and the local government associations responses were collated separately and presented by the Australian Government at the 4 August 2006 meeting of the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council. The general conclusions from the consultation can be summarised as follows: Although the legislative and institutional context for local government varies between states, there do not appear to be significant regulatory impediments to prudent borrowing by local government. In most states (Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory) local governments can access low-cost debt financing through centralised public sector financing authorities. Although regulatory impediments to borrowings by local government do not appear significant, there are prudential concerns. Councils have a debt-averse culture and the capacity of some councils to access and manage borrowings for infrastructure is low. Enhancement of the National Awards for Local Government Recommendation 11 of the Hawker Report sought the establishment of a body to promote local government capacity building and recommended that this body oversee a federal and state governments best practice awards system. The Australian Government agreed to refer this issue to the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council and to seek enhancement of the National Awards for Local Government through the Council. The Council noted the enhancement proposals at its meeting of August The Council further considered the matter out of session and agreed that the most appropriate means of enhancing the awards and promoting capacity building was for each state or territory to consider having a greater involvement with coordinating or resourcing selected Leading Practice Seminars (see Appendix I) to disseminate local government best practice in its jurisdiction. Council amalgamations Recommendation 13 of the Hawker Report proposed that the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the state and territory local government grants commissions assess the efficiencies of amalgamations of local governments. It recommended that councils not be financially penalised through a net loss of financial assistance grants for four years if they amalgamated. While the Australian Government did not support an assessment by grants commissions, it agreed that financial assistance grants should not financially penalise or be an impediment to councils wishing to amalgamate. The Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads agreed to propose a new National Principle under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 to cover this scenario. 88

99 The new National Principle came into effect on 1 July It becomes the sixth National Principle and the text is as follows: 6. Council amalgamation Where two or more local governing bodies are amalgamated into a single body, the general purpose grant provided to the new body for each of the four years following amalgamation should be the total of the amounts that would have been provided to the former bodies in each of those years if they had remained separate entities. A description of the process for implementing this National Principle is included in Appendix A. Review of the financial assistance grants Recommendation 16 of the Hawker Report proposed significant changes to the distribution of financial assistance grants. While the Australian Government did not support widespread changes, it acknowledged the apparent disadvantage to South Australia in the current interstate distribution of the identified roads component of the financial assistance grants. An interim solution to this problem was agreed, with the granting of an additional $26.25 million to South Australia over the three years to The government agreed to a Commonwealth Grants Commission review of the interstate distribution of the identified roads component of the financial assistance grants. The commission presented its report to the government on 30 June The government considered the commission s report and announced in the Budget that it would not be changing the distribution of the identified local roads component of the grants. The government noted the commission s findings that there is a lack of consistent and reliable data on: the length of local roads in each state the number and deck area of bridges on local roads in each state local road use in each state the maintenance expenditure by local councils on local roads and bridges in each state. Chapter 6 Australian Government response to Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government The government concluded that without reliable information, it could not be confident that any systemic change to the existing interstate distribution of local road grants would be equitable. The government decided to retain the existing distribution and continue the supplementary funding for South Australian councils. The future financial governance of local government Recommendation 17 of the Hawker Report proposed a wide range of reviews and processes to help local government better determine and control its own financial governance. While the government did not support most of these proposals, it agreed on the importance of local government bodies having the capacity to raise revenue from their own sources. The government agreed to ask the Productivity Commission to examine this issue. 89

100 Local Government National Report The Productivity Commission received the following terms of reference on 4 April ASSESSING LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE-RAISING CAPACITY Productivity Commission Act 1998 The Productivity Commission is requested to undertake a research study assessing local government revenue. In undertaking the study the Commission is to examine the capacity of local government to raise revenue including: the capacity of different types of councils (e.g. capital city, metropolitan, regional, rural, remote and Indigenous) to raise revenue and the factors contributing to capacity and variability in capacity over time the impacts on individuals, organisations and businesses of the various taxes, user charges and other revenue sources available to local government the impact of any state regulatory limits on the revenue-raising capacity of councils. In undertaking the study the Commission is not to investigate the scope for local governments to borrow. The Commission is required to provide both a draft and a final report, with the final report due within twelve months of receipt of this reference. The report is to be published. 90

101 Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia Appendixes 91

102 Local Government National Report Appendix A National principles for allocating general purpose and local road grants According to section 3 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (the Act), the Federal Parliament provides financial assistance grants to the states and self-governing territories for the purposes of improving: the financial capacity of local governing bodies the capacity of local governing bodies to provide their residents with an equitable level of services the certainty of funding for local governing bodies the efficiency and effectiveness of local governing bodies the provision, by local governing bodies, of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The grants are provided to jurisdictions in the form of general purpose and local road grants. The intra-jurisdictional allocation of these grants to local governing bodies is made in accordance with recommendations of local government grants commissions with prior approval of the Australian Government minister. In determining grant allocations, the commissions are required to make their recommendations in line with National Principles. The current National Principles are set out in Figure A.1. The main objective of having National Principles is to establish a nationally consistent basis for distributing financial assistance grants to local government under the Act. The Act includes a requirement, under subsection 6(1), for the Australian Government minister responsible for local government to formulate National Principles after consulting with jurisdictions and local government. The formulated National Principles are a disallowable instrument. As such, any amendments, including establishment of new principles, must be tabled in both Houses of Federal Parliament before they can come into effect. Members and Senators then have 15 sitting days in which to lodge a disallowance motion. If such a motion is lodged, the respective House has 15 sitting days in which to put and defeat the disallowance motion. If the disallowance motion is defeated, the amendment stands. If the disallowance motion is passed, the amendment will be deemed to be disallowed. In response to Recommendation 13 of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government (the Hawker Report), the Australian Government agreed to propose an additional National Principle (see Chapter 6 of the Local Government National Report). The additional National 92

103 Principle specifies that financial assistance grants for councils formed as a result of amalgamation will be maintained at the level the former amalgamating councils would have received, for four years after amalgamation occurs. The principle was formulated so that grants would not act as a disincentive to the amalgamation of councils. The additional National Principle was tabled in the House of Representatives on 27 February 2006 and in the Senate on 28 February No disallowance motions were lodged, so it took effect from 1 July It is listed in Figure A.1 as the sixth National Principle, council amalgamation. Appendix A Figure A.1: National Principles for allocating general purpose and local road grants A. General purpose grants The National Principles relating to allocation of general purpose grants payable under section 9 of the Act among local governing bodies are as follows: 1. Horizontal equalisation General purpose grants will be allocated to local governing bodies, as far as practicable, on a full horizontal equalisation basis as defined by the Act. This is a basis that ensures each local governing body in the State or Territory is able to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not lower than the average standard of other local governing bodies in the State or Territory. It takes account of differences in the expenditure required by those local governing bodies in the performance of their functions and in the capacity of those local governing bodies to raise revenue Effort neutrality An effort or policy neutral approach will be used in assessing the expenditure requirements and revenue-raising capacity of each local governing body. This means as far as practicable, that policies of individual local governing bodies in terms of expenditure and revenue effort will not affect grant determination. 3. Minimum grant The minimum general purpose grant allocation for a local governing body in a year will be not less than the amount to which the local governing body would be entitled if 30 per cent of the total amount of general purpose grants to which the State or Territory is entitled under section 9 of the Act in respect of the year were allocated among local governing bodies in the State or Territory on a per capita basis Other grant support Other relevant grant support provided to local governing bodies to meet any of the expenditure needs assessed should be taken into account using an inclusion approach Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders Financial assistance shall be allocated to councils in a way, which recognises the needs of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders within their boundaries. 3 93

104 Local Government National Report Council amalgamation Where two or more local governing bodies are amalgamated into a single body, the general purpose grant provided to the new body for each of the four years following amalgamation should be the total of the amounts that would have been provided to the former bodies in each of those years if they had remained separate entities. B. Identified local road grants The National Principle relating to allocation of the amounts payable under section 12 of the Act (the identified road component of the financial assistance grants) amongst local governing bodies is as follows: 1. Identified road component The identified road component of the financial assistance grants should be allocated to local governing bodies as far as practicable on the basis of the relative needs of each local governing body for roads expenditure and to preserve its road assets. In assessing road needs, relevant considerations include length, type and usage of roads in each local governing area. 1 Principles A1 and A3 reiterate principles that exist within the current legislation. Their inclusion in the National Principles contributes to the balance and completeness of the National Principles and allows for clarification of their definitions. The effect of Principle A3 is to provide each local governing body with a guaranteed minimum grant. 2 This Principle requires recognition and application of certain relevant grants from other sources against council expenditure needs. The issue here is to account for revenue from other sources provided for the purpose of delivering certain local government services. 3 This Principle addresses the specific need for provision of equitable council services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and indicates that the level of grants received by councils reflects the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population within council boundaries. 94

105 Appendix B State methods for distributing financial assistance grants Appendix B This appendix provides the methods each local government grants commission used for allocating grants to councils in Descriptions of methods are based on information supplied by local government grants commissions. New South Wales The New South Wales Grants Commission methodology has not changed significantly since last year. The two components of the grants are distributed on the basis of principles developed in consultation with local government and consistent with the National Principles of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act General purpose component The general purpose component of the grant attempts to equalise the financial capacity of councils. The commission uses the direct assessment method. The approach taken considers cost disabilities in the provision of services on the one hand (expenditure allowances) and an assessment of councils relative capacity to raise revenue on the other (revenue allowances). Expenditure allowances are calculated for each council for a selected range of council services. The allowances attempt to compensate councils for expected above average costs resulting from issues that are beyond their control. Council policy decisions concerning the level of service provided, or if there is a service provided at all, are not considered (effort neutrality). Expenditure allowances are calculated for 21 council services or areas of expenditure. These services are general administration and governance, aerodromes, services for aged and disabled, building control, public cemeteries, services for children, general community services, cultural amenities, control of dogs and other animals, fire control and emergency services, general health services, library services, noxious plants and pest control, town planning control, recreational services, stormwater drainage and national report flood mitigation, street and gutter cleaning, street lighting, and maintenance of urban local roads, sealed rural local roads, and unsealed rural local roads. An additional allowance is calculated for councils outside the Sydney statistical district that recognises their isolation. 95

106 Local Government National Report The general formula for calculating expenditure allowances is: No. of units standard cost disability factor where: the number of units is the measure of use for the services of the council. For most services the number of units is the population, for others it may be the number of properties or the length of roads the standard cost represents the state average cost for each of the 21 selected council services. The calculation is based on a state average of each council s unit cost, excluding extreme values, using selected items from Special Schedule 1 of councils Financial Reports the disability factor is the extent to which it is estimated to cost the council more than the standard to provide the service. A disability factor is the commission s estimate of the additional cost, expressed as a percentage, of providing a standard service due to inherent characteristics that are beyond a council s control. If, for example, the commission estimated that it would cost a council 10 per cent more than the standard for town planning, because of population growth in the area, the disability factor would be 10 per cent. Consistent with the effort neutrality principle, the commission does not compensate councils for cost differences arising from council policy decisions, management performance or accounting differences. For each service the commission has identified a number of variables that it considers to be the most significant in influencing a council s expenditure on that particular service. These variables are termed disabilities. A council may have a disability due to inherent factors such as topography, climate, traffic or duplication of services. In addition to disabilities identified by the commission, other disabilities relating to individual councils may be determined from council visits or submissions. The general approach to calculating a disability factor is to take each disability relating to a service and apply the following formula: Disability factor = (council measure standard measure 1) 100 weighting where: the council measure is the individual council s measure for the disability being assessed (for example, population growth) the standard measure is the state standard (generally the average) measure for the disability being assessed the weighting is meant to reflect the significance of the measure in terms of the expected additional cost. The weightings have generally been determined by establishing a factor for the maximum disability based on a sample of councils or through discussion with appropriate peak organisations. Negative scores are not generally calculated. That is, if the council score is less than the standard, a factor of zero is substituted. The factors calculated for each disability are then added together to give a total disability factor for the service. The commission uses the inclusion approach in the treatment of specific purpose grants for library services and local roads. This means the disability allowance is discounted by the specific purpose grant as a proportion of the standardised expenditure. 96

107 The deduction approach is used for services where the level of specific purpose payment assistance is related to council effort. This method deducts specific purpose grant amounts from all councils expenditure before standard costs are calculated. The commission considers the deduction approach to be more consistent with the effort neutrality requirement specified in the National Principles. As indicated previously, the commission also calculates an allowance for additional costs associated with isolation. The isolation allowance is determined using a regression analysis model based on the additional costs of isolation and distances from Sydney and major regional centres. Only councils outside the Sydney statistical division are included. Details of the formula are shown later in this section. The isolation allowance also includes a component that specifically recognises the additional industrial relations obligations of councils in western New South Wales. A pensioner rebate allowance is calculated that recognises that a council s share of pensioner rebates is an additional cost. Councils with high proportions of ratepayers who qualify for eligible pensioner rebates are considered to be more disadvantaged than those with lower proportions. Details of the formula used are shown later in this section. Revenue allowances attempt to compensate councils for their relative lack of revenue-raising capacity. Property values are the basis for assessing revenue-raising capacity because rates, based on property values, are the principal source of councils income and property values, and to some extent, are an indicator of the relative economic wealth of local areas. The commission s methodology compares land values per property for the council to a state standard value and multiplies the result by a state standard rate in the dollar. To reduce the effects of seasonal and market fluctuations in the property market, the valuations are averaged over three years. In the revenue allowance calculation, councils with low values per property are assessed as being disadvantaged and are brought up to the average (positive allowances), while councils with high values per property are assessed as being advantaged and are brought down to the average (negative allowances). That is, the theoretical revenue-raising capacity of each council is equalised against the state standard. The commission s approach excludes the rating policies of individual councils (effort neutrality). Separate calculations are made for urban and non-urban properties. Non-rateable properties are excluded from the commission s calculations because the calculations deal with relativities between councils, based on the theoretical revenue-raising capacity of each rateable property. In developing the methodology, the commission was concerned that use of natural weighting would exaggerate the redistributive effect of the average revenue standards. That is, the revenue allowances are substantially more significant than the expenditure allowances. This issue was discussed with the Australian Government and the approved principles provide that revenue allowances may be discounted to achieve equilibrium with the expenditure allowances. As a result, both allowances are given equal weight. The discounting helps overcome the distortion caused to the revenue calculations by the relatively high property values in the Sydney metropolitan area. The objective approach to discounting revenue allowances reduces the extreme positives and negatives calculated, yet maintains the relativities between councils established in the initial calculation. Appendix B 97

108 Local Government National Report The commission does not specifically consider rate pegging, which applies in New South Wales. The calculations are essentially dealing with relativities between councils, and rate pegging affects all councils. Generally movements in the grants are caused by annual variations in property valuations, standard costs, road and bridge length, disability measures and population. The commission, because of the practical and theoretical problems involved, does not consider the requirements of councils for capital expenditure. In order to assess capital expenditure requirements, the commission would have to undertake a survey of the infrastructure needs of each council and then assess the individual projects for which capital assistance is sought. This would undermine council autonomy because the commission, rather than the council, would determine which projects were worthwhile. Further, councils that failed to adequately maintain their assets could be rewarded at the expense of those that did maintain them. The issue of funding for local water and sewerage undertakings was examined during the process of consultation between the commission, the Local Government and Shires Associations, and local government generally. The consultation process preceded development of the distribution principles required under the Commonwealth Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act The Local Government and Shires Associations and local government recommended to the commission that water and sewerage services should not be included in the financial assistance grants distribution principles. The main reasons given were: water and sewerage services are not services performed by all general purpose councils in New South Wales if water and sewerage services were to be considered, the level of funds available for other council services would be significantly diminished including water and sewerage services would result in a reduced and imbalanced distribution of funds to general purpose councils other sources of funds and subsidies for water and sewerage schemes are available to councils through the state government. The commission agreed with the submissions of the associations and local government. Accordingly, water and sewerage services are excluded from the distribution formula. The commission views income from council business activities as a policy decision and, therefore, does not consider it in the grant calculations (effort neutrality). Similarly, losses are also not considered. Debt servicing is related to council policy and is therefore excluded from the commission s calculations. In the same way, the consequences of poor council decisions of the past are not considered. Generally the level of a council s expenditure on a particular service does not affect the grants. Use of a council s expenditure is generally limited to determining a state standard cost for each selected service. The standard costs for these services are then applied to all councils in calculating their grants. What an individual council may actually spend on a service has very little bearing on the standard cost or its grant. Efficient councils are rewarded by the effort neutral approach of the calculations. To illustrate this, two councils with similar populations, road networks, property values and disability measures would receive similar grants. The efficient council can use its grant funds to provide better facilities for its ratepayers. The inefficient council needs to use its grant funds to support an inefficient operation and 98

109 cannot provide additional services to its ratepayers. Therefore, the efficient council will benefit from its efficiency. Council categories have no bearing on the grants. Categories simply provide a convenient method of grouping councils for analysis. The commission has in place an amalgamation principle, which states that: In the event of council amalgamations, the new council will receive grants for two years as if the councils had remained separate entities and any subsequent change may be phased in at the discretion of the commission. Following the significant structural reform of local government in 2004, in it was not possible to determine the general purpose component of the grant on the basis of the former separate entities. The complex nature of many boundary changes created significant data limitations that made it impossible to make meaningful estimates. Accordingly, the commission decided to apply the state s escalation factor of 3.5 per cent to the grants for the councils affected. The grants for the new councils were then apportioned based on the revised population figures. Appendix B Local road component The method of allocating the local road component is based on a simple formula developed by the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority. The formula uses councils proportion of the state s population, local road length and bridge length. See under Principles in this section for details. Formulae The formulae used in calculating expenditure and revenue allowances of the general purpose component are as follows: Expenditure allowances General Allowances for the majority of services are calculated on the following general formula: Ac = Nc Es Dc where: Ac = allowance for the council for the expenditure service Nc = number of units to be serviced by council Es = standard expenditure per unit for the service Dc = disability for the council for service in percentage terms Road length allowances In addition to the disability allowances, length allowances are calculated for each road type based on the following formula: ( Ac = Nc Es Lc Nc Ls Ns ) 99

110 Local Government National Report where: Ac = allowance for road length expenditure Nc = number of relevant properties for the council Es = standard cost per kilometre Lc = council s relevant length of road per relevant property Nc Ls = standard relevant length of road per relevant property Ns Isolation allowances Isolation allowances are calculated for all non-metropolitan councils based on the formula: Ac = Pc ([Dsc K1] + [Dnc K2] + Ic) where: Ac = the isolation allowance for each council Pc = the adjusted population for each council Dsc = the distance from each council s administrative centre to Sydney Dnc = the distance from each council s administrative centre to the nearest major regional centre (a population centre of more than ) Ic = the additional per capita allowance due to industrial award obligations (if applicable) K1 and K2 are constants derived from regression analysis Specific purpose payments Allowances for services are discounted where appropriate to recognise the contribution of specific purpose grants. The discount factor that generally applies is: Gc 1 (Nc x Es) + Ac where: Gc = the specific purpose grant received by the council for the expenditure service Nc = the number of units to be serviced by the council Es = the standard expenditure per unit for the service Ac = the allowance for the council for the expenditure service 100

111 Revenue allowances General The general formula for calculating revenue allowances is: Ac = Nc ts (Ts Tc) where: Ac = the revenue allowance for the council Nc = the number of properties (assessments) ts = the standard tax rate (rate in the dollar) Ts = the standard value per property Tc = the council s value per property The standard value per property (Ts) is calculated as follows: Appendix B Ts = Sum of rateable values for all councils Sum of number of properties for all councils The standard tax rate (ts) is calculated as follows: ts = Sum of net rates levied for all councils Sum of rateable values for all councils Pensioner rebates allowance The general formula for the allowance to recognise the differential impact of compulsory pensioner rates rebates is: Ac = Rc Nc (Pc Ps) where: Ac = the allowance for the council Rc = the standardised rebate per property for the council Nc = the number of residential properties Pc = the proportion of eligible pensioner assessments for the council Ps = the proportion of eligible pensioner assessments for all councils The standardised rebate per property for the council (Rc) is: Rc = 0.25 Tc ts where: Tc = the average value per residential property in the council ts = the standard tax rate (rate in the dollar) for residential properties The maximum value for Rc is set at $125. Tc and ts are calculated as for the revenue allowances except only residential properties are used. 101

112 Local Government National Report Principles General purpose (equalisation) component The following principles, which are consistent with the National Principles of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995, are based on an extensive program of consultation with local government before the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986 was implemented. The agreed principles are: 1. General purpose grants to local governing bodies will be allocated as far as practicable on a full equalisation basis as defined in the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995; that is a basis which attempts to compensate local governing bodies for differences in expenditure required in the performance of their functions and in their capacity to raise revenue. 2. The assessment of revenue and expenditure allowances of local governing bodies will, as far as is practicable, be independent of the policy or practices of those bodies in raising revenue and the provision of services. 3. Revenue-raising capacity will primarily be determined on the basis of property values; positive and negative allowances relative to average standards may be calculated. 4. Revenue allowances may be discounted to achieve equilibrium with expenditure allowances. 5. Generally for each expenditure function an allowance will be determined using recurrent cost; both positive and negative allowances relative to average standards may be calculated. 6. Expenditure allowances will be discounted to take account of specific purpose grants. 7. Additional costs associated with non-resident use of services and facilities will be recognised in determining expenditure allowances. 8. In the event of council amalgamations, the new council will receive grants for two years as if the councils had remained separate entities and any subsequent change may be phased in at the discretion of the commission. Local road component Financial assistance, which is made available as an identified local road component of local government financial assistance, shall be allocated so as to provide Aboriginal communities equitable treatment in regard to their access and internal local road needs. The agreed principles for distribution are: 1. Initial distribution Funds will be allocated: (a) per cent to local roads in urban areas (b) per cent to local roads in rural areas Urban area means an area designated as an urban area, which is: (i) the Sydney Statistical Division (ii) the Newcastle Statistical District (iii) the Wollongong Statistical District Rural area means an area not designated as an urban area 102

113 2. Local road grant in urban areas Funds will be allocated: (a) 5 per cent to individual councils on the basis of bridge length Appendix B (b) 95 per cent to councils as follows: (i) 60 per cent on the basis of length of roads (ii) 40 per cent on the basis of population 3. Local road grant in rural areas Funds will be allocated: (a) 7 per cent to individual councils on the basis of bridge length (b) 93 per cent to councils as follows: (i) 80 per cent on the basis of length of roads (ii) 20 per cent on the basis of population 4. Data Population must be based on the most up-to-date Estimated Resident Population figures available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Road length must be based on the most up-to-date data available to the Local Government Grants Commission of New South Wales for formed roads, which are councils financial responsibility. Bridge length must be based on the most up-to-date data available to the Local Government Grants Commission of New South Wales for major bridges and culverts six metres and over in length, measured along the centre line of the carriageway, which are councils financial responsibility. The method of application of the statistics must be agreed to between representatives of the Local Government Grants Commission of New South Wales and the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales. Victoria The Victoria Grants Commission allocates general purpose and local roads grants according to the six National Principles formulated under the Commonwealth Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act Methodology for general purpose grants For each council, a raw grant figure is calculated by subtracting the council s standardised revenue from its standardised expenditure. The available general purpose grants pool is then allocated in proportion to each council s raw grant, taking into account the minimum grant provision of the National Principles. As outlined below, decreases in general purpose grant outcomes have been capped, which also affects the relationship between raw grants and actual grants. 103

114 Local Government National Report Specific grants are made to a small number of councils each year in the form of natural disaster assistance. These grants are funded from the general purpose grants pool and so reduce the amount allocated on a formula basis. Details of natural disaster assistance grants allocated for are provided at the end of this section. Standardised expenditure Under the commission s general purpose grants methodology, standardised expenditure has been calculated for each council on the basis of nine expenditure functions. Between them, these expenditure functions include all council recurrent expenditure, with the exception of works undertaken on behalf of, and funded by, VicRoads. The structure of the model ensures that the gross standardised expenditure for each function equals the aggregate actual expenditure by councils, thus ensuring that the relative importance of each expenditure function in the commission s model matches the pattern of actual council expenditure. Aggregate recurrent expenditure by Victorian councils in equalled $3.829 billion. Total gross standardised expenditure in the commission s allocation model for therefore also equalled $3.829 billion, with each expenditure function assuming the same share of both actual expenditure and standardised expenditure. For each function, with the exception of local roads and bridges, gross standardised expenditure is obtained by multiplying the relevant unit of need (such as population) by: the average Victorian council expenditure on that function, per unit of need a composite cost adjustor that takes account of factors that make service provision cost more or less for individual councils than the state average. Major cost drivers ( units of need ) The major cost drivers and average expenditures per unit for each expenditure function, with the exception of local roads and bridges, are shown in Table B.1. Table B.1: Cost drivers and average expenditure per unit Victoria Expenditure function Major cost driver Average expenditure per unit Governance Population (adjusted) $32.26 Family and community services Population $92.75 Aged services Population >60 years $ Recreation and culture Population $ Waste management Number of dwellings $ Traffic and street management Population $77.38 Other infrastructure services Population (adjusted) $57.77 Business and economic services Population (adjusted) $82.48 Source: Victoria Grants Commission 104

115 Several different major cost drivers are used. Each is seen by the commission to be the most significant determinant of a council s expenditure need on a particular function. For three functions, the major cost driver is the council s population. For a fourth (aged services) it is the population aged over 60 years, and for a fifth (waste management) it is the number of dwellings in the municipality. Appendix B For three expenditure functions, an adjusted population is used as the major cost driver to recognise the fixed costs associated with certain functional areas. For the expenditure functions of other infrastructure services and business and economic services: councils with an actual population of less than 7500 are deemed to have a population twice their actual population councils with an actual population of between 7500 and are deemed to have a population of the actual population is used for councils with a population of more than The major cost driver used in assessing relative expenditure needs for the governance function has been adjusted to take account of high rates of vacant dwellings, particularly in tourist areas, at the time the census is taken. Councils with a vacancy rate above the state average are now assumed to have a population higher than the census-based estimate, for the governance function. As in previous years, councils with an actual population of less than are deemed to have a population of Cost adjustors A number of cost adjustors are used in various combinations against each function. These allow the commission to take account of individual councils particular characteristics that have an impact on the cost of service provision on a comparable basis. Each cost adjustor has been based around a stateweighted average of 1.00 with a ratio of 1:2 between the minimum and maximum values, to ensure the relative importance of each expenditure function in the model is maintained. The cost adjustors used in calculating the general purpose grants were: aged pensioners population less than 6 years English proficiency regional significance Indigenous population remoteness kerbed roads scale population density socioeconomic population dispersion tourism population growth environmental risk. 105

116 Local Government National Report Different weightings were used for the cost adjustors applied to each expenditure function because some factors, represented by cost adjustors, have more of an impact on costs than do others. In response to submissions about the impact on council expenditure of providing services to residents with a low level of proficiency in English, the commission increased the relative importance of its English proficiency cost adjustor in determining the general purpose grant allocations. Previously, the English proficiency cost adjustor has only been taken into account in calculating standardised expenditure for the family and community services expenditure function. In the allocations, use of this cost adjustor was extended to the governance and aged services expenditure functions. Some consequent adjustments to weightings of the other cost adjustors used for those functions were also made to accommodate this change. Net standardised expenditure The commission obtained net standardised expenditure for each function by subtracting standardised grant support (calculated on an average per unit basis) from gross standardised expenditure. This ensures that other grant support is treated on an inclusion basis. Average grant revenue on a per unit basis (based on actual grants received by local government in ) is shown in Table B.2. Table B.2: Average grant revenue per unit Victoria Expenditure function Major cost driver Average grant revenue per unit Governance Population (adjusted) $0.32 Family and community services Population $28.51 Aged services Population >60 years $ Recreation and culture Population $5.88 Waste management Number of dwellings $1.68 Traffic and street management Population $1.61 Other infrastructure services Population (adjusted) $1.50 Business and economic services Population (adjusted) $3.96 Source: Victoria Grants Commission Mathematically, calculation of net standardised expenditure for each expenditure function is as follows: net standardised expenditure = gross standardised expenditure standardised grant revenue where: gross standardised expenditure = unit of need average state-wide expenditure per unit cost adjustors standardised grant revenue = unit of need average state-wide grant revenue per unit 106

117 Standardised expenditure for the local roads and bridges expenditure function within the general purpose grants model is based on the grant outcomes for each council under the commission s local roads grants model. This model incorporates a number of cost modifiers (similar to cost adjustors) to take account of differences between councils. Net standardised expenditure for this function is calculated by subtracting other grant support (based on actual identified local roads grants and Roads to Recovery grants) from gross standardised expenditure. The total standardised expenditure for each council is the sum of the standardised expenditure calculated for each of the nine expenditure functions. Appendix B Standardised revenue A council s standardised revenue is intended to reflect its capacity to raise revenue from its community. In past years, standardised revenue has been calculated for each council by multiplying its valuation base (on a net annual value basis) by the average rate across all Victorian councils. The payments in lieu of rates received by some councils for major facilities such as power stations and airports have been added to their standardised revenue to ensure all councils are treated equitably. In 2003, the commission, in close consultation with councils, began reviewing the way standardised revenue is assessed. The results of that review were provided to councils in 2004 and, in determining the general purpose grant allocations for , a number of changes were made to the way standardised revenue is calculated. In assessing relative capacity to raise rate revenue, capital improved valuations are now used in place of net annual valuations. A two-year average of valuation data is still employed, and payments in lieu of rates continue to be added to the standardised rate revenue determined for each council by multiplying its valuation base by the statewide average rate. In the allocations, the commission again constrained increases in each council s assessed revenue capacity to improve stability in grant outcomes. The constraint for each council has been set at the statewide average increase in standardised revenue adjusted by the council s own rate of population growth to reflect growth in the property base. In addition to assessing each council s relative capacity to generate rate revenue, the commission now makes a separate assessment of the relative capacity to generate revenue from user fees and charges. The commission multiplies each council s functional areas, the relevant driver (such as population), by the state median revenue from user fees and charges. For some functions, the resulting figure is then modified by a series of revenue adjustors to take account of differences between municipalities in their capacity to generate fees and charges, due to their characteristics. The standard fees and charges used for each function (based on median actual revenues generated by local government in ) are set out in Table B.3, along with the revenue adjustors applied. 107

118 Local Government National Report Table B.3: Standardised fees and charges per unit Victoria Expenditure function Major driver (units) Standard fees and charges per unit Revenue adjustors Governance Population $6.45 Nil Family and community services Population $8.87 Socioeconomic Aged services Population >60 $75.73 Household income Recreation and culture Population $12.00 Valuations (% commercial) Waste management No. of dwellings $13.04 Nil Local roads and bridges Population $0.26 Nil Traffic and street management Population $3.04 Valuations (% commercial) Other infrastructure services Population $2.42 Nil Business and economic services Population $15.99 Tourism + value of development Source: Victoria Grants Commission The assessed capacity for each council to generate user fees and charges is added to its standardised rate revenue to produce total standardised revenue. Minimum grants The available general purpose grants pool for Victorian councils for represented, on average, $55.70 per head of population. The minimum grant National Principle requires that no council may receive a general purpose grant that is less than 30 per cent of the per capita average (or $16.71 for ). Without the application of this principle, general purpose grants for for eight councils Bayside, Boroondara, Glen Eira, Melbourne, Manningham, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Yarra, together with the Docklands Authority would have been below the $16.71 per capita level. The minimum grant principle resulted in the general purpose grants to these councils being increased to that level. Capping The commission is conscious that large movements in general purpose grants can have a significant impact on a council s financial position. In past years, the commission has applied a cap of 6 per cent to decreases in grant outcomes. With the changes to the assessment of relative revenue-raising capacity, grant outcomes for a number of councils will decrease over time. For , the commission again limited decreases to 6 per cent. However, where such a decrease would exceed 0.5 per cent of a council s combined revenue from rates and financial assistance grants (untied revenue), any decrease for was limited to 0.5 per cent of their untied revenue. Grant decreases for nine councils Hobson s Bay, Kingston, Maribyrnong, Monash, Moonee Valley, Mornington Peninsula, Nillumbik, Queenscliffe and Whitehorse were limited to 6 per cent, while decreases for a further four Banyule, Darebin, Maroondah and Moreland were limited to 0.5 per cent of their untied revenue. 108

119 The commission also acted to ensure this capping was only subsidised by those councils with increasing grants. As a result, six councils Brimbank, Casey, Greater Geelong, Surf Coast, Warrnambool and Whittlesea received an unchanged general purpose grant in The grants to those councils would have been less than the estimated entitlements had the full cost of capping been applied to them. Grants to a further two councils Frankston and Yarra Ranges which have decreasing grants in , were not further reduced through the capping arrangements. Appendix B Estimated entitlements With the introduction of significant changes to the allocation methodology in , grant outcomes were generally less stable than has been the case in recent years, although the instability was somewhat reduced by the capping arrangements. A summary of the changes in estimated general purpose grant entitlements from to is shown in Table B.4. Table B.4: Changes in general purpose grant entitlements from to Victoria Change in general purpose grant Number of councils a Increase of >10.0% 18 Increase of 5.0% to 10.0% 27 Increase of <5.0% 13 No change 6 Decrease of <6.0% 6 Decrease of 6.0% (capped) 9 Total 79 Note: a Analysis does not include the Docklands Authority. Source: Victoria Grants Commission Natural disaster assistance The commission provides funds from the general purpose grants pool to councils that have incurred expenditure resulting from natural disasters. Grants of up to $ per council for each eligible event are provided to assist with repairs and restoration work. Four grants, totalling $ , were allocated to councils in (see Table B.5). Table B.5: natural disaster assistance from general purpose grant funding Victoria Council Event Amount Baw Baw Shire Council Storm damage $ Darebin City Council Flood damage $ East Gippsland Shire Council Flood and storm damage $ Wellington Shire Council Flood damage $ Source: Victoria Grants Commission 109

120 Local Government National Report Methodology for local roads funding The commission instituted a new funding formula for the allocations based on each council s road length (for all surface types) and traffic volumes, using average annual preservation costs for given traffic volume ranges. The methodology also includes a series of cost modifiers for freight loading, climate, materials, sub-grade conditions and strategic routes and takes account of the deck area of bridges on local roads. The new formula was designed to reflect the relative needs of Victorian councils in relation to local roads funding in accordance with the National Principle relating to allocation of local roads funding. Grant levels fully based on the new network cost methodology were phased in over a three-year period to Traffic volume data Allocation of local roads grants for was based on traffic volume data that all councils collected during the 12 months to June Councils were asked to categorise their local road networks according to nine broad traffic volume ranges four for kerbed roads and five for unkerbed roads. Victorian councils reported a total of kilometres of local roads as at 30 June 2004, an increase of 74 kilometres or 0.06 per cent over the length reported 12 months earlier. Variations are outlined in Table B.6. Table B.6: Changes in local road length from to Victoria Change in length of local roads Number of councils a Increase of more than 5.0% 4 Increase of 1.0% to 5.0% 16 Increase of up to 1.0% 25 No change 21 Decrease of up to 1.0% 5 Decrease of 1.0% to 5.0% 6 Decrease of more than 5.0% 2 Total 79 Note: a Analysis does not include the Docklands Authority. Source: Victoria Grants Commission Asset preservation costs Average annual preservation costs for each traffic volume range are used in the allocation model to reflect the cost of local road maintenance and renewal. ARRB Transport Research developed the initial average annual preservation costs to allocate local roads grants for and ; they were published in Table 7.1 of the Review of Distribution Arrangements for Local Roads Funding in Victoria: Final Report, released in July The commission has previously indicated that the data on which the local roads methodology is based will be reviewed periodically to maintain its relevance. Consequently, in 2002 the commission 110

121 reviewed the underlying asset preservation costs used in the local roads grant allocation model and the recommendations of that review were adopted for the allocations. These remained unchanged for the allocations (see Table B.7). Appendix B Table B.7: Average annual costs used in allocating local road grants for Victoria Road type Daily traffic volume range Average annual cost (base case) $/km Kerbed < < < Unkerbed Natural surface 300 < < < Bridges Concrete deck $40 per sq metre Timber deck $80 per sq metre Source: Victoria Grants Commission Cost modifiers The allocation model uses a series of cost modifiers to reflect differences in circumstances between councils in: volume of freight generated by each council climate availability of road-making materials sub-grade conditions strategic routes. Cost modifiers are applied to the average annual preservation costs for each traffic volume range for each council to reflect the level of need of the council compared to others. Relatively high cost modifiers add to the network cost calculated for each council, and so increase its local roads grant outcome. The cost modifiers used in allocating local roads grants were not reviewed in Grant calculation The commission calculates a total network cost for each council s local road network. This represents the relative annual costs the council incurred to maintain its local road and bridge networks, based on average annual preservation costs and taking account of local conditions, using cost modifiers. 111

122 Local Government National Report The network cost is calculated using traffic volume data for each council, standard asset preservation costs for each traffic volume range and cost modifiers for freight generation, climate, materials availability, sub-grade conditions and strategic routes. The deck area of bridges on local roads is included in the network cost at a rate of $40 per square metre for concrete bridges and $80 per square metre for timber bridges. Mathematically, calculation of the network cost for a single traffic volume range for a council can be expressed as: length of local roads in category average annual asset preservation cost for category overall cost factor ** **Overall cost factor is calculated by multiplying the individual cost factors for freight loading, climate, materials availability, reactive sub-grades and strategic routes. The actual local roads grant is then determined by applying the available funds in proportion to each council s calculated network cost. Estimated entitlements As expected, local roads grant outcomes for most councils have now stabilised following the phased introduction of the network cost allocation formula. In general, where a significant change occurred in a council s local roads grant for , this was due to changed road length and traffic volume data the council supplied to the commission. A summary of the changes in local roads grants from to is shown in Table B.8. Table B.8: Changes in local road grant entitlement from to Victoria Change in local roads grant Number of councils a Increase of more than 10.0% 6 Increase of 5.0% to 10.0% 19 Increase of <5.0% 53 Decrease 1 Total 79 Note: a Analysis does not include the Docklands Authority. Source: Victoria Grants Commission Queensland Identified road grant This component of the financial assistance grant is to be allocated as far as practicable on the basis of relative need of each local governing body for roads expenditure and to preserve its road assets. In the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission s judgement, a formula based on road length and population best meets this National Principle in Queensland at the current time. This formula is: 112

123 62.85 per cent of the pool is allocated according to road length per cent of the pool is allocated according to population. For the amount per kilometre of road is $ and per capita is $8.92. Appendix B General purpose component The commission complies with National Principles when developing and refining the methodology it uses to recommend the distribution of this component of the financial assistance grant. Every local governing body in the state is entitled to a minimum grant under the National Principles. This minimum grant is equivalent to 30 per cent of the general purpose pool distributed on a per capita basis. In this amount was $ The remaining 70 per cent of the general purpose pool is distributed according to relative need, applying the National Principle of Horizontal Equalisation. To determine relative need, the commission develops averages for revenue raising and expenditure on services to be applied to all local governments within the state. The commission allocates the grant to councils in such a way that the assessed revenue plus the grant equals the same percentage of assessed expenditure. After averages for revenue and expenditure are applied to each local government, the commission alters the assessment for factors outside a council s control that can affect its ability to rate at capacity or spend at average, in line with the effort neutrality principle. These factors are termed cost adjustors. Assessing revenue The commission has determined that the normal revenue functions of a council are: rates garbage charges fees and charges other grants. The new rating assessment formula the commission adopted in April 2004 was used again in allocating the financial assistance grant. The new formula was the result of a nine-month research project to which the commission committed itself in the final report released in January The rating formula is: 30 per cent weighting a minimum rate ($397 for ) applied to all rateable properties in a council area 70 per cent weighting an average cent in the dollar for a council s unimproved capital value for rateable properties across residential, commercial/industrial and rural land use categories. The result for these two components is adjusted by a council s Index of Economic Resources, one of the Socio Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For a maximum cap of 12 per cent increase in the rating assessment from the previous year was applied. Fees and charges are apportioned on a per capita basis. Garbage revenue is assigned per occupied urban property. 113

124 Local Government National Report In accordance with the National Principle for other grant support, grants relevant to the expenditure categories considered by the commission are included as revenue according to the actual amounts councils received rather than a state average. The commission included six grants, as follows: identified road grant (100 per cent) library grant (100 per cent) road and drainage grant (50 per cent) Roads to Recovery grant (50 per cent) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island operating grants (50 per cent) minimum general purpose grant (100 per cent). Assessing expenditure In assessing council expenditure, the commission includes eight (non-roads) service categories. They are: administration public order and safety education, health, welfare and housing garbage, septic and recycling street lighting community amenities, recreation, culture and libraries building control and town planning business and industry development. Prior to , the commission included an assessment of each council s urban stormwater expenditure. However, under the new consolidated data collection the commission uses to collect financial and functional data from councils, urban stormwater expenditures are coded under the wastewater management local government purpose classification. Most expenditure councils recorded in this category for (the year used for grant allocations) would have been on sewerage systems. Excluding urban stormwater from the grant allocation process had a negligible effect on grant outcomes given the small state expenditure on this function relative to more significant categories such as roads and administration. Services The commission considers which cost adjustors are relevant to which service categories. Table B.9 outlines the expenditure categories, the units of measure and the cost adjustors used in assessing services expenditure. 114

125 Table B.9: Outline of expenditure assessment for Queensland Services cost adjustors Services expenditure category unit of measure Location Dispersion Demography age Demography Indigenous Non-resident service expenditure Scale Tourism Growth Urban density Administration $ location + $ per property + $ per capita X X X X X Public order and safety $23.24 per capita X X X X X X X Education, health welfare and housing $40.62 per capita X X X X X X Garbage/septic/ recycling $62.05 per urban capita X X X X X Street lighting $20.83 per urban capita X X X X Community amenities, recreation, culture and libraries $ location + $92.06 per capita X X X X X X X X Building control and town planning $ per residential property X X X X Business and industry development $34.33 per capita X X X X Source: Queensland Local Government Grants Commission Appendix B 115

126 Local Government National Report Actual expenditure The commission also considers each local governing body s actual expenditure or effort positive expenditure in the categories of environmental protection and other transport. The commission does not believe there is a current cost driver relevant to these categories from which an average can be determined. Roads The roads assessment model is based on an engineering assessment of the cost to maintain a council s road network, including bridges and hydraulics, in average condition. Tables B.10 and B.11 provide the standards used in the roads assessment model and the cost adjustors applied. For example, a road with a volume of vehicles per day is assumed to be a sealed 4/8 road regardless of what is actually on the ground. The following allowances are given for heavy vehicles and for provision and barging of plant and material to islands: light to medium trucks, 2 axles = 1 vehicle heavy rigid tandem and/or twin steer = 2 vehicles semitrailers = 3 vehicles B doubles = 4 vehicles road trains = 5 vehicles. 116

127 Table B.10: Rural roads standards and cost adjustors Queensland Standard Traffic volume ange (adjusted vehicles/day) Base cost ($/km) Favourable (Th. 50) Climate (%) Adverse (Th. +100) MR reactive Soil subgrade (%) Locality on-cost (%) Terrain (%) <1.0 person per sq km <0.1 person per sq km Undulating Hilly Mountains Unformed Unformed Formed < Paved Sealed 4/ / / /12 > Source: Queensland Local Government Grants Commission Table B.11: Urban roads standards and cost adjustors Queensland Traffic volume range (adjusted vehicles/day) Base cost ($/km) Favourable (Th. 50) Climate (%) Soil sub-grade (%) Locality on-cost (%) Terrain (%) Adverse (Th. +100) MR reactive <1.0 person per sq. km <0.1 person per sq km Undulating Hilly Mountains < > Source: Queensland Local Government Grants Commission Appendix B 117

128 Local Government National Report Cost adjustors Cost adjustors are indices applied to expenditure or revenue categories to account for factors outside a council s control, that have an impact on its ability to provide services. The cost adjustors the commission used this year were: climate demography dispersion growth locality location non-resident service expenditure scale sub-grade tourism terrain urban density. Table B.9 identifies which of these cost adjustors are applied to the service categories. Averaging In response to concerns about data limitations in the calculation methods for roads and rates, the commission introduced averaging steps to increase confidence in the results obtained from the new methodology. Regression The first averaging step applies regression analysis to the results the base methodology produces. Regression is a statistical tool for developing averages based on more than one variable. The commission has decided to average the outcomes of the methodology against population and road length. The result of the regression analysis is averaged with the outcomes from the methodology thus reducing the impact of very wide variations occurring between councils in Queensland and introducing some comparability between councils based on population and road length. Old methodology The result of averaging with the regression is further averaged with the methodology previously used. The reason for this averaging is to reduce the anomalies caused by data limitations in the rating and road calculations. As data quality improves, this step will be phased out. Commission judgments When the commission makes a recommendation on the grant, it first considers the distribution calculated by the model to see if the results fit all councils. As can be expected with any mathematical model, it fits well for 90 per cent of councils, but 10 per cent of councils produce anomalous results. It is for this 10 per cent of councils that adjustments may be made based on commission judgment. 118

129 Adjustments for Rural regional centre adjustment In the commission s judgment, more consistent and likely general purpose grants for Dalby, compared to other similar rural regional councils, would be: Appendix B Dalby $76 per capita (pop ) In no other regional centre adjustments were made. Minimum adjustment In Queensland there appears to be three distinct population ranges for high population centres. They are: First population range Brisbane and Gold Coast Second population range Councils with populations to Third population range Councils with populations to It is the commission s judgement that those cities with a population above should be entitled to the minimum grant only, along with Brisbane City Council and Gold Coast City Council that are assessed as being minimum grant councils. In , only Logan City met this criterion. Cities with populations of less than will receive slightly higher than the minimum per capita grant, as determined by the methodology. Aboriginal and island councils (including Aurukun and Mornington Councils) Given the general level of increased grants to Aboriginal and island councils compared to the previous methodology, the commission has included an adjustment such that the general purpose component for each council does not fall below the grant received in The same adjustment was made to Torres Shire Council as it has similar location, demographic and road length characteristics. Broadsound, Clifton and Rosalie Shire councils The commission limited reduction of grants to the councils of Broadsound, Clifton and Rosalie as they would have the greatest relative reduction in grants. The commission considered the reductions to be too high for the councils to reasonably absorb in one year. Phasing in The phase-in agreed between the Australian and Queensland governments in August 2003 was a four-year straight-line phase-in period to all councils except Aboriginal Shire and Torres Strait Island councils, and minimum grant councils, which will receive their unphased grant entitlement. The commission is also phasing out, over the five years until , that part of the methodology termed Step 3 in the Methodology Review Final Report. This was foreshadowed in the January 2003 report. For this meant the phased-in grant entitlement for each council was 67 per cent outcomes from the new methodology and 33 per cent outcomes from the old methodology. 119

130 Local Government National Report Western Australia In , the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission used the balanced budget method for allocating the general purpose component and an asset preservation model for allocating the identified local road component of financial assistance grants. General purpose grant funding The balanced budget approach to horizontal equalisation was based on the formula: assessed equalisation requirement = assessed expenditure need assessed revenue capacity for all 142 local governments in Western Australia, calculated simultaneously. Calculation of assessed revenue capacity, based on standardised mathematical formulae, involved assessing the revenue-raising capacity of each local government in the categories of: residential and commercial/industrial rates agricultural rates pastoral rates mining rates other revenue (formerly extraordinary revenue). Determining the assessed expenditure need, also based on standardised mathematical formulae, involved assessing each local government s operating expenditures in the provision of core services and facilities under the standard categories of: governance law, order and public safety education, health and welfare community amenities recreation and culture building control transport. Assessed equalisation requirement is the result of subtracting assessed expenditure need from assessed revenue capacity. The grants are based on a four-year average of a preliminary equalisation requirement of local governments. In using a four-year average, the commission took the equalisation requirement for and three of the previous five years (the three years were those remaining once the years with the highest and lowest equalisation requirement were removed from the calculation). This is different to the average the commission previously used where it took the equalisation requirement for the previous six years but removed the years with the highest and lowest equalisation requirement out of the average. Using this method, there was no guarantee that the most recent year would be included in the average. The commission has changed the averaging method in response to submissions made by a number of local governments. It also considered that including the most recent year in the averaging calculation provides more currency to the current year grant allocation. 120

131 The derived final outcome was then subjected to the minimum grant principle (30 per cent of the total general purpose grant component) before the balance was factored back in order that local governments received grants proportional to their calculated allocation within the state s share of the federal per capita funding pool. In the grant determinations, 30 local governments received the minimum grant entitlement (compared to 28 in ). Appendix B Methodology refinements for Refinements made to the methods, as a result of the commission s ongoing research programs, public hearings, visit programs, and consideration of local government submission claims, are briefly described below. Units of measurement The major influence in calculating expenditure standards was population. The commission used the latest (30 June 2004) Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated residential population data (cat. no ). Other key drivers used in the balanced budget approach were a range of disability factors, given relative weightings to calculate local governments allowances for additional costs in the provision of services. Maximum reduction In reviewing the grant allocations, maximum reductions were limited to 15 per cent. The effect of applying this limit was to reduce the impact that would be experienced by one local government the Shire of Augusta Margaret River. Revenue standards The commission adopted revenue standards for residential and commercial/industrial rates, agricultural rates, pastoral rates, mining rates and other revenue, as well as building control charges and recreation and culture charges, consistent with previous years. Expenditure standards There were no major changes in the methods of calculating expenditure standards compared to and previous years; however, there were some minor changes to the expenditure categories of law, order and public safety; and transport. Law, order and public safety The commission has continued with four categories of assessing this expenditure category. This is due to the (historically) different arrangements for fire fighting; however, the law and order component of the assessment is now calculated as a single standard for all councils, rather than within each category, as was the previous practice. This is considered an improvement to the equalisation methodology. Transport As in previous years, transport needs were calculated for each local government by adding non-road expenditure items (footpaths, street lighting, laneways and aerodromes) to road preservation needs obtained from the asset preservation model. 121

132 Local Government National Report The transport assessments overall have reduced by 4.3 per cent as a result of including Roads to Recovery grants in the assessment. The change in assessments for individual councils is greater or lesser than this figure, depending on the change in asset preservation needs, and the amount of asset preservation grants. The commission has also changed its method of including aerodromes; councils with aerodromes have generally benefitted from the increased assessment. Special purpose grants One of the National Principles recognises that some local governments expenditure needs are met by special purpose grants. For the allocations, the total assessed expenditure was discounted by the state average percentage representing special purpose grants over total expenditure, which was consistent with the treatment in Disability factors Once again, a broad range of disability factors has been applied. A number of factors have been updated to reflect more current information (for example, heritage, drainage, jetties and boat ramps). Some minor amendments were made to the extraordinary planning, medical facilities and population dispersion factors. In general, these amendments affected only a small number of councils. The commission retained the Indigenous factor adopted in , but has moved its application from the education, health and welfare standards to the governance standard. This resulted in increased allowances for relevant councils. A new allowance was introduced for those local governments that have a large number of public toilets, primarily to recognise the impact tourists have on an area. Information was sourced from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing that produces a national public toilet map covering approximately 1700 public toilets in Western Australia. This information was analysed to establish those councils with a large number of facilities to maintain. The commission has provided an allowance of $2000 per public toilet (above the expected number to service the resident population). The commission includes, in the communities amenities assessment, an environmental allowance based on a number of indicators, including the State of the Environment Report, land salinity, and the number of council-managed reserves with declared species. The commission has increased the allowances for coastal councils by $ to recognise the environmental management costs they incur. The commission has adopted a new factor, to recognise the additional expenditure needs (and revenue capacity) regional centres incur. The commission has recognised two types of regional centre; the first Albany, Bunbury, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie Boulder, Narrogin and Northam receive a factor of 1.10, and the second (10 centres) receive a factor of This decision came about after the commission received many submissions, and conducted research and discussions on the issue. In applying this new factor, these councils will no longer receive the benefit of adjusted population, which is used as the key driver of a number of expenditure categories, as this would be a doubling up of the recognition of regional centres. All local governments, except the City of Geraldton for which adjusted population was retained, are expected to benefit from this change, The location factor was also updated. The proposed changes generally bring factors down and there are large downward movements in standards for some councils. These reduced standards appear to be a reflection of the reduced difference in relativities in award rates of pay and may be a result of the 122

133 increase in workplace, enterprise and employee bargaining agreements. The building index numbers have also contributed to the decline, with two or three minor increases and the majority of figures set to the same level, with around 30 or so councils being reduced. Appendix B Equations used in calculating standards See Table B.12 for definitions of terms used in the following formulae. Revenue standards Agricultural rates Standard = ( x TVal345) + (1.599 x VGarea) + ( x AgAssmts) Building control charges Standard = 4.15 x VTBld345 Investment earnings Standard = x INVBAS06 Mining rates Standard = [($ x Tlease/Assmts345) + ( x Minval345)] x Other revenue Standard = individual assessments Pastoral rates Standard = x Pastoral Valuations Recreation and culture charges Standard = x AdjPop05 Residential and commercial/industrial rates Standard = ($ x RCIAssmt) + (6.2780c x RCIValuations) Expenditure standards Building control Standard = 1.14 x [($48.01 x Size05) + ($3.25 x VTBld345)] Community amenities Standard = $14.68 x AdjPop05 x SPG Factor Education, health and welfare Standard = $41.88 x Pop05 x SPG Factor Governance Standard = [($40.53 x RateAssmt) + ($41.08 x AdjPop05)] + $ Law, order and public safety Standard = Category 1: ($21.57 x Pop05) (0.04 x Dwell05) Category 2: City of Perth Actual Expenditure Category 3: ($21.57 x Pop05) + ($ x Dwellings outside WAFRS*) Category 4: ($21.57 x Pop05) + ($ x Dwellings outside WAFRS*) * WAFRS = Western Australian Fire and Rescue Service Recreation and culture Standard = ($74.23 x AdjPop05) + ($ x Dwells05) + $

134 Local Government National Report Transport Standard = factored back asset preservation model needs + aerodrome allowance total preservation grants Table B.12: Definition of terms used in formulae Western Australia Sources of information Code Explanation Source AdjPop05 Estimated service population derived from formula (population + net additional employment) based on ABS ABS Business Register as at September 1998 statistics, employment derived from business register AgAssmt Total average number of rate assessments on agricultural properties, including special rural, rates on unimproved values provided for the period to Information returns to WALGGC BAILs01 Dwell 2005 Dwell outside WAFRS Estimated number of business and industrial locations in WA in 2001 (employing and non-employing single local business entities) Estimated stock of dwellings in Western Australia as at June 2001 census, increased by dwelling approvals in , , Number of dwellings outside protection of the Western Australian Fire and Rescue Service; dwellings protected by bush fire brigades InvBas06 Rate revenue + charges revenue + other revenue + 20% of general purpose grants + 20% of Main Roads WA direct grants MinVal345 Total unimproved mining valuations for the period to Pop04, Pop05 Estimated resident population in statistical local areas in Western Australia, 30 June 2004 and 30 June 2005 PstValuations Total average pastoral valuations for the period to RateAssmt Average total number of rates assessments for the period to RCIAssmt Average number of rateable assessments provided for the period to RCIValuations Average total equalised gross rental values of residential and commercial/industrial property in the period to ABS Business Register as at June 2001 ABS Cat. No Information returns to WALGGC Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission Valuer-General s Office ABS Cat. No Information returns to WALGGC Information returns to WALGGC Information returns to WALGGC Valuer-General s Office Size05 Formula assessment = [(10.1 x BAILs01) + Dwell 2005]/2 ABS Business Register and Census Tlease/Mining Assmt345 Total number of mining leases and licenses registered, or Valuer-General s Office assessments for the period to TVal345 Total average agricultural valuations for the period Valuer-General s Office to VGArea Total average agricultural land area in hectares for agricultural valuations for the period to Valuer-General s Office VTBld345 Estimated total value of building activity for the period to ABS Cat. No Note: WAFRS = Western Australian Fire and Rescue Service; WALGGC = Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission Source: Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission 124

135 local road grant funding Under the current principles 7 per cent of federal funds are allocated for special projects with onethird of this amount being for roads servicing Aboriginal communities and the remaining two-thirds for bridges. The remaining 93 per cent is distributed according to an asset preservation model. Appendix B Table B.13: Local road grant funding Western Australia Purpose Grant Access roads servicing Aboriginal communities $ Bridge works $ Balance of 93 per cent for distribution $ Total local road funding $ Source: Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission Access roads servicing Aboriginal communities The commission is advised by the Aboriginal Roads Committee, which comprises representatives from the Western Australian Local Government Association, Main Roads WA, the Western Australia Department of Indigenous Affairs, the Australian Government s Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination, and the commission. The aim of the Committee is to ensure funds are allocated in accordance with the needs of the Aboriginal communities. The Committee has established funding criteria based on factors including the number of Aboriginal people served by a road, the distance of a community from a sealed road, the condition of the road, the proportion of traffic servicing Aboriginal communities and the availability of alternative access. These criteria have provided a rational method of assessing priorities in developing a five-year program. Bridge works Special project funds for bridges are allocated to only preservation-type projects. A Bridge Committee advises the commission on priorities for allocating funds for bridges. Membership of the Committee is made up of representatives from the commission, the Western Australian Local Government Association, and Main Roads WA. The Committee receives recommendations from Main Roads WA on the priorities of projects under consideration. These recommendations are the outcome of an ongoing program of inspecting and evaluating the condition of local government bridges. Distribution of the balance of 93 per cent The remaining funds were distributed in accordance with road preservation needs determined by the commission s asset preservation model. The model assesses the average annual costs of maintaining each local government s road network and has the facility to equalise road standards through application of minimum standards. These standards help local governments that have not been able to develop their roads to the same standard as more affluent local governments. New asset preservation needs have been determined using updated road statistics provided by Main Roads WA. Road costs have been adjusted for inflation. 125

136 Local Government National Report Councils received an average increase of 4.2 per cent. However, changes for individual councils vary considerably because of changes in road statistics and allowances for heavy traffic. Fourteen councils received increases of 6 per cent or more while five councils received decreases. South Australia Methods general purpose grant The methodology used to assess the allocation of the general purpose component of financial assistance grants is intended to achieve an allocation to local governing bodies in the state consistent with the National Principles. The overriding principle is one of horizontal fiscal equalisation, which is constrained by a requirement that each local governing body must receive a minimum entitlement per head of population as prescribed in Commonwealth legislation. The South Australian Local Government Grants Commission uses a direct assessment approach to the calculations. This involves the separate estimation of a component revenue grant and a component expenditure grant for each council, which are aggregated to determine each council s overall equalisation need. Available funds are distributed in accordance with the relativities established through this process and adjustments are made as necessary to ensure the per capita minimum entitlement is met for each council. For local governing bodies outside the incorporated areas (the Outback Areas Community Development Trust and the five Aboriginal communities) allocations are made on a per capita basis. A standard formula is used as the basis for both the revenue and expenditure component grants. Formulae The formula for calculating the raw revenue grants can be expressed as: [( Us G = Pc x S x x RRIs) (Us x Ps Pc RRIc)] Similarly, the formula for calculating the raw expenditure grants can be expressed as: [( Uc G = Pc x S x x CRIc) (Us x Pc Ps CRIc)] where: subscripts of s or c refer to the state or a particular council G = a council s calculated relative need assessment P = population U = unit of measure some units of measure are multiplied by a weight S = standard, be it cost or revenue = expenditure or income U RRI = Revenue Relativity Index CRI = Cost Relativity Index (previously known as the disability factor). 126

137 RRI s and CRI s are centred around 1.0. If more than one CRI exists for any function, they are multiplied together to give an overall CRI for that function. In the revenue calculations for both residential and rural assessments, the commission has calculated a revenue relativity index based on the Index of Economic Resources, one of the Socio Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Where no revenue relativity index exists the RRIc is 1.0. Appendix B Currently in all expenditure calculations, except roads and stormwater, no disability factors are applied; consequently CRIc equals 1.0. The raw grants, calculated for all functions using the above formulae, both on the revenue and expenditure sides, are then totalled to give each council s total raw grant figure. Any council whose raw calculation per head is less than the per capita figure ($16.65 for ) then has the per capita figure applied. The balance of the allocated amount is then apportioned to the remaining councils based on their calculated proportion of the raw grant. Commission determined limits are then applied to minimise the impact on council s budgetary processes. In calculating the grants, the commission allowed changes to councils grants to range from minus 9 per cent to plus 19 per cent. An iterative process is then undertaken until the full allocation is determined. Component revenue grants Component revenue grants compensate or penalise councils according to whether their capacity to raise revenue from rates is less than or greater than the state average. Councils with below average capacity to raise revenue receive positive component revenue grants and councils with above average capacity receive negative assessments. The commission estimates each council s component revenue grant by applying the state average rate in the dollar to the difference between the council s improved capital values per capita multiplied by the RRIc and those for the state as a whole, and multiplying this back by the council s population. The state average rate in the dollar is the ratio of total rate revenue to total improved capital values of rateable property. The result shows how much less (or more) rate revenue a council would be able to raise than the average for the state as a whole if it applied the state average rate in the dollar to the capital values of its rateable properties. This calculation is repeated for each land use category, namely: residential commercial industrial rural other. To overcome fluctuations in the base data, valuations, rate revenue and population are averaged over three years. Revenue Relativity Indices (RRIc) are only applied to the residential and rural valuations. Subsidies Subsidies that are of the type that most councils receive and are not dependent upon their own special effort (that is, they are effort neutral), are treated by the inclusion approach. That is, subsidies such as those for public bus and library services, and roads are included as a revenue function. 127

138 Local Government National Report Component expenditure grants Component expenditure grants compensate or penalise councils according to whether the costs of providing a standard range of local government services can be expected to be greater than or less than the average cost for the state as a whole due to factors outside the control of councils. The commission assesses expenditure needs and a component expenditure grant for each of a range of functions and these are aggregated to give a total component expenditure grant for each council. The methodology compares each council per capita against the state average. This enables the comparison to be consistent and to compare like with like. Each function is identified by a main driver or unit of measure. This unit of measure is divided into the total expenditure on the function for the state as a whole to determine the average or standard cost for the particular function. For example, for the expenditure function of built-up sealed roads, kilometres of built-up sealed roads is the unit of measure. Using this example, the length of built-up sealed roads per capita for each council is compared with the state s length of built-up sealed road per capita. The difference, be it positive, negative or zero, is then multiplied by the average cost per kilometre for construction and maintenance of built-up sealed roads for the state as a whole (standard cost). This, in turn, is multiplied back by the council s population to give the component expenditure grant for the function. As already indicated this grant can be positive, negative or zero. In addition, the commission recognises that there may be other factors beyond a council s control that require it to spend more (or less) per unit of measure than the state average; in this example it would be to reconstruct or maintain a kilometre of road. Accordingly, the methodology allows for a cost relativity index (CRI), to be determined for each expenditure function for each council. Indices are centred around 1.0, and are used to inflate or deflate the component grant for each council. In the case of roads, CRIs measure relative costs of factors such as material haulage, soil type, rainfall and drainage. To overcome fluctuations in the base data, inputs into the expenditure assessments (with the exception of the newly revised road lengths) are averaged over three years. Table B.14 details the approach taken to expenditure functions included in the methodology and Table B.15 shows the expenditure functions, standard cost, units of measure and aggregate units of measure. Table B.14: Expenditure functions, standard cost and units of measure South Australia Expenditure function Standard cost Units of measure Subsidised services public buses Set at 1.00 Derived from the level of state subsidy received by each council a Subsidised services animal and plant control Set at 1.00 Derived from the level of council contributions to Animal and Plant Control Boards b Waste management Reported expenditures c Number of residential properties Aged care services Reported expenditures c Population aged 65+ per ABS census and estimated resident population Services to families and children Reported expenditures c Population aged 0 4 yrs per ABS census and estimated resident population 128

139 Expenditure function Standard cost Units of measure Health inspection Reported expenditures c Establishments to inspect Subsidised services libraries Set at 1.00 Derived from the level of state grant received by each council d Appendix B Sport, recreation and culture active Reported expenditures c Population aged 5 24 years per ABS census and estimated resident population Sealed roads built-up h Reported expenditures c Kilometres of built-up sealed road as reported in general information return (GIR) Sealed roads non-built-up h Reported expenditures c Kilometres of non-built-up sealed road as reported in GIR Unsealed roads built-up h Reported expenditures c Kilometres of built-up unsealed road as reported in GIR Unsealed roads non-built-up h Reported expenditures c Kilometres of non-built-up unsealed road as reported in GIR Unformed roads h Reported expenditures c Kilometres of unformed road as reported in GIR Stormwater construction e,f Reported expenditures c Number of urban properties g Stormwater maintenance e,f Reported expenditures c Number of urban properties g Emergency services Reported expenditures c Total number of properties Planning and building control Reported expenditures c Number of new developments and additions Other needs assessment j Set at 1.00 Based on commission-determined relative expenditure needs in a number of areas i Notes: a The unit of measure or standardised expense is derived as the product of the council subsidy for each council and the average ratio of council expenditures (net of revenue) to state subsidies, for all councils having subsidised bus services. b The unit of measure or standardised expense is taken as each council s contribution to the operation of animal and plant control boards. c Councils expenditures reported on the commission s supplementary returns. d The unit of measure or standardised expense is derived as the product of the council grant for each council and the average ratio of council expenditures (net of revenue) to state grants, for all councils. e Includes both construction and maintenance activities. f The commission has also decided, for these functions, to use CRIs based on the results of a previous consultancy by BC Tonkin and Associates. g Urban properties equal the sum of residential properties, commercial properties, industrial properties, exempt residential properties, exempt commercial properties, and exempt industrial properties. h The commission has, for these functions, used CRIs based on the results of a consultancy led by Emcorp and Associates, in association with PPK Environment and Infrastructure. Tonkin Consulting has since refined the results. i Comprises commission-determined relative expenditure needs with respect to: non-resident use/tourism/regional centre assessed to be high, medium or low duplication of facilities identified by the number of urban centres and localities (as determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics) isolation measured as distance from the GPO to the main service centre for the council (as determined by the Royal Automobile Association) additional recognition of needs of councils with respect to Aboriginal people identified by the proportion of the population identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander unemployment identified by the proportion of the population unemployed capital city status gives recognition to such things as the ability of the council to raise revenue from sources other than rates (that is, car parking and from the Wingfield dump), and their extraordinary expenditure need (that is, due to the requirement that they maintain the entire road network within the city given the daily influx of non-resident population). j This final factor (also known as Function 50) originates from an awareness by the commission that there are many nonquantifiable factors, which may influence a council s expenditure, and that it is not always possible to determine objectively the extent to which a council s expenditure is affected by these inherent or special factors. Therefore, in determining units of measure and cost relativity indices, the commission must exercise its judgement based on experience, the evidence submitted to the commission, and the knowledge gained by the commission during visits to council areas and as a result of discussions with elected members and staff. Source: South Australia Local Government Grants Commission 129

140 Local Government National Report Table B.15: Expenditure functions, standard cost, units of measure and aggregate units of measure South Australia a Function Expenditure functions Standard in dollars Unit of measure per capita Total units of measure Unit of measure Subsidised services public buses Standardised expense Subsidised services animal and plant control Expenditure from Animal and Plant Control Board Garbage Number of residential properties Aged care services Population aged more than 65 Services to families and children Population aged 0 to 4 years Health inspection Establishments to inspect Subsidised services libraries Standardised expense Sport, recreation and culture Population aged 5 to 24 years Sealed roads built-up Kilometres of sealed built-up road Sealed roads non-built-up Kilometres of sealed non-builtup road Unsealed roads built-up Kilometres of formed and surfaced and natural surfaced formed built-up road Unsealed roads non-built-up Kilometres of formed and surfaced and natural surfaced formed non-built-up road Roads unformed Kilometres of natural surfaced unformed road Stormwater drainage construction Number of urban, industrial and commercial properties including exempt Stormwater drainage maintenance Number of urban, industrial and commercial properties including exempt Emergency services Total number of properties Planning and building control Number of new developments and additions Revenue functions Rates residential Valuation of residential Rates commercial Valuation of commercial Rates industrial Valuation of commercial Rates rural Valuation of rural Rates other Valuation of other Subsidies Total of subsidies Note: a Total population = Source: South Australia Local Government Grants Commission 130

141 Calculated standards by function The commission uses Table B.15 to enable it to calculate a council s raw grant for each given function. Each individual council s unit of measure per capita is calculated and compared with the similar figure from the table, with the difference multiplied by the standard from the table and the council s population. If CRIs are applicable they must be included as a multiplier against the council s unit of measure per capita. This process only allows calculation of the raw grant for the individual function, not the estimated grant. Calculation of the estimated grant is not possible as per capita minimums need to be applied and the total allocation apportioned to the remaining councils. Appendix B Aggregated revenue and expenditure grants Component grants for all revenue categories and expenditure functions, calculated for each council using the method outlined above, are aggregated to give each council s total raw grant figure. Where the raw grant calculation per head of population for a council is less than the per capita minimum established as set out in the Act ($16.65 for ), the grant is adjusted to bring it up to the per capita minimum entitlement. The balance of the allocated amount, less allocations to local governing bodies outside the incorporated areas, is then apportioned to the remaining councils based on their calculated proportion of the raw grant. Commission-determined limits may then be applied to minimise the impact on council s budgetary processes. In calculating the grants, the commission permitted changes to range from minus 9 per cent to plus 19 per cent. An iterative process was then undertaken until the full allocation was determined. Identified local road grant In South Australia, the identified local road grants pool is divided into formula grants 85 per cent and special local road grants 15 per cent. The formula component is divided between metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils on the basis of an equal weighting of road length and population. In metropolitan areas, an equal weighting of population and road length determines allocations to individual councils. In non-metropolitan areas, allocations are made on an equal weighting of population, road length, and area of council. Distribution of the special local road grants is based on recommendations from the Local Government Transport Advisory Panel. This panel is responsible for assessing submissions from regional associations on local road projects of regional significance. Outback Areas Community Development Trust The Outback Areas Community Development Trust is prescribed as a local governing body for the purposes of the commission s recommendations. The trust was established in May 1978 under legislation of the South Australian Parliament. It has a broad responsibility for community development activities in the outback areas of the state and with particular emphasis on those functions that are at present normally undertaken by local councils elsewhere in the state. 131

142 Local Government National Report Due to the lack of comparable data, the commission is not able to calculate the grant to the trust in the same manner as grants to other local governing bodies. Rather, a per capita grant has been established. The the per capita grant was $ Aboriginal communities Since the commission has allocated grants to five Aboriginal communities recognised as local governing authorities for the purposes of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act The communities are Anangu Pitjantjatjara, Gerard Community Council Inc., Maralinga Tjarutja, Nepabunna Community Council Inc., and Yalata Community Council Inc. Again due to unavailability of data, grants for these communities are not calculated in the same manner as grants to other local governing bodies. The commission used the services of Alan Morton, of Morton Consulting Services, to undertake a study on the expenditure needs of the communities and their revenue-raising capacities (Morton 1994). Comparisons were made with communities in other states and per capita grants were established. For the per capita grant varied from $ for Nepabunna to $ for Maralinga Tjarutja. The commission initiated a study in , into the level of funding the communities receive, with a view to better understanding their funding needs and the potential funding gaps. Unfortunately the study did not provide the commission with the level of understanding it anticipated and more work needs to be undertaken. Discussions will be held with the communities about the level of funding they receive, the purpose of the funding and the accountability requirements when the commission meets with the communities, as part of the triennial visiting program. Tasmania General purpose component The Tasmanian Grants Commission introduced a revised equalisation model for assessing general-purpose grants. Introduction of the revised model distribution is to be phased-in over four years against the most recent distribution determined by the previous model, which was in For , the general-purpose distribution was determined on the basis of a 75 per cent weighting of the distribution, plus a 25 per cent weighting of the revised distribution. Revision of the commission s equalisation model followed the Commonwealth Grants Commission review of the operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995, the report from which was released in July Particular recommendations from that report formed the basis for key revisions to the equalisation model, including: increased scope of revenue assessment inclusion of depreciation in expenditure assessments introduction of cost adjustors centred on 1.0 introduction of a budget result term. These revisions were introduced following a three-year consultation process with councils, and the revisions were generally supported as a result of that process. The commission s equalisation model is based on the balanced budget approach. That is, each council s grant entitlement is derived from the difference between the council s expenditure 132

143 requirement necessary to provide services to a common standard with all other councils, and the council s revenue capacity based on the statewide average rate per dollar. Each council s expenditure requirement is calculated as follows: the expenditure required to provide a common range of services, given that council s unique cost conditions (standardised expenditure), plus any allowances made in respect of the cost of providing services which are not adequately captured as standardised expenditure, plus the Budget Result Term, which is a per capita allocation of the difference between all statewide sources of revenue, including the grant pool, and all statewide revenue requirements. The inclusion of the Budget Result Term enables a balanced budget at the state level. Appendix B Each council s revenue capacity is calculated as follows: the revenue the council could raise by applying a standard or average rate per dollar of assessed annual values to all rateable property in its area (standardised revenue), plus Specific Purpose Payments that have not been deducted from expenditures in the process of calculating standardised expenditure. Specific Purpose Payments are treated by either the inclusion or deduction approach. The inclusion approach recognises funds councils receive as contributing to normal expenditure for the purpose of calculating expenditure standards. They are treated as a source of revenue and are applied to reduce a municipal area s standardised deficit. Using the deduction approach, funds are excluded from expenditure and revenue data prior to determination of expenditure standards. The deduction approach is employed where: a council is effectively acting as an agent of the state or Australian governments and the Specific Purpose Payment is a reimbursement of costs incurred, or grants for a particular service are received by only a relatively small number of councils to provide a service that is beyond the scope of ordinary local government activity, and the service is generally provided only where grants are received. Equalisation therefore occurs on the basis of net expenditures where this particular approach to the treatment of Specific Purpose Payments is adopted. No matter how sophisticated the commission s methodology might become, there is always the need for the commission to exercise broad judgement as it considers the issues that confront it each year as it assesses grants. A full explanation of the operation of the model follows. Calculation of standardised revenue A council s standardised revenue is determined by multiplying the rateable assessed annual value (AAV) of properties in the municipal area by the average rate in the dollar charged across the state. The commission uses AAV data and adjustment factors supplied by the Valuer-General s Office, and rate revenue information (including exempt AAV information) obtained from the consolidated data collection undertaken by the Local Government Division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. An adjustment is made to account for the value of properties that are partially exempt from rates, that is, liable for service charges only. 133

144 Local Government National Report The rateable AAV for each council is determined and then adjusted using the Valuer-General s adjustment factors so that all figures are expressed in terms of a common valuation year. Additional adjustment factors are applied to adjust valuations made under the revised definition of AAV in section 3 of the Valuation of Land Act 2001, to include the taxation component now excluded from land values. The Valuer-General has undertaken to provide such grossing adjustment factors to the commission each year until all councils have been revalued according to the new definition. Total rate revenue raised by all councils is divided by the adjusted rateable AAV for all councils to yield a state average rate in the dollar. Standardised revenue for each council is then the product of its adjusted rateable AAV and the state average rate levied per dollar of AAV. The final standardised revenue for each council used in the base grant assessments is the relevant three-year averaged standardised revenue. Calculation of standardised expenditure In general, the cost of providing council services varies depending upon the number of residents. Therefore, to determine the standard expenditure needed to provide a service, the commission multiplies the state average expenditure per person by the number of residents in each municipal area. Many councils face a range of unavoidable cost and demand pressures in providing services. This means they cannot provide a service at the standard level of expenditure. The commission recognises this disability by applying council-specific cost adjustors, which represent these unavoidable cost pressures, to standard expenditure to determine the standardised expenditure for each council. This method of estimating standardised expenditure is applied to all expenditure categories except the road category. An explanation of the types of expenditure that comprise each non-road expenditure function is set out in Table B.16. Table B.16: Description of non-road expenditure functions Tasmania Expenditure function General administration Health, housing and welfare Waste management and the environment Planning and community amenities Recreation and culture Water Sewerage Law, order and public safety Other Source: Tasmanian State Grants Commission Explanation of expenditure function Legislative, executive, financial and fiscal affairs relating to general purposes only, that is, not solely related to any one of the purposes listed below Services for the aged, community health services, health inspections; family and child welfare; housing services Household and other garbage services, urban stormwater drainage, street cleaning, flood mitigation and other protection of the environment Planning and building services, street lighting, public conveniences, shopping malls, cemeteries and crematoria Public halls and civic centres, swimming pools, parks and playing grounds, sports assistance and promotion; libraries and other cultural services Provision of water services Provision of sewerage services Fire protection, support of the State Emergency Service, animal control and other public order and control Expenditure on items not elsewhere classified; includes saleyards and markets, tourism and area promotion, aerodrome operations, communications, and natural disaster relief 134

145 Application of council-specific cost adjustors Cost adjustors are used to reflect unavoidable relative cost disadvantages councils face in providing services. A range of adjustors have been developed to account for differences between councils in the demand for a service as well as variations in the unit cost of supplying that service. An adjustor is calculated for each municipal area by comparing its demand or supply disadvantage with the state average. Councils that demonstrate the average level of advantage or disadvantage for each expenditure category are assigned a cost adjustor of 1.0. All other councils are compared to the average councils to determine their relative cost adjustors, which are always less than 1.0 if the council is assessed as enjoying a cost advantage, and greater than 1.0 if the council is assessed as suffering a cost disadvantage. The commission recognises 13 cost adjustors and has adopted a method to quantify them. The cost adjustors are absentee population, climate, day-tripper tourism, dispersion, equivalent tenements (water), equivalent tenements (sewerage), isolation, population decline, regional responsibility, scale (administration), scale (other), unemployment, and worker influx. Application of cost adjustors to each expenditure standard is shown in the Table B.17. Appendix B Table B.17: Application of cost adjustors to expenditure standards Tasmania Expenditure category Cost adjustors General administration Absentee population, isolation Population decline, scale (administration) Education, health housing and welfare Population decline Unemployment Waste management and the environment Planning and community amenities Recreation and culture Water Sewerage Absentee population, climate, dispersion Absentee population climate, dispersion, isolation Absentee population, climate, dispersion, isolation Absentee population, climate, dispersion, equivalent tenements (water) Absentee population, climate, dispersion, equivalent tenements (sewerage) Population decline, scale (other), day-tripper tourism, worker influx Population decline scale (other), day-tripper tourism, worker influx Population decline, regional responsibility, scale (other), day-tripper tourism, worker influx Isolation, population decline, scale (other) Isolation, population decline, scale (other) Law order and public safety Dispersion, population decline Day-tripper tourism, unemployment Other No cost adjustors applied to other expenditure Source: Tasmanian State Grants Commission An outline of the approach the commission has developed to quantify each cost adjustor follows. Absentee population The commission makes allowance for the additional population not captured in census statistics but which nevertheless must be serviced. Specific reference is made here to those municipal areas that have a significant number of holiday residences. 135

146 Local Government National Report Calculation of this cost adjustor is based on the proportion of unoccupied dwellings in each municipal area at the time of the 2001 Census. The commission has continued to make an adjustment to raw data determining the absentee population cost adjustor. For example, in the assessments, to recognise the situation the West Coast Council faces, where mine workers live outside the municipal area between shifts, it was accepted that existing unoccupied dwelling statistics do not adequately reflect this phenomenon. Climate This cost adjustor is aimed at recognising additional costs arising from climate, such as excessive downtime of outdoor work due to rain, as well as increased maintenance costs on council infrastructure as a result of adverse weather. Calculation of the climate cost adjustor is based on the total annual rainfall in each municipal area s administrative centre, as indicated by Bureau of Meteorology data. Dispersion The dispersion cost adjustor relates to the additional costs incurred in servicing a widely scattered population within a municipal area. The commission recognises that associated costs arise from the need to both duplicate services and incur greater travelling and communication costs than would otherwise be the case. The cost adjustor is determined by a weighted average of the number of population centres in each municipal area, the population-weighted distance between those centres and the municipal area s administrative centre, and the dwelling-weighted distance between those centres and the municipal area s administrative centre. Equivalent tenements The use of population to estimate standard water and sewerage expenditure does not recognise expenditures incurred in providing water and sewerage services to non-residential establishments. The commission, therefore, developed the equivalent tenements cost adjustor to recognise the cost of providing these services to commercial properties. This has been done by dividing the total value of serviced commercial properties by the modal residential assessed annual value in each water and sewerage district to determine the number of residential equivalent tenements. Isolation This cost adjustor recognises the increased costs that arise from geographical isolation. Such costs are associated with attracting staff to remote areas, communicating with relevant bodies, travelling, and supply of necessary construction and maintenance materials. The isolation cost adjustor is calculated according to a weighted sum of distances between each municipal area s main centre and the relevant regional centre (Burnie, Launceston or Hobart, as the case may be) and Hobart, being the main focus for administrative and political activities within the state. Population decline The commission recognises that a local governing body faces certain disadvantages as a result of fluctuations in population levels. Managing such fluctuations typically requires planning horizons of several years or more. As a consequence, councils are often faced with excess capacity in certain 136

147 service areas when faced with rapid population decline. This is believed to confront councils with added expenditure burdens. The commission determines cost adjustors for population decline by comparing the average annual rate of population decline for a particular municipal area over a five-year period, against the average rate of population decline for all councils experiencing a decline over that five-year period. Appendix B Regional responsibility The commission applies a cost adjustor to the relevant expenditures of those municipal areas that provide particular services for the residents of surrounding municipal areas. This cost adjustor applies where it is estimated that there is no counterbalancing use of services in surrounding municipal areas by residents of the regional centre, or any offsetting cash contribution for the use of those facilities. The commission recognises that certain towns and cities throughout the state act as regional focal points for provision of some services. The expenditure categories to which this disability is applied are general administration, planning and community amenities and recreation and culture. The scarcity of local government level data relating to consumption of council services by non-residents requires the commission to exercise broad judgement in its assessment of regional responsibility. Scale The scale cost adjustor accounts for the diseconomies of small scale that councils face in providing some services. Diseconomies occur where the cost per person of a certain activity is greater for councils with a small population than for those with larger ones. For example, each council requires a general manager whether the municipal population is 1000 or The cost per person of the general manager is therefore much greater for smaller councils than for larger ones. Different expenditure categories show varying degrees of diseconomy, so two scale cost adjustors have been developed scale administration, which relates only to general administration expenditure, and scale other, which is applied to some non-general administration expenditure. Day-tripper tourism The commission recognises that councils generally incur additional costs as a result of tourist influx through increased use of council resources and infrastructure. In particular, significant numbers of day-trippers who make use of council facilities are recognised as increasing council costs. Data on the number of day-trippers visiting each municipal area are sourced from Tourism Research Australia, and form the basis for the calculation of this cost adjustor. Unemployment The commission, using data on unemployment rates and labour force numbers from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, has calculated a cost adjustor reflecting the level of unemployment within a municipal area. This cost adjustor has been calculated to capture the costs to councils of having a higher than average proportion of unemployed working-age residents. For example, additional expenditure might be incurred in providing recreation/leisure facilities or welfare programs as a result of the need to cater for unemployed residents. 137

148 Local Government National Report Worker influx This cost adjustor reflects the additional costs imposed on those municipal areas that have significant daily net influxes of non-resident workers. The commission believes this effect is likely to have an impact that is in excess of the more general effect of regional responsibility. Consideration is given for potential worker influx for the major population centres in the state. Municipal areas outside these main centres are unlikely to have sufficient commercial or industrial development relative to their surrounding regions to cause any net influx of non-resident workers that impose a significant cost on the municipal area. Determination of this cost adjustor involves estimating, from 2001 Census data, both the number of residents working outside the municipal area and the number of non-residents working within the municipal area. The difference, or the net worker inflow, is then used to derive a cost adjustor in relation to actual total population. Calculation of standardised road expenditure The commission uses a modified version of the Mulholland asset preservation model to assess standardised road expenditure, based on each council s road assets. No adjustments were made to the model for the purpose of the assessments. The fundamental basis of the Mulholland asset preservation model is that, in statistical terms, a kilometre of road has an expected life, assuming it is appropriately constructed and maintained. At the end of this period, it will require reconstruction followed by a new cycle of maintenance and rehabilitation in order to preserve it at an acceptable standard. The expected life, or durability, of a kilometre of road maintenance work will clearly differ depending upon both the type of maintenance activity (sealing, regrading) and the type of road (urban sealed, urban unsealed, rural sealed, rural unsealed) involved. Similar arguments hold with respect to both road rehabilitation and road reconstruction work. Performance standards specify, for each road type, the length of road requiring reconstruction, regrading or re-sealing each year in order to preserve the existing road asset. For example, if the seal on a nine kilometre stretch of road has an expected life of 30 years, then, on average, 300 metres will need to be sealed each year to maintain the road at the current standard. In this case, the performance standard is approximately 0.03, or 3 per cent. Average costs per kilometre for each road type and activity combination have been derived from published unit price estimates for the same undertakings. For any given council, specific cost relativities may increase or decrease the average cost of undertaking a given activity. The model recognises climate, drainage, material, soil, terrain, and traffic cost adjustors in road rehabilitation and reconstruction; and climate, material, terrain and traffic cost adjustors in road maintenance. The need for different sub-base depths (reconstruction only) is incorporated within the workings of the model. The model also recognises a remoteness cost adjustor and an urbanisation factor for all activities. This latter allowance recognises the additional costs councils required to undertake road works in heavily urbanised environments incur and is incorporated in the model by augmenting the length of urban sealed roads used in the calculations. The model also makes an allowance for additional bridge-related maintenance, by converting bridge areas to equivalent road lengths (which involves multiplication by 10 to recognise the greater cost per 138

149 equivalent area) and adding these lengths to the road lengths used in the model. The commission undertook a comprehensive audit of all councils bridge deck area estimates for to ensure these estimates fully comply with the definition of bridges the commission issued for this purpose. Appendix B In assessing road expenditure needs for a given council, performance standards are applied to each category of road (urban sealed, urban unsealed, rural sealed, rural unsealed) to determine the length of road to be maintained, rehabilitated and reconstructed in that year in order to preserve the existing road structure. The relevant cost adjustors and costs per kilometre are then applied to each of these figures and the whole is summed to yield standardised road expenditure for that council. Local road component To accord with the National Principles and ensure the grant distribution reflects the particular needs of Tasmanian councils the road grants are distributed as follows: Road preservation component: 66.5 per cent of funds based on the relative road expenditure needs of each council as determined using the Mulholland asset preservation model Bridge expenditure component: 28.5 per cent of funds based on relative bridge deck areas (including all concrete and wooden bridges, and box culverts over three metres total span) Special needs component: 5 per cent of funds allocated to councils with an above average proportion of rural unsealed roads, based on rural unsealed road lengths. Northern Territory The Northern Territory Grants Commission s methodology complies with the requirement for horizontal equalisation as set out in section 6(3) of the Australian Government s Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act General purpose component The commission, in assessing relative need for allocating general purpose funding, uses the balanced budget approach to horizontal equalisation based on the formula: assessed equalisation requirement = assessed expenditure need assessed revenue capacity The methodology calculates standards by applying cost adjustors and weightings to assess each local government s revenue-raising capacity and expenditure need. The assessment is the commission s measure of each local government s ability to function at the average standard in accordance with the National Principles. The methodology needs to take into account increases as well as decreases, where they occur, in population on an annual basis. In order to allow for the transient nature of Indigenous people, the commission adopts a three-year average of its calculated core community populations for this purpose. Changes to the methodology In 2005, the commission corrected a number of inconsistencies in its methodology that the Commonwealth Grants Commission had previously identified. These corrections included the manner in which the cost adjustors were applied, introduction of a budget term and elimination of an economyof-scale factor. 139

150 Local Government National Report As well as the foregoing revisions, an improved data gathering process first introduced in 2004 for collection of financial data enabled the commission to use real financial information in the assessments. Population The commission has where possible used the latest ABS estimated residential population figures. Where no such figures are available, the commission uses figures obtained from local government by annual survey. Revenue-raising capacity As the ownership of the land on which many communities are located is vested in Land Trusts established pursuant to the Commonwealth Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, it is not, for all intents and purposes, feasible to use a land valuation system solely as the means for assessing revenue-raising capacity. Having actual accurate financial data enabled the commission to dispense with using average annual incomes, which had been used since 1992, for establishing a Northern Territory average revenue unit. Instead, a number of revenue categories were introduced including rates where applicable, as well as domestic waste, poll tax and interest. In addition, to accord with the National Principles, other grant support to local governing bodies by way of the Northern Territory operational subsidy, Roads to Recovery, library and local roads grants are considered in the methodology. In the case of recipients of the Northern Territory operational subsidy and the Roads to Recovery grants, 50 per cent of the grant is included. Recipients of library grants and local roads grants have the total amount of the grant included. The commission considers that given the unique circumstances within the Northern Territory, this approach provides a reasonable indication of a council s revenue-raising capacity. Expenditure needs and disability factors The assessment of standard expenditure is based on the territory s average per capita expenditure within the expenditure categories to which cost adjustors, reflecting the assessed disadvantage of each local government, is applied. As a result of the availability of actual accurate financial data, the commission, beginning with the assessment, was able to use actual expenditure within categories rather than an hypothetical spread across categories, to establish the total standardised expenditure for each local governing body. In assessing allocations the commission took into account six expenditure categories amenity, general administration, human services, libraries, recreation and transport. Cost adjustors The commission uses cost adjustors to reflect a local governing body s demographics, geographical location, its external access and the area over which it is required to provide local government services. All of these influence the cost of service delivery. 140

151 As a result of the methodology review, the commission, effective from the assessments, changed the manner in which the cost adjustors were applied. Expenditure assessments have as an outcome total standardised expenditure equal to total actual expenditure, or natural weighting. Natural weighting is achieved in the commission s methodology by rescaling cost adjustors around 1.0 to ensure that total calculated standardised expenditure does not exceed the total actual expenditure. Appendix B Averaging of equalisation requirement Commencing with the allocations the commission adopted an averaging approach in order to finalise the yearly assessed equalisation requirement of local governing bodies. This approach requires that grants be based on a three-year average of the preliminary assessed equalisation requirement. To arrive at the average, the assessments of need for the year under consideration plus the assessments for each of the preceding four years are used. The highest and the lowest of the five assessments are then dropped out of the average. Minimum grants For most local governing bodies, the assessed expenditure needs exceed the assessed revenue capacity meaning there is an assessed need. In one particular case, assessed revenue capacity is greater than assessed expenditure need meaning there is no assessed need. However, as the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 requires that local governing bodies cannot receive less than 30 per cent of what they would have been allocated had the funding been distributed solely on the basis of population, this local governing body receives the minimum grant. The changes to the methodology (mentioned above) mean the largest of the municipal councils and around 18 of the very small councils will potentially be minimum grant councils in the future. Formulae Revenue component For all councils: assessed revenue-raising capacity = total identified local government revenue total local government revenue = assessed Northern Territory average revenue + other grant support + budget term where: Revenue category = domestic waste, garbage, general rates, poll tax, general rates other, special rates parking, special rates other, fines and interest Domestic waste = per capita Garbage other = actual General rates = average rate Poll tax = per capita Interest = actual State income by revenue category = actual state local government gross income 141

152 Local Government National Report Actual state local government gross income = $ Other grant support = Northern Territory operational subsidy per cent, Roads to Recovery grant per cent, library grant roads grant Budget term = population x per capita amount $ = total local government revenue Expenditure components Total local government expenditure of $ is apportioned over each expenditure component. General public services ($ ) Community population/territory population x NT general public services expenditure x (isolation administration + dispersion + Aboriginality) Public order and safety ($ ) Community population/territory population x public order and safety expenditure x (isolation works + dispersion + Aboriginality + growth) Economic affairs ($ ) Community population/territory population x economic affairs expenditure x (isolation works + dispersion + growth) Environmental protection ($ ) Community population/territory population x environmental protection expenditure x (isolation works + dispersion + growth) Housing and community amenities ($ ) Community population/territory population x housing and community amenities expenditure x (isolation works + dispersion + Aboriginality + growth) Health ($ ) Community population/territory population x health expenditure x (isolation administration + Aboriginality + growth) Recreation, culture and religion ($ ) Community population/territory population x recreation, culture and religion expenditure x (isolation administration + isolation works + growth) Education ($ ) Community population/territory population x education expenditure x (isolation administration + Aboriginality + growth) Social protection ($ ) Community population/territory population x social protection expenditure x (isolation administration + Aboriginality + growth) 142

153 Local road component To determine the local road grant the commission applies a weighting to each council by road length and surface type. These weightings are: kerbed and sealed road 10 sealed road 8 gravel road 4 formed road 1 unformed road 0.4 cycle paths 2 Appendix B Australian Capital Territory The Australian Capital Territory requires no distribution of grants because the Territory Government directly exercises local government functions. 143

154 Local Government National Report Appendix C Comparison of local government grants commission distribution models Local government grants commissions use distribution models to determine the grant allocations to councils. There is one model for allocating the local road component among councils and a separate model for allocating the general purpose component. This appendix provides a comparison of the approaches the commissions used in Local road component The National Principles (see Appendix A) require commissions to allocate local road grants so that, as far as practicable, the grants are allocated to councils: on the basis of the relative needs of each council for roads expenditure and to preserve its road assets. In assessing road needs, relevant considerations include length, type and usage of roads in each council area. For the local road needs assessment, grants commissions use two main approaches. The commissions in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory use relatively simple models to allocate the local road grant, using such factors as population of the council and the road length it maintains. These approaches appear to have been based on arrangements that were in place before when grants were paid to councils as tied grants. The commissions in Victoria and Western Australia use asset preservation models to allocate local road grants. The asset preservation model attempts to measure the annual cost of maintaining a council s road network. It takes into account recurrent maintenance costs, and the cost of reconstruction at the end of the road s useful life. It can also take other factors into account such as: the costs associated with different types of roads (sealed, gravel and formed roads) the impact of weather, soil types and materials availability on costs the impact of traffic volume on the cost of maintaining these roads. The Tasmanian Commission uses a combination of these approaches. It allocates 66.5 per cent on the basis of an asset preservation model, 28.5 per cent based on bridge deck area and 5 per cent based on the length of unsealed roads. 144

155 The Western Australian and South Australian commissions allocate a proportion 7 per cent and 15 per cent, respectively of the local road grants between councils with the aim of funding priority local road projects in their state. Expert committees advise the commissions on the projects to be funded. Appendix C Table C.1 summarises the main features of the models the commissions used for allocating local road grants in Table C.1: Features of local government grants commission models for assessing local road need, State NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Features of the distribution model Councils in the Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong metropolitan areas receive 27.54% of the road grant pool with 38% of this portion allocated on the basis of population, 57% on the basis of road length and 5% on the basis of bridge length. The remaining 72.46% is allocated to councils outside the above metropolitan areas, with 18.6% of the remaining portion allocated on the basis of population, 74.4% on the basis of road length and 7% on the basis of bridge length. Allocation is based on an asset preservation model. Allocation of 62.85% of the road grant pool is made on the basis of road length and 37.15% on the basis of population. Allocation of 93% of the road grant pool is based on an asset preservation model. The remaining 7% is allocated for special projects with two-thirds of this portion for bridges and one-third for access roads serving remote Indigenous communities. Allocation of 85% of the road grant pool is split between metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils based on population and road length. Allocations for metropolitan councils are based on an equal weighting of population and road length while allocations for non-metropolitan councils are based on an equal weighting of population, road length and council area. The remaining 15% of the pool is set aside for special projects. Allocation of 66.5% of the road grant pool is based on an asset preservation model, with 28.5% of the pool allocated on the basis of bridge deck area and 5% to councils with an above average proportion of unsealed rural roads based on rural unsealed road length. Allocation is based on cost weights applied to road lengths for road types. The minimum allocation for a council is $ Source: Information provided by local government grants commissions General purpose component In allocating the general purpose component between councils in a jurisdiction, the commissions are to comply with the National Principles. These Principles require commissions to satisfy two principal objectives. These objectives are: to allocate the general purpose grant pool between councils on a horizontal equalisation basis to ensure that, when allocating the general purpose grant pool between councils, all councils receive at least the minimum grant. 145

156 Local Government National Report With the funds provided, both objectives cannot be achieved simultaneously in most jurisdictions. In practice commissions determine an allocation that ensures all councils receive at least the minimum grant with the remaining grants allocated, as far as practicable, on a horizontal equalisation basis. This method usually results in commissions adopting a three-step procedure to determine general purpose grant allocations. Step 1 Commissions determine an allocation of the general purpose grant between councils on a horizontal equalisation basis. Step 2 All councils receive at least the minimum grant. In most jurisdictions, in order for all councils to receive at least the minimum grant, grants to some councils have to be increased relative to their horizontal equalisation grant. Step 3 If grants to some councils are increased in Step 2, grants to other councils must decrease relative to their horizontal equalisation grant. This is achieved by a process called factoring back. Steps 2 and 3 of this procedure are repeated until all councils receive at least the minimum grant and the general purpose grant pool for the jurisdiction has been completely allocated. The approaches commissions use for Steps 1 and 3 are outlined below. Allocating on a horizontal equalisation basis The horizontal equalisation National Principle for allocating the general purpose grant is: General purpose grants will be allocated to local governing bodies, as far as practicable, on a full horizontal equalisation basis as defined by the Act. This is a basis that ensures each local governing body in the State or Territory is able to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not lower than the average standard of other local governing bodies in the State or Territory. It takes account of differences in the expenditure required by those local governing bodies in the performance of their functions and in the capacity of those local governing bodies to raise revenue. The average standard is a financial standard. It is based on the expenditure undertaken and revenue obtained by all councils in the jurisdiction. If a council were operating at the average standard then, under a horizontal equalisation approach, it would receive a per capita share of general purpose grants. If a council is disadvantaged, it means it needs more assistance per capita than a council operating at the average standard. Conversely, if a council is advantaged, it needs less per capita than a council operating at the average standard. When determining grant allocations on a horizontal equalisation basis, commissions use one of two distribution models: Balanced budget based on the approach of assessing the overall level of disadvantage for a council using a notional budget for the council. Direct assessment based on the approach of assessing the level of disadvantage for a council in each area of expenditure and revenue. Table C.2 shows the differences in the distribution models commissions use. 146

157 Table C.2: Differences in the distribution models grants commissions use for the general purpose component for allocations State NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Model used Direct assessment model Balanced budget model Assistance for natural disaster relief taken out of the pool Separate assessment for Docklands Authority Balanced budget model Balanced budget model Direct assessment model Separate assessment for the Outback Areas Community Development Trust and five Indigenous communities Balanced budget model Balanced budget model Appendix C Source: Table 11 1 in Commonwealth Grants Commission Working Papers updated for subsequent changes with information provided by local government grants commissions Balanced budget model The commissions in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory use the balanced budget approach. Their models are based on making an assessment of each council s costs of providing services and its capacity to raise revenue, including its capacity to obtain other grant assistance. Horizontal equalisation, as defined in the Act, is about identifying advantaged and disadvantaged councils and bringing all the disadvantaged councils up to the financial position of a council operating at the average standard. This means the task of the commissions is to calculate, for each disadvantaged council, the level of general purpose grants it requires to balance its assessed costs and assessed revenues. This type of distribution model can be specified as: general purpose grant equals assessed costs of providing services plus assessed average operating surplus/deficit less assessed revenue less actual receipt of other grant assistance Direct assessment model The commissions in New South Wales and South Australia use the direct assessment approach. Their models are based on making an assessment of the level of advantage or disadvantage in each area of expenditure and revenue and summing these assessments over all areas of expenditure and revenue for all councils. In each area of expenditure or revenue, an individual council s assessment is compared to the average council. The direct assessment model calculates an individual council s level of disadvantage or advantage for each area of expenditure and revenue, including for other grant assistance. 147

158 Local Government National Report Horizontal equalisation, as defined in the Act, is about identifying advantaged and disadvantaged councils and bringing all the disadvantaged councils up to the financial position of a council operating at the average standard. Thus, the task is to calculate the level of general purpose grants that would balance a disadvantaged council s assessed expenditures and assessed revenues. This type of distribution model can be specified as: general purpose grant equals an equal per capita share of general purpose grants plus expenditure needs plus revenue needs plus other grant assistance needs The balanced budget and direct assessment models will produce identical assessments of financial capacity for each council if the assessed average operating surplus or deficit is included in the balanced budget model. Scope of equalisation The scope of equalisation is about the sources of revenue raised and the types of expenditure activities a commission includes when determining an allocation of the general purpose grants on a horizontal equalisation basis. Table C.3 shows the differences in the scope of equalisation of the commissions. Table C.3: The scope of equalisation of grants commission general purpose models Function NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Expenditure Administration Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Law, order and public safety Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Education, health and welfare Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Community amenities Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recreation and culture Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Transport: local roads Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes airports Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No public transport No No Yes No Yes Yes No other transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Building control Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Garbage No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Water No No No No No Yes No Sewerage No No No No No Yes No Electricity No No No No No No No Capital No No No No Yes No No Depreciation No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Debt servicing No Yes No No No Yes No 148

159 Function NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Entrepreneurial activity No No No No No Yes No Agency arrangements No Yes No No No Yes No Revenue Rate revenue Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Operation subsidies No No No No Yes Yes Yes Garbage charges No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Water charges No No No No No Yes No Sewerage charges No No No No No Yes No Airport charges No No Yes No No Yes No Parking fees and fines No No Yes No No No Yes Other user charges No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Appendix C Note: Functions for which a yes is provided above are not necessarily separately assessed by the relevant commission but may be included as part of another (assessed) function. For example, depreciation might be included as a cost under the category for which the relevant asset is provided. Similarly revenue functions might be included as reductions in the associated expenditure function. Source: Table 11-2 in the Commonwealth Grants Commission Working Papers and updated for subsequent changes with information provided by local government grants commissions Assessing local road expenditure needs for the general purpose model As part of the expenditure needs assessment for determining general purpose grants, commissions also assess each council s local road needs. Some commissions use the same methodology for the two assessments while others use different methodologies. The main features of the models commissions used for assessing local road needs when allocating general purpose grants in are discussed below. New South Wales uses a different model for assessing roads needs in the general purpose component of the model. New South Wales uses the categories of local roads, urban local roads, sealed rural local roads, and unsealed rural local roads. Disability factors for topography, climate, soils, materials, drainage, heavy traffic, travel, and development increase expenditure allowances for each council. It also assesses needs with reference to the length of each type of road per urban or rural property, as applicable, and with provision for bridge and culvert needs per kilometre of roads. The average spending on maintaining urban roads per kilometre is more than double rural sealed roads, which, in turn, is more than double the average spending on rural unsealed roads. Victoria uses a similar method for the expenditure assessment for local roads for the general purpose component. Under this method, standard costs are derived for each of three expenditure categories: sealed roads, formed and surfaced roads, and natural surfaced roads. These standard costs are applied to the length of local roads in each municipality and then multiplied by a series of cost adjusters to reflect location (metropolitan, regional centres, rural agricultural, etc.), soil, traffic loading, climate, drainage, materials, terrain and wet days. The data for all factors (apart from location) were based on councils own estimates. 149

160 Local Government National Report Queensland uses a different model for assessing roads needs in the general purpose model. The asset preservation model Queensland uses takes into account costs to maintain a council s road network, including bridges and hydraulics, in average condition. It takes into account traffic volume (including heavy vehicles), type of construction, and cost adjusters such as climate, soil, terrain and location. Western Australia uses the same asset preservation model for roads in distributing the general purpose component. The asset preservation model takes into account annual and recurrent maintenance costs and the costs of reconstruction at the end of the road s useful life. Roads are divided into two categories, urban and rural, because the former requires greater spending due to more traffic, more intersections and more kerbing and longitudinal drainage. The model takes the road surface into account (sealed, gravel, formed and unformed) and the contribution that bridges make to the cost of local roads. However, other expenditure needs that are transport-related, such as street lighting and aerodromes, are also taken into account. For the general purpose component, South Australia divides roads into five categories: sealed roads built-up sealed roads non-built-up unsealed roads built-up unsealed roads non-built-up unformed roads. Road lengths are the units of measure. Cost relativity indices have been developed for each road category, to determine why it costs one council more than another to reconstruct or maintain a kilometre of road. Factors such as soil, terrain, drainage and materials haulage are components of the index. Further work is to be undertaken on the cost relativity indices to reflect traffic volumes. Tasmania distributes the general purpose component according to the same Mulholland asset preservation model used to allocate part of the local road components. Performance standards define for each type of road the annual length needing reconstruction, rehabilitation or maintenance. Average costs per kilometre derived from cost data supplied by city and rural councils are used to introduce values into the estimates. Disability factors like climate, drainage, materials, soil, terrain and traffic may increase or decrease the average costs for each council. Roads expenditure assesses urban sealed, urban unsealed, rural sealed and rural unsealed roads as separate expenditure categories. The model also takes into account bridge maintenance, by converting the bridge length into an equivalent road length and multiplying by 10. For the general purpose component, the Northern Territory assesses road needs by weighted road lengths by surface type using the same weights as for the local road component. The weights used are: sealed, kerbed and guttered 10.0 sealed 8.0 gravel 4.0 cycle path 2.0 formed 1.0 unformed

161 Revenue assessments Sources of revenue for local government are rates, user charges and grants from the Australian and state and territory governments. The other grant support National Principle guides commissions, when they determine grant allocations, on the way they should treat grants that councils receive. Appendix C In the revenue assessment, New South Wales distinguishes between urban and non-urban land and applies statewide average rates in the dollar to unimproved capital values, averaged over three years, to estimate the relative revenue-raising capacity of each council. It then discounts the differences by about 64 per cent in recognition of the impact of the Sydney property values and to achieve some parity with expenditure assessments. For the assessment of rates revenue, Victoria in applied an average statewide rate in the dollar to capital improved values, averaged over two years, rather than the previous assessment of net annual values, averaged over three years. A new assessment of the relative capacity of councils to generate revenue from user fees and changes was also applied. Own-source revenue for family services, heritage, culture and recreation, and traffic management is taken into account indirectly in the assessment. These are included on the expenditure side of the method and are treated as negative expenditure functions. For rates, Queensland uses a two-part formula for determining rate revenue: 70 per cent based on an average rate in the dollar for residential, commercial/industrial and rural land use general categories; and 30 per cent on a minimum rate per rateable property ($397 for ). The result of these two parts is adjusted for a council s Index of Economic Resources, one of the Socio Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For a maximum cap of 12 per cent increase in the rating assessment from the previous year was applied. Aboriginal and Islander councils are assessed as having zero rating capacity as the land in their areas is not rateable. Fifty per cent of the Queensland Government Financial Aid Grant for Aboriginal and Islander councils is included as revenue as a surrogate for rate income. Fees and charges are apportioned on a per capita basis and garbage revenue is assigned per occupied urban property. Grants relevant to the expenditure categories are included as revenue according to the actual amounts each council received rather than a state average. For assessing rate revenue, Western Australia distinguishes urban properties, agricultural properties, pastoral properties and mining property and assesses capacity by different methods for each. The capacity of urban properties is estimated as the sum of two components: the product of gross rental values, averaged over three years, and a constant more or less like an average rate in the dollar the number of rateable assessments and a corresponding constant value per assessment. The agricultural rate capacity for each council is based on its improved capital value of agricultural land (averaged over three years), number of agricultural properties and area of agricultural land. Pastoral rate capacity is based on unimproved capital values averaged over three years. Mining rate capacity is estimated with reference to mining unimproved capital value and a per assessment component. Western Australia makes an assessment of revenue capacity for recreation and culture, and building control fees and charges. For revenues in other categories, revenues are netted out from expenditure. 151

162 Local Government National Report South Australia estimates a statewide average rate in the dollar and applies it to the difference between each council s improved capital value per capita and the state s improved capital value per capita for the five land use categories of residential, commercial, industrial, rural and other. All data are averaged over three years to reduce fluctuation. Tasmania applies a statewide average rate in the dollar to each council s value of rateable properties, averaged over three years. Its rate includes provision for water and sewerage. It makes a corresponding assessment of gross expenditure on water and sewerage. Much of the Northern Territory is unincorporated, with local government largely confined to the areas settled by Aboriginal communities, or a relatively few more densely settled municipalities. Land trusts own the land in the majority of Aboriginal communities and no possibility exists of determining distinct properties and values for the assessment of rate revenue-raising capacity. For this reason, statistics of personal income are used in estimating the revenue-raising capacity of some councils, while assessments of rate revenue are used where applicable. Councils that receive the Northern Territory operational subsidy have 50 per cent of their subsidy counted as revenue. In revenue categories of domestic waste and interest income were introduced in the Northern Territory. Expenditure assessments In addition to expenditure on roads, already outlined, local governments main expenditures are on general public services (including organisation and general and financial administration of councils), recreation facilities, and sanitation and protection of the environment (including disposal of sewerage, stormwater drainage and garbage). New South Wales assesses 21 categories of expenditure including three classes of road maintenance. It assesses more than 40 disability factors among the categories. It defines a standard expenditure based on average expenditures, excluding extreme values. Differential expenditure needs are equal to the standard per service unit (mostly population) multiplied by the average number of service units and the disability factors for the category. The disability factors estimate the extent to which the unavoidable cost per unit exceeds the state average (positive disabilities) or falls short of it (negative disabilities). In most cases, if the differential expenditure need per unit is assessed to be negative, zero is substituted, so generally no reductions are made to the standard assessments. Victoria assesses nine categories of expenditure. Expenditure includes all recurrent expenditure except for some business undertakings and work undertaken on behalf of and funded by VicRoads. With the exception of local roads and bridges, standardised expenditure in each category is calculated using the population served, the average cost across all Victorian councils of providing the service as well as local factors beyond the control of the councils that influence their costs (cost adjustors). For three expenditure categories, an adjusted population is used for some low population councils to recognise the fixed costs of providing certain functions such as governance. Queensland assesses eight categories of expenditure in addition to road needs. These do not include water and sewerage services. Expenditure in the categories of environmental protection and other transport are treated as effort positive, meaning that each council s actual expenditure is adopted as its assessed expenditure need because of the difficulty of determining reliable models for estimating 152

163 these expenditure needs. In addition, nine cost adjusters (disability factors) are applied, including for Indigenous descent where an additional 50 per cent per person in each category is allowed. Western Australia assesses seven expenditure categories and 18 disabilities. It defines standard expenditure as a minimum amount specific to each category, and sometimes to a class within each category, and amounts per unit of service (usually population). Needs are defined as the product of the standard, the units of service, disabilities and discounts for needs met by special purpose grants. South Australia assesses 13 expenditure categories in addition to road needs. Under the direct assessment method the available grant is initially allocated to councils in proportion to their population and positive or negative adjustments are calculated for each category. These adjustments are for factors outside the control of the council. For example, if the council has a higher number of residential properties per population than the state average, it will receive a positive adjustment for garbage collection expenditure. The methodology provides for further adjustment through application of cost relativity indices. In the case of roads, the cost relativity indices measure relative costs of factors such as material haulage, soil type, rainfall and drainage. Tasmania assesses 10 non-road expenditure categories and 13 disabilities. It defines standard expenditure as the state average. Needs are defined as the product of the standard, the population and the cumulative disability allowance (one plus the sum of the amount by which each disability exceeds one). The Northern Territory assesses six categories, including one for roads, and five disabilities. Needs are defined as the product of the population, average expenditure per person, and the compounded disabilities, less grants received. A flag fall of $ is allowed for general administration. Appendix C Other grant support National Principle The fourth National Principle for general purpose grants is: Other relevant grant support provided to local governing bodies to meet any of the expenditure needs assessed should be taken into account using an inclusion approach. This National Principle requires commissions, when determining the allocation of grants on a horizontal equalisation basis, to include all grants that are provided to councils from the Australian Government and the state and territory governments as part of the revenue that is available to councils to finance their expenditure needs. Only those grants that are available to councils to finance the expenditure of a function that is assessed by commissions should be included. Both the grants received and the expenditure it funds should be included in the allocation process. Table C.4 provides details on the grants included by grants commissions in allocating the general purpose grants in

164 Local Government National Report Table C.4: Grants treated by inclusion in general purpose grant allocations for , by jurisdiction State NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Grants treated by inclusion Local road grant, Roads to Recovery grant and library grant. For other recurrent grant support the grant is deducted from the council s expenditure before standard costs are calculated. All Australian and state government recurrent grants. This includes each council s local road grant and 77% of Roads to Recovery funding. Minimum general purpose grant, local road grant, library grant, 50% of Roads to Recovery grant, 50% of State Road and Drainage Grant, 50% of the State Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils operating grant. 93% of the local road grant, 63% of the Roads to Recovery grant, as well as other relevant operating grants provided by the Australian and state governments for community amenities, recreation and culture, and education health and welfare. 85 per cent of the local road grants, library grants, bus grants and the Roxby Downs unique extraordinary grant. Local road grant, Roads to Recovery grant and state motor taxes collected on the registration of heavy vehicles (known as NRTC funds ), and all other Australian and state government current and capital grants, except where councils act as an agent for the Australian and state governments in providing services only because of the grant received. Local road grant, 50% of the Roads to Recovery grant and 50% of the Northern Territory Operational Grant. Source: Based on information provided by local government grants commissions Needs of Indigenous communities The fifth National Principle for distribution of general purpose grants states: Financial assistance shall be allocated to councils in a way which recognises the needs of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders within their boundaries. All commissions allocate funding to councils taking into account the population of the council. Therefore, councils with Indigenous people as part of their community will receive financial assistance funding for them. However, the Commonwealth Grants Commission (2001) stated that this National Principle goes further. It said: [A]ssessments [by commissions] should reflect differences in the demand for services by Indigenous people, the cost of providing services to them and the capacity to raise revenue from them regardless of whether they live in a discrete community or in a mainstream community (p. 27). Councils in New South Wales with an above-the-state-average proportion of Indigenous people receive recognition for the additional costs of providing services to Indigenous people in the expenditure assessments for general administration and general community services. Victoria incorporates the proportion of each council s population that is Indigenous as a cost adjustor in its family and community services expenditure assessment. 154

165 In Queensland, most of the larger geographically discrete Indigenous communities are located within the 32 Indigenous councils or the Shires of Aurukun and Mornington. Indigenous councils are assessed as having zero rating capacity as the land in their areas is not rateable. In , 50 per cent of the state government Financial Aid Grant for Aboriginal and Islander councils was included as revenue as a surrogate for rate income. In both Indigenous and mainstream councils, a cost adjuster (disability factor) is applied for Indigenous descent whereby the assessed expenditure per person is increased by 50 per cent in relevant expenditure categories. The phase-in arrangements for the new methodology provided for Indigenous councils to receive their new entitlements without delay. In these councils received a minimum increase in their general purpose grant of 5 per cent in no decrease was permitted. Western Australia includes two disability factors socioeconomic disadvantage and population dispersion in their expenditure assessments. In addition, 16 councils receive an allowance that recognises the additional costs of providing environmental health services (that is, the inspection of food premises, water supply, waste disposal and dog control) to remote Indigenous communities. Western Australia also sets aside 2.3 per cent of the local road component as special project funds for improvements to access roads to remote Indigenous communities. In South Australia, there are recognised Indigenous communities both within mainstream councils and outside mainstream councils. The needs of Indigenous communities within mainstream councils are recognised both through their inclusion within the population of the council and through special recognition of the proportion of Indigenous people within the council. The commission allocates a dollar amount per capita in addition to their recognition within the existing council general purpose grant calculation. On top of this, the commission gives special consideration to councils that have a high non-resident use of their facilities, that is, those councils that have high seasonal influxes of Indigenous people. Five Indigenous communities outside of traditional local government areas receive financial assistance grants. Due to the unavailability of data, grants for these communities cannot be calculated in the same way as grants to other councils. In the commission undertook a study to determine the appropriate level of funding for these communities, which determined a per capita funding level for each community. These per capita amounts were established after comparisons were made with communities in other jurisdictions. For example, in the allocation to Maralinga Tjarutja was $ per capita. The commission is reviewing the appropriateness of this level of funding. Tasmania makes no special allowance for Indigenous people as there are very few separately identifiable Indigenous communities in that state and there are no targeted services provided by councils for these communities that are not also provided to other residents. Aboriginal councils make up 85 per cent of the local governing bodies in the Northern Territory. The additional cost of providing services to Aboriginal people is incorporated through inclusion of the proportion of the population that is Aboriginal for each council in the expenditure assessments. Appendix C 155

166 Local Government National Report Factoring back and satisfying the minimum grant principle Once the revenue capacity and expenditure need of each council has been determined its raw grant can be calculated by subtracting its revenue capacity from its expenditure need. There are two situations that require commissions to apply a factoring back process to obtain the assessed grants from the raw grants. The first is when the total raw grant does not equal the available grant for the jurisdiction. This can occur when the commission has not: assessed all revenue and expenditure categories for councils in the jurisdiction, or ensured that the total assessed revenue and expenditure across all councils in the jurisdiction equals the total actual revenue and expenditure for all councils in the jurisdiction, or used a budget result term for each council when applying the balanced budget approach. This situation would not arise if commissions adopted the approach the Commonwealth Grants Commission uses for allocating grants. The second situation occurs when the raw grant allocation for some councils does not comply with the minimum grant National Principle. This Principle requires: The minimum general purpose grant allocation for a local governing body in a year will be not less than the amount to which the local governing body would be entitled if 30 per cent of the total amount of general purpose grants to which the State or Territory is entitled under section 9 of the Act in respect of the year were allocated among local governing bodies in the State or Territory on a per capita basis. Grants to councils with raw grant allocations below the minimum grant (including negative grants) are increased to comply with the minimum grant National Principle. This requires grants to other councils in the jurisdiction to be reduced through a factoring back process. Should the grant to one or more councils, following the initial factoring back process, reduce their grant below their minimum grant, the factoring back process would be repeated. This process would have to be repeated until both the minimum grant and available grant constraints are simultaneously met. Commissions use two approaches for factoring back the raw grant, they are the: proportional method each council s raw grant is reduced by the same proportion so the total of the grants equals the available grant equalisation ratio method each council s grant is reduced such that all councils can afford to fund the same proportion of their expenditure need with their total income (assessed revenue capacity plus other grant support and general purpose grant). In all grants commissions, except Queensland, used the proportional method. Queensland used a combination of 75 per cent equalisation ratio and 25 per cent proportional method. 156

167 Appendix D Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies in Appendix D Table D.1 shows the distribution of local government financial assistance grants and some basic information, such as population, area (in square kilometres) and road length (in kilometres) for each local governing body in Australia. For the financial assistance grants, Table D.1 shows the actual total grant entitlement for and the estimated total grant entitlement for For each of these years, the components of the financial assistance grants (the general purpose grant and the local road grant) are also given. This year the councils are listed alphabetically by state and territory. In previous years they were listed under their category according to the Australian Classification of Local Governments (ACLG), then sorted by the size of their population, starting with the smallest, within each category. An explanation of the ACLG is provided in Appendix F. The ACLG category for each council is now listed in the second column of Table D.1. To facilitate comparison, the general purpose grant per capita and the local road grant per kilometre are provided for Additional comparative information on grants received is provided in this report as follows: Table 2.9 provides the average general purpose grant per capita for councils, grouped by ACLG and by state. Table 2.10 provides the average local road grant per kilometre for councils, grouped by ACLG and by state. Appendix E gives the ranking of all councils for a state for both general purpose grant per capita and local road grant per kilometre. Councils receiving the minimum per capita grant in are indicated with a hash (#) beside their entry in the GP grant per capita column. The per capita grant of these councils differs slightly between states because of different data sources for population used by the Australian Government to calculate the state share of general purpose grants and those used by the local government grants commissions for allocations for individual councils. For further information on the minimum grant entitlement, see What is the minimum grant? and Councils on the minimum grant in Chapter 2. The source of the data is the relevant state or territory local government grants commission. Key to symbols in Table D.1 C = City S = Shire DC = District Council CG = Community Government M = Municipal T = Town B = Borough RC = Regional City R = Regional Bd = Board 157

168 Local Government National Report Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population, and actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant New South Wales Albury City URM $ $ $ $80.78 $ $ $ $ Armidale Dumaresq URS $ $ $ $89.49 $ $ $ $ Ashfield Municipal UDM $ $ $ $21.95 $ $ $ $ Auburn UDM $ $ $ $25.08 $ $ $ $ Ballina Shire URM $ $ $ $54.24 $ $ $ $ Balranald Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bankstown City UDV $ $ $ $20.85 $ $ $ $ Bathurst Regional URM $ $ $ $80.46 $ $ $ $ Baulkham Hills Shire UFV $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Bega Valley Shire URM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bellingen Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Berrigan Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Blacktown City UDV $ $ $ $44.13 $ $ $ $ Bland Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Blayney Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Blue Mountains City UFL $ $ $ $72.15 $ $ $ $ Bogan Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bombala RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Boorowa RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Botany Bay City UDM $ $ $ $20.10 $ $ $ $ Bourke Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

169 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Brewarrina Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Broken Hill City URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Burwood Municipal UDM $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Byron Shire URM $ $ $ $47.22 $ $ $ $ Cabonne Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Camden UFM $ $ $ $28.34 $ $ $ $ Campbelltown City UFV $ $ $ $47.56 $ $ $ $ Canada Bay City UDM $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Canterbury City UDV $ $ $ $24.41 $ $ $ $ Carrathool Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Central Darling Shire RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cessnock City URM $ $ $ $83.53 $ $ $ $ Clarence Valley URM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cobar Shire RTL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Coffs Harbour City URM $ $ $ $63.45 $ $ $ $ Conargo Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Coolamon Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cooma Monaro RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Coonamble Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cootamundra Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Corowa Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cowra Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Deniliquin URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Appendix D 159

170 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Dubbo City URM $ $ $ $92.70 $ $ $ $ Dungog Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Eurobodalla Shire URM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Fairfield City UDV $ $ $ $39.62 $ $ $ $ Forbes Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gilgandra Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Glen Innes Severn RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gloucester Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gosford City UFV $ $ $ $38.21 $ $ $ $ Goulburn Mulwaree URS $ $ $ $91.44 $ $ $ $ Great Lakes URM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Greater Hume Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Greater Taree City URM $ $ $ $76.22 $ $ $ $ Griffith City URS $ $ $ $68.68 $ $ $ $ Gundagai Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gunnedah Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Guyra Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gwydir Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Harden Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Hastings URM $ $ $ $64.31 $ $ $ $ Hawkesbury City UFM $ $ $ $46.93 $ $ $ $ Hay Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Holroyd City UDL $ $ $ $22.80 $ $ $ $ Hornsby Shire UFV $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $

171 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Hunters Hill Municipal UDS $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Hurstville City UDL $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Inverell Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Jerilderie Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Junee Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kempsey Shire URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kiama Municipal URS $ $ $ $41.59 $ $ $ $ Kogarah Municipal UDM $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Ku ring gai UDL $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Kyogle RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Lachlan Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Lake Macquarie City URV $ $ $ $56.19 $ $ $ $ Lane Cove Municipal UDM $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Leeton Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Leichhardt Municipal UDM $ $ $ $20.23 $ $ $ $ Lismore City URM $ $ $ $85.55 $ $ $ $ Lithgow City URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Liverpool City UFV $ $ $ $33.71 $ $ $ $ Liverpool Plains Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Lockhart Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Lord Howe Island Board RTX $ $0 $ $ n/a $ $0 $ Maitland City URM $ $ $ $67.32 $ $ $ $ Manly UDM $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Marrickville UDL $ $ $ $35.93 $ $ $ $ Appendix D 161

172 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Mid Western Regional URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Moree Plains Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mosman Municipal UDS $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Murray Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Murrumbidgee Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Muswellbrook Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Nambucca Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Narrabri Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Narrandera Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Narromine Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Newcastle City URV $ $ $ $66.54 $ $ $ $ North Sydney UDM $ $ $ $17.63 $ $ $ $ Oberon RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Orange City URM $ $ $ $68.26 $ $ $ $ Palerang RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Parkes Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Parramatta City UDV $ $ $ $27.48 $ $ $ $ Penrith City UFV $ $ $ $42.68 $ $ $ $ Pittwater UDM $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Port Stephens URM $ $ $ $55.76 $ $ $ $ Queanbeyan URM $ $ $ $53.70 $ $ $ $ Randwick City UDV $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Richmond Valley URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Rockdale City UDL $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $

173 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Ryde City UDL $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Shellharbour City URM $ $ $ $47.69 $ $ $ $ Shoalhaven City URL $ $ $ $78.67 $ $ $ $ Silverton Village RTX $ $0 $ $ n/a $ $0 $ Singleton Shire URS $ $ $ $74.24 $ $ $ $ Snowy River Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Strathfield Municipal UDM $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Sutherland Shire UDV $ $ $ $16.69 # $ $ $ $ Sydney City UCC $ $ $ $20.01 $ $ $ $ Tamworth Regional URM $ $ $ $96.73 $ $ $ $ Temora Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tenterfield Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tibooburra Village RTX $ $0 $ $ n/a $ $0 $ Tumbarumba Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tumut RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tweed Shire URL $ $ $ $69.15 $ $ $ $ Upper Hunter RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Upper Lachlan RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Uralla Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Urana Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wagga Wagga City URM $ $ $ $82.65 $ $ $ $ Wakool Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Walcha RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Walgett Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Appendix D 163

174

175 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Boroondara City UDV $ $ $ $16.71 # $ $ $ $ Brimbank City UDV $ $ $ $49.10 $ $ $ $ Buloke Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Campaspe City URM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cardinia Shire UFM $ $ $ $78.61 $ $ $ $ Casey City UFV $ $ $ $49.98 $ $ $ $ Central Goldfields Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Colac Otway Shire URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Corangamite Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Darebin City UDV $ $ $ $37.14 $ $ $ $ Docklands Authority UDS $ $ $ $16.71 # $ $ $8 916 $ East Gippsland Shire URM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Frankston City UDL $ $ $ $51.75 $ $ $ $ Gannawarra Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Glen Eira City UDV $ $ $ $16.71 # $ $ $ $ Glenelg Shire URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Golden Plains Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Greater Bendigo City URL $ $ $ $87.50 $ $ $ $ Greater Dandenong City UDV $ $ $ $49.99 $ $ $ $ Greater Geelong City URV $ $ $ $63.05 $ $ $ $ Greater Shepparton City URM $ $ $ $89.25 $ $ $ $ Hepburn Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Hindmarsh Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Hobsons Bay City UDL $ $ $ $32.39 $ $ $ $ Appendix D 165

176 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Horsham Rural City URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Hume City UFV $ $ $ $41.72 $ $ $ $ Indigo Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kingston City UDV $ $ $ $17.94 $ $ $ $ Knox City UDV $ $ $ $37.95 $ $ $ $ Latrobe City URL $ $ $ $89.49 $ $ $ $ Loddon Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Macedon Ranges Shire URM $ $ $ $80.58 $ $ $ $ Manningham City UDL $ $ $ $16.71 # $ $ $ $ Mansfield RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Maribyrnong City UDM $ $ $ $36.96 $ $ $ $ Maroondah City UDL $ $ $ $36.26 $ $ $ $ Melbourne City UCC $ $ $ $16.71 # $ $ $ $ Melton Shire UFM $ $ $ $72.19 $ $ $ $ Mildura Rural City URM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mitchell Shire URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Moira Shire URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Monash City UDV $ $ $ $21.34 $ $ $ $ Moonee Valley City UDL $ $ $ $22.40 $ $ $ $ Moorabool Shire URS $ $ $ $99.91 $ $ $ $ Moreland City UDV $ $ $ $38.50 $ $ $ $ Mornington Peninsula Shire UFL $ $ $ $30.97 $ $ $ $ Mount Alexander Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Moyne Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

177 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Murrindindi Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Nillumbik Shire UFM $ $ $ $33.26 $ $ $ $ Northern Grampians Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Port Phillip City UDL $ $ $ $16.71 # $ $ $ $ Pyrenees Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Queenscliffe Borough URS $ $ $ $45.44 $ $ $ $ South Gippsland Shire URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Southern Grampians Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Stonnington City UDL $ $ $ $16.71 # $ $ $ $ Strathbogie Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Surf Coast Shire RSG $ $ $ $64.86 $ $ $ $ Swan Hill Rural City URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Towong Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wangaratta Rural City URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Warrnambool City URS $ $ $ $71.16 $ $ $ $ Wellington Shire URM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ West Wimmera Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Whitehorse City UDV $ $ $ $27.15 $ $ $ $ Whittlesea City UFL $ $ $ $48.48 $ $ $ $ Wodonga Rural City URM $ $ $ $80.53 $ $ $ $ Wyndham City UFL $ $ $ $59.05 $ $ $ $ Yarra City UDM $ $ $ $16.71 # $ $ $ $ Yarra Ranges Shire UFV $ $ $ $54.78 $ $ $ $ Yarriambiack Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Appendix D 167

178 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Queensland Aramac RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Atherton RAV $ $ $ $43.56 $ $ $ $ Aurukun UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Badu Island URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Balonne RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bamaga UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Banana RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Barcaldine RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Barcoo RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bauhinia RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Beaudesert UFM $ $ $ $25.19 $ $ $ $ Belyando RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bendemere RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Biggenden RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Blackall RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Boigu Island UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Boonah RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Booringa RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Boulia RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bowen RAV $ $ $ $83.90 $ $ $ $ Brisbane City UCC $ $ $ $16.84 # $ $ $ $ Broadsound RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bulloo RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

179 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Bundaberg URM $ $ $ $29.70 $ $ $ $ Bungil RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Burdekin RAV $ $ $ $47.24 $ $ $ $ Burke RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Burnett UFS $ $ $ $39.30 $ $ $ $ Caboolture URV $ $ $ $18.24 $ $ $ $ Cairns URV $ $ $ $18.80 $ $ $ $ Calliope RAV $ $ $ $80.91 $ $ $ $ Caloundra URL $ $ $ $19.62 $ $ $ $ Cambooya RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cardwell RAV $ $ $ $48.20 $ $ $ $ Carpentaria RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Charters Towers URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cherbourg URS $ $ $ $63.50 $ $ $ $ Chinchilla RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Clifton RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cloncurry RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cook RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cooloola UFM $ $ $ $45.74 $ $ $ $ Crow s Nest RAV $ $ $ $71.23 $ $ $ $ Croydon RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Dalby URS $ $ $ $76.23 $ $ $ $ Dalrymple RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Dauan Island URS $ $3 056 $ $ $ $ $3 136 $ Appendix D 169

180 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Diamantina RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Doomadgee UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Douglas RAV $ $ $ $41.41 $ $ $ $ Duaringa RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Eacham RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Eidsvold RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Emerald RAV $ $ $ $47.76 $ $ $ $ Erub Island URS $ $7 780 $ $ $ $ $7 981 $ Esk RAV $ $ $ $59.45 $ $ $ $ Etheridge RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Fitzroy RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Flinders RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gatton RAV $ $ $ $40.80 $ $ $ $ Gayndah RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gladstone URS $ $ $ $33.86 $ $ $ $ Gold Coast URV $ $ $ $16.84 # $ $ $ $ Goondiwindi URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Hammond Island UFS $ $4 238 $ $ $ $ $4 346 $ Herberton RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Hervey Bay UFM $ $ $ $33.64 $ $ $ $ Hinchinbrook RAV $ $ $ $69.78 $ $ $ $ Hopevale UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Iama Island URS $ $4 629 $ $ $ $ $4 732 $ Ilfracombe RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

181 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Inglewood RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Injinoo (Cowal Creek) UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ipswich URV $ $ $ $25.25 $ $ $ $ Isis RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Isisford RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Jericho RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Johnstone RAV $ $ $ $51.53 $ $ $ $ Jondaryan RAV $ $ $ $55.78 $ $ $ $ Kilcoy RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kilkivan RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kingaroy RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kolan RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kowanyama UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kubin Island UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Laidley RAV $ $ $ $41.86 $ $ $ $ Livingstone UFS $ $ $ $50.19 $ $ $ $ Lockhart River UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Logan UDV $ $ $ $16.84 # $ $ $ $ Longreach RTL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mabuiag Island URS $ $5 716 $ $ $ $ $5 864 $ Mackay UFL $ $ $ $25.22 $ $ $ $ Mapoon Aboriginal Council UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mareeba RAV $ $ $ $93.33 $ $ $ $ Appendix D 171

182 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Maroochy URV $ $ $ $17.45 $ $ $ $ Maryborough UFS $ $ $ $42.48 $ $ $ $ McKinlay RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mer Island URS $ $6 108 $ $ $ $ $6 247 $ Millmerran RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mirani RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Miriam Vale RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Monto RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mornington UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mount Isa UFS $ $ $ $82.13 $ $ $ $ Mount Morgan RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mundubbera RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Murgon RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Murilla RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Murweh RTL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Nanango RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Napranum URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Nebo RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ New Mapoon UFS $ $9 566 $ $ $ $ $9 818 $ Noosa URM $ $ $ $21.60 $ $ $ $ Palm Island URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Paroo RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Peak Downs RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Perry RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

183 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Pine Rivers URV $ $ $ $17.77 $ $ $ $ Pittsworth RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Pormpuraaw URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Poruma Island URS $ $3 031 $ $ $ $ $3 105 $ Quilpie RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Redcliffe City UDM $ $ $ $18.28 $ $ $ $ Redland URV $ $ $ $17.35 $ $ $ $ Richmond RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Rockhampton URM $ $ $ $25.08 $ $ $ $ Roma URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Rosalie RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Saibai Island UFS $ $6 064 $ $ $ $ $6 210 $ Sarina RAL $ $ $ $59.96 $ $ $ $ Seisia Island URS $ $4 065 $ $ $ $ $4 173 $ St Paul s Island UFS $ $8 685 $ $ $ $ $8 922 $ Stanthorpe RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tambo RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tara RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Taroom RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Thuringowa UFM $ $ $ $23.25 $ $ $ $ Tiaro RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Toowoomba UDL $ $ $ $17.94 $ $ $ $ Torres RTL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Townsville URL $ $ $ $26.43 $ $ $ $ Appendix D 173

184 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Ugar Island URS $ $1 302 $ $ $ $ $1 336 $ Umagico UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Waggamba RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wambo RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Warraber Island URS $ $4 118 $ $ $ $ $4 219 $ Warroo RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Warwick UFS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Whitsunday RAV $ $ $ $34.30 $ $ $ $ Winton RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wondai RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Woocoo RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Woorabinda UFS $ $ $ $69.06 $ $ $ $ Wujal Wujal URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yarrabah UFS $ $ $ $93.49 $ $ $ $ Yorke Island URS $ $6 175 $ $ $ $ $6 328 $ Western Australia Albany City URM $ $ $ $52.05 $ $ $ $ Armadale City UFM $ $ $ $37.81 $ $ $ $ Ashburton Shire RTL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Augusta Margaret River Shire RSG $ $ $ $20.95 $ $ $ $ Bassendean Town UDS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Bayswater City UDM $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Belmont City UDM $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $

185 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Beverley Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Boddington Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Boyup Brook Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bridgetown Greenbushes Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Brookton Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Broome Shire RTL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Broomehill Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bruce Rock Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bunbury City URM $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Busselton Shire RSG $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Cambridge Town UDS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Canning City UDL $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Capel Shire RSG $ $ $ $66.21 $ $ $ $ Carnamah Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Carnarvon Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Chapman Valley Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Chittering Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Claremont Town UDS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Cockburn City UFL $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Collie Shire RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Coolgardie Shire URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Coorow Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Corrigin Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Appendix D 175

186 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Cottesloe Town UDS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Cranbrook Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cuballing Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cue Shire RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cunderdin Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Dalwallinu Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Dandaragan Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Dardanup Shire RSG $ $ $ $62.75 $ $ $ $ Denmark Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Derby West Kimberley Shire RTL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Donnybrook Balingup Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Dowerin Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Dumbleyung Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Dundas Shire RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ East Fremantle Town UDS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ East Pilbara Shire RTL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Esperance Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Exmouth Shire RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Fremantle City UDS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Geraldton City URS $ $ $ $60.27 $ $ $ $ Gingin Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gnowangerup Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

187 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Goomalling Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gosnells City UFL $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Greenough Shire RSG $ $ $ $83.17 $ $ $ $ Halls Creek Shire RTL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Harvey Shire RSG $ $ $ $48.91 $ $ $ $ Irwin Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Jerramungup Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Joondalup City UFV $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Kalamunda Shire UFM $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Kalgoorlie/Boulder City URS $ $ $ $39.94 $ $ $ $ Katanning Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kellerberrin Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kent Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kojonup Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kondinin Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Koorda Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kulin Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kwinana Town UFS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Lake Grace Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Laverton Shire RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Leonora Shire RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mandurah City URM $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Manjimup Shire RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Meekatharra Shire RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Appendix D 177

188 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Melville City UDL $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Menzies Shire RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Merredin Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mingenew Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Moora Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Morawa Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mosman Park Town UDS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Mount Magnet Shire RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mount Marshall Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mukinbudin Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mullewa Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mundaring Shire UFM $ $ $ $59.11 $ $ $ $ Murchison Shire RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Murray Shire RSG $ $ $ $94.26 $ $ $ $ Nannup Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Narembeen Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Narrogin Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Narrogin Town URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Nedlands City UDS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Ngaanyatjarraku Shire RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Northam Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Northam Town URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Northampton Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Nungarin Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

189 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Peppermint Grove Shire UDS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Perenjori Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Perth City UCC $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Pingelly Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Plantagenet Shire RAM $ $ $ $85.60 $ $ $ $ Port Hedland Town URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Quairading Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ravensthorpe Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Rockingham City UFL $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Roebourne Shire URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Sandstone Shire RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire RSG $ $ $ $88.73 $ $ $ $ Shark Bay Shire RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ South Perth City UDM $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Stirling City UDV $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Subiaco City UDS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Swan Shire UFL $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Tambellup Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tammin Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Three Springs Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Toodyay Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Trayning Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Upper Gascoyne Shire RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Appendix D 179

190 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Victoria Park Town UDS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Victoria Plains Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Vincent Town UDS $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Wagin Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wandering Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wanneroo City UFL $ $ $ $16.74 # $ $ $ $ Waroona Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ West Arthur Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Westonia Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wickepin Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Williams Shire RAS $ $ $ $77.04 $ $ $ $ Wiluna Shire RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wongan Ballidu Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Woodanilling Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wyalkatchem Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wyndham East Kimberley Shire RTL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yalgoo Shire RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yilgarn Shire RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ York Shire RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ South Australia Adelaide City UCC $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Adelaide Hills UFM $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Alexandrina RAV $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $

191 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Anangu Pitjantjatjara RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Barossa UFS $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Barunga West District RAM $ $ $ $82.00 $ $ $ $ Berri and Barmera RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Burnside City UDM $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Campbelltown City UDM $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Ceduna District RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Charles Sturt City UDL $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Clare and Gilbert Valleys RAL $ $ $ $31.35 $ $ $ $ Cleve District RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Coober Pedy District URS $ $ $ $ $89.46 $ $ $ Coorong District RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Copper Coast District RAV $ $ $ $98.48 $ $ $ $ Elliston District RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Flinders Ranges RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Franklin Harbour District RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gawler Municipal UFS $ $ $ $43.23 $ $ $ $ Gerard RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Goyder (RG) RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Grant District RAL $ $ $ $98.46 $ $ $ $ Holdfast Bay City UDM $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Kangaroo Island RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Karoonda East Murray District RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Appendix D 181

192 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Kimba District RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kingston District RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Le Hunte District RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Light RC RAV $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Lower Eyre Peninsula District RAM $ $ $ $58.24 $ $ $ $ Loxton Waikerie District RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mallala District RAL $ $ $ $91.19 $ $ $ $ Maralinga RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Marion City UDL $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Mid Murray RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mitcham City UDM $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Mount Barker District URS $ $ $ $20.10 $ $ $ $ Mount Gambier City URS $ $ $ $49.55 $ $ $ $ Mount Remarkable District RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Murray Bridge District RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Naracoorte Lucindale RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Nepabunna RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Northern Areas RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Norwood Payneham and St Peters City UDM $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Onkaparinga District UFV $ $ $ $38.94 $ $ $ $ Orroroo/Carrieton District RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

193 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Outback Areas Community Development Trust RTL $ $0 $ $ n/a $ $0 $ Peterborough District RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Playford City UFL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Port Adelaide Enfield UDL $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Port Augusta City URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Port Lincoln City URS $ $ $ $46.44 $ $ $ $ Port Pirie RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Prospect City UDS $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Renmark Paringa District RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Robe District RAS $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Roxby Downs Municipal URS $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Salisbury City UDL $ $ $ $65.48 $ $ $ $ Southern Mallee District RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Streaky Bay District RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tatiara District RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tea Tree Gully City UDL $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Tumby Bay District RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unley City UDM $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Victor Harbor URS $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Wakefield (RG) RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Walkerville Municipal UDS $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Wattle Range RAV $ $ $ $79.37 $ $ $ $ West Torrens City UDM $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Appendix D 183

194 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Whyalla City URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yalata RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yankalilla District RAM $ $ $ $16.67 # $ $ $ $ Yorke Peninsula District RAV $ $ $ $74.15 $ $ $ $ Tasmania Break O day Municipal RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Brighton Municipal URS $ $ $ $73.09 $ $ $ $ Burnie City URS $ $ $ $50.88 $ $ $ $ Central Coast Municipal URS $ $ $ $79.86 $ $ $ $ Central Highlands Municipal RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Circular Head Municipal RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Clarence City URM $ $ $ $26.77 $ $ $ $ Derwent Valley Municipal RAL $ $ $ $76.21 $ $ $ $ Devonport City URS $ $ $ $31.45 $ $ $ $ Dorset Municipal RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Flinders Municipal RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ George Town Municipal RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Glamorgan Spring Bay Municipal RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Glenorchy City URM $ $ $ $16.81 $ $ $ $ Hobart City UCC $ $ $ $16.70 # $ $ $ $ Huon Valley Municipal RAV $ $ $ $79.47 $ $ $ $ Kentish Municipal RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

195 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant King Island Municipal RAS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kingborough Municipal URS $ $ $ $30.92 $ $ $ $ Latrobe Municipal RAL $ $ $ $68.03 $ $ $ $ Launceston City URM $ $ $ $24.23 $ $ $ $ Meander Valley Municipal RAV $ $ $ $70.35 $ $ $ $ Northern Midlands Municipal RAV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Sorell Municipal RAV $ $ $ $64.34 $ $ $ $ Southern Midlands Municipal RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tasman Municipal RAM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Waratah Wynyard Municipal RAV $ $ $ $88.27 $ $ $ $ West Coast Municipal RAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ West Tamar Municipal UFS $ $ $ $68.24 $ $ $ $ Northern Territory Aherrenge (Arunga) RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ali Curung RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Alice Springs Town URS $ $ $ $34.95 $ $ $ $ Alpurrurulam RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Amoonguna RTX $ $ $ $99.51 $ $ $ $ Angurugu RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Anmatjere RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Aputula RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Areyonga RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Appendix D 185

196 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Arltarlpilta RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Belyuen RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Binjari RTX $ $ $ $ $ $0 $0 $0 Borroloola RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Coomalie Community Government RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cox Peninsula RTX $ $ $ $82.10 $ $ $ $ Daguragu RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Darwin City UCC $ $ $ $17.43 $ $ $ $ Elliott District RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Galiwinku RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Gapuwiyak RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ikuntji RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Imanpa RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Jabiru Town URS $ $ $ $82.31 $ $ $ $ Jilkminggan RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Kaltukatjara RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Katherine Town URS $ $ $ $75.20 $ $ $ $ Kunbarllanjnja RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Lajamanu RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Litchfield Shire RAV $ $ $ $47.41 $ $ $ $ Ltyentye Purte (Santa Teresa) RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Maningrida RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

197 actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Marngarr RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mataranka RTX $ $ $ $95.45 $ $ $ $ Milingimbi RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Milyakburra RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Minjilang RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Nauiyu Nambiyu RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Nganmarriyanga (Palumpa) RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ntaria RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Numbulwar Numburindi RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Nyirranggulung Mardrulk RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Nyirripi RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Palmerston Town UFS $ $ $ $34.88 $ $ $ $ Papunya RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Peppimenarti RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Pine Creek RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ramingining RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tapatjatjaka RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tennant Creek Town URS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Thamarrurr RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Timber Creek RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tiwi Island RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Trust Account ZZZZ $0 $ $ $0.00 $ $0 $ $ Umbakumba RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Appendix D 187

198 Local Government National Report actual entitlement estimated entitlement Council name ACLG category Population Council area (sq km) Total road length (km) General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Roads per km General purpose grant Roads grant Total grant Urapuntja RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Walingeri Ngumpinku RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wallace Rockhole RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Walungurru RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Warruwi RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Watiyawanu (Mt Liebig) RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yirrkala/Dhanbul RTS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yuelamu RTX $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yuendumu RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Yugul Mangi RTM $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

199 Appendix E Ranking of local governing bodies on a relative needs basis Appendix E Councils often compare the grants they receive with the grants of other councils in their state and assume that, if another council gets a similar sized grant, then both councils have been assessed as having similar relative needs. Such an assumption can be incorrect. In determining the allocation of general purpose grants and local road grants to councils, local government grants commissions implicitly assign a ranking to each council in their state on the basis of relative needs. A comparison of councils on the basis of relative needs is preferable to a comparison on the basis of the actual grants they receive. In this appendix, the grant per capita is used as the basis for comparing relative need for general purpose grants. For local road grants, the allocation of grants for each council is divided by their length of local roads to obtain a relative expenditure needs measure. In Tables E.1 to E.7, councils within a state are sorted on the value of: the general purpose grant per capita the local road grants per kilometre. For each council, the table gives its ranking obtained for both grants. The Australian Classification of Local Governments category is also provided see Appendix F for an explanation. Councils are ranked from the council in the greatest assessed relative need to the council in the least assessed relative need. For each state, the position of the average general purpose grant per capita and the average local road grant per kilometre are also shown within the ranking of councils. These state averages are taken from Tables 2.9 and 2.10 except in Western Australia and South Australia where special local road grants have been excluded from the local road grant per kilometre calculation for each council and the state average. Councils should use these rankings when comparing the financial assistance grants they receive with the financial assistance grants other councils in their state receive. For instance, Appendix D shows that in Tasmania, Clarence City received $ in general purpose grants in while Hobart City received $ Clarence s grant is $26.77 per capita while Hobart s grant is $16.70 per capita. This suggests that while the two councils have a similar population and are located in a similar vicinity, the Tasmanian Local Government Grants Commission has assessed Clarence City as having the greater relative need. In Table E.5, Clarence City is shown to rank 26th among Tasmania s councils for general purpose grants while Hobart City is a minimum grant council and is ranked 29th. 189

200 Local Government National Report Key to abbreviations used in Tables E.1 to E.7 (see Appendix F for a full explanation) RAS Rural Agricultural Small RAM Rural Agricultural Medium RAL Rural Agricultural Large RAV Rural Agricultural Very Large RSG Rural Significant Growth RTX Rural Remote Extra Small RTS Rural Remote Small RTM Rural Remote Medium RTL Rural Remote Large UCC Urban Capital City UDS Urban Developed Small UDM Urban Developed Medium UDL Urban Developed Large UDV Urban Developed Very Large UFS Urban Fringe Small UFM Urban Fringe Medium UFL Urban Fringe Large UFV Urban Fringe Very Large URS Urban Regional Small URM Urban Regional Medium URL Urban Regional Large URV Urban Regional Very Large 190

201 Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 1 Central Darling Shire RTM $ Waverley UDM $ Urana Shire RAS $ Queanbeyan URM $ Brewarrina Shire RAM $ Sydney City UCC $ Conargo Shire RAS $ Canterbury City UDV $ Carrathool Shire RAM $ Randwick City UDV $ Bourke Shire RAM $ Ashfield Municipal UDM $ Balranald Shire RAM $ North Sydney UDM $ Jerilderie Shire RAS $ Botany Bay City UDM $ Bogan Shire RAM $ Woollahra Municipal UDM $ Lockhart Shire RAM $ Marrickville UDL $ Lachlan Shire RAL $ Leichhardt Municipal UDM $ Silverton Village RTX $ Burwood UDM $ Tibooburra Village RTX $ Parramatta City UDV $ Lord Howe Island (Bd) RTX $ Strathfield Municipal UDM $ Cobar Shire RTL $ Manly UDM $ Bland Shire RAL $ Rockdale City UDL $ Coolamon Shire RAM $ Canada Bay City UDM $ Hay Shire RAM $ Hurstville City UDL $ Coonamble Shire RAM $ Ryde City UDL $ Harden Shire RAM $ Lane Cove Municipal UDM $ Wentworth Shire RAL $ Auburn UDM $ Bombala RAM $ Bankstown City UDV $ Wakool Shire RAM $ Fairfield City UDV $ Weddin Shire RAM $ Mosman Municipal UDS $ Gwydir Shire RAL $ Willoughby City UDM $ Warren Shire RAM $ Holroyd City UDL $ Walgett Shire RAL $ Kogarah Municipal UDM $ Narrandera Shire RAL $ Warringah UDV $ Warrumbungle RAV $ Campbelltown City UFV $ Murrumbidgee Shire RAM $ Albury City URM $ Gilgandra Shire RAM $ Coffs Harbour City URM $ Narromine Shire RAL $ Sutherland Shire UDV $ Tenterfield Shire RAL $ Blacktown City UDV $ Tumbarumba Shire RAM $ Pittwater UDM $ Berrigan Shire RAL $ Orange City URM $ Appendix E 191

202 Local Government National Report Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 36 Forbes Shire RAL $ Hornsby Shire UFV $ Boorowa RAM $ Liverpool City UFV $ Guyra Shire RAM $ Ku-ring-gai UDL $ Junee Shire RAL $ Wollongong City URV $ Temora Shire RAL $ Hunters Hill Municipal UDS $ Walcha RAM $ Broken Hill City URS $ Murray Shire RAL $ Newcastle City URV $ Greater Hume Shire RAV $ Shellharbour City URM $ Wellington RAL $ Tweed Shire URL $ Snowy River Shire RAL $ Camden UFM $ Glen Innes Severn RAL $ Penrith City UFV $ Upper Lachlan RAL $ Baulkham Hills Shire UFV $ Gundagai Shire RAM $ Gosford City UFV $ Corowa Shire RAV $ Lake Macquarie City URV $ Oberon RAL $ Wyong Shire UFV $ Narrabri Shire RAV $ Byron Shire URM $ Cooma Monaro RAL $ Kiama Municipal URS $ Liverpool Plains Shire RAL $ Ballina Shire URM $ Kyogle RAL $ Hastings URM $ Deniliquin URS $ Maitland City URM $ Cootamundra Shire RAL $ Shoalhaven City URL $ Gloucester Shire RAM $ Blue Mountains City UFL $ Parkes Shire RAV $ Port Stephens URM $ Blayney Shire RAL $ Hawkesbury City UFM $ Uralla Shire RAL $ Wollondilly Shire UFM $ Inverell Shire RAV $ Cessnock City URM $ Broken Hill City URS $ Deniliquin URS $ Cowra Shire RAV $ Lismore City URM $ Gunnedah Shire RAV $ Nambucca Shire RAV $ Leeton Shire RAV $ Wingecarribee Shire URM $ Tumut RAV $ Bellingen Shire RAV $ Upper Hunter RAV $ Eurobodalla Shire URM $ Bellingen Shire RAV $ Kempsey Shire URS $ Cabonne Shire RAV $ Great Lakes URM $ Moree Plains Shire RAV $ Bega Valley Shire URM $ Young Shire RAV $ Greater Taree City URM $

203 Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 72 Richmond Valley URS $ Singleton Shire URS $ Dungog Shire RAL $ Bathurst Regional URM $ Clarence Valley URM $ Clarence Valley URM $ Great Lakes URM $ Wagga Wagga City URM $ Mid-Western Regional URS $ Dubbo City URM $ Eurobodalla Shire URM $ Muswellbrook Shire RAV $ Palerang RAV $ Kyogle RAL $ Lithgow City URS $ Richmond Valley URS $ Bega Valley Shire URM $ Armidale Dumaresq URS $ Yass Valley RAV $ Dungog Shire RAL $ Muswellbrook Shire RAV $ Goulburn Mulwaree URS $ Kempsey Shire URS $ State average $ Nambucca Shire RAV $ Lithgow City URS $ Tamworth Regional URM $ Tumut RAV $ Dubbo City URM $ Tamworth Regional URM $ Goulburn Mulwaree URS $ Gloucester Shire RAM $ Armidale Dumaresq URS $ Griffith City URS $ Lismore City URM $ Cootamundra Shire RAL $ Cessnock City URM $ Glen Innes Severn RAL $ Wagga Wagga City URM $ Mid-Western Regional URS $ Albury City URM $ Palerang RAV $ Bathurst Regional URM $ Tumbarumba Shire RAM $ Shoalhaven City URL $ Yass Valley RAV $ Greater Taree City URM $ Upper Hunter RAV $ Singleton Shire URS $ Cooma Monaro RAL $ Blue Mountains City UFL $ Blayney Shire RAL $ Tweed Shire URL $ Young Shire RAV $ Griffith City URS $ Cowra Shire RAV $ Orange City URM $ Snowy River Shire RAL $ Maitland City URM $ Leeton Shire RAV $ Newcastle City URV $ Gundagai Shire RAM $ Hastings URM $ Uralla Shire RAL $ Coffs Harbour City URM $ Gunnedah Shire RAV $ Wollongong City URV $ Inverell Shire RAV $ Lake Macquarie City URV $ Liverpool Plains Shire RAL $ Port Stephens URM $ Wakool Shire RAM $ Appendix E 193

204 Local Government National Report Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km State average $ Cabonne Shire RAV $ Wingecarribee Shire URM $ Walcha RAM $ Ballina Shire URM $ Bombala RAM $ Queanbeyan URM $ Tenterfield Shire RAL $ Wyong Shire UFV $ Corowa Shire RAV $ Shellharbour City URM $ Greater Hume Shire RAV $ Campbelltown City UFV $ Oberon RAL $ Byron Shire URM $ Murray Shire RAL $ Hawkesbury City UFM $ Upper Lachlan RAL $ Blacktown City UDV $ Parkes Shire RAV $ Penrith City UFV $ Wellington RAL $ Kiama Municipal URS $ Moree Plains Shire RAV $ Wollondilly Shire UFM $ Forbes Shire RAL $ Fairfield City UDV $ Guyra Shire RAM $ Gosford City UFV $ Narrabri Shire RAV $ Marrickville UDL $ Junee Shire RAL $ Liverpool City UFV $ Temora Shire RAL $ Camden UFM $ Warrumbungle RAV $ Parramatta City UDV $ Berrigan Shire RAL $ Auburn UDM $ Walgett Shire RAL $ Waverley UDM $ Lockhart Shire RAM $ Canterbury City UDV $ Warren Shire RAM $ Holroyd City UDL $ Harden Shire RAM $ Ashfield Municipal UDM $ Gilgandra Shire RAM $ Bankstown City UDV $ Boorowa RAM $ Leichhardt Municipal UDM $ Gwydir Shire RAL $ Botany Bay City UDM $ Narromine Shire RAL $ Sydney City UCC $ Narrandera Shire RAL $ North Sydney UDM $ Coonamble Shire RAM $ Hunters Hill Municipal UDS $ Hay Shire RAM $ Burwood UDM $ Weddin Shire RAM $ Strathfield Municipal UDM $ Wentworth Shire RAL $ Lane Cove Municipal UDM $ Murrumbidgee Shire RAM $ Canada Bay City UDM $ Bogan Shire RAM $ Mosman Municipal UDS $ Brewarrina Shire RAM $ Kogarah Municipal UDM $ Jerilderie Shire RAS $

205 Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 136 Manly UDM $ Coolamon Shire RAM $ Hurstville City UDL $ Cobar Shire RTL $ Ryde City UDL $ Bourke Shire RAM $ Willoughby City UDM $ Urana Shire RAS $ Warringah UDV $ Lachlan Shire RAL $ Pittwater UDM $ Bland Shire RAL $ Randwick City UDV $ Conargo Shire RAS $ Hornsby Shire UFV $ Carrathool Shire RAM $ Baulkham Hills Shire UFV $ Balranald Shire RAM $ Woollahra Municipal UDM $ Central Darling Shire RTM $ Ku-ring-gai UDL $ Lord Howe Island (Bd) RTX $ Sutherland Shire UDV $ Silverton Village RTX $ Rockdale City UDL $ Tibooburra Village RTX $0.00 Appendix E Table E.2: Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 1 West Wimmera (S) RAL $ Melbourne (C) UCC $ Loddon (S) RAL $ Warrnambool (C) URS $ Buloke (S) RAL $ Greater Dandenong (C) UDV $ Pyrenees (S) RAL $ Docklands Authority UDS $ Hindmarsh (S) RAL $ Yarra Ranges (S) UFV $ Towong (S) RAL $ Wodonga (RC) URM $ Yarriambiack (S) RAL $ Yarra (C) UDM $ Northern Grampians (S) RAV $ Moonee Valley (C) UDL $ Strathbogie (S) RAL $ Port Phillip (C) UDL $ Ararat (RC) URS $ Brimbank (C) UDV $ Mansfield RAL $ Hume (C) UFV $ Gannawarra (S) RAV $ Kingston (C) UDV $ East Gippsland (S) URM $ Darebin (C) UDV $ Southern Grampians (S) RAV $ Banyule (C) UDL $ Moyne (S) RAV $ Knox (C) UDV $ Corangamite (S) RAV $ Whittlesea (C) UFL $ Alpine (S) RAV $ Frankston (C) UDL $ Central Goldfields (S) RAV $ Maribyrnong (C) UDM $

206 Local Government National Report Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 19 Moira (S) URS $ Moreland (C) UDV $ Glenelg (S) URS $ Latrobe (C) URL $ Murrindindi (S) RAV $ Casey (C) UFV $ Hepburn (S) RAV $ Hobsons Bay (C) UDL $ Golden Plains (S) RAV $ Maroondah (C) UDL $ Swan Hill (RC) URS $ Melton (S) UFM $ Campaspe (C) URM $ South Gippsland (S) URS $ South Gippsland (S) URS $ Stonnington (C) UDL $ Wellington (S) URM $ East Gippsland (S) URM $ Indigo (S) RAV $ Wyndham (C) UFL $ Horsham (RC) URS $ Cardinia (S) UFM $ Benalla RAV $ Greater Geelong (C) URV $ Colac Otway (S) URS $ Baw Baw (S) URM $ Mildura (RC) URM $ Ballarat (C) URL $ Mount Alexander (S) RAV $ Monash (C) UDV $ Wangaratta (RC) URS $ Nillumbik (S) UFM $ Baw Baw (S) URM $ Boroondara (C) UDV $ Mitchell (S) URS $ Colac Otway (S) URS $ Moorabool (S) URS $ Alpine (S) RAV $ Bass Coast (S) UFS $ Bayside (C) UDL $ Latrobe (C) URL $ Murrindindi (S) RAV $ Greater Shepparton (C) URM $ Mornington Peninsula (S)UFL $ Greater Bendigo (C) URL $ Wellington (S) URM $ Macedon Ranges (S) URM $ Whitehorse (C) UDV $ Wodonga (RC) URM $ Manningham (C) UDL $ Cardinia (S) UFM $ Glen Eira (C) UDV $ Ballarat (C) URL $ Macedon Ranges (S) URM $ Melton (S) UFM $ Bass Coast (S) UFS $ Warrnambool (C) URS $ Queenscliffe (B) URS $ Surf Coast (S) RSG $ Moorabool (S) URS $ Greater Geelong (C) URV $ Surf Coast (S) RSG $ Wyndham (C) UFL $ Mitchell (S) URS $ State average $ Mansfield RAL $ Yarra Ranges (S) UFV $ Glenelg (S) URS $ Frankston (C) UDL $ Corangamite (S) RAV $ Greater Dandenong (C) UDV $ Greater Shepparton (C) URM $

207 Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 54 Casey (C) UFV $ Towong (S) RAL $ Brimbank (C) UDV $ Mount Alexander (S) RAV $ Whittlesea (C) UFL $48.48 State average $ Queenscliffe (B) URS $ Moyne (S) RAV $ Hume (C) UFV $ Golden Plains (S) RAV $ Moreland (C) UDV $ Wangaratta (RC) URS $ Knox (C) UDV $ Hepburn (S) RAV $ Darebin (C) UDV $ Pyrenees (S) RAL $ Maribyrnong (C) UDM $ Greater Bendigo (C) URL $ Maroondah (C) UDL $ Benalla RAV $ Nillumbik (S) UFM $ Southern Grampians (S) RAV $ Hobsons Bay (C) UDL $ Strathbogie (S) RAL $ Banyule (C) UDL $ Central Goldfields (S) RAV $ Mornington Peninsula (S)UFL $ Ararat (RC) URS $ Whitehorse (C) UDV $ Moira (S) URS $ Moonee Valley (C) UDL $ Campaspe (C) URM $ Monash (C) UDV $ Indigo (S) RAV $ Kingston (C) UDV $ West Wimmera (S) RAL $ Docklands Authority UDS $ Gannawarra (S) RAV $ Yarra (C) UDM $ Northern Grampians (S) RAV $ Melbourne (C) UCC $ Mildura (RC) URM $ Glen Eira (C) UDV $ Loddon (S) RAL $ Bayside (C) UDL $ Horsham (RC) URS $ Manningham (C) UDL $ Swan Hill (RC) URS $ Stonnington (C) UDL $ Hindmarsh (S) RAL $ Boroondara (C) UDV $ Yarriambiack (S) RAL $ Port Phillip (C) UDL $ Buloke (S) RAL $ Appendix E 197

208 Local Government National Report Table E.3: Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 1 Diamantina RTX $ Redcliffe UDM $ Ugar Island URS $ Brisbane UCC $ Croydon RTX $ Logan UDV $ Bulloo RTS $ Gold Coast URV $ Isisford RTX $ Toowoomba UDL $ Boulia RTS $ Redland URV $ Burke RTS $ Bundaberg URM $ Barcoo RTS $ Gladstone URS $ Dauan Island URS $ Rockhampton URM $ Ilfracombe RTX $ Pine Rivers URV $ Aramac RTS $ Cairns URV $ Seisia Island URS $ Townsville URL $ Mapoon Aboriginal UFS $ Maroochy URV $ Council 14 McKinlay RTM $ Thuringowa UFM $ Tambo RTS $ Mer Island URS $ Perry RAS $ Ipswich URV $ Poruma Island URS $ Caloundra URL $ Etheridge RTM $ Iama Island URS $ Quilpie RTM $ Caboolture URV $ Winton RTM $ Maryborough UFS $ Warroo RAS $ Goondiwindi URS $ Kubin Island UFS $ Torres RTL $ Warraber Island URS $ Hervey Bay UFM $ Hammond Island UFS $ Dalby URS $ Bendemere RAS $ Palm Island URS $ St Paul s Island UFS $ Mackay UFL $ Mabuiag Island URS $ Charters Towers URS $ Eidsvold RAS $ Saibai Island UFS $ Booringa RAS $ Warraber Island URS $ Jericho RTM $ Yarrabah UFS $ Richmond RTM $ Rosalie RAL $ Boigu Island UFS $ Noosa URM $ Erub Island URS $ Yorke Island URS $ Bungil RAS $ Napranum URS $

209 Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 35 Umagico UFS $ Poruma Island URS $ Saibai Island UFS $ Hammond Island UFS $ Yorke Island URS $ Beaudesert UFM $ Paroo RTM $ Johnstone RAV $ Blackall RTM $ Douglas RAV $ Barcaldine RTM $ Whitsunday RAV $ Iama Island URS $ Ugar Island URS $ New Mapoon UFS $ Erub Island URS $ Taroom RAM $ Atherton RAV $ Carpentaria RTM $ Cooloola UFM $ Injinoo (Cowal Ck) UFS $ Mabuiag Island URS $ Dalrymple RAM $ State average $ Flinders RTM $ Sarina RAL $ Tara RAM $ Barcaldine RTM $ Bauhinia RAM $ Hinchinbrook RAV $ Mer Island URS $ Roma URS $ Waggamba RAM $ Burnett UFS $ Mornington UFS $ Dauan Island URS $ Cook RAM $ New Mapoon UFS $ Biggenden RAS $ Laidley RAV $ Murilla RAM $ Seisia Island URS $ Lockhart River UFS $ Gatton RAV $ Monto RAM $ Kilcoy RAM $ Badu Island URS $ Cardwell RAV $ Aurukun UFS $ Livingstone UFS $ Pormpuraaw URS $ Wujal Wujal URS $ Peak Downs RAM $ Cherbourg URS $ Bamaga UFS $ Mount Morgan RAM $ Longreach RTL $ Jondaryan RAV $ Inglewood RAM $ Bamaga UFS $ Mundubbera RAM $ Burdekin RAV $ Nebo RAM $ Eacham RAL $ Murweh RTL $ Badu Island URS $ Torres RTL $ Umagico UFS $ Clifton RAM $ Calliope RAV $ Wondai RAM $ Cambooya RAL $ Appendix E 199

210 Local Government National Report Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 71 Hopevale UFS $ Woorabinda UFS $ Kowanyama UFS $ St Paul s Island UFS $ Balonne RAL $ Warwick UFS $ Chinchilla RAL $ Mirani RAL $ Cloncurry RAM $ Crow s Nest RAV $ Gayndah RAM $ Esk RAV $ Woocoo RAM $ Kubin Island UFS $ Kilkivan RAM $ Mareeba RAV $ Napranum URS $ Kingaroy RAV $ Doomadgee UFS $ Bowen RAV $ Herberton RAL $ Boonah RAL $ Miriam Vale RAM $ Doomadgee UFS $ Millmerran RAM $ Murgon RAM $ Kolan RAM $ Stanthorpe RAV $ Mount Morgan RAM $ Miriam Vale RAM $ Murgon RAM $ Nanango RAL $ Wambo RAL $ Isis RAL $ Broadsound RAL $ Fitzroy RAV $ Belyando RAV $ Belyando RAV $ Tiaro RAM $ Wambo RAL $ Wujal Wujal URS $ Kolan RAM $ Banana RAV $ Herberton RAL $ Kilcoy RAM $ Aurukun UFS $ Rosalie RAL $ Tiaro RAM $ Nanango RAL $ Mundubbera RAM $ Duaringa RAL $ Mapoon Aboriginal UFS $ Council 97 Eacham RAL $ Woocoo RAM $ Stanthorpe RAV $ Inglewood RAM $ Roma URS $ Pittsworth RAM $ Fitzroy RAV $ Boigu Island UFS $ Warwick UFS $ Gayndah RAM $ Palm Island URS $ Clifton RAM $ Goondiwindi URS $ Kowanyama UFS $ Charters Towers URS $ Hopevale UFS $ Mirani RAL $ Broadsound RAL $ Isis RAL $ Mount Isa UFS $

211 Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 107 Cambooya RAL $ Wondai RAM $ Pittsworth RAM $ Emerald RAV $ Kingaroy RAV $ Kilkivan RAM $ Boonah RAL $ Nebo RAM $ Yarrabah UFS $ Croydon RTX $ Mareeba RAV $ Banana RAV $ Bowen RAV $ Biggenden RAS $ Mount Isa UFS $ Peak Downs RAM $ Calliope RAV $ Duaringa RAL $ Dalby URS $ Millmerran RAM $ Crow s Nest RAV $ Lockhart River UFS $ Hinchinbrook RAV $ Etheridge RTM $ Woorabinda UFS $ Cook RAM $ Cherbourg URS $ Paroo RTM $ Sarina RAL $ Murilla RAM $ Esk RAV $ Balonne RAL $ State average $ Cloncurry RAM $ Jondaryan RAV $ Ilfracombe RTX $ Johnstone RAV $ Taroom RAM $ Livingstone UFS $ Tara RAM $ Cardwell RAV $ Murweh RTL $ Emerald RAV $ Mornington UFS $ Burdekin RAV $ Waggamba RAM $ Cooloola UFM $ Jericho RTM $ Atherton RAV $ Bulloo RTS $ Maryborough UFS $ Injinoo (Cowal Ck) UFS $ Laidley RAV $ Pormpuraaw URS $ Douglas RAV $ Eidsvold RAS $ Gatton RAV $ Bungil RAS $ Burnett UFS $ Perry RAS $ Whitsunday RAV $ Blackall RTM $ Gladstone URS $ Bauhinia RAM $ Hervey Bay UFM $ Carpentaria RTM $ Bundaberg URM $ Bendemere RAS $ Townsville URL $ Isisford RTX $ Ipswich URV $ Monto RAM $ Appendix E 201

212 Local Government National Report Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 142 Mackay UFL $ Longreach RTL $ Beaudesert UFM $ Richmond RTM $ Rockhampton URM $ Booringa RAS $ Thuringowa UFM $ Winton RTM $ Noosa URM $ Warroo RAS $ Caloundra URL $ Quilpie RTM $ Cairns URV $ Aramac RTS $ Redcliffe UDM $ Diamantina RTX $ Caboolture URV $ McKinlay RTM $ Toowoomba UDL $ Barcoo RTS $ Pine Rivers URV $ Burke RTS $ Maroochy URV $ Boulia RTS $ Redland URV $ Chinchilla RAL $ Brisbane UCC $ Flinders RTM $ Gold Coast URV $ Dalrymple RAM $ Logan UDV $ Tambo RTS $ Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 1 Murchison (S) RTX $ Perth (C) UCC $ Sandstone (S) RTX $ Geraldton (C) URS $ Upper Gascoyne (S) RTX $ Capel (S) RSG $ Yalgoo (S) RTX $ Bunbury (C) URM $ Menzies (S) RTX $ Subiaco (C) UDS $ Cue (S) RTS $ Vincent (T) UDS $ Nungarin (S) RAS $ Narrogin (T) URS $ Westonia (S) RAS $ Canning (C) UDL $ Koorda (S) RAS $ Fremantle (C) UDS $ Trayning (S) RAS $ Northam (T) URS $ Mount Marshall (S) RAS $ Belmont (C) UDM $ Ngaanyatjarraku (S) RTM $ Bassendean (T) UDS $ Mount Magnet (S) RTS $ Bayswater (C) UDM $ Tammin (S) RAS $ Cambridge (T) UDS $ Perenjori (S) RAS $ Victoria Park (T) UDS $

213 Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 16 Mukinbudin (S) RAS $ Nedlands (C) UDS $ Meekatharra (S) RTM $ Claremont (T) UDS $ Shark Bay (S) RTS $ Joondalup (C) UFV $ Wyalkatchem (S) RAS $ Cottesloe (T) UDS $ Wiluna (S) RTS $ Stirling (C) UDV $ Bruce Rock (S) RAS $ Gosnells (C) UFL $ Laverton (S) RTM $ South Perth (C) UDM $ Dumbleyung (S) RAS $ Melville (C) UDL $ Woodanilling (S) RAS $ Peppermint Grove (S) UDS $ Wickepin (S) RAS $ East Fremantle (T) UDS $ Carnamah (S) RAS $ Mosman Park (T) UDS $ Narembeen (S) RAS $ Wanneroo (C) UFL $ Morawa (S) RAS $ Rockingham (C) UFL $ Dundas (S) RTM $ Armadale (C) UFM $ Dowerin (S) RAS $ Mandurah (C) URM $ Kellerberrin (S) RAS $ Cockburn (C) UFL $ Quairading (S) RAS $ Kwinana (T) UFS $ Halls Creek (S) RTL $ Kalamunda (S) UFM $ Cuballing (S) RAS $ Murray (S) RSG $ Tambellup (S) RAS $ Swan (S) UFL $ Corrigin (S) RAS $ Manjimup (S) RAV $ Three Springs (S) RAS $ Mundaring (S) UFM $ Dalwallinu (S) RAS $ Chittering (S) RAM $ Narrogin (S) RAS $ Port Hedland (T) URS $ Kulin (S) RAS $ Roebourne (S) URS $ Kent (S) RAS $ Nannup (S) RAS $ Broomehill (S) RAS $ Serpentine Jarrahdale RSG $ (S) 43 Mingenew (S) RAS $ Donnybrook Balingup (S)RAM $ Kondinin (S) RAS $ Busselton (S) RSG $ Wandering (S) RAS $ York (S) RAM $ Wongan Ballidu (S) RAS $ Kalgoorlie/Boulder (C) URS $ Exmouth (S) RTM $ Dardanup (S) RSG $ Derby West Kimberley RTL $ Broome (S) RTL $ (S) 49 Cunderdin (S) RAS $ Collie (S) RAL $ Nannup (S) RAS $ Exmouth (S) RTM $ Appendix E 203

214 Local Government National Report Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 51 Coorow (S) RAS $ Harvey (S) RSG $ Ravensthorpe (S) RAS $ Gingin (S) RAM $ Pingelly (S) RAS $ Dumbleyung (S) RAS $ East Pilbara (S) RTL $ Waroona (S) RAM $ Ashburton (S) RTL $ Quairading (S) RAS $ Carnarvon (S) RAL $ Albany (C) URM $ Wyndham East Kimberley (S) RTL $ Augusta Margaret River (S) RSG $ Brookton (S) RAS $ Wyndham East RTL $ Kimberley (S) 59 Lake Grace (S) RAS $ Goomalling (S) RAS $ Cranbrook (S) RAS $ Northam (S) RAM $ Wagin (S) RAS $ Greenough (S) RSG $ Beverley (S) RAS $ Bridgetown RAM $ Greenbushes (S) 63 Goomalling (S) RAS $ Ngaanyatjarraku (S) RTM $ Gnowangerup (S) RAS $ State average $ Yilgarn (S) RAS $ Toodyay (S) RAM $ Merredin (S) RAM $ Halls Creek (S) RTL $ Jerramungup (S) RAS $ Pingelly (S) RAS $ West Arthur (S) RAS $ Wongan Ballidu (S) RAS $ Victoria Plains (S) RAS $ Dandaragan (S) RAM $ Mullewa (S) RAS $ Dundas (S) RTM $ Leonora (S) RTM $ Katanning (S) RAM $ Chapman Valley (S) RAS $ Denmark (S) RAM $ Katanning (S) RAM $ Boyup Brook (S) RAS $ Kojonup (S) RAM $ Boddington (S) RAS $ Northam (S) RAM $ Irwin (S) RAM $ Bridgetown RAM $ Carnarvon (S) RAL $ Greenbushes (S) 77 Boyup Brook (S) RAS $ Mingenew (S) RAS $ Moora (S) RAM $ Bruce Rock (S) RAS $ Boddington (S) RAS $ Beverley (S) RAS $ Northampton (S) RAM $ Mount Magnet (S) RTS $ Dandaragan (S) RAM $ Shark Bay (S) RTS $ Roebourne (S) URS $ East Pilbara (S) RTL $ Collie (S) RAL $ Moora (S) RAM $ Broome (S) RTL $ Kellerberrin (S) RAS $

215 Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 85 Narrogin (T) URS $ Northampton (S) RAM $ Waroona (S) RAM $ Cunderdin (S) RAS $ Manjimup (S) RAV $ Esperance (S) RAV $ Donnybrook Balingup (S)RAM $ Derby West Kimberley RTL $ (S) 89 York (S) RAM $ Wagin (S) RAS $ Northam (T) URS $ Plantagenet (S) RAM $ Toodyay (S) RAM $ Merredin (S) RAM $ Gingin (S) RAM $ Kojonup (S) RAM $ Coolgardie (S) URS $ Tambellup (S) RAS $ Port Hedland (T) URS $ Corrigin (S) RAS $ Irwin (S) RAM $ Cuballing (S) RAS $ Denmark (S) RAM $ Ashburton (S) RTL $ Chittering (S) RAM $ Broomehill (S) RAS $ Esperance (S) RAV $ Wandering (S) RAS $ Murray (S) RSG $ Coorow (S) RAS $ Serpentine Jarrahdale RSG $ Brookton (S) RAS $ (S) 101 Plantagenet (S) RAM $ Narrogin (S) RAS $ Greenough (S) RSG $ Wyalkatchem (S) RAS $ Williams (S) RAS $ Carnamah (S) RAS $ Capel (S) RSG $ Gnowangerup (S) RAS $ Dardanup (S) RSG $ Trayning (S) RAS $ Geraldton (C) URS $ Williams (S) RAS $ Mundaring (S) UFM $ Koorda (S) RAS $ State average $ Cranbrook (S) RAS $ Albany (C) URM $ Wickepin (S) RAS $ Harvey (S) RSG $ Dalwallinu (S) RAS $ Kalgoorlie/Boulder (C) URS $ Cue (S) RTS $ Armadale (C) UFM $ Morawa (S) RAS $ Augusta Margaret RSG $ Three Springs (S) RAS $ River (S) 113 Cottesloe (T) UDS $ West Arthur (S) RAS $ Mosman Park (T) UDS $ Sandstone (S) RTX $ Subiaco (C) UDS $ Woodanilling (S) RAS $ Peppermint Grove (S) UDS $ Mukinbudin (S) RAS $ Victoria Park (T) UDS $ Nungarin (S) RAS $ Appendix E 205

216 Local Government National Report Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 113 Kwinana (T) UFS $ Tammin (S) RAS $ Bayswater (C) UDM $ Dowerin (S) RAS $ Kalamunda (S) UFM $ Westonia (S) RAS $ Fremantle (C) UDS $ Victoria Plains (S) RAS $ Cockburn (C) UFL $ Coolgardie (S) URS $ Melville (C) UDL $ Narembeen (S) RAS $ Canning (C) UDL $ Chapman Valley (S) RAS $ Gosnells (C) UFL $ Kulin (S) RAS $ Swan (S) UFL $ Lake Grace (S) RAS $ Bunbury (C) URM $ Jerramungup (S) RAS $ Stirling (C) UDV $ Mount Marshall (S) RAS $ Perth (C) UCC $ Kondinin (S) RAS $ Wanneroo (C) UFL $ Leonora (S) RTM $ Joondalup (C) UFV $ Mullewa (S) RAS $ Mandurah (C) URM $ Perenjori (S) RAS $ South Perth (C) UDM $ Yalgoo (S) RTX $ Rockingham (C) UFL $ Ravensthorpe (S) RAS $ Cambridge (T) UDS $ Kent (S) RAS $ Belmont (C) UDM $ Laverton (S) RTM $ Busselton (S) RSG $ Upper Gascoyne (S) RTX $ Bassendean (T) UDS $ Menzies (S) RTX $ Nedlands (C) UDS $ Wiluna (S) RTS $ Vincent (T) UDS $ Meekatharra (S) RTM $ Claremont (T) UDS $ Yilgarn (S) RAS $ East Fremantle (T) UDS $ Murchison (S) RTX $ Table E.5: South Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 1 Le Hunte (DC) RAS $ West Torrens (C) UDM $ Karoonda East Murray RAS $ Campbelltown (C) UDM $ (DC) 3 Maralinga RTX $ Marion (C) UDL $ Orroroo/Carrieton (DC) RAS $ Unley (C) UDM $ Kimba (DC) RAS $ Prospect (C) UDS $

217 Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km Rank Council name Classification 6 Peterborough (DC) RAS $ Norwood Payneham and UDM $ St Peters (C) 7 Franklin Harbour (DC) RAS $ Walkerville (M) UDS $ Elliston (DC) RAS $ Holdfast Bay (C) UDM $ Flinders Ranges RAS $ Charles Sturt (C) UDL $ Streaky Bay (DC) RAM $ Burnside (C) UDM $ Ceduna (DC) RAM $ Salisbury (C) UDL $ Anangu Pitjantjatjara RTM $ Tea Tree Gully (C) UDL $ Goyder (RG) RAM $ Mount Gambier (C) URS $ Gerard RTX $ Gerard RTX $ Yalata RTX $ Nepabunna RTX $ Mount Remarkable (DC) RAM $ Mitcham (C) UDM $ Cleve (DC) RAS $ Port Adelaide Enfield UDL $ Southern Mallee (DC) RAM $ Roxby Downs (M) URS $ Coober Pedy (DC) URS $ Onkaparinga (DC) UFV $ Nepabunna RTX $ Adelaide (C) UCC $ Kangaroo Island RAM $ Gawler (M) UFS $ Coorong (DC) RAL $ Playford (C) UFL $ Mid Murray RAL $ Port Lincoln (C) URS $ Port Augusta (C) URS $ Whyalla (C) URS $ Port Pirie RAV $ Yalata RTX $ Outback Areas RTL $ Lower Eyre Peninsula RAM $ Community Development (DC) Trust 27 Whyalla (C) URS $ Kimba (DC) RAS $ Tatiara (DC) RAL $ Victor Harbor URS $ Kingston (DC) RAM $ Port Augusta (C) URS $ Renmark Paringa (DC) RAL $ Mount Barker (DC) URS $ Northern Areas RAM $ Adelaide Hills UFM $ Loxton Waikerie (DC) RAV $ Loxton Waikerie (DC) RAV $ Naracoorte Lucindale RAL $ Alexandrina RAV $ Wakefield (RG) RAL $ Berri and Barmera RAV $ Tumby Bay (DC) RAM $ Mount Remarkable (DC) RAM $ Murray Bridge (DC) RAV $ State average $ Berri and Barmera RAV $ Renmark Paringa (DC) RAL $ Playford (C) UFL $ Barossa UFS $ Copper Coast (DC) RAV $ Murray Bridge (DC) RAV $ Appendix E 207

218 Local Government National Report Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 40 Grant (DC) RAL $ Tatiara (DC) RAL $ Mallala (DC) RAL $ Port Pirie RAV $ Barunga West (DC) RAM $ Maralinga RTX $ Wattle Range RAV $ Elliston (DC) RAS $ Yorke Peninsula (DC) RAV $ Coorong (DC) RAL $ Salisbury (C) UDL $ Copper Coast (DC) RAV $ Lower Eyre Peninsula RAM $ Southern Mallee (DC) RAM $ (DC) State average $ Naracoorte Lucindale RAL $ Mount Gambier (C) URS $ Wattle Range RAV $ Port Lincoln (C) URS $ Kangaroo Island RAM $ Gawler (M) UFS $ Light RC RAV $ Onkaparinga (DC) UFV $ Franklin Harbour (DC) RAS $ Clare and Gilbert Valleys RAL $ Yankalilla (DC) RAM $ Mount Barker (DC) URS $ Streaky Bay (DC) RAM $ Yankalilla (DC) RAM $ Kingston (DC) RAM $ Adelaide (C) UCC $ Ceduna (DC) RAM $ Robe (DC) RAS $ Mallala (DC) RAL $ Roxby Downs (M) URS $ Cleve (DC) RAS $ Adelaide Hills UFM $ Robe (DC) RAS $ Campbelltown (C) UDM $ Le Hunte (DC) RAS $ Prospect (C) UDS $ Flinders Ranges RAS $ West Torrens (C) UDM $ Tumby Bay (DC) RAM $ Port Adelaide Enfield UDL $ Grant (DC) RAL $ Norwood Payneham and UDM $ Yorke Peninsula (DC) RAV $ St Peters (C) 53 Marion (C) UDL $ Clare and Gilbert Valleys RAL $ Light RC RAV $ Goyder (RG) RAM $ Tea Tree Gully (C) UDL $ Peterborough (DC) RAS $ Mitcham (C) UDM $ Barunga West (DC) RAM $ Charles Sturt (C) UDL $ Mid Murray RAL $ Barossa UFS $ Wakefield (RG) RAL $ Burnside (C) UDM $ Anangu Pitjantjatjara RTM $ Holdfast Bay (C) UDM $ Northern Areas RAM $ Unley (C) UDM $ Karoonda East Murray RAS $ (DC) 53 Alexandrina RAV $ Orroroo Carrieton (DC) RAS $

219 Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 53 Victor Harbor URS $ Coober Pedy (DC) URS $ Walkerville (M) UDS $ Outback Areas RTL $0.00 Community Development Trust Appendix E Table E.6: Tasmanian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 1 Flinders (M) RAS $ Hobart (C) UCC $ King Island (M) RAS $ Glenorchy (C) URM $ Central Highlands (M) RAM $ Devonport (C) URS $ West Coast (M) RAL $ Launceston (C) URM $ Tasman (M) RAM $ West Coast (M) RAL $ Southern Midlands (M) RAL $ Burnie (C) URS $ Break O Day (M) RAL $ Brighton (M) URS $ Kentish (M) RAL $ Break O Day (M) RAL $ Glamorgan Spring Bay RAM $ Clarence (C) URM $ (M) 10 Dorset (M) RAL $ Sorell (M) RAV $ Circular Head (M) RAL $ State average $ Northern Midlands (M) RAV $ Central Coast (M) URS $ George Town (M) RAL $ Waratah Wynyard (M) RAV $ Waratah Wynyard (M) RAV $ Dorset (M) RAL $ Central Coast (M) URS $ Meander Valley (M) RAV $ Huon Valley (M) RAV $ Kingborough (M) URS $ Derwent Valley (M) RAL $ Kentish (M) RAL $ Brighton (M) URS $ Derwent Valley (M) RAL $ Meander Valley (M) RAV $ Southern Midlands (M) RAL $ West Tamar (M) UFS $ George Town (M) RAL $ Latrobe (M) RAL $ Northern Midlands (M) RAV $ Sorell (M) RAV $ West Tamar (M) UFS $ State average $ Glamorgan Spring Bay RAM $ (M) 23 Burnie (C) URS $ Circular Head (M) RAL $ Devonport (C) URS $ Latrobe (M) RAL $ Kingborough (M) URS $ Tasman (M) RAM $ Clarence (C) URM $ Huon Valley (M) RAV $

220 Local Government National Report Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 27 Launceston (C) URM $ Central Highlands (M) RAM $ Glenorchy (C) URM $ King Island (M) RAS $ Hobart (C) UCC $ Flinders (M) RAS $ Table E.7: Northern Territory councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 1 Peppimenarti RTX $ Cox Peninsula RTX $ Ikuntji RTX $ Tennant Creek (T) URS $ Nyirripi RTX $ Darwin (C) UCC $ Wallace Rockhole RTX $ Alice Springs (T) URS $ Umbakumba RTS $ Palmerston (T) UFS $ Yuelamu RTX $ Borroloola RTS $ Yuendumu RTM $ Jabiru (T) URS $ Nyirranggulung Mardrulk RTS $ Katherine (T) URS $ Walungurru RTS $ Binjari RTX $ Areyonga RTX $ Litchfield (S) RAV $ Warruwi RTX $ Daguragu RTS $ Kunbarllanjnja RTS $ Pine Creek RTS $ Imanpa RTX $ Coomalie (CGC) RTM $ Kaltukatjara RTX $ Mataranka RTX $ Tiwi Island RTM $ Amoonguna RTX $ Minjilang RTX $ Jilkminggan RTX $ Urapuntja RTS $ Marngarr RTX $ Aputula RTX $ Warruwi RTX $ Milyakburra RTX $ Alpurrurulam RTS $ Timber Creek RTX $ Peppimenarti RTX $ Nauiyu Nambiyu RTS $ Imanpa RTX $ Aherrenge (Arunga) RTX $ Timber Creek RTX $ Anmatjere RTM $ Nauiyu Nambiyu RTS $ Gapuwiyak RTS $ Milingimbi RTS $ Ramingining RTS $ Yirrkala Dhanbul RTS $ Watiyawanu (Mt Liebig) RTX $ Yugul Mangi RTM $ Yugul Mangi RTM $ Minjilang RTX $ Angurugu RTS $ Elliott District RTS $ Numbulwar Numburindi RTS $ Angurugu RTS $

221 Rank Council name Classification Grant per capita Rank Council name Classification Grant per km 30 Nganmarriyanga RTX $ State average $ (Palumpa) 31 Walingeri Ngumpinku RTX $ Areyonga RTX $ Thamarrurr RTM $ Umbakumba RTS $ Daguragu RTS $ Ramingining RTS $ Lajamanu RTM $ Thamarrurr RTM $ Ltyentye Purte (Santa RTS $ Nyirranggulung Mardrulk RTS $ Teresa) 36 Papunya RTX $ Ltyentye Purte (Santa RTS $ Teresa) 37 Galiwinku RTM $ Wallace Rockhole RTX $ Arltarlpilta RTX $ Tiwi Island RTM $ Elliott District RTS $ Kunbarllanjnja RTS $ Ali Curung RTS $ Aherrenge (Arunga) RTX $ Ntaria RTS $ Maningrida RTM $ Belyuen RTX $ Walingeri Ngumpinku RTX $ Alpurrurulam RTS $ Anmatjere RTM $ Borroloola RTS $ Galiwinku RTM $ Jilkminggan RTX $ Nganmarriyanga RTX $ (Palumpa) 46 Milingimbi RTS $ Aputula RTX $ Maningrida RTM $ Walungurru RTS $ Yirrkala Dhanbul RTS $ Arltarlpilta RTX $ Tapatjatjaka RTX $ Numbulwar Numburindi RTS $ Pine Creek RTS $ Gapuwiyak RTS $ Tennant Creek (T) URS $ Tapatjatjaka RTX $ Binjari RTX $ Ali Curung RTS $ Coomalie (CGC) RTM $ Watiyawanu (Mt Liebig) RTX $ Marngarr RTX $ Milyakburra RTX $ Amoonguna RTX $ Trust Account ZZZ $ Mataranka RTX $ Yuelamu RTX $ Jabiru (T) URS $ Lajamanu RTM $ Cox Peninsula RTX $ Belyuen RTX $ Katherine (T) URS $ Yuendumu RTM $ State average $ Ikuntji RTX $ Litchfield (S) RAV $ Kaltukatjara RTX $ Alice Springs (T) URS $ Papunya RTX $ Palmerston (T) UFS $ Ntaria RTS $ Darwin (C) UCC $ Nyirripi RTX $ Trust Account ZZZ $ Urapuntja RTS $ Appendix E 211

222 Local Government National Report Appendix F Australian classification of local governments The Australian Classification of Local Governments (ACLG) was first published in September 1994 and has proved a useful way to categorise local governing bodies across Australia. The ACLG categorises councils using the population, the population density and the proportion of the population that is classified as urban for the council. The local governing bodies included in the classification system are those that receive general purpose financial assistance grants as defined under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act Therefore, bodies, declared by the Australian Government minister on the advice of the state minister to be local governing bodies for the purposes of the Act, are included in the ACLG. These include community councils. However, county councils, voluntary Regional Organisations of Councils and the Australian Capital Territory are excluded. The classification system generally involves three steps. Each step allocates a prefix (letter/s of the alphabet) to develop a three-letter identifier for each class of local government (there are 22 categories). So, for example, a medium-sized council in a rural agricultural area would be classified as RAM rural, agricultural, medium. If it were remote, however, it would be classified as RTM rural, remote, medium. Table F.1 provides information on the structure of the classification system. Developers of the system recognised that, with so many different types of local governing bodies in Australia, and with changing population distribution patterns, there will be occasions where a council s profile does not fully match the characteristics of the class into which it has been placed. When this occurs, a local governing body may be reallocated to a classification that more accurately reflects its circumstances. Notwithstanding the capacity of the ACLG system to group like councils, it should be noted that there remains considerable scope for divergence within these categories, and for this reason the figures in Appendix D should only be taken as a starting point for enquiring into grant outcomes. This divergence can occur because of factors including isolation, population distribution, local economic performance, daily or seasonal population changes, the age of the population and geographic differences. Allocation of the general purpose grant between states on an equal per capita basis and the local road grant on a fixed shares basis can also cause divergence. To ensure that the ACLG is kept up to date, at the end of each financial year local government grants commissions advise of any changes in the classification of councils in their state. Table F.2 provides details of the number of local governing bodies at June 2006, by ACLG category and by state. As there were changes to the ACLG reported for local governing bodies in , Table F.3 gives changes to local governing body classifications and reasons for the change. 212

223 Local government grants commissions do not take the ACLG classification of a council into account when determining the level of general purpose grant. Further details of the classification system can be found in the original report on the ACLG (Department of Housing and Regional Development 1994). Appendix F Table F.1: Structure of the classification system Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Identifiers Category URBAN (U) Population more than OR If population less than , EITHER Population density more than 30 persons per sq km OR 90 per cent or more of the local governing body population is urban CAPITAL CITY (CC) Not applicable UCC METROPOLITAN DEVELOPED (D) Part of an urban centre of more than or population density more than 600/sq. km REGIONAL TOWNS/CITY (R) Part of an urban centre with population less than and predominantly urban in nature FRINGE (F) A developing LGA on the margin of a developed or regional urban centre SMALL (S) MEDIUM (M) LARGE (L) VERY LARGE (V) SMALL (S) MEDIUM (M) LARGE (L) VERY LARGE (V) SMALL (S) MEDIUM (M) LARGE (L) VERY LARGE (V) up to more than up to more than up to more than UDS UDM UDL UDV URS URM URL URV UFS UFM UFL UFV RURAL (R) A local governing body with population less than AND Population density less than 30 persons per sq km AND SIGNIFICANT GROWTH (SG) Average annual population growth more than 3 per cent, population more than and not remote AGRICULTURAL (A) Not applicable SMALL (S) MEDIUM (M) LARGE (L) VERY LARGE (V) up to RSG RAS RAM RAL RAV Less than 90 per cent of local governing body population is urban REMOTE (T) EXTRA SMALL (X) SMALL (S) MEDIUM (M) LARGE (L) up to RTX RTS RTM RTL Source: Department of Housing and Regional Development 1994, Australian Classification of Local Governments 213

224 Local Government National Report Table F.2: Number of councils by ACLG by category and by state, June 2006 State NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total Urban Capital City (UCC) Urban Development Small (UDS) Urban Development Medium (UDM) Urban Development Large (UDL) Urban Development Very Large (UDV) Urban Regional Small (URS) Urban Regional Medium (URM) Urban Regional Large (URL) Urban Regional Very Large (URV) Urban Fringe Small (UFS) Urban Fringe Medium (UFM) Urban Fringe Large (UFL) Urban Fringe Very Large (UFV) Rural Significant Growth (RSG) Rural Agricultural Small (RAS) Rural Agricultural Medium (RAM) Rural Agricultural Large (RAL) Rural Agricultural Very Large (RAV) Rural Remote Extra Small (RTX) Rural Remote Small (RTS) Rural Remote Medium (RTM) Rural Remote Large (RTL) Total Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services, unpublished data Table F.3: Changes in ACLG category for : reasons for change by state, June 2006 Council name Classification Reason for change New South Wales Glen Innes Severn RAL 1 Warrumbungle RAV 1 Forbes Shire RAL 2 Strathfield Municipal UDM 2 South Australia Barossa UFS Key: Reason for change 1 Amalgamations/splits/boundary changes 2 Changes due to population movements 3 Declared council 4 Revision of classification to more adequately reflect circumstances Source: Department of Transport and Regional services, unpublished data from information supplied by relevant local government grants commissions

225 Appendix G Progress in improving efficiency of local government Appendix G Effective and efficient local government is important because local government delivers key economic, social and environmental services to its communities. This section incorporates reports from all state departments and some local government associations on activities in towards meeting these aims. It includes progress reports on developing performance indicators, reforming legislation, and implementing other microeconomic reforms. New South Wales Department of Local Government New South Wales Local Government Reform Program The aim of the New South Wales Government s Local Government Reform Program is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government services provided to the people of New South Wales. The program consists of a three-pronged approach of: reforming the structure of local government encouraging greater cooperation between councils promoting better council practices. Reforming the structure of local government When the reform program was initially announced in September 2003, the primary focus was on the structure of local government, and the need to more closely align council areas with communities of interest. This was achieved through a series of independently facilitated regional reviews throughout the state, which involved some 49 councils. As a result, the number of councils in New South Wales has been reduced from 172 at the end of 2003 to 155 at the end of This includes 22 new councils constituted as a result of the government s reform program. This has represented the most significant reform to the structure of local government in New South Wales in over 60 years. The government is continuing to encourage councils to pursue voluntary amalgamation options where there is common support and clear benefits. 215

226 Local Government National Report Encouraging greater cooperation between councils The New South Wales Government is pursuing a number of initiatives to encourage councils to consider entering into strategic alliances or resource-sharing arrangements, where they can achieve better service outcomes and more efficient service delivery for their communities. A number of councils have already entered into formal resource-sharing and alliance arrangements, either with their neighbouring councils or through other forums such as Regional Organisations of Councils. Two formal forums to encourage greater cooperation between councils were established during , they are the Strategic Alliance Conference and the Ongoing Strategic Alliance Network. Strategic Alliance Conference On 1 May 2006, the department, together with the Local Government and Shires Associations, hosted the Strategic Alliance Conference. Over 220 delegates, representing 100 councils, attended the conference. Delegates enjoyed presentations from 11 different types of resource-sharing arrangements, ranging from formal strategic alliances, Regional Organisations of Council initiatives through to single service sharing models. Delegates also participated in discussions about where the opportunities for greater resource sharing exist, what the obstacles to greater sharing between councils are and how these obstacles could be overcome. The department will be using the information gathered from the conference to help it determine ways to facilitate greater resource sharing among councils. Ongoing Strategic Alliance Network The department is facilitating establishment of an ongoing Strategic Alliance Network, the objectives of which are: to serve as a driver for real change to serve as an ideas clearing house to promote resource sharing and strategic alliances among councils. Representatives from 50 councils and Regional Organisations of Councils have nominated to join the Network, including 15 councils that have volunteered to serve as pilots for any initiatives the Network wants to trial. The department will serve as secretariat for the Network for its first year of operation, after which, it is intended that councils will run the Network that is, it will be run by councils for councils. Further initiatives to facilitate greater cooperation between councils included developing a resourcesharing database and a guidance paper and forming strategic alliances. Database on council resource sharing The department has been collecting information from councils on resource-sharing initiatives in which they are currently involved. This information is being compiled into a database that will be placed on the department s website to help councils learn from each other. Resource sharing guidance paper The department is currently preparing a paper for councils setting out options for resource sharing. The paper will contain advantages and/or disadvantages of different models and provide some case studies. 216

227 Strategic alliances formed during The department s focus on greater resource sharing has resulted in development of a number of new alliances between councils. These include: Mid North Coast Alliance, which consists of Bellingen, Coffs Harbour, Gloucester, Great Lakes, Greater Taree, Hastings, Kempsey and Nambucca Councils South West Alliance, involving Young, Cootamundra, Harden, Temora, Weddin and Boorowa Councils Penrith Lachlan Councils Sister City Alliance Western Local Government Alliance, made up of Bourke, Bogan, Brewarrina, Cobar, Walgett and Central Darling councils Cooma Monaro, Bombala and Snowy River Council Alliance Murray, Deniliquin and Conargo Council Strategic Alliance Bathurst, Dubbo and Orange Council Alliance Tumbarumba and Tumut Council Alliance. Appendix G Promoting better council practices The Promoting Better Practice stage of the Local Government Reform Program commenced in late It is a review program designed to help councils assess and improve their performance. The program commenced with a pilot review of Campbelltown City Council. The department worked with key stakeholders, such as the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, Local Government Managers Australia, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Ombudsman, to develop the program. As at July 2006, the department had completed 28 council reviews and a further 12 were underway. A review examines both the strategic framework of the council and its operational performance. Reports identify both good practices and areas for improvement. The review program is helping councils to improve their strategic management as well as their governance framework, their financial performance and their delivery of services to local communities. Overall, the department has found the standard of operations in councils reviewed to be good. Some smaller councils are experiencing difficulties across a range of areas, but others are performing well, suggesting that size can but need not be an impediment to good performance. The review found that some council practices are working well. In particular: many councils work effectively with their neighbouring councils, especially on sharing resources almost all councils reviewed have at least the basic elements of a good governance framework in place councils are making greater use of web-based information to inform their communities councils make impressive efforts to undertake positive community engagement many councils are working to develop a stronger strategic focus. Councils are working assiduously to overcome skills shortages by developing strategies to attract and retain staff in key areas where shortages are an issue (such as town planning and finance). 217

228 Local Government National Report The review identified several areas where council practices could be improved. In particular: councils have not developed or realised a long-term strategic vision for their council areas councils are not adequately addressing the challenges of ageing populations (although some councils are beginning to plan for this issue) most councils are not practising risk management to a good standard councils meeting procedures are patchy, and poor control of meetings is often associated with serious conflict among councillors, which in turn damages the reputation of the council in the community; this could be addressed by more appropriate use of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW councils long-term asset management planning is insufficient smaller councils in particular are often failing to manage community land according to relevant statutory requirements. Integrated planning and reporting The department is currently reviewing the existing local government planning and reporting framework, with a view to strengthening councils strategic focus and cutting red tape in planning and reporting processes. The review aims to improve councils capacity to engage their communities in planning for the future and to strengthen links between local, regional and state service providers. This improved engagement will result in more efficient use of council resources and better long-term management of community assets. These areas were identified as key concerns in Are Councils Sustainable? the report of the independent inquiry into the financial sustainability of local government released in May So far, a discussion paper has been issued to all councils, relevant government agencies and industry groups, to gauge councils current strategic planning performance and canvas their views on improvements. Consultation has also been undertaken with industry representatives, such as the Local Government and Shires Association, Local Government Managers Australia, Local Government Community Services Association and Corporate Planners Network. An options paper, with a series of proposed reforms, is currently being prepared. Progress in developing performance indicators for local government The department s Comparative Information on New South Wales Local Government Councils was released in September This was the 15th year the publication has been produced and now contains 32 performance indicators. The information contained in the publication is collected by electronic surveys of councils and other government departments such as the State Library of New South Wales. The department produces four data collections relating to rates, finances, waste management and general information. The information collected has also been used to calculate financial assistance grants, analyse councils financial health and check compliance of rates collected. The publication will continue to produce time series data for each indicator. New South Wales will continue to review and develop appropriate performance measures. To promote use, transparency 218

229 and accountability the department continues to make the publication and the raw data freely available and accessible via the Internet. Victoria Local Government Victoria, Department for Victorian Communities Priorities for continue to be implementation of best value, the Local Government Improvement Incentive Program and further work to help local governments manage their infrastructure assets. Appendix G Implementation of best value Best Value Victoria was introduced in December 1999 and required all local governments to apply Best Value Principles to their services by 31 December The Best Value Commission was established in December 2000 and it reports annually to the Minister for Local Government on implementation of the Best Value Principles. A key recommendation in the Local Government Best Value Commission 2004 Annual Report was that the Ministerial Program and Reporting Codes be revoked. The Minister for Local Government accepted the commission s recommendation and the codes were subsequently revoked in June In October 2005 all councils reported they were on target to meet the 31 December 2005 deadline for applying the Best Value Principles to their services. Due to a range of circumstances a minority of reviews (33 across eight councils) were not completed by the deadline. Overall, the outstanding reviews accounted for around 2 per cent of all service reviews councils undertook and the Minister for Local Government received assurances from the councils concerned that these reviews would be finalised as soon as reasonably practicable. Throughout the Best Value Commission has worked with the local government sector and Local Government Victoria to develop voluntary guidelines to assist councils with ongoing application of Best Value Victoria. National Competition Policy Local Government Improvement Incentive Program As part of the Local Government Improvement Incentive Program introduced in November 2002 and replacing the system of National Competition Policy payments to councils, the Victorian Government and individual Victorian councils signed new Local Government Improvement Incentive Program Agreements that are effective from 1 July 2004 to 30 June The agreements cover the reporting periods for and Compliance for is based on the assessment criterion: National Competition Policy (trade practices, local laws and competitive neutrality). From , the federal government is no longer making competition payments available to the states and territories. Hence Victorian councils will no longer receive competition payments under the Local Government Improvement Incentive Program. They will, however, still be obliged to comply with National Competition Policy principles as specified in the Competition Principles Agreement 1995 between the federal and state and territory governments and as recommitted to at the February 2006 COAG meeting. 219

230 Local Government National Report Infrastructure asset management initiatives Local Government Victoria, in cooperation with the peak local government bodies, is implementing a range of initiatives to help councils improve their asset management capabilities. Improving asset management knowledge and practices through Best Practice Guidelines Development of a package of Best Practice Guidelines was completed during the year. This included: Guidelines to help councils measure and report on the condition of their road assets. These guidelines identify factors that contribute to variance in the measurement and reporting of road condition by municipalities and provide a suggested consistent approach. The guidelines were developed and tested after documenting the asset management practices of seven councils in the north and south west of the state. Providing a framework for council officers and councillors for developing, analysing and prioritising business cases for asset investment proposals. These Guidelines for Local Government Asset Investment were introduced to, and discussed with, council members in workshops at regional forums in June Monitoring and continuous improvement through Department for Victorian Communities Asset Management Performance Measures Project This project developed support tools that councils can use to monitor improvements in their asset management. The Asset Management Performance Measures Project initiated by Local Government Victoria provides councils with a measurement tool to monitor their own asset management improvement and to benchmark their performance against like council groupings. Implementation of the Asset Management Performance Measures Project will meet councils need to measure their own asset management performance and to demonstrate continuous improvement to their communities. Local Government Victoria provided support for this project during June 2006 at six regional council training sessions. Local Government Victoria will collect aggregate data annually. Infrastructure financing During the year Local Government Victoria, together with the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Association for Local Government Professionals, convened infrastructure financing workshops in Bendigo, Whitehorse and Horsham to showcase some innovative approaches that councils such as Mornington Peninsula, Cardinia and Ararat are using to better manage and finance their infrastructure, particularly road, assets. As part of the state government s Moving Forward statement, the government will be working with councils to help them access expertise that will assist in procuring privately financed infrastructure projects. This will help attract higher levels of private sector investment to major regional infrastructure projects. Improved management Implementation of the Road Management Act Implementation of the Road Management Act 2004 enables local governments to develop and publish road management plans setting out performance targets and standards for their road management. The Act provides a framework for improved asset management performance by road authorities including local governments. 220

231 Skills and training Survey of Asset Management Skills and Training Needs Findings from a survey of councils conducted by Local Government Victoria and the peak bodies in 2004 identified a number of asset management topics in need of further consideration for incorporation into ongoing skills training programs. This work is being incorporated into ongoing training programs to be conducted by the peak bodies. Appendix G Measures taken in Victoria to develop comparable performance measures Each year Local Government Victoria, in collaboration with local governments, publishes two reports on indicators. The Local Government in Victoria 2005 report was released in March The indicators published in this report cover rates, operating and capital expenditure, debt, infrastructure renewal, operating result and community satisfaction with overall performance, advocacy and engagement. This report provides commentary on statewide indicator results, including analysis by local government type (that is, inner metropolitan, outer metropolitan, regional cities, small shires and large shires). It also includes individual local government results in an attachment. The report can be downloaded from < in the Local Government Victoria section under local government publications. The 2005 report shows that, while Victorian councils debt levels remained stable, rates generally rose more slowly in 2005 than in the two previous years. Most councils show a substantial increase in capital expenditure. The annual Community Satisfaction Survey was undertaken in early 2006, with 77 of 79 local governments participating on a voluntary basis. The overall performance of local governments has stabilised since the survey began in This year, 79 per cent of respondents reported excellent, good and adequate for overall council performance compared with 78 per cent in At a statewide level, the key drivers of satisfaction, that is those service areas that most impact on how respondents view the performance of their council, are town planning policy and approvals, followed by economic development, local roads and footpaths, and appearance of public areas. As in previous survey years, metropolitan respondents were generally more satisfied than country respondents. Nevertheless, there were a number of measures where country local governments achieved higher ratings than metropolitan local governments, including health and human services, appearance of public areas, traffic management and parking facilities, and enforcement of by-laws. The full research report is available at < Municipal Association of Victoria Local government in Victoria has continued to make strong gains in the efficiency and effectiveness of the sector following the substantial reforms undertaken in the mid 1990s. Council provision of services has expanded in the last decade and municipalities now provide an extensive range of services to the community. Since the introduction of National Competition Policy, local government has also restructured many of its services to ensure it fulfils competitive neutrality principles enshrined in this body of legislation. Specific actions taken in by Victorian local government that improved the efficiency and effectiveness of the sector include: continued improvement of asset management through the Advanced Step Asset Management program 221

232 Local Government National Report an examination of the financial trends in local government over time to identify the challenges facing the sector publication of Future of Local Government project statements business case development of collaborative service provision to garner increased economies of scale, particularly in the areas of infrastructure provision and back-of-house council services. It is the Municipal Association of Victoria s view that the 79 Victorian local governments are continually improving their efficiency and effectiveness despite delivering a greater number of services to their communities while depending predominantly on rates revenue to fund services. Diverse role of local government in Victoria The role of local government in Victoria is increasingly diverse. Whereas the core local government services were in provision of infrastructure and waste collection, councils now provide a myriad of services including home and community care, immunisation, child care, preschool, community facilities, economic and tourism development, and maternal and child health programs. This expansion of responsibilities has occurred in the context of substantial changes to government service provision. The National Competition Policy dictates that government should not have a competitive advantage over the private sector purely because of being a government. The major restructuring that occurred due to development of this policy has created a lasting legacy of improved efficiency and effectiveness of councils. Victorian local government has also undergone a considerable period of reform. Compulsory amalgamations, rate capping, and introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, among others, have ensured that the level of efficiency and adoption of market-based governance models has been unparalleled by any other state. Continual efficiency reform can be seen through the Best Value program. This trend of increasing local government services is valuable: (a) for the community because it allows local government to respond to complex issues with sensitivity to the localised context, and (b) for federal and state governments, by allowing devolution of programmatic responsibility for service delivery to a sphere of government that can more easily tailor services to the needs of individual communities and at a reduced cost. While local government in Victoria has expanded its role, its revenue-raising capacity has remained largely static. Despite substantial rate increases sustained over a number of years, many councils (frequently rural) still face pressures in responding to their liabilities associated with provision of infrastructure. Local government continues to rely primarily on revenue derived from rates on properties to subsidise the cost of providing valuable community services on behalf of other spheres of government. This raises fundamental issues regarding the desirability of the provision of (typically) secondary services that is, services provided to a selected group within the community being financed by a rating model based on the value of property, and where benefits will frequently flow over the municipal boundary. Likewise, not all councils have a similar ability to raise revenue from other sources, for example, fees, fines and charges. This has, prima facie, resulted in local government diverting infrastructure renewal expenditure towards service provision. At the same time, local government reliance upon general purpose grants has declined as the escalators within the system have failed to keep pace with local government expansion (see Figure G.1). 222

233 Figure G.1: General purpose grants as a proportion of local government revenue, to % Appendix G 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Source: Municipal Association of Victoria Despite the general trend of expanding local government responsibility, each council is evolving to provide individualised services to the community, and the funding model should encourage these individual responses. It is therefore the view of the Municipal Association of Victoria that local government should have access to larger non-rate revenue bases to enable it to provide these required services. The trend of gradual expansion of local government responsibility was correctly identified in the Hawker inquiry into cost shifting. The inquiry acknowledged that cost shifting onto local government has been occurring for a number of years. It also unveiled a number of underlying issues and tensions relating to the system of government in Australia and raised questions about the existing governance and financial arrangements. It is the view of the Municipal Association of Victoria that the single biggest factor limiting the value and effectiveness of the financial assistance grants process is lack of funds in the national pool. Specific measures taken by local government Infrastructure and assets As was reported in last year s submission to the National Report, local government has seen improved performance in asset management practice and implementation under the Advanced Step Asset Management program, a best practice framework for local government. In , the planned expansion in the scope of the Step program was completed, and participating councils developed asset management plans for all significant asset classes (roads, bridges, drains, buildings, and some parks and gardens). This outcome is fundamental to identifying the infrastructure gap at each council (and comparing it to the Department for Victorian Communities assessment), establishing priority-driven asset renewal programs and identifying strategic options to manage the gap. Without having asset plans in place for all assets, these strategic perspectives cannot be obtained. 223

234 Local Government National Report In addition to the asset management plans, the Step program examined the projected capital underspend (and overspend) for all classes of assets for participating councils. Figure G.2 provides an example of the predicted cumulative funding gap for a participating council. Each council participating in this project will have a similar understanding of the asset funding gap. Figure G.2: Aggregate capital funding gap year aggregated capital funding gap in $ separated by asset type sporting ovals playground equipment building fit out build mechanical services building roof build structure short life build structure long life storm water pipes storm water pits bridges & major culverts short life bridges & major culverts long life all kerbs other footpaths concrete footpaths all spray seals all asphalt surfaces all gravel resheets pavement (sealed access roads) pavement (sealed collector roads) pavement (sealed link roads) First year ahead of each 5 year averaged group Source: Municipal Association of Victoria This advanced Step program will help the sector undertake the strategic planning to work towards overcoming the asset management gap in the future and prioritise expenditure on the renewal and maintenance of council assets. Local government financial trends In addition to the examination of the key financial trends in the local government sector, the Municipal Association of Victoria has continued to work with Victorian councils to identify the long-term financial trends in the sector. This analysis has indicated that the sector s aggregate financial position continues to improve, but many small rural councils have declined. Analysis has focused on identifying the factors affecting the viability of councils and it is the intention of the Municipal Association of Victoria to examine this issue further in Recent improvements to the financial statements, through adoption of international accounting standards, will increase the Municipal Association of Victoria s capacity to monitor the sector s comparative financial performance. 224

235 Future of local government In June 2006, the Municipal Association of Victoria hosted the second Future of Local Government Summit, featuring Australian and international representatives from the sector. The aim of the summit was to identify strategies for local government to embrace reform and improve innovation. Appendix G The summit identified a roadmap for the future of local government in Australia, including seven principles that were approved, with acclamation, by delegates from across the nation. The principles are: local government s time has come: global forces and events in Australia have presented the sector with the opportunity of a lifetime, which local government must use to its advantage local government to speak with one voice: there is a need for the sector to work together and adopt a leadership role local government to be community driven local government to derive power from community engagement local government to demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness local government to pursue community sustainability involve all spheres of government in the change and the process. In addition, the summit established that individual state local government associations and the Australian Local Government Association (on an opt-in basis) should progress development of three tools for councils, namely: a regional cooperation framework to enable joint collaborative projects such as shared services and regional collaboration a sector accountability framework that identifies community needs and priorities and reports on how councils are responding to those requirements a sector performance and funding framework that identifies performance targets and measures for local government and develops a sustainable funding model. Business cases for collaborative services Several projects in Victoria examined the business cases for collaborative provision of services to increase scale economies, and hence, council efficiency. Three examples of these projects include: A proposal from a number of north-eastern Victorian councils to establish a structure for group provision of infrastructure, such as roads. These councils currently face a limited number of contractors and prices fluctuate significantly. A business case is currently being developed aimed at examining the feasibility of greater cooperation in undertaking infrastructure construction. A proposal from a consortium of north-western Victorian councils to establish shared information technology and back-office facilities. A consortium of councils appointed the Municipal Association of Victoria as an agent to procure an integrated library management system and managed services on their behalf. The tender was let in November 2005 and implementation of this system for the initial consortium members will be completed by June The next financial year will see a further eight libraries being included in the consortium. This represents approximately 50 per cent of municipal libraries in Victoria. Substantial recurrent cost savings will be achieved and library management policies, business rules and practices will be harmonised. 225

236 Local Government National Report The greatest challenge in local government provision of services is for appropriate methods of funding to keep pace with increasing service costs and demand. It is the contention of the Municipal Association of Victoria that increasing the quantum of financial assistance grants to Australian councils would achieve this aim. It is the view of the Municipal Association of Victoria that the financial assistance grants are best distributed through the current model of per capita allocation between states and distributed by state grants commissions within states. The local government sector in Victoria has embraced the challenge of innovation to improve its financial health. The future of local government agenda will proactively adopt greater regionalisation to enhance efficiency and service effectiveness. Simultaneously, there has been a concerted effort across the sector to provide services collaboratively. Asset management continues to be a key determinant of the financial health of councils. The Municipal Association of Victoria s analysis has identified cumulative capital underspend as being the biggest financial viability issue facing councils. The Advanced Step Asset Management program will map the predicted infrastructure gap for every class of asset for the next 50 years. This provides councils with the capacity to effectively strategically plan to prioritise infrastructure renewal, maintenance, and upgrade of council assets. Queensland Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation Under the Local Government Act 1993, the 18 largest councils in Queensland were required to consider some form of National Competition Policy reform for their significant business activities along with any other business activities undertaken in direct competition with the private sector. The remaining 107 councils were also required to consider reforming any business activities undertaken in direct competition with the private sector. All councils were also required to review anti-competitive provisions in local laws. National Competition Policy Local Government Financial Incentive Package The National Competition Policy Local Government Financial Incentive Package is a pool of funds, totalling $150 million in dollars, which the Queensland Government has allocated as a significant incentive for local government to implement National Competition and related COAG water reforms. The funds also recognise costs to local government of reviewing their business activities and local laws and implementing such reforms. Given the importance of local government infrastructure and facilities to overall state development, councils implementation of National Competition Policy reforms (where the benefits outweigh the costs) also contributes to economic and social development at state and regional levels. The 18 largest local governments were originally selected for the primary focus of reform on the basis that their significant business activities (Type 1 and Type 2 activities) accounted for around 80 per cent of the local government business expenditure in Queensland. These councils were required to undertake public benefit assessments before deciding which competitive neutrality reforms should be applied. Additionally, all local governments were required to identify their Type 3 business activities (that is, other business activities undertaken in direct competition with the private sector) and determine whether to apply the reforms (that is, full cost pricing, code of competitive 226

237 conduct, commercialisation or corporatisation). Although reform of Type 3 business activities was not mandatory, 40 councils nominated Type 3 activities for reform at the outset of the reform program. Nominations for new business activities for National Competition Policy under the Financial Incentive Package closed on 30 March 2002, by which time 736 nominations had been received. Councils must first nominate a business for reform and resolve to apply the specific reforms. Once a council s business nominations have been accepted, the businesses must undertake a series of reforms to be eligible for payments out of the Financial Incentive Package. The original date for completion of National Competition Policy reforms was 30 June However, the guidelines were amended to provide an extension of time for all councils (with the exception of Brisbane City Council which had already been granted a year s extension) to gain the greatest benefit from the Business Management Assistance Program, discussed below. For those councils that met the new requirements of the guidelines, the deadline for implementation of reforms to be eligible for Financial Incentive Package payments was extended to 30 June Of the eligible 124 councils, 117 sought and were granted an extension of time. In addition, 223 new business activities were nominated across 85 councils in the last round, with 15 of these businesses being nominated by the big 18 group. Appendix G In compiling its assessments against the Implementation Pool of the National Competition Policy Local Government Financial Incentive Package for the year ending 31 July 2002, the Queensland Competition Authority commented that good progress continued to be made, with the 18 largest councils achieving an average reform level of 77.7 per cent. The remaining 106 councils made more progress than in previous years and reached an average reform level of 54 per cent. The payments to the 106 smaller councils in June 2003 as a result of reform progress at 30 June 2002 have illustrated the success of the state government funded Business Management Assistance Program in which 117 councils have participated. The Queensland Government s position on applying the National Competition Policy reforms to local government has always been that they are a set of management tools to choose from if they are going to benefit a council and there is a positive public outcome. Apart from provision of funds under the Financial Incentive Package, there have been a number of initiatives, such as training and development of guidelines for dealing with competitive neutrality complaints in local governments, to support local governments in implementing National Competition Policy reforms and in carrying out investigations to enable reporting on cross subsidies. Components of the National Competition Policy Financial Incentive Package The $150 million allocation of the Financial Incentive Package has three components, namely: $1 million in a training pool to provide National Competition Policy training and assistance to local governments by the Local Government Association of Queensland and the department. $7.5 million in a review pool to help local governments meet the cost of reviews of local laws, to conduct public benefit assessments of the impacts of introducing competitive neutrality reforms and assessments of the cost effectiveness of introducing two-part tariffs under the COAG water reforms. $141.5 million in an implementation pool to be paid to local governments for implementing National Competition Policy reforms. 227

238 Local Government National Report Of the $150 million, $45 million (in dollars) was set aside for Brisbane City Council, made up of $2.25 million from the review pool (which has been fully expended) and $42.75 million from the implementation pool. This allocation was based on a variety of characteristics, such as recurrent expenditure, revenue and population, all of which suggested that an amount in the vicinity of 30 per cent of the funding pools would be appropriate. Payments to local governments under the National Competition Policy Financial Incentive Package Payments have been made to local governments over a seven-year period commencing in , with the total amount under the Financial Incentive Package subject to Queensland receiving the full amount of its competition payments from the federal government. Table G.1 shows the funds distributed to date and funds remaining (including indexation). Table G.1: Actual payments to local governments under the National Competition Policy Financial Incentive Package, to Year Amount ($m) Total Notes: The above amounts are provided from the review and implementation pools of the Financial Assistance Package and include indexation. The federal government determines indexation based on population changes and Consumer Price Index. The actual funds available to local government for the remainder of the Financial Incentive Package are subject to Queensland receiving the full amount of its competition payments from the federal government. Source: Queensland Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation, October 2006 In each of the seven years of distributions to date, unspent funds were carried forward, increasing the potential funds for distribution in the subsequent financial years. The payments to local governments in comprised $8.1 million from the implementation pool to 117 local governments recognising their progress in implementing National Competition Policy and COAG water reforms. The remaining funds in each pool of the Financial Incentive Package are: Training pool unexpended funds in this pool were supplemented in to finance the $ Business Management Assistance Program. All funds have been expended under this program. Review pool of the available $8.255 million, $635,100 remains undistributed. The remaining funds will be distributed to local governments by the end of Implementation pool the final payment from this pool was made in 2004 and, in accordance with Financial Incentive Package guidelines, any undispersed funds will be distributed to local governments by the end of

239 Business Management Assistance Program In August 2001, the state government provided funding to establish the Business Management Assistance Program to improve councils financial management capability and hence enhance their general capacity to provide services to their communities, while maximising their potential for payments through the Financial Incentive Package. The Local Government Association of Queensland, in consultation with the Department of Local Government and Planning, and Treasury, has implemented the initiative. The initiative was funded with $0.6 million from the indexation component of the competition payments allocated to the National Competition Policy Financial Incentive Package. As part of the Business Management Assistance Program, consultants worked with the 107 participating councils to develop action plans outlining a program for implementing the remaining National Competition Policy reforms in the required time. Support has been provided in implementing the National Competition Policy requirements that also result in improved financial management practices for the councils and improved outcomes for their communities. This support has enabled them to maximise their potential payments from the state government under the Financial Incentive Package. Appendix G Measures taken in Queensland to develop comparable performance measures Under its performance management program for local governments, the Queensland Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation is committed to helping local governments achieve performance improvement and best practice in the services they provide to their communities. The department released its annual comparative performance report titled Queensland Local Government Comparative Information in September This report is produced in partnership with local governments and provides a comprehensive collection of performance and contextual information for key local government functions such as road maintenance, water, sewerage, waste management, library services, local government rating and financial management. The report, continuing to be produced on CD ROM, represents Queensland councils significant contribution to a healthy system of local government that is transparent and accountable. The information contained in the comparative report was supplied by 117 of Queensland s councils providing a great example of the strong partnership that exists between councils and the Queensland Government. The performance measures contained within the report are reviewed yearly with any amendments and/or additions to the measures being based on the feedback and recommendations received from local governments during the course of the year. The publication aims to help local governments develop new and more effective ways to deliver their services by providing an effective tool by which local governments can monitor trends over time and benchmark their performance both internally and against other councils. With the publication also available freely on the department s website, at < local_govt/>, community members also have greater access to the comparative information. The publication, therefore, helps to enhance the transparency and public accountability of Queensland local government. 229

240 Local Government National Report Local Government Association of Queensland Disaster Management Alliance An alliance between the State of Queensland through the Department of Emergency Services and the Local Government Association of Queensland on behalf of local government was formed under a memorandum of agreement in July The alliance has been established to build upon existing collaborative arrangements in order to effectively implement disaster management reforms arising from the COAG review into natural disasters in Australia. These reforms emphasise disaster mitigation as a means of reducing the consequences of disasters before they occur. To help local government implement these reforms, the Association has secured funding under the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program for the Local Government Association of Queensland Disaster Management Capability Development and Implementation Project that is expected to operate until July The Disaster Management Alliance is seeking to enhance councils capacity to undertake effective disaster management through: developing appropriate guidelines, tools, policies and protocols enhancing communication, education and training in disaster management fostering regional disaster management frameworks that enable local governments to work collaboratively to exploit synergies in dealing with common/shared disaster risks and their treatments. Since July 2005, the alliance has conducted a major survey of all local governments to determine their current and required capacities to undertake contemporary disaster management. The results of this survey have informed the project outcomes. The alliance has produced the Elected Member s Guide to Disaster Management together with a companion CD containing a range of useful publications and guides to contemporary disaster management. This publication will help raise the profile of disaster mitigation as a means to reduce the consequences of disasters through improved community engagement and by mainstreaming disaster management into councils day-to-day decision-making processes including land use planning and processing development applications. The alliance has established a trial regional disaster management group based on the 13 councils of the Darling Downs Regional Organisation of Councils. This trial is helping develop regional risk profiling processes and regional risk management strategies that can be applied to other regions within Queensland. Additional groups are under negotiation and/or development. Water management The Local Government Association of Queensland has been working with the Queensland Water Directorate and the state government on a number of water reform initiatives in accordance with agreements COAG made. This work has included progression of the Statewide Water Information Management (SWIM) project. The SWIM project aims to design and implement an online water reporting system in Queensland for efficiently collecting, storing and reporting Local Government Water Service Provider (LGWSP) data. 230

241 The following deliverables will be produced to support this objective: A comprehensive and standardised set of data requirements, accounting and reporting rules for water industry performance reporting agreed by federal, state and local government (currently underway). A Queensland water reporting system for gathering, storing and reporting data on water business performance, to be accessible by relevant state and federal government departments and, where appropriate, the private sector and the community at large. Capacity-building programs to improve the capability of LGWSP to provide quality data for the system. An annual industry performance report to help LGWSP measure their own performance over time and, where appropriate, compare themselves with similar businesses. Appendix G The Queensland Government has agreed to support a number of elements within the SWIM project that contribute to meeting state government objectives. To this end, the Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation has begun a whole-of-state-government review of data requests being made of LGWSPs. This review aims to coordinate and rationalise the requests made by all state government departments and is a key element of developing the data collection and dissemination model. The Local Government Association of Queensland has sought funding support through the Australian Water Fund s Raising National Water Standards program to facilitate development of the database element of SWIM. Western Australia Department of Local Government and Regional Development The Department of Local Government and Regional Development continues to explore the concept of using Internet technology to facilitate data collections from local government. The Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission has redesigned its data collection instrument (Information Return) to be better aligned with local government operating statements. Initial feedback is very positive and will result in a more accurate and time-effective process. The current skills shortage in local government places significant strain on resources. There is a need to attract and retain more young, professional and skilled people to work in local government. The department has focused strongly on attracting graduating students to local government through participation at career expos and student career days. The Local Government (Official Conduct) Amendment Bill 2005 was introduced into the Western Australian Parliament in November The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1995 to provide a disciplinary framework to deal with individual misconduct by local government council members when they do not comply with a code of conduct or they contravene particular laws applying to them in Acts and Regulations. The Western Australian Government sees this as a very important area of local government legislative reform and expects that the Bill will come before the parliament during If passed, these new laws will provide for establishment of a statewide standards panel to deal more efficiently with complaints about breaches of codes of conduct. The department is developing new procedures that are expected to streamline its complaints-handling and investigation processes in this area. 231

242 Local Government National Report The department conducted 14 local law seminars around the state to help local governments improve their local laws under the Local Government Act The seminars highlighted the key elements of making good local laws, legislative requirements and correct drafting techniques. The CEO Support Program, administered by the department, is continuing to provide assistance and peer support to newly appointed chief executive officers. It aims to encourage good practice and help minimise potential difficulties for new CEOs. Measures taken in Western Australia to develop comparable performance measures The department has continued to devote significant resources to developing a new system for monitoring the operations of local government. There is continued emphasis on incorporating a multitude of statutory ratios in the new system and on creating a finance working group that reviews changes in accounting standards and that meets regularly to develop improvements in local government monitoring. The new system will enable the department to assess councils performance against key areas of activity and will provide timely advice as to the financial health of local governments. The department s role in ensuring local government adherence to statutory compliance is being further resourced to expand its monitoring of the financial health and statutory compliance levels of local governments. This resourcing included development of new software that allows the department to be more proactive, with greater analysis of compliance and financial data. In addition, the department has completed 16 compliance audits of various local governments throughout the state. The department has conducted reviews of key performance indicator reports of other states, with a view to developing similar reports for Western Australia in the near future. The Western Australian Grants Commission has published comparative data for all the state s 142 local governments on its website. The comparative statistics will cover the period to indicating changes to assessments made and to provide a benchmark that compares relative local government revenues and expenditures for similar councils. Western Australian Local Government Association Systemic sustainability study The Western Australian Local Government Association commissioned the Systemic Sustainability Study Panel to conduct an independent investigation into the structure and sustainability of local government. The study was undertaken to enhance those aspects of local government that are effective while suggesting improvements in those that are not. The major findings of the panel s interim report were that: 83 local governments are financially unsustainable local governments do not apply finance and accounting regulations consistently the average operating deficit in Western Australia of 4.5 per cent of their own source revenue is causing a large intergenerational equity transfer. The panel will make specific recommendations to improve local government delivery of services in its final report to be released in early November. The recommendations are expected to include: 232

243 the current system of local government financial assistance grants and other supplementary revenues, including entitlements to a minimum grant, may work against efficient and rational practice the areas of skill and capability shortfall are having an impact on local government s capacity to fulfil their legislative liabilities and deliver services their communities expect a raft of changes to the Local Government Act 1995 that would dramatically enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery. Appendix G The panel will also be making recommendations to enhance the consistency of financial data and establishing a financial sustainability industry ranking methodology. This will establish a consistent methodology for determining a local government s financial sustainability. New disciplinary framework for local government in Western Australia There is a strong sentiment within local government in Western Australia that the current system for dealing with misconduct by elected members does not work. There is presently no framework for addressing individual councillors behavioural problems. While all councils are required to establish codes of conduct, they are virtually unenforceable. Traditionally, the state government has relied upon formal and informal inquiries into local governments to ascertain the validity of complaints, with the focus being on the whole council rather than on individual councillors. This has taken a heavy toll, both for those directly affected by an inquiry and for the rest of the sector, through negative publicity that undermines public perceptions. The current system only allows the Minister for Local Government to suspend or dismiss an entire council, with no legislative authority to deal with individual councillors for misconduct. This unfairly discriminates against those elected members who have acted appropriately at all times. At the request of the local government sector, the Western Australian Local Government Association has lobbied the state government to develop a new legislative framework through which allegations of misconduct by elected members can be scrutinised and dealt with. The result has been development of the Local Government (Official Conduct) Amendment Bill 2005, which is expected to come before the state parliament in If passed, the legislation will provide for establishment of a statewide Standards Panel to deal with complaints about minor breaches by elected members. Minor breaches are classified as contraventions of a uniform Code of Conduct, which is to be prescribed in regulations to the Local Government Act Proven breaches can attract penalties for elected members, including public censure, public apology or an order to undertake additional training. Serious breaches, which are contraventions of the Local Government Act 1995 or recurrent minor breaches, can be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal for determination, with penalties including those available to the Standards Panel plus more serious sanctions of up to six months suspension or up to five years disqualification as an elected member. The new system should facilitate early and timely resolution of instances of alleged misconduct before councils become dysfunctional and a council inquiry becomes the only option. It should also provide mechanisms to help local governments maintain good order and control within their council environments, and minimise cost imposts on local governments and those parties involved with a disciplinary matter. 233

244 Local Government National Report Community development During 2005 the State Local Government Heritage Working Party, established by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of heritage management in Western Australia, produced recommendations for improving the way local governments deal with heritage. The submission caused the Western Australian Planning Commission to gazette a State Planning Policy for Heritage and to make recommendations for changes to the model scheme text, prescribed under the Town Planning Regulations 1967, and common standards for heritage listing and local planning. The Heritage Loan Subsidy Scheme, administered by the Association, was overhauled to improve financial incentives for heritage conservation works. The Association administered two grant programs to help councils meet their legislative and policy requirements; they were the Disability Access and Inclusion Plan Implementation Support grants and the Local Government Scheme grants. The Association developed the Disability Access and Inclusion Plan Implementation Support grants in conjunction with the Disability Services Commission. These grants help to ensure local governments increase their capacity to implement the aims of Disability Access and Inclusion Plans, as specified in amendments to the Disability Services Act The grants allow Western Australian local governments to access funds to help them implement their Disability Access and Inclusion Plans and successfully realise them in the community. The Association developed the Local Government Scheme grants in conjunction with the Physical Activity Taskforce with funds provided by Lotterywest. These grants aim to encourage new and innovative approaches to increasing physical activity in the community. This allows local governments to increase local community capacity to address physical inactivity at a community level and develop relationships and networks with local community groups and service providers. Evaluation reports are provided six- and 12-monthly for the 12-month funding period. Innovation and case studies are reported to encourage information sharing between local governments and to showcase best practice. The Association initiated two research projects to provide an evidence base for provision of council services to people with disabilities. The projects included research around inclusive sport and recreation practices, in partnership with peak disability service agencies, and research around local government s employment of people with disabilities. The Association, in partnership with Lotterywest and the Western Australian Council of Social Services, has embarked on a research project to determine the relationship between local government and the not-for-profit sector in developing and delivering community services. This project, which will occur over the next 12 months, will develop a suite of macro indicators for consideration by local government in benchmarking and reporting on community service and community development provision. South Australia Office for State Local Government Relations and Local Government Association of South Australia combined report The Local Government Association of South Australia established a nine-point plan in August 2004 to address a range of rating and financial issues. The plan included pursuing a range of legislative amendments to the Local Government Act 1999 and establishing an independent inquiry. In August 2005, a review board, commissioned by the Association to undertake an independent inquiry into the financial sustainability of local government in South Australia, released its final report. 234

245 The report made significant recommendations regarding the need for local government to improve its financial governance. The Association subsequently mounted a comprehensive Financial Sustainability Program designed to provide practical assistance to councils. The measures include issue of a series of information papers supported by manuals, guidelines, templates, codes and standards. The inquiry received a category award in the 2006 National Awards for Local Government (see Appendix I). Appendix G New South Wales and Western Australia have followed South Australia s lead and their local government associations have conducted similar inquiries. The Local Government (Financial Management and Rating) Amendment Act 2005 was passed in November The Amendment Act was introduced to strengthen accountability and financial governance measures, including new obligations for a council to adopt long-term financial plans and asset management plans and a new requirement to consult with communities about annual business plans in the lead up to adopting their annual budgets. The Amendment Act will also require councils to provide eligible state seniors with the option to postpone a prescribed portion of their council rates each financial year. The joint State and Local Government Financial Accountability Advisory Committee finalised the Local Government Financial Governance Code of Practice in April The code is designed to: establish best practice benchmarks in financial governance reinforce community confidence in the information sources upon which council decisions are based establish consistency within the sector to improve the transparency, accountability, quality and accessibility of financial information. Measures taken in South Australia to develop comparable performance measures The Association continued its Comparative Performance Measurement Project in This project provides data to all South Australian councils on corporate level performance in four key areas of governance, community satisfaction, financial and asset management, and quality of life. In addition to viewing their own data, councils can compare their performance with the average results for groupings of councils adopted by the local government sector. Data for the performance indicators is drawn from the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission, a variety of state agencies, local government statistical returns and from a voluntary community survey. Of South Australia s 68 councils, 31 participated in the voluntary survey in 2006 and a number of other councils commissioned their own independent surveys. The results of the project in were provided to all councils via a secure website. Work also commenced during on a proposal to make the results of the project publicly available. The Association believes it is vital that factual information is available to the public on the performance of councils and their accountability for expenditure of public funds. The Association is therefore proceeding with development of a public website to display the information. During , the South Australian Local Government Financial Management Group (a group of finance professionals from councils) developed a modern set of key indicators of the sustainability of a council s financial performance and financial position. The indicators are consistent with those recommended by the Independent Inquiry into the Financial Sustainability of Councils and have been endorsed by the Local Government Association of South Australia s Financial Sustainability Advisory Committee. It is expected that all councils will adopt those indicators in

246 Local Government National Report Tasmania Local Government Division, Department of Premier and Cabinet In June 1996, as required under the National Competition Principles Agreement, the former government submitted a policy application statement, titled Application of National Competition Policy to Local Government, to the National Competition Council. This statement was prepared in consultation with local government and provided broad guidance on how the key competition principles would be applied to local government. A review of the 1996 application statement began during 2002 and, following consultation with the Local Government Association of Tasmania, was completed in April 2004 with the publication of a new application statement, titled National Competition Policy Applying the Principles to Local Government in Tasmania (2004 Application Statement). In addition, the 2004 Application Statement was accompanied by a supporting document, Significant Business Activities and Local Government in Tasmania. These documents reaffirm local government s responsibilities in relation to the competition principles, as set out in the National Competition Policy Agreements, with a view to helping local government continue to apply competition principles to its activities. Under the 2004 Application Statement, in applying competitive neutrality principles, local government is required to: identify relevant business activities which it considers to be significant business activities undertake public benefit assessments of the corporatisation of those business activities as outlined in the 2004 Application Statement corporatise those activities where a public benefit assessment indicates the benefits outweigh the costs of doing so and apply full cost attribution to all other significant business activities. The Local Government Act 1993 (Tas.) was amended in 1999 to require councils to report competitive neutrality costs for their significant business activities in their annual reports. The 2004 Application Statement reaffirms the requirement of each state and territory to establish a competitive neutrality complaints mechanism. This mechanism, established under the Government Prices Oversight Regulations 1998, provides that a person who believes he or she has been adversely affected by a contravention of the competitive neutrality principles may lodge a complaint with the Government Prices Oversight Commission, which has responsibility for investigating all alleged breaches of the competitive neutrality principles in Tasmania. The 2004 Application Statement also acknowledges that the Government Prices Oversight Amendment Act 1997 extended coverage of the Government Prices Oversight Act 1995 to include local government monopoly or near monopoly services. As a consequence of this extended coverage, local government monopoly or near monopoly providers now fall under the prices oversight jurisdiction of the Government Prices Oversight Commission. In this regard, the Government Prices Oversight Act 1995 has been applied to the three bulk water authorities. The state s obligations under the Strategic Framework for the Efficient and Sustainable Reform of the Australian Water Industry require bulk water authorities to charge on a volumetric basis to recover all costs. These authorities are also required to earn a positive real rate of return on the written-down replacement cost of their assets. Beginning in 2001, the Government Prices Oversight Commission commenced an annual review process requiring councils to provide advice on the performance of their water and wastewater 236

247 businesses for that year. In June 2005, the commission completed its review of councils performance with respect to cost recovery for provision of water and wastewater services. The audit findings were presented to the National Water Commission in September 2005 with the submission of Tasmania s 2005 National Competition Policy Water Reform Progress Report. The review found a generally high level of compliance by Tasmanian councils in both water and wastewater pricing. In June 2005, Tasmania signed the Intergovernmental Agreement on the National Water Initiative. The National Water Commission is responsible for national water reform and advising the Australian Government and state and territory governments on water reform issues. Under the National Water Initiative, Tasmania is currently developing its implementation plans, and once these plans are agreed to, future reviews will be conducted in accordance with the National Water Initiative obligations. At present, while the National Water Initiative commitments in relation to local government water and wastewater businesses do not differ significantly from those under National Competition Policy, there are some additional national reporting requirements for pricing and service delivery that may affect those councils with in excess of water and/or wastewater connections. The National Water Initiative implementation plans are scheduled to be provided to the National Water Commission for approval in the near future. Tasmania is proposing to conduct the Government Prices Oversight Commission reviews of councils water and wastewater pricing every two years under the National Water Initiative. Officers from the National Water Commission have provided in-principle support for a two-year review. Councils are also required, according to Regulation 32 of the Local Government Regulations 1994, to demonstrate that the Urban Water and Wastewater Pricing Guidelines for local government in Tasmania are being applied in relation to supply of domestic water. In order to demonstrate this, a council must incorporate, in its annual report, a statement reporting on its plans for supply of water for domestic consumption and sufficient financial information to demonstrate that it is applying the pricing guidelines to that water. The previous requirement was for a statement to appear in a council s operating plans for the forthcoming year. Appendix G Partnership agreements Following its re-election in March 2006, the state government re-affirmed its commitment to working cooperatively with local government to achieve benefits for local communities around the state. The Premier s Local Government Council and the Partnership Agreements program have demonstrated that the two spheres of government can work together, in partnership, to improve sustainable economic development, to promote social and environmental outcomes and to better coordinate service delivery to the community. The Local Government Office facilitates the Partnership Agreement process. During the year, the office coordinated development, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, review and reporting processes for all Partnership Agreements with local government. This included preparation of the annual report to Parliament in December 2005, implementation of a new web-based database reporting system and continuing liaison with councils, regional bodies and all state government agencies involved in negotiating and implementing Partnership Agreements. All 29 Tasmanian councils are currently involved in the processes for statewide, regional and bilateral Partnership Agreements. By 30 June 2006, 25 of the 29 Tasmanian councils had signed bilateral Partnership Agreements with the state government or had completed an agreement ready for signing. 237

248 Local Government National Report By 30 June 2006, bilateral Partnership Agreements had been signed with 23 councils Break O Day, Brighton, Burnie City, Central Highlands, Circular Head (second agreement), Derwent Valley, Devonport City, Dorset, Flinders, George Town, Glamorgan Spring Bay, Glenorchy City, Hobart City, Kingborough, King Island, Latrobe, Launceston City (second agreement), Meander Valley, Northern Midlands, Tasman, Waratah Wynyard, West Coast and West Tamar. Agreements with Kentish and Sorell councils had been approved and arrangements had been made for them to be signed in July 2006 by the Premier and the respective mayors. First agreements with Clarence City Council and Central Coast Council were close to finalisation, and progress had been made on first agreements with Southern Midlands and Huon Valley councils. Progress had also been made on reviewing and re-developing agreements with 12 councils. The Partnership Agreements process has been augmented with a new reporting database, made available through the Internet. Unanticipated issues with the reporting system s implementation slowed activity on reviewing and developing new agreements during the first half of After issues were resolved, and training and assistance were provided to users, the system became fully operational and is now successfully used by councils, regional bodies and state agencies to make regular reports on agreement activities. It has also been found that negotiations for second agreements are containing issues of greater complexity, requiring longer research and negotiation stages. The extended timeframes for development of second agreements have also had an impact on the forecast number of agreements to be signed in Two regional Partnership Agreements, with Cradle Coast Authority and Northern Tasmania Development, are being redeveloped. The regional agreement with Southern Tasmanian Councils is being implemented. Premier s Local Government Council The office continued to provide secretariat functions for the Premier s Local Government Council and the associated officials committee, each of which met twice in The Premier s Local Government Council was established in 2000 to provide a forum for high-level discussions and agreement on issues from a statewide perspective; it is chaired by the Premier, the Hon. Paul Lennon MHA. For both meetings in , membership included the President of the Local Government Association of Tasmania, Councillor Lynn Mason, Lord Mayor Rob Valentine, Mayor Jock Campbell, Mayor Mike Downie, Mayor Barry Easther, Mayor Deirdre Flint, Mayor Ross Hine and Councillor Robert Legge. The officials committee supports the Premier s Local Government Council, with membership from local government and state agencies and was chaired in by the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Linda Hornsey. The Premier s Local Government Council work program in included some ongoing projects as well as actions to address new issues. Progress included: continuation of the project on strategic infrastructure and its relationship to the economic development of the state information for councils on promoting Tasmania as a single entity and the Tasmania brand oversight of the development of a draft statewide Partnership Agreement for young Tasmanians 238

249 revision of the Guidelines for Communication and Consultation between the State and Local Government, which are part of the statewide Partnership Agreement on Communication and Consultation, and preparation for their distribution and promotion planning and commencement of the project to review the operations and functions of the Local Government Board. Appendix G The Premier s Local Government Council also oversaw the continuing implementation and completion of the State and Local Government Financial Relations Partnership Agreement that had been signed in This agreement remains one of the most far-reaching and innovative intergovernmental agreements negotiated in the country. In summary, the agreement commits the state government to paying council rates on certain land tenures and abolition of a number of levies, while local government now pays payroll and land tax. The initiative has continued to attract significant national interest. Inter-governmental relationships The office continued its role in developing an historic tripartite Partnership Agreement for Population Ageing in Tasmania between the Australian Government, the state government and the Local Government Association of Tasmania. By 30 June 2006, the three parties federal, state and local government had accepted the agreement and a suitable signing date was being determined. As part of its responsibility for overseeing implementation of the statewide Partnership Agreement on Communication and Consultation, the local government office monitors the extent to which Cabinet Minutes reflect consultation with local government. The office continues to provide support to the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council and the Local Government Joint Officers Group. In August 2005, the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council conducted a joint meeting with Housing Ministers to examine affordable housing issues and other planning matters of national significance. The Local Government Joint Officers Group met five times during , including three teleconferences. A key activity of the Local Government Joint Officers Group was forming a working group to progress support and development of the intergovernmental agreement. On 24 April 2006, the Premier signed the inter-governmental agreement between the Australian Government, the state and territory governments and the Australian Local Government Association. The inter-governmental agreement establishes principles to guide inter-governmental relations on local government matters. The inter-governmental agreement arose from recommendations of the Commonwealth Parliamentary inquiry report, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government (the Hawker Report). The inter-governmental agreement formalises, on a national level, many of the principles of the Tasmanian Government s partnership process. In particular, the inter-governmental agreement reinforces the State Local Government Partnership Agreement on Communication and Consultation, which has now been in place for three years. Local Government Board The Local Government Board is a statutory body established under Part 2 of the Local Government Act The Local Government Office continued to provide executive and administrative support for the board to conduct general reviews of all councils every eight years, as required by the Local Government Act 1993, and special reviews, as directed by the Premier. 239

250 Local Government National Report General reviews of three councils Circular Head, George Town and Latrobe were conducted during As a matter of policy, the board does not conduct reviews of councils during election campaigns. Elections for local government and state government were held during This meant there was a lengthier delay than the time normally scheduled between the review of George Town and Circular Head councils and a delay in the release of the report of the review of the George Town Council. The Latrobe review was also delayed until completion of the 18 March 2006 state election. Commencement of the review of the Sorell Council was also delayed. The Sorell review was largely completed by 30 June 2006 but the final report had not yet been approved. The board s reports are at < In its reports, the board makes recommendations for improvements by the council being reviewed and points to leading practice in local government. The minister accepted all recommendations the board made about the councils reviewed. The board s chairperson is John Gibson. Other board members are Mary Binks, Brian Inches, Helen Cooper and Marguerite Scott (a statutory position as Director of Local Government). Substitute members during included Paul Arnold, David Sales, Graeme Yeoland and Chris Batt. Review of Local Government Board On 7 December 2005, the Premier s Local Government Council endorsed commencement of the project to review the operations and functions of the Local Government Board. On 15 February 2006, the then Minister Assisting the Premier on Local Government, the Hon. Jim Cox MHA, approved terms of reference for the project and membership of the steering committee to oversee it. The terms of reference for the review are: to evaluate the operations and functions of the Local Government Board to evaluate the effectiveness of the board in delivering outcomes for local government and the community to consider and provide to the Premier, as the Minister for Local Government and Community Development: options for improvement of the board s operations and functions details of a range of alternative means by which the board might deliver outcomes for local government and the community. The members of the steering committee for the review are Chris Batt (chair), Margaret Sing, Liz Gillam, Andrew Paul, Paul West and David Baulch. The steering committee has sought information from key stakeholders in the development of an issues paper that will be the principal vehicle for inviting submissions to the review. Review of the Local Government Act 1993 The review of the Local Government Act 1993 was completed in 2005 with the passage of the Local Government Amendment Act 2005 and associated regulations. A number of implementation tasks were completed during

251 Councils were required to adopt a Customer Services Charter by 1 January The charter must set out customer service principles and detail procedures for handling customer complaints. On 1 January 2006, all councils were also required to adopt a code for tenders and contracts. The code is to be available to the public and details the standard procedures that councils are to adopt for procuring goods and services. On 1 July 2006, the threshold amount above which the Local Government Amendment Act 2005 requires a council to seek tenders for goods and services was increased from $ to $ This increase was given effect by the Local Government (General) Amendment Regulations Councils were also required to adopt a code of conduct by 1 July In advance of this, the Local Government Office prepared regulations to govern the procedures of the Code of Conduct Panels and the Standards Panel. The panels will hear complaints under those codes. The Local Government (General) Amendment (Code of Conduct) Regulations 2006 commenced on 1 July The Local Government Office completed development of a new land information certificate that is to be provided, by councils, mostly to solicitors and other parties for the conveyance of land. The requirements of the new land information certificate are detailed in the Local Government (General) Amendment (Section 337 Certificate) Regulations 2006, which commenced on 1 July Throughout the year the Local Government Office conducted information sessions for councils on the changes to the local government legislation; they also explained the role of the office in investigating complaints, particularly in relation to breaches of the legislation. These sessions were conducted at 15 council chambers, namely, Burnie City, Central Coast, Devonport City, Kentish, Latrobe, West Tamar, Launceston City, Break O Day, Northern Midlands, Glamorgan Spring Bay, Southern Midlands, Glenorchy City, Brighton, Tasman and Derwent Valley. Appendix G Council by-laws Following review of the Local Government Act 1993, councils have accepted responsibility for tabling council by-laws in Parliament. The office has developed and disseminated guidelines and instructions on completion of these processes. The office has also developed a detailed policy on developing Regulatory Impact Statements to enable councils to meet National Competition Policy obligations. The Director has a statutory role in approving Regulatory Impact Statements and in ensuring that by-laws that restrict competition or impact on business are in the public interest. Seven such certificates were issued during the year. The office has also been developing guidelines to help councils review by-laws and encourage adoption of leading practice in their development. The office continued to maintain the only Internet database of all council by-laws which, from , has allowed Tasmanian ratepayers to readily access their council by-laws and to compare them with others. The office continued to receive reports that council officers also benefit from the ready availability of this information to easily compare the approach taken by other councils and, if appropriate, to adopt an already tested response. The database was accessed 4882 times during The database address is < Administration of legislation and investigations The Local Government Division provides regular assistance to local government and the community through providing advice and responses to queries and complaints. 241

252 Local Government National Report During , the office conducted six formal investigations into allegations of breaches of the Local Government Act The office also conducted a number of informal investigations of allegations that were not ultimately accepted as formal complaints. Measures taken to develop comparable performance measures Key performance indicators for local government Key performance indicators are measures that focus on achieving outcomes most critical to the current and future success of the organisation. The Key Performance Indicators Project that commenced in is an innovative development and another example of the government s cooperative partnership approach with local government in Tasmania. It also represents a unique collaboration across the three spheres of government. Local government, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Tasmanian State Grants Commission all use the data the Local Government Office collected from local government for the project. Local government has displayed strong support for the measurement system and all 29 councils have voluntarily provided data for the past six years. The sixth key performance indicators report, Measuring Council Performance in Tasmania , included a five-year trend analysis. This analysis showed that over the last five years there has been a consistent downward trend, on a statewide basis, in the debt service ratio. The report also demonstrates a consistent reduction in the level of rates outstanding at the end of the financial year. The Local Government Office continued to provide management of the Key Performance Indicators Project, as well as executive and administrative support for the Key Performance Indicators Committee. The key performance indicators report is published and distributed by the office on behalf of the Key Performance Indicators Committee. The committee provides guidance on general policy and process issues. In , the committee was chaired by the General Manager of Devonport City Council, David Sales. Other members were Paul West from Waratah Wynyard Council, Kim Wiggins from Glenorchy City Council, Frank Barta from Clarence City Council, Jeremy Threlfall from the State Grants Commission, Chris Batt from the Local Government Office and Liz Gillam from the Local Government Association of Tasmania. During the year the Key Performance Indicators Committee and the Local Government Office reviewed the current key performance indicators. Outcomes from the review will be reflected in some changes for the key performance indicators report. Northern Territory Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport Measures taken to develop comparable performance indicators The aim of the Northern Territory performance indicators program was to introduce performance management tools to all councils in the territory in such a way as to ensure they become an integrated and valuable part of community management practices. In support of that aim, the Department of Local Government, now the Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport, linked development and implementation of performance indicators for local governing bodies to introduction of its best practice program. 242

253 While the Northern Territory has been collecting comparable performance indicators since , not all local governing bodies embraced the reporting of such. Despite early enthusiasm there was an increasing decline in councils willing to participate in the collection of performance data. Reporting of performance information was well within the capacity of the municipal and larger councils, but the capacity to provide the required information was more limited for small and remote councils. In November 2003, in recognition of the difficulties experienced by the smaller councils, the then Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, in conjunction with the Northern Territory Grants Commission, mandated a requirement for all councils to submit an annual return of local government data. This return combines the requirements of both agencies and simplified the reporting process requiring councils to provide financial and performance measurement data. This method has proved to be successful and was used in for the data relating to Appendix G Local Government Association of the Northern Territory The Association provides to its member councils examples of local government best practice in the form of guest speaker presentations at the two general meetings it holds each year (May and October). Two such presentations during included the reform of local government in Japan by the Director General of the Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, Yoshiyasu Hyotani, and the Director of Wyndam City Council (Victoria), Bernie Cronin, on the importance and relevance of social planning for councils when undertaking community services for their residents. The Association, in partnership with the Northern Territory Emergency Services, launched the Guide to Disaster Risk Management in Northern Territory Aboriginal Communities and, with the support of Emergency Management Australia and the Northern Territory Government, conducted a workshop for councils on how to use the guide. The Association helped 15 member councils build community infrastructure and implemented the Regional Aviation Security Program Securing our Regional Skies through five workshops. The workshops were conducted with assistance and support from the Northern Territory Police and the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services. The Association participated in two committee deliberations that were pursuing local government structural reform with the aim of amalgamating the councils of Kunbarllanjnja, Minjilang and Warruwi into one council in the region of Western Arnhem Land and the councils of Coomalie and Pine Creek (and extensive areas surrounding them) in the region encompassing the towns of Adelaide River, Pine Creek and Batchelor. The Association managed consultancies that delivered management and transitional plans for both proposals. This work will continue in as all councils have concerns about their ongoing operational capabilities. The Association provided a range of human resource management and industrial relations services to councils, including recruiting and appointing chief executive officers for 28 remote area council positions and conducting an induction program for them. The Association secured their services through negotiation of standard employment contracts a practice that was not well managed in previous years. The Association, with expertise and assistance from the Western Australian Local Government Association, represented councils in the Industrial Relations Commission on 12 occasions and made 367 contacts with councils about disciplinary matters, industrial relations and advice on industrial awards. This was done as a means of sharing resources as most councils in the Northern Territory do not employ specialist industrial relations or human resource management personnel. 243

254 Local Government National Report Under the Australian Government s Networking the Nation program, the Association met its ongoing information and communications technology obligations to councils (following cessation of the program on 30 June 2005) to provide a local government network throughout the Northern Territory. The Association provided, among other things: a 9.00 am to 5.00 pm help desk ( approximately 3000 calls received) equipment repair, sourcing, configuration, shipping and installation virus filtering of incoming website design, administration, backup, training and support (40 websites developed) community-based training in basic information technology use intervention and disaster recovery against internal and external abuse, malicious damage, password denial or loss, and firewall administration. These services contributed greatly to councils having stable information and communications technology environments. As most councils are unable to attract qualified financial management personnel to undertake crucial financial reporting and management obligations, the Association undertook this work for eight councils. The Association provided engineering services to councils including management of nine member councils AusLink Roads to Recovery projects. It also completed road safety audits for six councils, completed a waste management plan for the Ntaria Council, as well as managing or collaborating on waste oil, natural resource management and swimming pools in remote areas projects in conjunction with the Northern Territory and Australian governments. The Association managed a number of federal community services projects in conjunction with the Northern Territory Government, all of which were designed to achieve harm reduction outcomes. Projects included partial construction of a police station at Mutujulu, a sobering up and special care centre at Nhulunbuy, safe houses at Elliot and Milikapiti and sport and recreation facilities at Ali Curung. Australian Capital Territory Department of Territory and Municipal Services ACT NOWaste In ACT NOWaste continued to provide domestic garbage and recycling services to ACT households, and supplied over 2500 rubbish bins to new households. Customer satisfaction with household garbage and recycling collection services continued to be high, with satisfaction rates of 92.1 per cent. The Materials Recovery Facility continues to sort, bail and transport the territory s recyclable materials to markets where they are turned into products ranging from steel cans to road cones. During the facility sorted over tonnes of recyclables. In addition, weekly tours and open days of the facility were conducted to increase community awareness of recycling activities. Targeted education and information campaigns continue to be conducted to better inform the community on the use of available services. In the Recycle Right campaign continued to be 244

255 implemented. The campaign included a competition with newspaper advertisements and a series of television advertisements. The Waste Wise Schools program continued to educate students, teachers and the local community in sustainable waste management practices. Appendix G Public events recycling has been further facilitated with special bin tops and a Guide for Recycling at Public Events developed to provide advice to public event organisers to enable recovery of more recyclables and minimise waste disposal. The second NOWaste awards for excellence in sustainable waste management were held in November 2005 and attracted significant interest. The awards were established to encourage innovative solutions in waste reduction and to promote ideas that can be adopted by others. The awards were open to all schools, businesses, government departments and community organisations in the territory that had actively implemented waste minimisation initiatives during the previous two years. ACT NOWaste conducted a benchmarking exercise in to develop a range of benchmarks for local government services. Benchmarking that has previously been carried out, and benchmarks currently adopted, are listed in Table G.2. Table G.2: ACT NOWaste benchmarks Performance measure Value Average cost of waste services $85 per household, per annum Customer satisfaction with kerbside garbage and recycling services 92.1% Annual tonnes of waste to landfill tonnes for Source: ACT Department of Territory and Municipal Services, unpublished data Other potential benchmarking indicators (currently under consideration) include: cost of household service delivery and cost of overall service delivery to residents participation rates in services level of contamination in recycling stream (domestic only) level of recyclables in waste stream (both commercial and domestic) levels of recyclables and resources recovered cost per unit (for example, tonnes) of specific resource recovery and waste management services level of expenditure on waste avoidance and reduction customer satisfaction ratings on services number of customers using services (collection, landfill, drop-off centres, other). Roads ACT In Roads ACT commenced reviewing the streetlight and stormwater maintenance contract documentation and the corresponding inspection and superintendence contract documents in preparation for the tendering of new contracts in early These contracts are performancebased contracts that incorporate the Department of Territory and Municipal Services Infrastructure Standards and, where relevant, include reference to industry, Austroads Guidelines and departmental specifications for maintenance works. 245

256 Local Government National Report A government in-house provider, Road Maintenance Services provides routine road maintenance works. In the road pavement repairs program targeted roads that had deteriorated as a consequence of aging and the impact of heavy vehicles. A total of square meters of road pavement (4.9 per cent of the municipal road network) was resealed. A contractor has continued to implement the Integrated Asset Management System. This will allow more efficient and effective prioritisation and management of the local government assets through collection of location, asset type and condition data. The community footpath and driveway database within the Integrated Asset Management System is now live and available for use. Previous databases for road pavements, bridges, streetlights and stormwater are being transferred into new system as the data are cleansed. Roads ACT has agreed to contribute to the Australian Local Government Association s proposal for a national approach to data collection for local roads. Seven performance measures for local roads are being trialled in Stage 1 of this project. Table G.3 provides the current levels of service for key assets managed by Roads ACT with respect to inspection and intervention, and compares the service with best practice target levels of service. The target levels of service have been identified from benchmarking with other local councils and road authorities (RTA New South Wales, DIER Tasmania, VicRoads and Transit New Zealand). Table G.3: Roads ACT benchmarked assets Asset type Current service level Benchmarked service level Territorial (state) road network resurfaced Approx. 3% annually 8 10% annually a Municipal (local) road network resurfaced Approx. 3% annually 7 10% annually a Traffic signals Service level D (2) Service level D b Traffic signals Service level B (3) Service level B c Linemarking Remark every 5 to 8 years Remark every 5 years d Sign replacement 2% per year 8% per year e Streetlights territorial bulk replacement Nil Every 3 years f Streetlights municipal bulk replacement Nil Every 3 years f Streetlights operation lamp faults Fix 90% within 7 days Fix 95% within 5 days f Community paths Depends on risk group Depends on risk group g Notes: a Benchmarks sourced from Strategic Study into Management of ACT Roads and Stormwater Asset s by ARRB Transport Research Ltd. b Service level D is defined as where drivers, during peak hours, are somewhat restricted in their freedom to select their desired speeds or to manoeuvre within the traffic stream. c Service level B is defined as where drivers, during business hours, have reasonable freedom to select their desired speeds. d Under normal circumstances, line marking projects are identified on the basis of existing marking falling to a minimum threshold level for reflectivity of 100 mcd/lux/m2. e Signs should be replaced on 12-year cyclical program to achieve the Australian Standards guidelines for serviceability. f To bring in line with other jurisdictions. g Paths are categorised based on risk profile: High around major group centres and between aged persons facilities and local shops etc., inspection frequency is every 12 months. Medium around local shops, high-density housing, tourist attractions and bus stops, inspection frequency is every three years. Low around low/medium density residential areas and cycle paths, inspection frequency is every five years. Source: ACT Department of Territory and Municipal Services, unpublished data 246

257 Parks, Conservation and Lands (formerly Canberra Urban Parks and Places) Parks, Conservation and Lands is a branch within the Environment and Recreation Network responsible for planning and managing parks and reserves and the public domain, including lakes, street trees, public open space and city places. It protects and conserves the territory s natural resources, promotes appropriate recreational, educational and scientific uses of Canberra s parks and reserves, and maintains the look of the city. Appendix G Parks, Conservation and Lands is continuing to focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery by: implementing asset management plans for all assets including a specific asset management plan for urban trees with 20-year predictive financial and tree growth modelling reviewing implications of the recently completed customer satisfaction survey which measures customers interactions with Parks, Conservation and Lands completing a service charter with the community for all its services developing a milestone report program to link initiatives to the Strategic Plan and Annual Action Plan, and to monitor and report regular progress within a consistent key performance indicator framework reviewing Parks, Conservation and Lands governance practices following internal audit recommendations, for example, upgrading documentation and procedures for Parks, Conservation and Lands fleet and plant and equipment. Parks, Conservation and Lands has undertaken the following work in to continue to develop comparable performance measures: Board and Executive Committee representation on the Parks Forum, and representation on the Best Practice and Standards Committee (Australia). Membership and completion of annual audit (third consecutive year) for the Yardstick Benchmarking Program (Australia and New Zealand s premier parks benchmarking report, conducted in June 2006). Contribution to the Parks Forum Benchmarking Framework Project in 2006 to establish benchmarks for the parks management industry. Ranger Services Ranger Services provides regulatory services to the Canberra community. During Ranger Services continued to improve service delivery in the area of domestic dog control through: continued development of competency-based training for staff Certificate IV Enforcement and Investigation Course for senior rangers ongoing memorandum of understanding with the RSPCA in relation to de-sexing impounded animals continued development of responsible pet ownership education resources for territory schools continued development of emergency management protocols focusing on avian influenza designing and implementing animal rescue disaster response capability. This contributed to achieving the lowest recorded dog euthanasia rate of 5.4 per cent, and improved compliance and enforcement activities with 96 per cent of reported attacks resulting in a dog seizure. 247

258 Local Government National Report During Ranger Services continued to play an important role in enforcing parking regulations within the territory. The total number of parking spaces enforced is estimated to be around , with parking infringement notices issued in Revenue from parking fees in territory car parks during was $11.25 million. New infringement issuing technology was introduced during the year providing better occupational health and safety outcomes for staff and superior data management. To improve effectiveness of traffic camera operations in the territory, Ranger Services: continued upgraded technology in fixed site equipment thereby reducing costs and unscheduled maintenance requirements enhanced public awareness in road safety through involvement in various public relations activities, such as car shows and the National Science Festival. Ranger Services continued to benchmark against itself on over 100 parameters month to month. 248

259 Appendix H Progress reports on performance of local government in service provision to Indigenous communities Appendix H The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 requires an assessment, based on comparable national data, of the delivery of local government services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. State and territory agencies (and some local government associations) have provided the following reports on activities aimed at improving local government services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Table H.1 details the financial assistance grants to the 91 Indigenous councils eligible for funding under the Act. New South Wales Department of Local Government Local Government Aboriginal Network The Department of Local Government continues to participate in the annual Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference. Social Justice Initiatives Survey Since 2000 the Department of Local Government has conducted surveys to collect data on specific Aboriginal and disability initiatives New South Wales councils are undertaking. In 2004, the department surveyed councils to obtain data for the year ending 31 December 2003 about a range of Aboriginal, disability and youth initiatives. Findings from the survey, to which 143 councils responded, include: 14 councils (10%) continue to implement the Aboriginal Mentoring Program and 46 Aboriginal people have participated 48 councils (34%) reported that they had an Aboriginal advisory or consultative committee 56 councils (39%) reported that they had a role in reconciliation groups in their area 34 councils (24%) employed an Aboriginal Community Development or Liaison Officer 249

260 Local Government National Report councils (64%) reported that they had assisted with Aboriginal cultural exhibitions, events or programs. The department has surveyed councils about their Aboriginal initiatives for 2004 and 2005 and the results are currently being analysed. Social Plans Under the Local Government Act 1993 all councils in New South Wales are required to develop a social/community plan at least every five years. A social/community plan examines the needs of the local community and formulates strategies that council and/or other agencies could facilitate or implement to address these identified needs. The social/community plan identifies specific policies and action plans for seven mandatory target groups, which includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Through this process, councils may identify issues and services they could be addressing in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. One hundred and thirty New South Wales councils were required to submit a current plan to the Department of Local Government by 30 June The 22 councils that were proclaimed during 2004 are required to submit a current social/community plan by 30 November This is the second time councils have been required to submit a current social/community plan to the department, with the first being in As at 30 June 2006, 98 (75%) of the 130 councils required to have a current social/community plan lodged with the department had one in place. Of those 98 councils, 89 (91%) submitted on time and nine (9%) submitted after the due date. Social and community planning provides an effective mechanism for councils to plan for the current and future needs of their diverse local communities. The department has started reviewing council social/community plans; the review will also involve management plans and annual reports to assess the inclusion of recommended actions regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. New South Wales Government Aboriginal Affairs Policy The New South Wales Government has developed a 10-year plan for action, Two Ways Together, Partnerships: a new way of doing business with Aboriginal people , to improve service delivery by both state and local governments to Aboriginal people. The Chief Executive Officers Group on Aboriginal Affairs and the New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs coordinated development of the plan. The Department of Local Government is represented on a number of working groups established to develop and monitor the implementation of specific action plans concerning such areas as heritage and culture, housing and infrastructure, and families, children and young people. Services listed in action plans that are relevant to local government include urban planning and development, water, sewage, waste collection, roads, community services such as recreation and youth facilities, information technology, and heritage and cultural strategies. As part of the New South Wales Two Ways Together plan the department has identified the key action of developing a resource kit to help councils work more effectively with local Aboriginal communities. The kit is being developed in consultation with councils and key Aboriginal agencies and will be finalised during

261 Victoria Local Government Victoria, Department for Victorian Communities Local Government Victoria is aware the Municipal Association of Victoria continues to support the Municipal Association of Victoria Local Government Indigenous Network which comprises councillors and council officers interested in Indigenous issues within local government. Its forums provide opportunities for local governments to meet with federal and state government agencies involved in service delivery to Indigenous people, and with Indigenous representatives and other agencies such as Reconciliation Victoria. The forum also enables Victorian councils to share and promote local government best practices for assisting Indigenous people in local communities. In the Victorian Government enacted the new framework for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage preservation through the Aboriginal Heritage Act Local government participated in development of this framework by responding to a discussion paper prepared by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. Local government supported the overall intent of the new legislation to streamline the laws governing protection and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage across Victoria. It is also continuing to work with the Victorian Government to develop regulations that will determine what local government and other planning authority permits will require Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plans. Councils continue to use Toomnangi as a useful resource for the sector to share its ideas and initiatives in Victorian local governments involvement in Indigenous affairs. 2 Appendix H Queensland Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation The Community Governance Improvement Strategy, with a budget of $16.6 million over four years, was developed to support Aboriginal shires and Island councils to improve their operations so they can deliver effective local government services to their community and improve compliance with relevant legislation. Implementation of the strategy commenced during The Community Governance Improvement Strategy is a comprehensive package of activities that are performance driven and focus on improving the standard of corporate governance and financial accountability of Aboriginal shire councils. Until a separate review of Torres Strait governance has been completed some components of the strategy are also offered to the Aurukun and Mornington Shire Councils and to Island councils. A range of strategies has been developed under the Community Governance Improvement Strategy, including strategies for skills development, business system improvement and stakeholder engagement. The department has continued to work with the Aboriginal shires and the Island councils on various projects; staff have made 250 visits to the councils over the past 12 months. Performance Development Plans (a shared responsibility agreement between the department and each council) have been negotiated with 33 councils. The department has officially signed off these plans, thus earning each participating council incentive payments of between $ and $ Indigenous Interagency Coordination Committee for Local Government, Municipal Association of Victoria 2005, Toomnangi: Indigenous Communities and Local Government a Victorian Study, Municipal Association of Victoria, Melbourne. 251

262 Local Government National Report A White Paper reviewing community governance in the 17 Torres Strait Island communities is being developed. The objective of the review is to develop a new legislative model to improve community governance. Indigenous Library Services Indigenous Knowledge Centres Fourteen Indigenous Knowledge Centres operate in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities throughout Cape York, the Torres Strait, and in Cherbourg in southeast Queensland. Local Aboriginal or Island councils manage Indigenous Knowledge Centres. The State Library provides support in the form of establishment costs and organisation, project development, and training and networking support for administrators. Indigenous Knowledge Centres are community spaces that offer traditional library services; they can also be keeping places and small museums. The State Library has been supporting development of partnerships between Indigenous Knowledge Centres, other government departments and community organisations to improve service delivery to communities and to enhance the sustainability of Indigenous Knowledge Centres. Throughout , the State Library s Indigenous Library Services provided ongoing support to Indigenous Knowledge Centre staff and continued to work with local councils to develop and sustain the existing Indigenous Knowledge Centres at Aurukun, Badu, Cherbourg, Erub, Injinoo, Lockhart River, Mabuiag Island, New Mapoon, Poruma, Pormpuraaw, Seisia and Wujal Wujal. Two new Indigenous Knowledge Centres were established in 2006 at Dauan Island and Boigu Island. All Indigenous Knowledge Centre administrators underwent training during 2006 to learn and upgrade their skills in the library management software (Aurora), stock selection and Indigenous family history research. Five experienced Indigenous Knowledge Centre administrators participated in Stage 2 Public Library Services training in Brisbane in March 2006, while 15 new administrators participated in Stage 1 Public Library Services training in Cairns in April After-school and homework programs for children and young people have become an important component of daily activities at many Indigenous Knowledge Centres and some have commenced weekly movie sessions to entice new community members to the centres. The continued use of the music-based literacy karaoke program I Can Sing, I Can Read is enhancing the children s ability to read and sing within their communities and has successfully made links with other community organisations. During 2006, the State Library commenced a sustainability evaluation of each Indigenous Knowledge Centre. The sustainability evaluations promote the assurance that each Indigenous Knowledge Centre will remain relevant to the needs of each individual community and foster an environment of family learning, community engagement and cultural revitalisation. As a part of the State Library redevelopment due to be completed in late 2006, the State Library will include an Indigenous Knowledge Centre to be known as kuril dhagun. Although very different in scale and purpose to the community-based regional Indigenous Knowledge Centres, kuril dhagun will be an important part of the network. Part of the program of exhibitions and events will use content from the regional Indigenous Knowledge Centres, working with them to develop content that reflects the communities they serve. Kuril dhagun will be a focal point for the vibrant and living cultures of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. 252

263 Information and communications technology in Indigenous Knowledge Centres An independent audit was undertaken during 2006 to ascertain the information and communications technology capacity at each Indigenous Knowledge Centre. Recommendations contained in this report are now being discussed with councils. Appendix H The State Library considers the lack of information and communications technology infrastructure as a major restriction to the effective operation of the Indigenous Knowledge Centres and the services they are able to provide to their respective communities. An effective and reliable Internet connection is also vital to support the State Library s Taking IT On project, due to take place in The Taking IT On project will provide basic information technology and technical support training to library administrators and other adults in 22 remote Indigenous communities where libraries and Indigenous Knowledge Centres are located. The Australian Government, through the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, supports this information technology training and technical support program. During the State Library was a key respondent to discussion papers about the Australian Government s Connect Australia initiative, in particular the Backing Indigenous Ability funding and its proposed use for public Internet access and information technology training in remote Indigenous communities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Training and Employment Strategy The State Library has continued to improve employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Training and Employment Strategy has progressed to final draft stage following extensive consideration and consultation with the Indigenous Advisory Committee. Key activities the State Library undertook to support implementation of the strategy included: continuation of the scholarship program appointment of two Indigenous trainees increased employment of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders in executive and senior positions within the State Library. Half of those now employed by Indigenous Library Services are Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. The knowledge and skills of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders working in the Indigenous Knowledge Centres continue to be enhanced through regular training opportunities provided by the State Library. Reconciliation Strategy The Library Board of Queensland endorsed the State Library s Reconciliation Strategy in June The strategy confirms the State Library s commitment to developing leadership for reconciliation by building the capacity of State Library staff to develop and sustain reconciliation activities, improve service delivery for reconciliation by facilitating information and knowledge exchange, and achieve reconciliation through engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Workshops held with State Library staff in 2005 provided the foundation upon which the Reconciliation Strategy was developed. 253

264 Local Government National Report Protocols for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander collections Extensive consultation with the Indigenous Advisory Committee and key organisations has facilitated development of draft protocols for managing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander collections held by the State Library. The protocols ensure access to the collections while acknowledging the moral, intellectual and cultural rights of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders as owners of their cultural heritage. State Library staff and clients will use the protocols as a guide for accessing and using the collections including photographs, genealogies, and manuscripts and published material. Local Government Association of Queensland Indigenous council membership of the LGAQ is continuing to increase. In all, 15 community councils are now members of the LGAQ and Indigenous councils represent 10.7 per cent of total LGAQ membership. The LGAQ maintained regular dialogue with both the Aboriginal Local Government Association and the Island Coordinating Council during the year. The LGAQ, in partnership with the State Indigenous Natural Resource Management Murri Network, held a forum in Cairns in February 2006 to explore opportunities for councils to undertake land and sea initiatives. The forum attracted over 60 delegates from 10 Aboriginal community governments. Councils key capacity needs were identified and specific actions were outlined by the LGAQ in response to those needs. The actions included development of a guide for Aboriginal councils on integrating land and sea management into local government corporate plans. A similar guide is being developed for the Island councils. The LGAQ is currently developing a range of other natural resource management support products and training to assist all Queensland councils. Native Title and Indigenous Cultural Heritage This year the LGAQ was funded to continue to act as the group representative for a number of regional groups of councils negotiating native title outcomes. The model s aim is to provide efficiencies sought by the Queensland Attorney-General while ensuring local government continues to have access to the level of representation it needs. The LGAQ s native title officer, a position funded by the federal Attorney-General s Department until 30 June 2007, coordinates these council groups and works closely with the legal representative elected by each group. Currently a third of Queensland councils are members of regional native title groups and negotiations with various native title claim groups about native title and cultural heritage are ongoing. Individual councils are also involved in native title and cultural heritage negotiations. Indigenous councils Councillor Training Program A contract with the Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation (January 2006 to June 2008) provides members of Indigenous councils with an opportunity to earn the Certificate IV in Local Government (Administration). Councils have responded positively to this initiative; to date the department has delivered the program to 16 out of 32 councils. LGAQ undertook training needs analyses within councils before starting the training program. The training program consists of 12 units of competence to be achieved for the formal qualification; topics reflect core skills that councils identified within their training needs analysis. The interactive, user- 254

265 led program requires all candidates to contribute, discuss and share business processes within their own council. Key skills such as corporate planning, operational planning and managing budgets are currently being delivered. Attendees are required to consider and prepare documentary evidence of skills, knowledge and attributes towards the Certificate in Local Government, while reviewing and improving their own council s documents and systems. The improvement and increased awareness of legislation, regulations and compliance for all individuals is a priority. Appendix H The department led the Business Training Program, which is designed to improve and increase knowledge of and skills in using the Local Government Act This program forms part of the transitional arrangements from the Communities Act to the Local Government Act, with a focus on governance. At the conclusion of the program in 2008, LGAQ believes councils will have been enabled to establish or improve all key business documents and processes that comply with the Local Government Act 1993 and Finance Standards Western Australia Department of Local Government and Regional Development The Department of Local Government and Regional Development facilitated a range of initiatives to strengthen the relationship between local government and Indigenous communities to improve service delivery. The department is committed to working with local government to develop Indigenous councillors capacity to strengthen local government systems. It has held workshops for this purpose in Wiluna and Halls Creek, delivered a capacity-building program to the Shire of Wiluna in the form of a series of workshops with all councillors, and provided ongoing support to shire staff. In August 2005, the Human Services Director Generals Group, through the Wiluna Development Project, mandated the department as lead state agency to address levels of disadvantage suffered by Indigenous communities. The project focuses on the department supporting the shire in developing a partnership approach between government, industry and the community to improve the townsite of Wiluna. Key results include: a signed memorandum of understanding with the Shire of Wiluna to progress a Department of Housing and Works New Living Program which centres on improving the streetscape and building 12 new houses a commitment to build a new school a commitment to upgrade the sewerage infrastructure partnering with industry to increase employment opportunities a new swimming pool and art gallery an increase in sport and recreational programs an increase in shire service provision to the Aboriginal reserve, Bondini an increase in Indigenous employment with the shire ongoing research to devise a governance and management model for the Desert Gold horticultural lease attracting a project management fund of $1.9 million. 255

266 Local Government National Report In addition, the department has formed a partnership with the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia to provide greater support to local governments who are coordinating emergency management plans with discrete communities. The department improved statewide Indigenous service delivery by facilitating ways to increase the capacity of local governments and their Indigenous communities to enter into service agreements. Activities the department is currently involved in include undertaking community-based feasibility studies, creating an equitable negotiation process, stocktaking the viability of local, state and federal funding and identifying and eliminating financial, administrative and cultural risks in both a policy and operational context. To improve Indigenous representation in local government, the department delivered a comprehensive Indigenous local government election strategy. The strategy ensured broad Indigenous community exposure to the role of local government through departmental field visits, radio advertising and development and dissemination of written material designed for an Indigenous audience. The strategy also included developing an ongoing partnership with the Australian Electoral Commission and the Western Australian Electoral Commission to increase enrolments and voter turnout. The Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission has continued to recognise the social and economic implications of having Indigenous communities within councils in Western Australia. For the grant allocations, four disability factors, to the value of $18.6 million, were applied to recognise Indigenous communities. The Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission s methodology provides comprehensive recognition of Indigenous factors and allowances. Young Indigenous Local Government Scholarships The Young Indigenous Local Government Scholarship program aims to help Indigenous youth gain work skills and increase their employment prospects. In , the department made 12 $ scholarships available to local governments to fund 12-month work placements. Indigenous Leadership Program Through the Indigenous Leadership Program, small grants are available for Indigenous communities to provide leadership initiatives. The Garnduwa Indigenous Leadership Program was funded in The program ran for 12 months and involved up to 60 young Indigenous people in the Kimberley. Western Australian Local Government Association In response to the new Western Australian Emergency Management Act 2005, the Western Australian Local Government Association is working, in partnership with the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, to implement a project that examines local government s emergency management role as well as that of the Aboriginal communities. South Australia Office for State Local Government Relations and the Local Government Association of South Australia combined report South Australia continues the approach characterised by collaboration between the spheres of government in program design and implementation. 256

267 Agreements For several years the Australian Local Government Association, the Local Government Association of South Australia and the South Australian Government have encouraged councils to consider developing agreements with Indigenous community organisations located in their areas. Agreement making supports the role of councils in coordinated planning strategies, sets out areas of mutual interest for the overall benefit of the local council area and provides a structured framework to promote effective working relationships and offer community capacity-building opportunities. Three significant agreements, each different, yet consistent with the spirit of working together, are now in place in South Australia. The agreements are the: land use agreement between Yorke Peninsula and Narungga Nations Aboriginal Corporation reconciliation agreement between the Cities of Holdfast Bay, Marion and Onkaparinga, the District Council of Yankalilla and Southern Kaurna alliance agreement between Coorong District Council and the Raukkan Community Council. Appendix H Land use agreement between Yorke Peninsula and Narungga Nations Aboriginal Corporation Statewide negotiations have resulted in the first Indigenous Land Use Agreement involving local government in South Australia. Four councils, the Narungga Native Title Committee, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, and the South Australian Government negotiated the Indigenous Land Use Agreement that sets out a process for planning infrastructure development, including a protocol for protecting Aboriginal heritage. The agreement was signed in December 2004 after some 20 months of consultation and negotiation. Under the agreement, a committee comprising members of the signatory parties is to be established to resolve any Native Title and cultural heritage issues that may arise, and to work together on issues at a local level. The process was a pilot under South Australia s unique statewide negotiations and it was used by a local government sub-group to develop a template, the Indigenous Land Use Agreement for South Australian councils. The Local Government Association of South Australia conducted a successful forum on Native Title issues on 27 September 2005 where a DVD showing an account of negotiations of the Narungga Indigenous Land Use Agreement was launched. The template is one option available to councils. It has been circulated to all councils and is also available on the Local Government Association of South Australia website at < Reconciliation agreement between Cities of Holdfast Bay, Marion and Onkaparinga, the District Council of Yankalilla and Southern Kaurna A new reconciliation agreement, the Kaurna Tappa Iri Regional Agreement, was launched on 9 September Taking two years to complete, the agreement covers the period 2005 to 2008 and is the result of a working group of representatives of the three Kaurna heritage associations, the Kaurna Native Title claimant group Kaurna Yerta, and the Cities of Holdfast Bay, Marion and Onkaparinga, and the District Council of Yankalilla. The agreement provides a structure for progressing reconciliation under seven themes. The agreement won the Strengthening Indigenous Communities Award in the 2005 National Awards for Local Government. Alliance agreement between Coorong District Council and Raukkan Community Council The alliance agreement forms part of a broader project, the Local Government/Aboriginal Service Agreement Project, which involves working with a number of councils and Aboriginal landholding bodies located within those council areas. 257

268 Local Government National Report First initiated in 2003, and funded primarily by the South Australian Government through the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division and Office for State/Local Government Relations, the project was part-funded and managed by the Local Government Association of South Australia. This collaborative work explored the notion of service agreements and considered approaches to application; it resulted in publication of a new guide to help South Australian councils develop agreements. Titled A Local Government/Aboriginal Service Agreement Case Study Guide, the guide features a checklist of steps to take, and offers practical guidance by showcasing an actual alliance agreement developed by the Coorong District Council and the Raukkan Community Council. The alliance agreement recognises the value of coordinated strategic planning on matters of mutual interest. The alliance formed part of the work on the guide and the process and experiences of the emerging alliance form a story of this journey. Useful protocol tips, information about days of significance to Aboriginal people and about the Aboriginal Flag also feature in the guide. Launched on 6 October 2005, the guide is available on the Local Government Association of South Australia website at < Native Title In addition to the signing and registration of the Narungga Indigenous Land Use Agreement, an agreement was signed in relation to a marina development and wider Far West Coast. Negotiations commenced involving the District Council of Ceduna. Negotiations have also commenced in Coober Pedy and covering eight councils along the Murray River. Preparations for the Kaurna negotiations involving 29 councils and covering more than the entire Adelaide metropolitan area were also advanced. The statewide negotiations have finalised a strategic plan to prioritise negotiations following liaison with the National Native Title Tribunal. Information about the statewide negotiations can be found on < Local government elections South Australia s local government elections are held every four years and elections were held on 10 November Voting is voluntary and conducted by postal ballot. Consistent with South Australia s Strategic Plan target to increase voter turnout in local government elections to 50 per cent by the year 2014, the South Australian Government and the Local Government Association of South Australia are cooperating in their efforts to promote interest among under-represented groups in local government elections. Aboriginal leaders and networks are a focus of activities with a joint state and local government program involving the Office for State Local Government Relations, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division, and Local Government Association of South Australia. The project is building on the work undertaken for the previous local government elections and the approach recognises that councils have responsibility for promoting elections in their area. As at 30 June 2006, a revised poster and a brochure with Aboriginal artwork setting out key election dates were in production to help councils with their promotional campaigns. Information sessions, specifically for Aboriginal leaders, about local government and local government election processes were scheduled for regional and metropolitan areas. Review of funding of five Aboriginal local governing authorities In the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission commenced funding five Aboriginal local governing authorities located in out of Local Government Act areas of South Australia. 258

269 These bodies are: Anangu Pitjantjatjara; Gerard Community Council; Nepabunna Community Council; Yalata Community Council; and Maralinga Tjarutja. Over the years, the commission, as part of its regular visiting program, has increased its knowledge of local government type services and has worked with the authorities to develop relevant General Information Return reporting methods thus ensuring requirements are met throughout the state. Appendix H Ten years on, the commission endorsed a review to inform the commission about local government type service revenues, and provide an assessment of each authority s future needs. The review commenced in September 2004 and considered current sources of funding for local government type services, data collection and reporting arrangements and other state and territory funding models. Anangu Pitjantjatjara was used as a case study to outline matters taken into consideration. This research provided a foundation for further discussions between the commission and the authorities. During , the commission did additional investigations into the extent of funding (both the range and depth of funding) received by the communities in order to try to identify each community s funding needs. Over the past 10 years, but more importantly the last three years, the commission is grateful for the collaborative relationship that has developed between all the funding partners. It is hoped that with this degree of cooperation the commission will be able to identify the funding gap, to more appropriately identify each community s funding needs. Tasmania Local Government Division, Department of Premier and Cabinet The Tasmanian Government continues a major program of negotiating Partnership Agreements with individual councils and regional groupings of local governments across the state. As part of negotiating some agreements, the Tasmanian Government is seeking to promote links between local government and the Aboriginal community. The aim is to identify key issues that affect Aboriginal people in the local government area and develop strategies to address them. Broadly, the topics covered include: strategies to improve the level of participation of Aboriginal people in local government promoting understanding of Aboriginal issues in the wider community sustaining the reconciliation process by encouraging public support and participation taking joint action to reduce social disadvantage in the Aboriginal community measures to enhance economic development and employment opportunities for Aboriginal people. The government s cooperative and collaborative working relationship with the Australian Government continues to progress Tasmania s COAG trial focusing on Aboriginal family violence. The trial is being conducted in the north of the state and local government is engaged in the process. The Launceston City Council continues to fully support the trial. The Tasmanian Government recently returned Cape Barren and Clarke Islands to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. With the agreement of the Flinders Council, the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association will take on responsibility for maintaining the road network on Cape Barren Island. This will provide much needed employment opportunities on the island. Additionally, Flinders Council 259

270 Local Government National Report has indicated a willingness to negotiate a service agreement with the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association to maintain the rubbish tip and cemetery on the island. In Tasmania the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association provides municipal services on Cape Barren Island. They are responsible for power, water and sewerage infrastructure and services; the Australian Government funds the Association to provide these services. With the recent return of Cape Barren Island to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people, the Tasmanian Government has recognised this unique situation with the Cape Barren Island Road Maintenance Contract, the Cape Barren Island High School, and the Cape Barren Island Renewable Energy Project. Cape Barren Island Road Maintenance Contract As part of the Cape Barren Island land return, the Tasmanian Government has provided funding to the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association for maintenance of roads on Cape Barren Island something that was previously the responsibility of the Flinders Council. The Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association will undertake up to $ in road maintenance and upgrading work annually on a contractual basis to the Department of Energy, Infrastructure and Resources. To help the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association take up this role, training is being provided to community members and capital funding has been allocated to purchase the necessary road building equipment. The annual maintenance and upgrade program will be determined in consultation with the Cape Barren Island community. The initiative is expected to provide significant employment and training opportunities, as well as a better road network for the island. This will, in turn, help the community develop tourism and other commercial ventures. Cape Barren Island High School The Tasmanian Government provided a new classroom, equipment and teacher for children on Cape Barren Island for Years 7 to 10. Secondary school students now no longer have to move to Launceston or Flinders Island for their secondary education. Cape Barren Island Renewable Energy Project Negotiations on a proposal for a renewable energy project for Cape Barren Island are continuing. The project involves upgrading existing wind turbines, establishing improved energy storage and replacing existing diesel generation capacity. It will be a partnership between the Cape Barren Island community, Hydro Tasmania and the federal and state governments. Employment opportunities in construction and ongoing maintenance of the power generation system will be created. Additionally, the new power system will provide greater opportunities for business development, which in the past was not feasible given the expense and unreliability of the previous power generation system. 260

271 Northern Territory Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport Bilateral Agreement In , the primary vehicle for progressing microeconomic reforms to local government and measures to improve Indigenous service delivery has been the Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Northern Territory of Australia. The Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard MP, and the Northern Territory Chief Minister, the Hon. Clare Martin MLA, signed the agreement in April The agreement sets out a collaborative approach by the Northern Territory and Australian governments to work with Indigenous communities to improve government service delivery and key social and economic outcomes for Indigenous Territorians. In signing the agreement the two spheres of government agreed to address five priority areas. The two priority areas relevant to this report are: (i) strengthening governance and developing community capacity to ensure that communities are functional and effective, and (ii) improving service delivery and infrastructure that recognises demographic change and the need to lift the performance of the governments. Schedules are being progressively attached to the agreement to set out in more detail how the governments will work together in priority areas. Schedule 2.3 deals with establishing stronger local government structures. Schedule 2.3 outlines commitments to carry forward the work the Northern Territory has undertaken to establish stronger, regionalised and more sustainable local government bodies. Under the agreement, the Australian Government has provided an additional $1.6 million for recruiting and placing senior public sector employees in remote locations as Development Coordinators. Officers are currently placed in the predominately Indigenous areas of Tiwi Islands, Southern Barkly, East Arnhem, Nyirranggulung, Thamarrurr, Victoria River, Groote Eylandt and Central Australia. A Development Coordinator will also soon be placed at Borroloola. Development Coordinators are working with local government bodies and other regional organisations to facilitate better governance, strategic planning and improved service delivery. They are using a community development approach to lay a strong foundation for successful regionalisation of local government and future Regional Partnership Agreements. Their role also includes providing detailed and reliable data about the target communities for the Northern Territory and Australian governments, and importantly, for the communities themselves. Appendix H Governance Much work needs to be done to improve the standard of governance and leadership in remote and regional communities. Without strong governance, the best efforts to lift the standard of service delivery will continue to face enormous hurdles. The Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport recently entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Reconciliation Australia to develop a groundbreaking Indigenous governance program. The program will provide an accessible, entry-level approach to Indigenous governance development 261

272 Local Government National Report that will cater for elected members on large councils as well as governing bodies of smaller Indigenous organisations. The Department has provided $ for this program. The program will allow for immediate access to resources to enable Indigenous representatives to solve common governance problems such as reaching quorums, avoiding conflicts of interest and separating administrative and elected member functions. It will also provide avenues for Indigenous elected members to attend established accredited training that registered training organisations are providing. The Australian Government is contributing financially to this project through the Bilateral Agreement. Further reform Since 2003, the Northern Territory has encouraged a process of voluntary regionalisation of local government under the Stronger Regions Stronger Futures strategy. As a result, three regional local government bodies have been formed and other groups have variously held discussions and released proposals. However, the pace of voluntary change has been disappointing especially given the fundamentally unsustainable nature of many existing small, remote local government bodies. As a result, the department is directly intervening in many local governments to secure basic service delivery in the absence of functional governance and/or administration. Accordingly, the Northern Territory Cabinet is considering proposals for a more directed approach to local government reform, with an announcement expected in late Local Government Association of the Northern Territory The Association has 63 members, 50 of whom are either based in Aboriginal communities or whose elected representatives are Aboriginal. The great bulk of services the Association delivers are for Aboriginal communities. The Association provides to its member councils examples of local government best practice in the form of guest speaker presentations at its two general meetings per year (May and October). The presentations during were made by the Director General of the Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, Yoshiyasu Hyotani, on the reform of local government in Japan and from the Director, Wyndam City Council (Victoria), Bernie Cronin, on the importance and relevance of social planning for councils when undertaking community services for residents. The Association, in partnership with the Northern Territory Emergency Services, launched the Guide to Disaster Risk Management in Northern Territory Aboriginal Communities and, with the support of Emergency Management Australia and the Northern Territory Government, conducted a workshop for councils on how to use the guide. The Association helped 15 member councils build community infrastructure and implemented the Regional Aviation Security Program Securing our Regional Skies through five workshops. The workshops were conducted with assistance and support from the Northern Territory Police and the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services. The Association participated in two committee deliberations that were pursuing local government structural reform with the aim of amalgamating the councils of Kunbarllanjnja, Minjilang and Warruwi into one council in the region of Western Arnhem Land and the councils of Coomalie and Pine Creek (and extensive areas surrounding them) in the region encompassing the towns of Adelaide River, Pine Creek and Batchelor. The Association managed consultancies that delivered management and 262

273 transitional plans for both proposals. This work will continue in as all councils have concerns about their ongoing operational capabilities. The Association provided a range of human resource management and industrial relations services to councils, including recruiting and appointing chief executive officers for 28 remote area council positions and conducting an induction program for them. The Association secured their services through negotiation of standard employment contracts a practice that was not well managed in previous years. Appendix H The Association, with expertise and assistance from the Western Australian Local Government Association, represented councils in the Industrial Relations Commission on 12 occasions and made 367 contacts with councils about disciplinary matters, industrial relations and advice on industrial awards. This was done as a means of sharing resources as most councils in the Northern Territory do not employ specialist industrial relations or human resource management personnel. Under the Australian Government s Networking the Nation program, the Association met its ongoing information and communications technology obligations to councils (following cessation of the program on 30 June 2005) to provide a local government network throughout the Northern Territory. The Association provided, among other things: a 9.00 am to 5.00 pm help desk (approximately 3000 calls received) equipment repair, sourcing, configuration, shipping and installation virus filtering of incoming website design, administration, backup, training and support (40 websites developed) community-based training in basic information technology use intervention and disaster recovery against internal and external abuse, malicious damage, password denial or loss, and firewall administration. These services contributed greatly to councils having stable information and communications technology environments. As most councils are unable to attract qualified financial management personnel to undertake crucial financial reporting and management obligations, the Association undertook this work for eight councils. The Association provided engineering services to councils including management of nine member councils AusLink Roads to Recovery projects. It also completed road safety audits for six councils, completed a waste management plan for the Ntaria Council, as well as managing or collaborating on waste oil, natural resource management and swimming pools in remote area projects in conjunction with the Northern Territory and Australian governments. The Association managed a number of federal community services projects in conjunction with the Northern Territory Government, all of which were designed to achieve harm reduction outcomes. Projects included partial construction of a police station at Mutujulu, a sobering up and special care centre at Nhulunbuy, safe houses at Elliot and Milikapiti and sport and recreation facilities at Ali Curung. 263

274 Local Government National Report Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister s Department During the ACT Chief Minister s Department worked with other ACT Government agencies to develop a draft framework to guide whole-of-government policy and actions in addressing the social, economic and cultural needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the territory. The draft framework is designed around the five priority areas of: respect, diversity and human rights strong, safe cohesive communities health and wellbeing education and training economic opportunity. The draft framework identifies a range of critical outcome indicators that, to a large extent, mirror the headline and strategic indicators within the COAG-endorsed Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Framework. The draft framework also accords with the Canberra Social Plan and its goals and targets. The draft framework will be used across government as the basis for developing, monitoring, reporting and evaluating policy and program direction at the whole-of-government level in the territory. The areas where individual agencies are expected to take a lead role have been identified, and will be included in agency service plans. The department s activities, in relation to relevant priority areas, are outlined below. Respect, diversity and human rights representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people Throughout the Community Affairs Branch of the Chief Minister s Department supported the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Consultative Council to conduct an initial consultation process with the territory s Indigenous community on an ACT Indigenous representative body. A report from that consultation process was formally presented to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in April Further consultations will be undertaken during in partnership with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to develop a structure and constitution for the new body that reflect priorities expressed during the initial community consultation process. Strong Safe Cohesive Communities ACT COAG Trial From 2003 to 2005 the ACT Government participated in a trial partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the Australian Government to pursue a range of agreed objectives. The trial was evaluated between October and December Overall the evaluation report was positive; it proposed that the trial had helped participants learn important lessons about working together. Consistent with the ACT Government s commitment to the Indigenous community, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Consultative Council has been asked to consider the evaluation report in the context of providing advice on future collaboration. 264

275 Building capacity The ACT Government has supported a range of activities aimed at building capacity within the Ngunnawal community, including funding a series of healing camps and supporting meetings of the United Ngunnawal Elders Council. In addition, the government has continued to provide funding to support refurbishment and operation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre. The Community Inclusion Fund supports the Connecting Communities project, which is designed to strengthen the sense of community and identity in the Indigenous community around Wanniassa through a culturally appropriate after-school program and an adult education course. The Community Inclusion Fund supports an Indigenous Women s Law and Justice Support project, which aims to improve access to and outcomes for Indigenous women in relation to law and justice services by providing culturally appropriate services. Appendix H Education and training The Community Inclusion Fund supports a number of projects designed to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children achieve positive educational outcomes. The On Track program provides Indigenous primary school-aged students with an alternative educational approach in a positive and supportive outdoor environment. The Gugan Gulwan Education Support program provides for a qualified teacher two days per week offering an innovative and culturally appropriate education program for Indigenous high school students who have left the school system early, or are at risk of leaving. Table H.1: Financial assistance grant entitlements to Indigenous councils for Total road length (km) General purpose grant per capita Council name Population Council area (sq km) General purpose grant Road grant Total grant Road grant per km Queensland Aurukun $ $ $ $ $ Badu Island $ $ $ $ $ Bamaga $ $ $ $ $ Boigu Island $ $ $ $ $ Cherbourg $ $ $ $63.50 $ Dauan Island $ $3 056 $ $ $ Doomadgee $ $ $ $ $ Erub Island $ $7 780 $ $ $ Hammond Island $ $4 238 $ $ $ Hopevale $ $ $ $ $ Iama Island $ $4 629 $ $ $ Injinoo (Cowal Ck) $ $ $ $ $ Kowanyama $ $ $ $ $ Kubin Island $ $ $ $ $ Lockhart River $ $ $ $ $ Mabuiag Island $ $5 716 $ $ $

276 Local Government National Report Total road length (km) General purpose grant per capita Council name Population Council area (sq km) General purpose grant Road grant Total grant Road grant per km Mapoon $ $ $ $ $ Aboriginal Council Mer Island $ $6 108 $ $ $ Mornington $ $ $ $ $ Napranum $ $ $ $ $ New Mapoon $ $9 566 $ $ $ Palm Island $ $ $ $ $ Pormpuraaw $ $ $ $ $ Poruma Island $ $3 031 $ $ $ Saibai Island $ $6 064 $ $ $ Seisia Island $ $4 065 $ $ $ St Paul s Island $ $8 685 $ $ $ Ugar Island $ $1 302 $ $ $ Umagico $ $ $ $ $ Warraber Island $ $4 118 $ $ $ Woorabinda $ $ $ $69.06 $ Wujal Wujal $ $ $ $ $ Yarrabah $ $ $ $93.49 $ Yorke Island $ $6 175 $ $ $ Qld total and $ $ $ $ $ average Western Australia Ngaanyatjarraku $ $ $ $ $ (S) South Australia Anangu $ $ $ $ $ Pitjantjatjara Gerard $ $ $ $ $ Maralinga $ $ $ $ $ Nepabunna $ $ $ $ $ Yalata $ $ $ $ $ SA total and $ $ $ $ $ average Northern Territory Aherrenge $ $ $ $ $ (Arunga) Ali Curung $ $ $ $ $ Alpurrurulam $ $ $ $ $ Amoonguna $ $ $ $99.51 $ Angurugu $ $ $ $ $

277 Total road length (km) General purpose grant per capita Council name Population Council area (sq km) General purpose grant Road grant Total grant Road grant per km Anmatjere $ $ $ $ $ Aputula $ $ $ $ $ Areyonga $ $ $ $ $ Arltarlpilta $ $ $ $ $ Belyuen $ $ $ $ $ Binjari $ $ $ $ $ Borroloola $ $ $ $ $ Daguragu $ $ $ $ $ Galiwinku $ $ $ $ $ Gapuwiyak $ $ $ $ $ Ikuntji $ $ $ $ $ Imanpa $ $ $ $ $ Jabiru (T) $ $ $ $82.31 $ Jilkminggan $ $ $ $ $ Kaltukatjara $ $ $ $ $ Kunbarllanjnja $ $ $ $ $ Lajamanu $ $ $ $ $ Ltyentye Purte $ $ $ $ $ (Santa Teresa) Maningrida $ $ $ $ $ Marngarr $ $ $ $ $ Milingimbi $ $ $ $ $ Milyakburra $ $ $ $ $ Minjilang $ $ $ $ $ Nauiyu Nambiyu $ $ $ $ $ Nganmarriyanga $ $ $ $ $ (Palumpa) Ntaria $ $ $ $ $ Numbulwar $ $ $ $ $ Numburindi Nyirranggulung $ $ $ $ $ Mardrulk Nyirripi $ $ $ $ $ Papunya $ $ $ $ $ Peppimenarti $ $ $ $ $ Ramingining $ $ $ $ $ Tapatjatjaka $ $ $ $ $ Thamarrurr $ $ $ $ $ Tiwi Island $ $ $ $ $ Appendix H 267

278 Local Government National Report Total road length (km) General purpose grant per capita Council name Population Council area (sq km) General purpose grant Road grant Total grant Road grant per km Umbakumba $ $ $ $ $ Urapuntja $ $ $ $ $ Walingeri $ $ $ $ $ Ngumpinku Wallace Rockhole $ $ $ $ $ Walungurru $ $ $ $ $ Warruwi $ $ $ $ $ Watiyawanu $ $ $ $ $ (Mt Liebig) Yirrkala Dhanbul $ $ $ $ $ Yuelamu $ $ $ $ $ Yuendumu $ $ $ $ $ Yugul Mangi $ $ $ $ $ NT total and $ $ $ $ $ average National total and average $ $ Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services 268

279 Appendix I Best practice in local government Appendix I The Australian Government encourages best practice in local government. The government has three main initiatives to recognise and promote best practice the annual National Awards for Local Government, the Leading Practice Database, and the Leading Practice Seminar Series. National Awards for Local Government The National Awards for Local Government are the peak national awards that reward and highlight outstanding achievements in local government. They recognise councils resourcefulness, and commend councils on finding better ways of delivering services and developing local solutions to often complex and challenging problems. The awards were established in 1986 to foster and acknowledge innovation and continuous improvement in local government. They are managed by the Local Government Section of DOTARS. The awards have attracted thousands of entries over their history, with many receiving both national and international attention. They help to show how local governments throughout Australia demonstrate remarkable enterprise in developing excellent and innovative ways of delivering services and managing scarce resources in a changing environment. Details of the national and category award winners for 2006 are provided below. Leading Practice Database The Leading Practice Database includes summaries of all entries in the National Awards for Local Government received since It is an interactive, searchable database, featured on the DOTARS website at <dynamic.dotars.gov.au/nolg/nalg/index.aspx>. This valuable resource facilitates the sharing of ideas, excellence and innovation among local government bodies across Australia. Leading Practice Seminar Series The Leading Practice Seminar Series is a DOTARS initiative started in Since that time entrants in the National Awards for Local Government have shared their experiences with over 200 other local government bodies across Australia. The seminar series is run as a partnership between DOTARS and host councils, regional organisations of councils or local government associations. The seminars provide an opportunity for councils to hear 269

280 Local Government National Report from their colleagues and to discuss how particular project case studies might apply in their specific situations. In June 2006 a Leading Practice Seminar was held in Griffith, New South Wales, sponsored by the Griffith City Council. The Hornsby Shire Council made presentations on the Somerville Park Early Childhood Education Centre, the City of Salisbury on the Working Together for Families program, and the Bankstown City Council on the culturally and linguistically diverse women s leadership project Women Speak. Each of these projects was an award winner in the 2005 National Awards for Local Government. Two local programs the Dorothy Waide Centre for Early Learning and the Creative Riverina Youth Team also provided presentations. Participants came from a number of councils in the surrounding region and from as far away as Eurobodalla Shire on the South Coast of New South Wales National Awards for Local Government The year 2006 marked the 20th anniversary of the awards. The 2006 awards were launched on 28 April 2006 by media release by the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, and were presented to coincide with the Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly in Canberra on 27 November The awards are funded by sponsorship from a number of Australian Government agencies. The following departments were sponsors of the 2006 awards: Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Employment and Workplace Relations; Environment and Heritage and its Australian Greenhouse Office; Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; Health and Ageing; Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Industry, Tourism and Resources; and Transport and Regional Services. The Prime Minister s Community Business Partnership also provided sponsorship. With 18 categories available in 2006, the awards reflect the diverse range of services local government provides to its communities. This year, 215 entries were received from local governments across Australia. Judging panels selected winners in each category and the winners were announced in August Table I.1 shows the categories in the four broad areas of Capacity Building, Community Services, Environment and Management Practices. 270

281 Table I.1: Categories for the 2006 National Awards for Local Government Categories Capacity Building Community Services Environment Management Practices Awards Strength in Diversity Health and Wellbeing Local Greenhouse Action Efficiency Improvement Strong and Resilient Communities Strengthening Indigenous Communities Planning for an Ageing Community Valuing and Promoting Quality Child Care Integrating Biodiversity Conservation into Planning and Management Natural Resource Management: Local Government Integration into Natural Resource Management Planning and Implementation Youth Engagement Community Water Grants Water Saving Community Business Partnerships Innovation in Regional Development Information Technology Increasing Women s Participation Asset Management Local Government Leadership Award for Injury Prevention and Management Appendix I Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services, unpublished data National judging to select the winners of the 2006 awards took place on 27 and 28 September. The National Judging Panel consisted of an independent chair, Ms Kathryn Greiner AO; a local government specialist, Emeritus Professor Maurice Daly; a representative from the Australian Local Government Association, Alderman Kerry Moir; a representative from Local Government Managers Australia, Mr Steve McGrath; and a representative from DOTARS, Mr Daniel Owen. The National Judging Panel selected the national winners following presentations from the 26 category award winners. Details of the category and national award-winning projects, including contact details for further information, are available on the DOTARS website at <dynamic.dotars.gov.au/nolg/nalg/index.aspx>. A brief summary of each project is provided below. National and special award winners 2006 National Award for Outstanding Achievement City of Playford, South Australia Marni Waeindi Indigenous Transition Pathways Marni Waeindi towards a future. This name, given by the Kaurna Plains Aboriginal Elders, recognises community support for the Playford Indigenous Transition Pathways Centre. It is a broadly supported, locally driven and culturally attuned way for Indigenous young people to fundamentally improve their wellbeing through learning, training and meaningful employment opportunities. Marni Waeindi is best described as a learning node, connected to a network of other agencies and local industry, that provides a comprehensive range of education, training and other support services to engage Indigenous young people in seamless, aspirational action-based learning with a strong emphasis on employment, social inclusion and cultural participation. During , 150 Indigenous young people engaged in learning programs including technology, visual arts, hospitality, horticulture, tyre fitting, hair and beauty. These young people are now 271

282 Local Government National Report participating in further training and employment, with 15 employed, two undertaking traineeships, 17 in structured work placements, 75 undertaking vocational education and training courses and 10 in school-based traineeships. The extent of engagement and learning outcomes is unprecedented. National Award for Merit Carpentaria Shire Council, Queensland Normanton Youth Rural Training Program Normanton is a town of 1500 people in the Gulf of Carpentaria region of Queensland. It has a large Indigenous population living in poor socioeconomic circumstances. Few young people finish Year 10 and those who do are often susceptible to peer pressure that suggests the norm is to go on the dole. The Carpentaria Shire Council, in conjunction with Aboriginal groups, the Murr Murr Corporation, Delta Downs cattle station and local police, decided to initiate a program that would help the town s young people and teach them skills. The main components of the Youth Rural Training Program were: formulating training modules that involved several aspects of what young Aboriginal people enjoyed doing, while at the same time making sure that the modules were beneficial for the participants ensuring that community consultation was paramount by involving the leaders of the Gkuthaarn and Kuktj peoples and the Yargin and Bynoe Aboriginal Corporations in all aspects of decision making obtaining the free services of Aboriginal mustering contractors, station personnel, welders and leatherworkers to take charge of the various training modules, and because these trainers were Aboriginal, ensuring more effective communication and providing role models. The program was highly successful, with more than 100 attendees. The town s young people were taught new skills in a field they enjoyed. They were clothed and fed, and at the end presented with certificates and trophies. Most importantly, during the Youth Rural Training Program, Normanton police did not have one report of a young person misbehaving or carrying out any illegal activity. National Award for Merit Swan Hill Rural City Council, Victoria Swan Hill Healthy Minds Network The Swan Hill community wanted a better understanding about depression and mental illnesses and how it could reduce and prevent suicides in the region. The mayor called for a roundtable discussion with key people who provide services to residents suffering with or caring for people with a mental illness. This meeting led to the formation of the Swan Hill Healthy Minds Network. The network s first task was to support a Community Depressive Illness Forum. Six hundred and fifty people from the community attended the forum and 350 of them filled out evaluation forms. The evaluations provided the network with clear direction for addressing the needs of the community and responding to issues relating to depression and mental illness. National Award for Innovation Campaspe Shire Council, Victoria Community Development Program For the last three years, the Shire of Campaspe s Community Development Program has been the region s major social capacity building initiative. In that time, more than 10 per cent of the shire s 272

283 population participated in some form of consultation, engagement or contribution towards helping secure a better and more sustainable future for their local communities. Engaging the community was the first step in the process of empowering locals to steer their own district s or township s future. By then integrating community plans developed by residents into the council s planning and budget processes, the Shire of Campaspe has signalled its support for this innovative and unique program. Local Community Plan Groups representing 10 communities and 100 localities across the region developed the blueprints for their communities future. Participants drew up a comprehensive list of broad project areas requiring action, including the impacts of water industry reform, the need for health service reviews, improved public transport access, access to broadband, an integrated approach to tourism planning and the development of rail trails connecting districts. Importantly, solutions are now being put in place for many of these identified concerns, and the communities are finding new ways to more effectively negotiate their district s or township s future. Appendix I National Award for Innovation (presented to a council with fewer than ratepayers) Sarina Shire Council, Queensland Picture This program The Picture This program is aimed at engaging young people living in small isolated areas of the community cope with the demographic and social difficulties that exist because of lack of transport and recreational facilities. A support worker consulted young people to gauge their needs within each area. This was achieved through a campaign calling for young people to make a difference to where they lived by becoming part of the youth action in their community. The project took the young people through a series of safety audit activities that enabled them to look at their community through a crime prevention and safety assessment perspective. The young people then developed a pictorial audit of the community that gave the Sarina Shire Council a view of the community through the eyes of its young people. The Youth Action Group that evolved from this project became aware of the processes of working for change within their community, and wrote to the council to invite them to view their picture boards and talk about the solutions to the problems as they saw them. The first of these consultation processes led to the council providing seed money for a grant submission for a new multi-purpose half basketball court. The Youth Action Group is now actively involved in providing community input to the council and helping run events for young people. 273

284 Local Government National Report National Award for Excellence Goulburn Mulwaree Council, New South Wales Goulburn A Water Conservation Community Goulburn s residents have been on water restrictions for almost four years, including more than 18 months on level five restrictions, limiting domestic water use to just 150 litres per person, per day. The amount of water used by Goulburn residents is now around one-third of that used by residents in Australia s capital cities. The city s daily average water use has more than halved in only four years. Water use has decreased from an average of 13 megalitres per day in 2002 to between five and six megalitres per day. This use rate has been maintained since The entire community residents, businesses, industry, sporting groups and the Goulburn Mulwaree Council have worked together to achieve this result, primarily through education and the establishment of partnerships between the council and the community. National Award for Excellence (presented to a council with fewer than ratepayers) District Council of Yorke Peninsula, South Australia Broadbanding in the District Council of Yorke Peninsula The District Council of Yorke Peninsula was the lead project proposer in a collaborative partnership to assist in providing broadband service to the community, at a cost equivalent to metropolitan areas, using the latest technologies for maximum coverage. Wireless communications was identified as the most cost-effective, flexible, scalable and rapidly deployable technology providing the greatest coverage. Wireless broadbanding is providing a conservative 10 kilometre radial access wireless local loop around the major regional towns, enabling data, voice and video capabilities to the maximum number of regional businesses, government services, rural health services, not-for-profit organisations and individuals. This broadband technology has enabled the district council to provide its growing web-based e-commerce and corporate services to the majority of businesses and individuals. The technology also allows state government, health services, tertiary education, businesses and individuals within the region, for the first time, cost-effective broadband and Internet Protocol telephone communications for developing new business and social opportunities. Category award and commendation winners 2006 ASSET MANAGEMENT Category winner Clarence Valley Council, New South Wales Regional Water Supply Strategy The Regional Water Supply Strategy is the culmination of a cooperative partnership between the local government authorities of the Clarence Valley Coffs Harbour region and the state government. Key objectives include water supply security for the region and protection of natural river systems. The overall strategy consists of a non-build water efficiency element and a build element involving the provision of major regional water supply infrastructure. 274

285 Winner council with under ratepayer base George Town Council, Tasmania Removing the Crystal Ball in Asset Management This project is benefitting the George Town Council by clearly and accurately identifying the current and future costs of maintaining, rehabilitating and renewing existing assets as distinct from the future maintenance and capital commitment undertaken when adding new assets. The community has been proactively engaged, primarily with its building assets to date, and in future there will be a discussion about desired levels of serviceability and affordability. Appendix I Commendation MidCoast County Council, New South Wales A Re-engineered Approach to Asset Management MidCoast Water is a community-based utility structured as a county council. It provides water and wastewater services to customers in the mid-north coast of New South Wales. MidCoast Water was formed eight years ago from three separate organisations and faced several unique challenges for asset management. These challenges included a large and widely spread asset base, low relative revenue and customer density, rapid decentralised customer growth and an environmentally sensitive region. MidCoast Water recognised that, as well as rapid population growth in the region, the rate of demand for higher levels of service was accelerating. In order to successfully manage this trend, MidCoast Water developed a strategy based on shorter planning horizons and optimised use of capital. This strategy relies on using new automation technologies and process techniques that significantly improve the performance and output of existing infrastructure at much lower cost than traditional capital upgrade approaches. Commendation Latrobe City Council, Victoria Assessment of Road Signs for Retroreflectivity Road signs are an essential part of the transport infrastructure that underpins the function of Australian communities. However, unless correctly maintained, road signs may fade to the point where they cease to serve their purpose. What is often not understood or appreciated is that the night-time luminance of signs (measured by a scientific property of the sign sheeting known as retroreflectivity) can diminish to the point where the sign is next to invisible yet the sign can look perfectly functional by day. Latrobe City has pioneered the Australian development and use of a procedure for testing road signs for retroreflectivity. A portable retroreflectometer, used in conjunction with other technology, enables daytime scientific testing of signs for night-time performance. Signs are compared to appropriate in-use standards, and replaced only when needed. This approach builds on the latest complex research and testing from around the world, as well as the established methods used by Australian traffic engineers. 275

286 Local Government National Report COMMUNITY BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS Category winner City of Cockburn, Western Australia Cockburn Community Development Strategy Alcoa/City of Cockburn Community Projects Fund The Community Projects Fund provides an effective and innovative framework for business, community and local government to work collectively to address issues that the local community identifies, with solutions that the local community develops. The City of Cockburn and Alcoa World Alumina Australia provide the funding for the Community Projects Fund. These funds are made available only to community associations that are members of the Regional Community Development Group. Other community groups can apply through these member groups. The fund is therefore available to a wide range of educational, volunteering and environmental groups that are involved in creating a sustainable future for Cockburn. Winner council with under ratepayer base Liverpool Plains Shire Council, New South Wales Australian Railway Monument and Museum Werris Creek, located on a major railway junction, is the first and last railway town in New South Wales. The Werris Creek railway station is the third largest in New South Wales. The Australian Railway Monument commemorates railway men and women who have lost their lives in railway accidents since The landscaped monument area features six large sculptures of railway workers, an amphitheatre for public concerts and walls of remembrance containing more than 2400 names. The project involved partnerships with heritage advisors, RailCorp, the Department of Commerce, the Australian Museum and most importantly the many volunteers who instigated the concept and worked for some 11 years to ensure the project came to fruition. Commendation Penrith City Council, New South Wales Growing Small and Home-based Businesses within Penrith Valley As a growing city with several major new urban release areas in the making, the Penrith Council has adopted a one-to-one jobs policy that requires developers to create jobs to match the number of working residents who will live in new release areas. Employment strategies for these areas have a strong focus on home-based businesses that are emerging to meet the demands of industry in the western Sydney region and to service an expanding population base. The council is working in partnership with developers to promote Penrith s attractions, including its lifestyle attributes; to target home-based businesses; and to introduce planning controls that will generate design and built forms conducive to home-based businesses. The council is also working in partnership with telecommunication providers to promote the concept of smart homes that have the capacity to meet the information, communications and technology needs of the contemporary homebased business owner. 276

287 Commendation Municipal Council of Roxby Downs, South Australia Roxby Downs Council Building Community Assets The Roxby Downs Council facilitated formation of a business partnership with the community to operate its own newspaper. The paper, which now employs eight people, has been instrumental in building community pride and self-belief and has increased community capacity by giving a local voice to individuals, community groups and businesses. The council became the catalyst and driver to bring together local businesses and local people with specialist skills in newspaper production and management to develop and fund the paper s feasibility stage. Appendix I COMMUNITY WATER GRANTS WATER SAVING Joint category winner Goulburn Mulwaree Council, New South Wales Goulburn A Water Conservation Community This project won a National Award for Excellence. A description of the project is on page 274. Joint category winner Brisbane City Council, Queensland Rocks Riverside Park Water Mining Project Rocks Riverside Park is Brisbane s largest riverfront park, covering 26 hectares with 800 metres of prime river frontage. The park represents a model for creating contemporary urban public infrastructure and facilities. One of the key aims of the Rocks Riverside Park was to demonstrate how public space could be developed sustainably and inclusively. As part of this aim, the council decided to irrigate the park using recycled water. Mined wastewater is treated using constructed reed beds and ultraviolet disinfection. This produces high-quality non-potable water suitable for irrigation. The project is the largest of its type in Australia with the potential to save up to 130 megalitres of water every year. The project also reduces the flow of nitrogen and nutrients to the Brisbane River by 750 kilograms per year, and saves 100 tonnes per year in greenhouse gas emissions. Commendation Gold Coast City Council, Queensland Gold Coast Water s Home Watersaver Service The Home Watersaver Service involves licensed plumbers on contract to Gold Coast Water visiting residents homes to install water conservation technology. For $20, the plumber installs a triple-a rated showerhead, tap flow regulators in kitchen, bathroom and outdoor taps and a water-saving device in single-flush toilets; places water conservation prompts around the house; and provides a package of information and advice on water-efficient products and water-saving tips. Designed with community needs at its heart, the Home Watersaver Service is an efficient, cost-effective program for reducing residential indoor and outdoor water and energy consumption. Aimed at home and rental property owners, the program is quickly gaining a high profile in the community. It is achieving its objective of raising awareness of water conservation and water-efficient devices by retro-fitting a large portion of homes. Research indicates that each home taking part in the program will save litres of water per year. 277

288 Local Government National Report EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT Category winner Local Government Association of South Australia Independent Inquiry into Financial Sustainability of Local Government in South Australia Confused media and public debate regarding the real financial position of local government in South Australia was causing very real risks to good local decision making that could potentially lead to inappropriate state-level responses. The Local Government Association of South Australia determined that a robust independent inquiry was warranted. An independent board was appointed with support services and it conducted a six-month inquiry incorporating a public submission and hearings program. The board produced a final report in August The report included 62 recommendations guiding the Association and councils as to how they could best improve their financial sustainability using tools mostly within their control. Late in 2005 the Association prepared a comprehensive Financial Sustainability Program and in 2006 commenced its implementation. Notwithstanding some criticism in the report of local government practices, councils have almost universally welcomed its findings and recommendations. In addition to achieving its objective of providing a factual underpinning to media and public debate over local government s challenges, it has provided a clear strategy for efficiency improvement. The approach has been recognised as innovative and providing leadership to local government, with two other states subsequently establishing similar inquiries. Commendation Penrith City Council, New South Wales Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad The Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad is an autonomous team of specialised investigative officers targeting the illegal disposal of waste in western Sydney councils. The member councils (Bankstown, Baulkham Hills, Fairfield, Holroyd, Liverpool and Penrith) have formed a strategic alliance with the New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation in an effort to reduce the illegal dumping of waste through innovative, yet cost-effective, methods. The Penrith City Council manages the RID Squad project on behalf of these members. The RID Squad provides resources to each council area to tackle the problem of illegal dumping through the strategic alliance, which enables costs for each party to be distributed and reduced. Commendation City of Joondalup, Western Australia Organisational Review The Inclusive Way The City of Joondalup initiated an organisational review to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery and organisational practices. The review was targeted at a high organisational level to identify the key areas for improvement. Three project teams (organisational development, service review and process review) and an overall organisational review team were established. The teams developed a comprehensive project plan setting forth the aims and objectives of the review. 278

289 Organisational review process was comprehensive and inclusive of all staff. The success of the project can be attributed to the clear direction and support from the chief executive officer and leadership team, including the significant trust placed in all project teams to review their discrete areas according to their agreed methodologies. Each of the teams used a variety of methods, including focus groups, structured interviews and questionnaires, to collect information about current operations. The teams then analysed the data, drew conclusions for potential change and improvement, and provided a report to the organisational review team. Appendix I Commendation Randwick City Council, New South Wales Public Place Management at Randwick Council During 2005 and 2006 the Randwick City Council introduced a new public place management program supported by three new positions within the organisation. The program aimed to enhance operational focus and accountability, minimise duplication, reduce customer response times and enhance the overall amenity and safety of the city s public places. New public place officers are responsible for monitoring and reporting on the impact the council s roads, parks, playgrounds, footpaths and street furniture have on the appearance of Randwick City. The public place management program s effectiveness has been due in large part to the innovative and state-of-the-art technology that supports the operations of the public place officers. Officers are equipped with wireless notebooks that allow them access to the council s software applications, including the geographic information system, live in the field. This enables them to instantly log requests for service, obtain important land and property information, track the progress of previously logged customer requests and monitor scheduled maintenance programs. HEALTH AND WELLBEING Category winner Rockingham City Council, Western Australia The Rockingham Community Health and Wellbeing Project This project is a partnership between the City of Rockingham and key stakeholders. To ensure the city and its partners best meet the challenges of future growth and development in the region, the project is based on principles of sustainable growth through creation and enhancement of the built, natural, social and economic environments. The project takes an innovative approach by adopting a socio-structural or social model of health, whereby the social, environmental and economic systems that affect health and wellbeing are the primary consideration (as opposed to the individualist model, which focuses on individual responsibility for health and wellbeing). It is based on the idea that all residents and workers in the City of Rockingham should have the capacity and opportunity to make healthy, safe, affordable, convenient and environmentally sound choices in their day-to-day living and working situations. Winner council with under ratepayer base Swan Hill Rural City Council, Victoria Swan Hill Healthy Minds Network This project won a National Award for Merit. A description of the project is on page

290 Local Government National Report Commendation Campbelltown City Council, South Australia Know Your Limits Alcohol Awareness Project This program was piloted in November 2005 to educate young adults (aged 18 21) on responsible drinking habits and to promote behavioural change. In partnership with the South Australian Police, local young adults were engaged in a night of monitored drinking and activities to explore and discuss drinking behaviours. The success of the program can be attributed to its innovation and the hands-on approach taken to engage, explore and assess the potential dangers of unsafe drinking behaviours. The event was structured similarly to a pub crawl, and participants were breathalysed after each drink to assess their blood alcohol concentration and accurately demonstrate how a maximum of six drinks affected them over a five-hour period. This real-life simulation provided young adults with a unique opportunity to understand and document the effect alcohol had on their individual blood alcohol concentration levels. Commendation Golden Plains Shire Council, Victoria Golden Plains Health Planning Forum The Golden Plains Shire faced significant challenges in fostering effective health and wellbeing services, including rapid population growth, limited health servicing outside regional centres, and poor service coordination and role clarity. This had resulted in over-servicing and/or gaps in servicing in some areas and over-burdening of non-health provider services, which had led to poor health outcomes for residents. The council initiated the Golden Plains Health Planning Forum, engaging the key decision makers of more than 15 departments and agencies to meet quarterly and work together to coordinate health service delivery in the shire. The forum s vision and commitment to providing health services in the shire have enabled it to forge strong and enduring partnerships between agencies and improve health outcomes for communities in the region. INCREASING WOMEN S PARTICIPATION Category winner City of Salisbury, South Australia Project Connect Driven by the National Framework for Women in Local Government, Project Connect was derived from a series of internal surveys and focus groups for the City of Salisbury s paid staff across all levels and disciplines to highlight the issues that affect them in the workplace. Project Connect has given men and women opportunities to realise they have similar needs for professional development programs. One specific innovation in Project Connect is a seven-session development program for women, called Growing Professionally. The program aims to promote selfesteem within the workplace and build women s confidence in their professional competence. 280

291 Commendation Holroyd City Council, New South Wales Increasing Women s Participation in the Public and Private Sphere The Holroyd City Council established two key groups that share common goals: the Women s Development Team, which aims to increase the representation of women in both elected and administrative positions in the council the Holroyd Women s Working Party, which aims to increase the participation of women in the community. The council established these groups to ensure that women from all aspects of life are empowered to participate in both the public and private spheres of the community. Through constant consultation and a collaborative approach, the two groups have developed and implemented practical strategies to achieve a community where women are well skilled, equipped and empowered to actively participate in community life. Appendix I INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Category winner Clarence Valley Council, New South Wales Life in the Engine Room In February 2004 the councils of Copmanhurst, Grafton, Maclean, Pristine Waters, North Coast Water and Clarence River County were amalgamated to form the Clarence Valley Council. The amalgamation created many logistical and systems challenges for the new organisation. The cultures and work processes of the former entities were very different, as were their infrastructures and asset management protocols. The information technology team for the Clarence Valley Council was officially formed in December More than 300 information technology-related projects were identified as critical to the organisation s initial development phase. With so many projects and so little time, the council decided that, where possible, it would implement solutions that were tried and tested. Turn-key solutions were favoured over in-house developed systems and these solutions have been implemented effectively. INNOVATION IN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT Category winner Northern Tasmania Development Regional Organisations of Councils, Tasmania Beyond ROC and Role The year 2000 in northern Tasmania saw three bodies focusing on tourism, economic development and governance. These have been combined into one system that operates within a company structure, limited by guarantee and shares. Eight hundred shares were issued at $20 per share. The region s eight councils own 100 shares each. A skills-based independent board of management, drawn from the broader community, runs the organisation. Councils role in the new organisation is defined by a shareholders agreement. Several standing committees have been formed to address the economic, social and environmental needs of the region. The structure is flexible enough to respond to opportunities. Today, the 120 private sector members contribute in excess of $ each year to the organisation in the form of membership fees that range from $200 to $6000. In , the $

292 Local Government National Report budget was 80 per cent funded by local government. The budget of $2.8 million will be only 20 per cent funded by local government. This is a significant and dramatic shift that is building community ownership. Winner council with under ratepayer base District Council of Yorke Peninsula, South Australia Broadbanding in the District Council of Yorke Peninsula This project won a National Award for Excellence. A description of the project is on page 274. Commendation City of Playford, South Australia City of Playford s Regional Development Model Achieves World Class Investment Outcomes In 1999 the City of Playford outlined a comprehensive economic and industrial development strategy in its economic plan, An Innovative City. Its key objectives were developing industry clusters, building networks between companies, creating national and international market development and investment opportunities for local companies, and developing technology transfer programs. By 2001 Playford had created a $230 million global company resulting from its food cluster program and was invited to speak at the 2001 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development World Congress on Clusters, held in Paris. Building on the cluster methodology, Playford released its new plan Innovation and the Knowledge Economy in late It outlined a regional approach to industrial regeneration, innovation and creating industrial clusters. This plan is one of the key platforms in the council s city plan. The success of the economic program is largely due to a comprehensive forward planning process with government agencies building common aims and objectives that maximise resource allocation and reduce duplication. INTEGRATING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION INTO PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT Category winner Brisbane City Council, Queensland Compton Road Upgrade Fauna Protection Measures Compton Road is a major east west arterial road connecting Brisbane City to Logan City. The road is a significant carrier of peak-time traffic and had been progressively upgraded from two to four lanes over a period of a decade. In 2003 Brisbane City Council commenced plans to upgrade the last remaining two-lane section of road. As it travelled between the environmentally significant Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Forest, this section had remained at two lanes. Early in the project s planning phase, local environmental groups and ecological experts were brought in to develop measures to address the potential environmental impact of the upgrade to four lanes, notably fauna mortality. Through genuine collaboration with these stakeholders and a desire to protect the local environment, Brisbane City Council developed and implemented an upgrade project that: was supported by local environmental protection groups met council objectives for improving the road corridor was successful in virtually eliminating existing and potential fauna mortality in the area. 282

293 Winner council with under ratepayer base King Island Council, Tasmania Currie Sewage Treatment Wetlands This project demonstrates that primary treatment of sewage using a relatively simple wetland system is an environmentally and economically sustainable solution for small communities throughout Australia. While there was some initial community concern because the wetland was adjacent to the township of Currie and in view of nearby residences, a motel and restaurant, the project has demonstrated that by integrating a passive system with the surrounding natural environment, these systems can enhance rather than detract from the aesthetics of an area. The system has also had positive environmental effects. It has enabled extensive greenhouse gas savings through minimal use of mechanical equipment compared with conventional systems and the absence of chemical additives. The system has also afforded biodiversity enhancement through the use of local native plant species, re-creation of natural dunal swales and improved quality of the water disposed to nearby ocean habitats. Appendix I Commendation City of Onkaparinga, South Australia Fitting the Pieces Together Biodiversity Management City of Onkaparinga 2006 The City of Onkaparinga is an owner and custodian of public land and has care and control over significant areas of biological diversity. These areas are mainly situated within riverine corridors, coastal regions, reserves, road reserves, cemeteries, Crown land and landfill sites. The city has integrated biodiversity policy into its primary strategic directions document, Creating our Future; developed a road map for priorities and actions through a biodiversity strategy; incorporated biodiversity objectives into various strategic documents; pursued regulatory change by strengthening its development plan; created council positions that ensure biodiversity is considered in on-ground planning and design of developments and council land; and engaged and sought input from other agencies and community groups in an ongoing analysis of council performance through a native vegetation review. LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP AWARD FOR INJURY PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT Category winner Holroyd City Council, New South Wales Holroyd s Safety System of Innovation Holroyd Council determined that the city s safety management system needed review and modified it with a home grown version based on the Australian Standard (AS/NZS ). The council looked at the safety system s existing structure and redefined it by identifying underlying safety programs requiring further development and then finding the means to make necessary changes. Teams were formed within the safety committee, enabling multiple programs or policies to be developed or reviewed simultaneously within a 12-month period. As a result of changes in its safety system, Holroyd experienced a 41.6 per cent reduction in insurance premiums from and lost-time injuries declined during

294 Local Government National Report Commendation MidCoast Water County Council, New South Wales Occupational Health, Safety, Welfare and Injury Management (Workplace Safety) MidCoast Water has developed a comprehensive safety system to address the specific hazards and risks associated with its industry and region. The project involves ongoing improvement through development, implementation, review and modification of the organisation s systems and processes. The project has included developing corporate policies, management plans, work procedures, and training and auditing systems, while encouraging innovation in workplace practice improvement. Substantial improvements to workplace safety have already taken place. These have been highlighted in workplace audits and a reduction of lost-time injuries, resulting in reduced workers compensation premiums. LOCAL GREENHOUSE ACTION Category winner Darwin City Council, Northern Territory Shoal Bay Landfill Renewable Energy Facility Darwin City Council s regional Shoal Bay waste disposal site accepts in excess of tonnes of non-green waste and cubic metres of green waste every year. Darwin s tropical environment, and the large volumes of green waste produced, leads to ever-increasing landfill gas emissions. As part of its Road to Sustainability program, the council joined Cities for Climate Protection and entered into a partnership with Land Management Services aimed at reducing landfill emissions by constructing the first renewable energy facility in a tropical city. This true triple bottom line emission reduction project has: reduced landfill emissions from tonnes to under 550 tonnes reduced fire risks, making the landfill a safer work environment provided electricity for 1000 homes provided an income from power sales which is used to fund implementation of further environmental projects, including energy reduction action. Commendation Darebin City Council, Victoria Going Places Darebin s Travel Reward Scheme Darebin City Council s innovative web-based Going Places travel rewards program shows the community how a small change in personal travel can affect global greenhouse gas emissions and save them money. Residents register online and pledge to replace at least two of their normal drive-alone car trips each week (one return journey). As the weeks pass, members log these trips onto the website, catch up with any news and events and collect their program rewards including pedometers, local shopping vouchers and movie vouchers. Members also receive a discount card to use at local participating businesses, and there is a website facility for individuals to record their pedometer steps. 284

295 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT INTEGRATION INTO NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION Appendix I Category winner Byron Shire Council, New South Wales West Byron Integrated Water Management Reserve Natural Resource Management in Action Due to the increasing popularity of Byron Bay as a tourist and retirement destination, the Byron Shire Council identified the need for increased treatment capacity for the West Byron Sewage Treatment Plant. The Byron Bay community was concerned about the impact of the sewage treatment plant on the surrounding marine and terrestrial habitats. Over 10 years of consultation and planning, the community, through the Byron Bay Waste Water Steering Committee, strove to minimise the impact of the sewage treatment plant on the surrounding ecosystems while maximising the resource potential of by-products. Features of the reserve include a biological process treatment plant designed to minimise electricity consumption and chemical use; an on-site effluent re-use project that helps manage acid sulphate soils and accumulates carbon dioxide emissions; an urban re-use pipeline that supplies treated effluent to Byron Bay for use on sports fields and plant nurseries; bio-solids recycling on local farms as a soil conditioner; and an educational and recreation facility. Commendation Blacktown City Council, New South Wales State of the Waterways Management Plan Blacktown City Council, recognising the complexity and expense of managing its waterways and catchments, embarked on a new planning project. The council s management plan the first of its kind undertaken by a New South Wales council provides for: developing a rapid reach assessment for in-field creek analysis of 260 kilometres of drainage lines (including 153 kilometres of naturalised creeks) and analysis of over 400 individual reaches to determine the baseline condition for the waterways modelling pollutants for 115 sub-catchments within the 246 square kilometres of the Blacktown City local government area compiling and developing over 270 waterway and catchment management actions, set against baseline management targets for measuring implementation success setting a 15-year management action priority schedule to address priority waterway and catchment management zones throughout the local government area compiling the research, analysis, methodologies and management plan in a report detailing the analysis results and management actions for each major waterway and catchment. 285

296 Local Government National Report Commendation Local Government Association of Queensland Integrating Natural Resource Management into Local Government Corporate, Strategic and Operational Plans The Local Government Association of Queensland has developed a practical resource to help councils across Queensland understand the importance of sustainable natural resource management practices. The guideline outlines a process for integrating natural resource management into a council s corporate plan and linking the corporate plan to the regional natural resource management plans. It is through their corporate plan that councils deliver sustainable services to their communities. The corporate plan is therefore a significant vehicle through which sustainable natural resource management outcomes and activities can be pursued. PLANNING FOR AN AGEING COMMUNITY Category winner Lake Macquarie City Council, New South Wales Over 55 and Understood Project In recognition of the rapidly ageing local population, Lake Macquarie City Council, in conjunction with the New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development and a research consultancy, conducted a comprehensive study into the 55+ market and the associated opportunities this provides to local businesses. Key findings of the study were: Lake Macquarie s 55+ population is expected to increase to 39 per cent by 2022 businesses have low levels of awareness and are underestimating the impact the 55+ demographic has on their businesses residents 55+ rated a high importance for general practitioner and general health services and clothing products residents have a preference for consuming services rather than goods and they prefer to deal with individuals who are similar to them. Commendation Manningham City Council, Victoria Ageing Well in Manningham Ageing Well in Manningham is a significant project for the council due to the large and culturally diverse ageing population. The council was determined to develop an age-friendly community by working in partnership with the community and supporting citizen participation. A number of people were enlisted to start conversations about ageing in the community and to report their findings. This group included individuals who were able to network between people otherwise living, working or studying in different circles. Five weeks later, the group gathered to share their insights about ageing in Manningham. They reported a much fuller picture of the challenges and opportunities of an ageing population than is likely to have come from a standard consultation or from council officers. 286

297 Commendation Town of Vincent, Western Australia Town of Vincent Seniors Strategy The Town of Vincent in inner-city Perth has a population of just over (2001 Census), of whom 20 per cent are aged 55 or over. It has an increasing population aged 75 or above and about half of the 55 and over group do not speak English as a first language. A study undertaken in recommended that the most effective long-term approach to providing for older residents was to focus on building a connected community with a particular focus on seniors. In response, the town commenced a process of consulting with seniors, the first stage of which involved a survey. Following the survey, seniors forums were conducted focusing on specific topics raised in the study. Personal/home safety was the highest priority and most important aspect identified. Other topics for consultation included transport, attitudes towards seniors, physical access and home support. Appendix I STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY Category winner Darebin City Council, Victoria Darebin Interfaith Council The Darebin Interfaith Council was established in June 2005 in response to the results of a comprehensive community consultation. The Interfaith Council is facilitated and resourced by the Darebin City Council and has a membership of more than 100 religious leaders. It is a collaborative partnership between faith leaders aimed at providing leadership, information, guidance and inspiration to the local community on matters related to faith and promoting the benefits of interfaith collaboration, comprehension and dialogue. The establishment of the Interfaith Council has enabled the Darebin City Council to access previously hard to reach segments of the community. Its development has contributed to the overall social capital of the Darebin community and its resilience in times of crisis and hardship. Commendation Ipswich City Council, Queensland Building a Better Life through Community Harmony Ipswich City Council designed and implemented an innovative project to promote community harmony and cross-cultural understanding among young people throughout the city. The project was a partnership between federal and local government, schools, community organisations and individuals who worked together to achieve a significant community development goal. Living in Harmony actively engaged the city s students and young people in: depicting the diversity of cultures through a poster competition focusing on the four themes of justice, equity, fairness and friendship examining and celebrating experiences of diversity through anti-racism and creative workshops held in primary and secondary schools developing a comprehensive resource book for schools a culmination of the project outcomes. 287

298 Local Government National Report Commendation Wollongong City Council, New South Wales Wollongong City Council Interpreter Service The City of Wollongong s residents represent a diverse range of cultures and backgrounds. The 2001 Census revealed that approximately 23 per cent of the population was born overseas with 15 per cent born in non English speaking countries. In addition, 17 per cent of the population speaks a language other than English at home. The Wollongong City Council was one of the first councils to adopt a Local Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement. Since its adoption of the program in 1990, the council has made significant progress in increasing its capacity to deliver services to a culturally diverse city. The Interpreter Service builds on the city s Local Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement commitment and represents a commitment to the Australian Government s multicultural policy agenda. STRENGTHENING INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES Category winner City of Playford, South Australia Marni Waeindi Indigenous Transition Pathways This project won a National Award for Outstanding Achievement. A description of the project is on page 271. Winner council with under ratepayer base Carpentaria Shire Council, Queensland Normanton Youth Rural Training Program This project won a National Award for Merit. A description of the project is on page 272. Commendation Kwinana Town Council, Western Australia Spectacles Cultural Tours The Spectacles Cultural Tours, located in the Spectacles Wetland area in Kwinana, offer a rich Indigenous experience in a bushland setting 40 kilometres south of the Perth city centre. The Department of Conservation and Land Management and Alcoa Australia manage the Spectacles Wetlands. The 360 hectares of wetlands is a significant site for Aboriginal people. The wetlands are part of a major and ancient trade route following freshwater swamps and lakes that link the Aboriginal people of the Murray and Swan rivers. The area has cultural significance as an ancient ceremonial, camping and food-gathering site. The Spectacles Cultural Tours provide an infrastructure for Indigenous people to share knowledge, language and history, while preserving and promoting a vibrant traditional and contemporary Indigenous culture. 288

299 Commendation Port Stephens Council, New South Wales Indigenous Strategic Committee and the Aboriginal Projects Fund The Aboriginal Projects Fund was initiated by the Port Stephens Council in response to the needs and wishes of the Port Stephens Indigenous community. The fund was established in 1999 in response to a recommendation from a review conducted in conjunction with the council s Indigenous Strategic Committee. The committee a partnership between councillors, senior staff and representatives of the Karuah and Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Councils identifies projects through an expression of interest process. Projects funded focus on providing local solutions that enhance outcomes for Indigenous youth such as work skills, parenting, participation in sport, and staying in school that the local Indigenous communities have identified as important. Appendix I STRONG AND RESILIENT COMMUNITIES Category winner Campaspe Shire Council, Victoria Community Development Project This project won a National Award for Innovation. A description of the project is on page 272. Winner council under ratepayer base Moyne Shire Council, Victoria The Hawkesdale and District Family Services Centre Community Comes Together to Achieve a Dream The Moyne Shire Council and the community joined together to develop a new purpose-built children s centre after a review of early childhood services in 2002 found Hawkesdale was suffering from poor facilities, isolation and fragmentation. A working party was formed and a dedicated group of hardworking mothers joined with the council to get the project off the ground. The project was made a reality with an Australian Government grant, a donation from the Handbury Foundation and a substantial financial contribution from the council. Commendation Banyule City Council, Victoria West Heidelberg Everyday Living and Learning (WHELL) Project The project, jointly sponsored by Phillip s Gate Anglican Community and Banyule City Council, is a coordinated partnership approach by existing service providers in the West Heidelberg area. The project involves establishing playgroups for young parents with an emphasis on early literacy, employment training, and leadership and mentoring opportunities. The project strengthens the community and provides children with a better start in life by working to minimise identified risk factors relating to poor socioeconomic circumstances, poor family and community relationships, and poor literacy, educational and vocational opportunities and outcomes. The project enhances participants capacity for resilience, leadership and educational opportunities, lifelong outcomes and community aspirations through a strength-based model that is locally controlled. 289

300 Local Government National Report Commendation Greater Dandenong City Council, Victoria Paddy O Donoghue Community Services Centre Fifty-four per cent of Noble Park s population of were born abroad, and an increasing number of young families are choosing to make Noble Park their home. With 16.5 per cent of older residents requiring access to community services close to public transport, the council agreed to build an intergenerational facility. The council began a consultation process in November 2002 with residents from a cross-section of ages, cultural backgrounds and community groups to identify needs. Over a period of 18 months it became clear that the council needed to take a holistic approach to meeting the long-term needs of its residents. Completed within 14 months from the design stage, the centre is fast becoming a popular meeting place and recreational facility while providing a valuable community service to Noble Park s residents. Commendation Rockingham City Council, Western Australia The Threads that Bind: Community Capacity Mapping in Waikiki In 2005 the City of Rockingham, home to people, developed an innovative tool for responding to requests from residents and visitors for additional community centres. The community capacity-mapping tool measures stocks of social capital and provides a microscopic overview of demographics, capacities and assets within suburbs to further enhance social capital and help define what facilities are needed. This model is an example of a clearly planned audit of an area, concentrating on positives and leading to actions that promote social capital, resilience and independence. Traditionally, local governments focus on identifying deficiencies and developing ways to fix these deficiencies. This project resulted in a rejuvenated and active resident s association, ongoing ownership of the revitalised park and reinforcement of the view that Rockingham is a great place to live. VALUING AND PROMOTING QUALITY CHILD CARE Commendation Penrith City Council, New South Wales Penrith City Council s Children s Services The Penrith City Children s Services Cooperative was established in The cooperative has developed its strategic plan and restructured its administrative and management processes. Having one central management body has enabled a global budgeting process that has improved the viability of centres, ensured a streamlined approach to best practice in child care service delivery and improved efficiencies in financial management, recruitment processes and purchasing power. The council s contribution to the budget has decreased each year since the inception of the cooperative and the global budgeting approach to financial management. This initiative has shown that adopting a streamlined approach to managing children s services can enhance the quality of service delivery. With sound business practices, centre directors are supported to develop quality programs that include good nutritional practices, and to provide a secure, happy, caring and stimulating environment for children to grow and learn. 290

301 YOUTH ENGAGEMENT Category winner Livingstone Shire Council, Queensland verbyl Youth Project verbyl is a new concept in both library and youth services. It provides a safe, funky hang-out space for young people between the ages of 13 and 25. The project has a full-time youth librarian who is responsible for all library-based resources (games, novels, comics, magazines, CDs and DVDs) and library programs (for example, book of the month) and a full-time youth worker who is responsible for all youth information and referral resources (for example, drugs, alcohol, pregnancy and employment). The youth worker also develops a monthly event night (for example, karaoke or an art workshop) and organises visits from other youth service providers to the space (for example, youth justice or youth housing). The youth worker also develops programs around youth issues (such as alcohol or employment). Each member has a card that gives them access to computers and games consoles and allows them to borrow resources. The computer room has six Internet-linked computers and the games room has two televisions that can be used for a variety of video games. The Livingstone Shire Council Youth Council is run out of verbyl and plays a major part in the daily running of the centre itself, as well as being involved in broader community issues. Appendix I Winner council with under ratepayer base Sarina Shire Council, Queensland Picture This Program This project won a National Award for Innovation. A description of the project is on page 273. Commendation Pine Rivers Shire Council, Queensland Engaging Our Youth Is as Easy as ABC The Pine Rivers Shire Council has partnered with the local police and youth community to develop and implement two youth support projects that provide young people with fun opportunities for empowerment, education and connecting back to family and community. Youth with a Voice has encouraged and empowered local 12- to 17-year-olds to take an active role in providing services to the broader Pine Rivers Shire youth community. This group has been given responsibility for planning, organising and marketing key youth and family activities (for example, Blue Light discos and family movies by the pool). Loud@The Library provides young people with a space to network, share ideas, learn from others and make new friends. Program attendees have access to a number of activities including Internet, music listening posts and selected pay television channels as well as the opportunity to take on a role in the Youth with a Voice project. They also help the library select youth-relevant resources, as well as playing the role of secret agents within their peer groups to monitor the behaviour of others and use peer group influence to modify undesirable behaviour. 291

302 Local Government National Report Commendation Bayside City Council, Victoria Bayside Youth Documentary Project 2005 As part of the 2005 Bayside Film Festival, an innovative educational filmmaking project the Bayside Youth Documentary Project 2005 aimed to develop skills of investigation and expression in young people through the experience of making short documentary films. The project targeted Year 9 students and youth groups within the Bayside municipality. Professional filmmakers worked directly with youth groups and alongside media teachers to deliver film production workshops over a four-month period. Two hundred students and young people were involved in the project. As a result, 27 documentary films were screened during the 2005 Bayside Film Festival, with 12 films receiving awards for excellence in the Youth Documentary Awards. Commendation Banyule City Council, Victoria The Northern Skateboard and BMX Titles The Northern Skateboard and BMX Titles is an exciting initiative coordinated by Banyule City Council s Youth Services. It is widely acknowledged as representing a new era for amateur skateboarding and BMX riding opportunities for young people. The project spanned three months of skateboard and BMX heats held in seven local government areas across the northern metropolitan region of Victoria from September to December 2005, culminating in a grand final at Riverslide Park in Melbourne s central business district. One hundred and ninety young people entered the competition series and more than 3500 people attended the event. The project is an excellent example of collaboration and partnership: it involved eight local governments (Banyule, Darebin, Moreland, Hume, Yarra, Nillumbik, Whittlesea and Melbourne), VicHealth, key industry stakeholders, young people and their families. Commendation Bankstown City Council, New South Wales Driving Change, the XROADS Project XROADS is a road safety campaign created entirely by local young people from the Bankstown local government area. The campaign targets 16- to 25-year-olds, particularly young male novice drivers involved in speeding or drag racing. It promotes safe driving and safe passenger behaviour and encourages young people to examine the consequences of risky driving. XROADS focuses on the capacity of young drivers to make choices. More than 30 young people were involved in the project. The participants wrote, composed and produced a song and coordinated pre- and post-production of a film clip using techniques that would appeal to the target audience. Through this process, young people had the opportunity to develop practical skills while at the same time creating a meaningful campaign. They were entirely responsible for developing and directing the project. The XROADS DVD will complement road safety education and awareness programs in Bankstown and potentially across New South Wales. 292

303 Commendation Caboolture Shire Council, Queensland Caboolture Shire Volatile Substance Misuse The Caboolture Shire Council developed a strategy to address volatile substance misuse through collaborative partnerships with Youth Caboolture Area Network interagency, key stakeholders and the community, including state government departments, youth sector services, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, businesses and individuals. The council secured cross-agency funding for the Out There & Active program for activities, and employment support and training. The families and friends of the young people were included to ensure program success and support. As a result of the program, young people s self-esteem increased and they started to form networks with other young people (including the council s Youth Advisory Group) for event planning and hosting, as well as with workers and council staff. The shire has seen an 80 per cent reduction in chroming (the practice of inhaling organic solvents, volatile substances or propellant gases) and in homelessness. Young people who were engaged in chroming are now helping to determine the direction of the Out There & Active program as well as providing information and ideas for program planning. Some young people are now employed and are serving as role models and young leaders for their peers and within their communities. Appendix I 293

304 Local Government National Report Bibliography Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001, Australian Social Trend 2001, cat. no pp. 184, cited in National Strategy for an Ageing Australia. 2002, Year Book Australia 2002: Population: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population, cat. no April 2004a, Government Finance Statistics , cat. no April 2004b, Taxation Revenue , cat. no August 2004, Environment Expenditure Local Government , cat. no March 2004a, Australian demographic statistics, cat. no Employed Wage and Salary Earners, Australia: Original Series, cat. no , various issues. March 2004b, Wage and Salary Earners, Public Sector, Australia: Original Series, cat. no October 2003, Population Characteristics of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: 2001 Census, cat. no Blagg, H 2005, Aboriginal Customary Law, Background Paper No. 8 A new way of doing justice business? Community justice mechanisms and sustainable governance in Western Australia, State Solicitor s Office, Perth, WA; available at < BP-08.pdf>. Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001, Review of the Operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia 2003, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economic, Finance and Public Administration, the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Costello, P & Minchin, N 2006, Final Budget Outcome , Department of the Treasury, Australian Government, Canberra. Department of Housing and Regional Development 1994, Australian Classification of Local Governments, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Department of Transport and Regional Services and the Australian Local Government Association 2003, Review into the Roads to Recovery program, DOTARS and ALGA, Canberra. Department of Transport and Regional Services 2005, Government Response to the Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government, June Financial Sustainability Review Board 2005, Rising to the Challenge: Towards Financially Sustainable Local Government in South Australia, Volume 1: Overview, South Australia. 294

305 Indigenous Interagency Coordination Committee for Local Government, Municipal Association of Victoria 2005, Toomnangi: Indigenous Communities and Local Government a Victorian Study, Municipal Association of Victoria, Melbourne. Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA) 2006, Are Councils Sustainable?, Final Report: Findings and Recommendations, Independent Inquiry into the Financial Sustainability of NSW Local Government, Sydney. National Competition Commission 2003, Assessment of Governments Progress in Implementing the National Competition Policy and Related Reforms, Volume 2: Water Reform, AusInfo, Canberra. New South Wales Department of Local Government 2004, The Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW, Nowra. New South Wales Department of Local Government 2005, Comparative Information on NSW Local Government Councils , NSW Department of Local Government, Sydney. Productivity Commission 2004, Review of National Competition Policy Reforms, Discussion Draft, October 2004, Productivity Commission, Melbourne. Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, November 2003, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2003, Productivity Commission, Canberra. Bibliography 295

306 Local Government National Report Glossary AAV assessed annual value ACLG Australian Classification of Local Government balanced budget approach A method of general purpose grant assessment whereby gross expenditure needs and revenue capacity for each council are assessed with the difference between the expenditure and revenue assessments being the equalisation need. capping Capping, for the purposes of this report, is the stabilising of component factors to bring a council s grant to within a set range of that council s grant in a previous year. COAG Council of Australian Governments Commonwealth Grants Commission A statutory authority established by the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 whose main task is to recommend to the Australian Government, for consideration by the Ministerial Council for Commonwealth State Financial Relations, the shares for each state and territory of the pool of funds that includes GST revenue. cost adjustors See disability factor CRI cost relativity index See disability factor direct assessment approach A method of grant assessment whereby a positive or negative assessment of expenditure need or revenue capacity is made for each council relative to a standard assessment. The sum of positive and negative assessments is the equalisation need. disability factor A measure of underlying influences that would lead a council to spend more (or less) per capita than the state average, expressed as an adjusting ratio of the state average. In some states, these are called cost adjustors and cost relativity indexes. 296

307 DOTARS The Department of Transport and Regional Services provides policy advice to the Ministers for the federal Transport and Regional Services portfolio and delivers a variety of programs on behalf of the Australian Government. effort neutral or neutrality The assessment of a financial assistance grant is effort neutral when it neither rewards nor penalises a council where expenditure or revenue-raising patterns vary from the state average because of policy differences, differences in efficiency or levels of self help. escalation factor The ratio by which the level of financial assistance grant nationally is adjusted, and which the Treasurer determines according to the requirements of the Act. estimated factor This is the escalation factor, as determined by the Treasurer at the start of the financial year, to determine the levels of grant payments, according to the requirements of the Act that will be paid to local government for that year. final factor This is the escalation factor, as determined by the Treasurer at the end of the financial year, according to the requirements of the Act. It will determine the final entitlement payable for local government financial assistance for that year. Determination of the final factor will (usually) require adjustments to be made to the actual payments, which were based on the estimated factor as the beginning of the year. financial assistance grants These are untied funds (not tied to a specific purpose) the Australian Government grants to local governments under the Act through the state governments. Financial assistance grants to local government are supplied to states as tied (for a specific purpose) but once distributed to local government are untied. They comprise two components: general purpose and local road. full horizontal equalisation Distribution of general purpose grants to local government, with the objective of ensuring each council is able to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not lower than the average standard in the state and takes account of differences in expenditure required in performing its functions and in the capacity to raise revenue (subsections 6.3(a) and 6.3(b) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995). general purpose grant This is one of two components (the local road grant being the other) of the financial assistance grants to local government. The objective is to strengthen local government by addressing the vertical fiscal imbalance caused by local government s narrow tax base. General purpose grants promote equity between councils and certainty of funding. They are distributed among states on a per capita basis and within states on a horizontal equalisation basis in accordance with the National Principles. Glossary 297

308 Local Government National Report GST goods and services tax Hawker Report The Report of the inquiry into local government and cost shifting by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration chaired by Mr David Hawker MP. The report is entitled Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government, and was published by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in October inclusion approach The inclusion, in calculating a council s general purpose grant, of all assessed expenditure and grants, including that related to commonwealth and state specific-purpose funding. LGAQ Local Government Association of Queensland local government grants commissions In each state and the Northern Territory, local government grants commissions have been established under state and territory law. Their primary role is to make recommendations to the state or territory minister on distributing available financial assistance grants to councils in that state or territory. local road grant This is one of two components (the other being the general purpose grant) of the financial assistance grant to local government. It was formerly provided as a tied grant and became untied from 1 July It continues to be identified and distributed according to the former tied grant arrangements. It is distributed between states on the basis of historical shares and within states on the basis of road expenditure needs. minimum grant entitlement Every council is entitled to receive a minimum grant which is not less than the amount it would receive if 30 per cent of the available general purpose grant for that state were distributed on a per capita basis. National Competition Policy A series of reforms to encourage competition and discourage anti-competitive behaviour, set out in three inter-governmental agreements (the Competition Principles Agreement, the Conduct Code Agreement and the Agreement to Implement the Competition Policy and Related Reforms), which emanated from the Report of the Independent National Competition Policy Review Committee (the Hilmer Report). negative allowances Allowances that equalise the financial capacity of advantaged councils to that of the average level for that state, by accordingly reducing the level of the financial assistance grant. Councils assessed as being advantaged may, for example, enjoy high values per property. 298

309 operational subsidy Grant provided to councils that do not have access to significant other revenue, such as that from rates. positive allowances Allowances that equalise the financial capacity of disadvantaged councils to that of the average level for that state, by accordingly increasing the level of the financial assistance grant. Councils assessed as being disadvantaged may, for example, suffer low values per property. rate capacity A measure of a council s capacity to raise revenue from rateable property, having regard to activities on that property, such as agriculture or mining. rate pegging Action by state governments to limit any variation in rates levied by councils, usually by placing a ceiling or allowable limit on the percentage increase from year to year. revenue allowances Revenue allowances compensate councils for their relative lack of revenue-raising capacity. Property values are the basis for assessing revenue-raising capacity because rates, based on property values, are the principal source of councils income. Property values, to some extent, are an indicator of the relative economic wealth of local areas. RRI revenue relativity index specific purpose grant Payments made by Australian or state or territory governments to a council for a specific purpose. Such grants usually require a council to meet certain conditional arrangements. standardised revenue and expenditure The assessed (as distinct from actual) revenue and expenditure for each council, determined by its local government grants commission as required for horizontal equalisation purposes, which takes into account each council s expenditure needs, revenue-raising capacity and disabilities. structural reform A change to the external relationships between councils including boundary changes and amalgamation of councils. Cooperative service provision, major resource sharing initiatives and joint service delivery. SWIM Statewide Water Information Management the Act Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 Glossary 299

310 Local Government National Report Index of local governments A Adelaide City, 180, 207, 208 Adelaide Hills, 180, 207, 208 Aherrenge, 185, 210, 211 Albany City, 122, 174, 204, 205 Albury City, 158, 191, 193 Alexandrina, 180, 207, 208 Ali Currung, 185, 211, 263 Alice Springs Town, 185, 210, 211 Alpine Shire, 164, 195, 196 Alpurrurulam, 185, 210, 211 Amoonguna, 185, 210, 211 Anangu Pitjantjatjara, 132, 181, 207, 208, 259 Angurugu, 185, 210 Anmatjere, 185, 210, 211 Aputula, 185, 210, 211 Aramac, 168, 198, 202 Ararat, 164, 195, 197 Areyonga, 185, 210, 211 Arltarpilta, 186, 211 Armadale City, 174, 203, 205 Armidale Dumaresq, 158, 193 Arunga, 185, 210, 211 Ashburton Shire, 174, 204, 205 Ashfield Municipal, 158, 191, 194 Atherton, 168, 199, 201 Auburn, 158, 191, 194 Augusta Margaret River Shire, 121, 174, 204, 205 Aurukun, 119, 168, 199, 200, 251, 252 B Badu Island, 168, 199, 252 Ballarat, 164, 196 Ballina Shire, 158, 192, 194 Balonne, 168, 200, 201 Balranald Shire, 158, 191, 195 Bamaga, 168, 199 Banana, 168, 200, 201 Bankstown City, 158, 191, 194, 270, 278, 292 Banyule City, 108, 164, 195, 197 National Awards for Local Government, 289, 292 Barcaldine, 168, 199 Barcoo, 168, 198, 202 Barossa, 181, 207, 208, 214 Barunga West District, 181, 208 Bass Coast Shire, 164, 196 Bassendean Town, 174, 202, 206 Bathurst Regional, 158, 193, 217 Bauhinia, 168, 199, 201 Baulkham Hills Shire, 158, 192, 195, 278 Baw Baw Shire, 109, 164, 196 Bayside City, 108, 164, 196, 197, 292 Bayswater City, 174, 202, 206 Beaudesert, 168, 199, 202 Bega Valley Shire, 158, 192, 193 Bellingen Shire, 158, 192, 217 Belmont City, 174, 202, 206 Belyando, 168, 200 Belyuen, 186, 211 Benalla, 164, 196, 197 Bendemere, 168, 198, 201 Berri and Barmera, 181, 207 Berrigan Shire, 158, 191, 194 Beverley Shire, 175, 204 Biggenden, 168, 199, 201 Binjari, 186, 210, 211 Blackall, 168, 199, 201 Blacktown City, 158, 191, 194, 285 Bland Shire, 158, 191, 195 Blayney Shire, 158, 192, 193 Blue Mountains City, 158, 192, 193 Boddington Shire, 175, 204 Bogan Shire, 158, 191, 194, 217 Boigu Island, 168, 198, 200, 252 Bombala, 158, 191, 194, 217 Boonah, 168, 200, 201 Booringa, 168, 198, 202 Boorowa, 158, 192, 194, 217 Boroondara City, 108, 165, 196, 197 Borroloola, 186, 210, 211 Botany Bay City, 158, 191, 194 Boulia, 168, 198, 202 Bourke Shire, 158, 191, 195, 217 Bowen, 168, 200,

311 Boyup Brook Shire, 175, 204 Break O Day Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 241 Brewarrina Shire, 159, 191, 194, 217 Bridgetown Greenbushes Shire, 175, 204 Brighton Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 241 Brimbank City, 109, 165, 195, 197 Brisbane City, 4, 6, 119, 168, 198, 202 National Awards for Local Government, 277, 282 National Competition Policy, 227, 228 Broadsound, 119, 168, 200 Broken Hill City, 159, 192 Brookton Shire, 175, 204, 205 Broome Shire, 175, 203, 204 Broomehill Shire, 175, 203, 205 Bruce Rock Shire, 175, 203, 204 Bulloo, 168, 198, 201 Buloke Shire, 165, 195, 197 Bunbury City, 122, 175, 202, 206 Bundaberg, 169, 198, 201 Bungil, 169, 198, 201 Burdekin, 169, 199, 201 Burke, 169, 198, 202 Burnett, 169, 199, 201 Burnie City, 184, 209, 238, 241 Burnside City, 181, 207, 208 Burwood Municipal, 159, 191, 194 Busselton Shire, 175, 203, 206 Byron Shire, 159, 192, 194, 285 C Cabonne Shire, 159, 192, 194 Caboolture, 169, 198, 202, 293 Cairns, 169, 198, 202 Calliope, 169, 199, 201 Caloundra, 169, 198, 202 Cambooya, 169, 199, 201 Cambridge Town, 175, 202, 206 Camden, 159, 192, 194 Campaspe City, 165, 196, 197, , 289 Campelltown City (NSW), 159, 191, 194, 217 Campelltown City (SA), 181, 206, 208, 280 Canada Bay City, 159, 191, 194 Canning City, 175, 202, 206 Canterbury City, 159, 191, 194 Capel Shire, 175, 202, 205 Cardinia Shire, 165, 196 Cardwell, 169, 199, 201 Carnamah Shire, 175, 203, 205 Carnavon Shire, 175, 204 Carpentaria, 169, 199, 201, 272, 288 Carrathool Shire, 159, 191, 195 Casey City, 109, 165, 196, 197 Ceduna District, 181, 207, 208, 258 Central Coast Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 241 Central Darling Shire, 159, 191, 195, 217 Central Goldfields Shire, 165, 195, 197 Central Highlands Municipal, 184, 209, 210, 238 Cessnock City, 159, 192, 193 Chapman Valley Shire, 175, 204, 206 Charles Sturt City, 181, 207, 208 Charters Towers, 169, 198, 200 Cherbourg, 169, 199, 201, 252 Chinchilla, 169, 200, 202 Chittering Shire, 175, 203, 205 Circular Head Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 240 Clare and Gilbert Valleys, 181, 208 Claremont Town, 175, 203, 206 Clarence City, 184, 209, 238, 242 Clarence Valley, 159, 193, 274, 281 Cleve District, 181, 207, 208 Clifton, 119, 169, 199, 200 Cloncurry, 169, 200, 201 Cobar Shire, 159, 191, 195, 217 Cockburn City, 175, 203, 206, 276 Coffs Harbour City, 159, 191, 193, 217 Colac Otway Shire, 165, 196 Collie Shire, 175, 203, 204 Conargo Shire, 159, 191, 195, 217 Coober Pedy District, 181, 207, 209, 258 Cook, 169, 199, 201 Coolamon Shire, 159, 191, 195 Coolgardie Shire, 175, 205, 206 Cooloola, 169, 199, 201 Coomalie Community Government, 186, 210, 211, Cooma Monaro, 159, 192, 193, 217 Coonamble Shire, 159, 191, 194 Coorong District, 181, 207, 208, Coorow Shire, 175, 204, 205 Cootamundra Shire, 159, 192, 193, 217 Copper Coast District, 181, 207, 208 Corangamite Shire, 165, 195, 196 Corowa Shire, 159, 192, 194 Corrigin Shire, 175, 203, 205 Cottesloe Town, 176, 203, 205 Cowal Creek, 171, 199, 201 Cowra Shire, 159, 192, 193 Cox Peninsula, 186, 210, 211 Cranbrook Shire, 176, 204, 205 Crow s Nest, 169, 200, 201 Croydon, 169, 198, 201 Cuballing Shire, 176, 203, 205 Cue Shire, 176, 202, 205 Cunderdin Shire, 176, 203, 205 Index of local governments 301

312 Local Government National Report D Daguragu, 186, 210, 211 Dalby, 119, 169, 198, 201 Dalrymple, 169, 199, 202 Dalwallinu Shire, 176, 203, 205 Dandaragan Shire, 176, 204 Dardanup, 176, 203, 205 Darebin City, 108, 109, 165, 195, 197, 292 National Awards for Local Government, 284, 287 Darwin City, 186, 210, 211, 284 Dauan Island, 169, 198, 199, 252 Deniliquin, 159, 192, 217 Denmark Shire, 176, 204, 205 Derby West Kimberley Shire, 176, 203, 205 Derwent Valley Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 241 Devonport City, 184, 209, 238, 241, 242 Diamantina, 170, 198, 202 Docklands Authority, 108, 165, 195, 197 Donnybrook Balingup Shire, 176, 203, 205 Doomadgee, 170, 200 Dorset Municipal, 184, 209, 238 Douglas, 170, 199, 201 Dowerin Shire, 176, 203, 206 Duaringa, 170, 200, 201 Dubbo City, 160, 193, 217 Dumbleyung Shire, 176, 203, 204 Dundas Shire, 176, 203, 204 Dungog Shire, 160, 193 E Eacham, 170, 199, 200 East Fremantle Town, 176, 203, 206 East Gippsland Shire, 109, 165, 195, 196 East Pilbara Shire, 6, 176, 204 Eidsvold, 170, 198, 201 Elliott District, 186, 210, 211, 263 Elliston District, 181, 207, 208 Emerald, 170, 201 Erub Island, 170, 198, 199, 252 Esk, 170, 200, 201 Esperance Shire, 176, 205 Etheridge, 170, 198, 201 Eurobodalla Shire, 160, 192, 193 Exmouth Shire, 176, 203 F Fairfield City, 160, 191, 194, 278 Fitzroy, 170, 200 Flinders (Qld), 170, 199, 202 Flinders Municipal (Tas.), 184, 209, 210, 238, Flinders Ranges, 181, 207, 208 Forbes Shire, 160, 192, 194, 214 Franklin Harbour District, 181, 207, 208 Frankston City, 109, 165, 195, 196 Fremantle City, 176, 202, 206 G Galiwinku, 186, 211 Gannawarra, 165, 195, 197 Gapuwiyak, 186, 210, 211 Gatton, 170, 199, 201 Gawler Municipal, 181, 207, 208 Gayndah, 170, 200 George Town Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 240 Geraldton City, 122, 176, 202, 205 Gerard, 132, 181, 207, 259 Gilgandra Shire, 160, 191, 194 Gingin Shire, 176, 204, 205 Gladstone, 170, 198, 201 Glamorgan Spring Bay Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 241 Glen Eira City, 108, 165, 196, 197 Glen Innes Severn, 160, 192, 193, 214 Glenelg Shire, 165, 196 Glenorchy City, 184, 209, 210, 238, 241, 242 Gloucester Shire, 160, 192, 193, 217 Gnowangerup Shire, 176, 204, 205 Gold Coast, 119, 170, 198, 202, 277 Golden Plains Shire, 165, 196, 197, 280 Goomalling Shire, 177, 204 Gooniwindi, 170, 198, 200 Gosford City, 160, 192, 194 Gosnells City, 177, 203, 206 Goulburn Mulwaree, 160, 193, 274, 277 Goyder, 181, 207, 208 Grant District, 181, 208 Great Lakes, 160, 192, 193, 217 Greater Bendigo City, 165, 196, 197 Greater Dandenong City, 165, 195, 196, 290 Greater Geelong City, 109, 165, 196 Greater Hume Shire, 160, 192, 194 Greater Shepparton City, 165, 196 Greater Taree City, 160, 192, 193, 217 Greenborough Shire, 177, 204, 205 Griffith City, 160, 193, 270 Gundagai Shire, 160, 192, 193 Gunnedah Shire, 160, 192, 193 Guyra Shire, 160, 192, 194 Gwydir Shire, 160, 191,

313 H Halls Creek Shire, 177, 203, 204, 255 Hammond Island, 170, 198, 199 Harden Shire, 160, 191, 194, 217 Harvey Shire, 177, 204, 205 Hastings, 160, 192, 193, 217 Hawkesbury City, 160, 192, 194 Hay Shire, 160, 191, 194 Hepburn Shire, 165, 196, 197 Herberton, 170, 200 Hervey Bay, 170, 198, 201 Hinchinbrook, 170, 199, 201 Hindmarsh Shire, 165, 195, 197 Hobart City, 184, 209, 210, 238 Hobson s Bay City, 108, 165, 196, 197 Holdfast Bay City, 181, 207, 208, 257 Holroyd City, 160, 191, 194, 278, 281, 283 Hopevale, 170, 200 Hornsby Shire, 160, 192, 195, 270 Horsham Rural City, 166, 196, 197 Hume City, 166, 195, 197, 292 Hunters Hill Municipal, 161, 192, 194 Huon Valley Municipal, 184, 209, 238 Hurstville City, 161, 191, 195 I Iama Island, 170, 198, 199 Ikuntji, 186, 210, 211 Ilfracombe, 170, 198, 201 Imanpa, 186, 210 Indigo Shire, 166, 196, 197 Inglewood, 171, 199, 200 Injinoo, 171, 199, 201, 252 Inverell Shire, 161, 192, 193 Ipswich, 171, 198, 201, 287 Irwin Shire, 177, 204, 205 Isis, 171, 200 Isisiford, 171, 198, 201 J Jabiru Town, 186, 210, 211 Jericho, 171, 198, 201 Jerilderie Shire, 161, 191, 194 Jerramungup Shire, 177, 204, 206 Jilkminggan, 186, 210, 211 Johnstone, 171, 199, 201 Jondaryan, 171, 199, 201 Joondalup City, 177, 203, 206, Junee Shire, 161, 192, 194 K Kalamunda Shire, 177, 203, 206 Kalgoorlie Boulder City, 122, 177, 203, 205 Kaltukatjara, 186, 210, 211 Kangaroo Island, 181, 207, 208 Karoonda East Murray District, 181, 206, 208 Katanning Shire, 177, 204 Katherine Town, 186, 210, 211 Kellerberrin Shire, 177, 203, 204 Kempsey Shire, 161, 192, 193, 217 Kent Shire, 177, 203, 206 Kentish Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 241 Kiama Municipal, 161, 192, 194 Kilcoy, 171, 199, 200 Kilkivan, 171, 200, 201 Kimba District, 182, 206, 207 King Island Municipal, 185, 209, 210, 238, 283 Kingaroy, 171, 200, 201 Kingborough Municipal, 185, 209, 238 Kingston City (Vic.), 108, 166, 195, 197 Kingston District (SA), 182, 207, 208 Knox City, 166, 195, 197 Kogarah Municipal, 161, 191, 194 Kojonup Shire, 177, 204, 205 Kolan, 171, 200 Kondinin Shire, 177, 203, 206 Koorda Shire, 177, 202, 205 Kowanyama, 171, 200 Ku-ring-gai, 161, 192, 195 Kubin Island, 171, 198, 200 Kulin Shire, 177, 203, 206 Kunbarllanjinja, 186, 210, 211, Kwinana Town, 177, 203, 206, 288 Kyogle, 161, 192, 193 L Lachlan Shire, 161, 191, 195, 217 Laidley, 171, 199, 201 Lajamanu, 186, 211 Lake Grace Shire, 177, 204, 206 Lake Macquarie City, 161, 192, 193, 286 Lane Cove Municipal, 161, 191, 194 Latrobe City (Vic.), 166, 196, 275 Latrobe Municipal (Tas.), 185, 209, 238, 240, 241 Launceston City, 185, 209, 210, 238, 241, 259 Laverton Shire, 177, 203, 206 Le Hunte District, 182, 206, 208 Leeton Shire, 161, 192, 193 Leichhardt Municipal, 161, 191, 194 Leonora Shire, 177, 204, 206 Index of local governments 303

314 Local Government National Report Light, 182, 208 Lismore City, 161, 192, 193 Litchfield Shire, 186, 210, 211 Lithgow City, 161, 193 Liverpool City, 161, 192, 194, 278 Liverpool Plains Shire, 161, 192, 193, 276 Livingstone, 171, 199, 201, 291 Lockhart River, 171, 199, 201, 252 Lockhart Shire, 161, 191, 194 Loddon Shire, 166, 195, 197 Logan, 119, 171, 198, 202 Longreach, 171, 199, 202 Lord Howe Island Board, 161, 191, 195 Lower Eyre Peninsula District, 182, 207, 208 Loxton Waikerie District, 182, 207 Ltyentye Purte, 186, 211 M Mabuiag Island, 171, 198, 199, 252 Macedon Ranges Shire, 166, 196 Mackay, 171, 198, 202 McKinlay, 172, 198, 202 Maitland City, 161, 192, 193 Mallala District, 182, 208 Mandurah City, 177, 203, 206 Maningrida, 186, 211 Manjimup Shire, 177, 203, 205 Manly, 161, 191, 195 Manningham City, 108, 166, 196, 197, 286 Mansfield, 166, 195, 196 Mapoon Aboriginal Council, 171, 198, 200 Maralinga, 132, 182, 206, 208, 259 Mareeba, 171, 200, 201 Maribyrnong City, 108, 166, 195, 197 Marion City, 182, 206, 208, 257 Marngarr, 187, 210, 211 Maroochy, 172, 198, 202 Maroondah City, 108, 166, 196, 197 Marrickville, 161, 191, 194 Maryborough, 172, 198, 201 Mataranka, 187, 210, 211 McKinlay, 172, 198, 202 Meander Valley Municipal, 185, 209, 238 Meekatharra Shire, 177, 203, 206 Melbourne City, 108, 166, 195, 197, 292 Melton Shire, 166, 196 Melville City, 178, 203, 206 Menzies Shire, 178, 202, 206 Mer Island, 172, 198, 199 Merredin Shire, 178, 204, 205 Mid Murray, 182, 207, 208 Mid-Western Regional, 162, 193 Mildura Rural City, 166, 196, 197 Milingimbi, 187, 210, 211 Millmerran, 172, 200, 201 Milyakburra, 187, 210, 211 Mingenew Shire, 178, 203, 204 Minjilang, 187, 210, Mirani, 172, 200 Miriam Vale, 172, 200 Mitcham City, 182, 207, 208 Mitchell Shire, 166, 196 Moira Shire, 166, 196, 197 Monash City, 108, 166, 196, 197 Monto, 172, 199, 201 Moonee Valley City, 108, 166, 195, 197 Moora Shire, 178, 204 Moorabool Shire, 166, 196 Morawa Shire, 178, 203, 205 Moree Plains Shire, 162, 192, 194 Moreland City, 108, 166, 196, 197, 292 Mornington, 119, 172, 199, 201, 251 Mornington Peninsula Shire, 108, 166, 196, 197 Mosman Municipal, 162, 191, 194 Mosman Park Town, 178, 203, 205 Mount Alexander Shire, 166, 196, 197 Mount Barker District, 182, 207, 208 Mount Gambier City, 182, 207, 208 Mount Isa, 172, 200, 201 Mt Liebig, 188, 210, 211 Mount Magnet Shire, 178, 202, 204 Mount Marshall Shire, 178, 202, 206 Mount Morgan, 172, 199, 200 Mount Remarkable District, 182, 207 Moyne Shire, 166, 195, 197, 289 Mukinbudin Shire, 178, 203, 205 Mullewa Shire, 178, 204, 206 Mundaring Shire, 178, 203, 205 Mundubbera, 172, 199, 200 Murchison Shire, 178, 202, 206 Murgon, 172, 200 Murilla, 172, 199, 201 Murray Bridge District, 182, 207 Murray Shire (NSW), 162, 192, 194, 217 Murray Shire (WA), 178, 203, 205 Murrindindi Shire, 167, 196 Murrumbidgee Shire, 162, 191, 194 Murweh, 172, 199, 201 Muswellbrook Shire, 162,

315 N Nambucca Shire, 162, 192, 193, 217 Nanango, 172, 200 Nannup Shire, 178, 203 Napranum, 172, 198, 200 Naracoorte Lucindale, 182, 207, 208 Narembeen Shire, 178, 203, 206 Narrabri Shire, 162, 192, 194 Narrandera Shire, 162, 191, 194 Narrogin Shire, 178, 202, 205 Narrogin Town, 122, 178, 202, 205 Narromine Shire, 162, 191, 194 Naulyu Nambiyu, 187, 210 Nebo, 172, 199, 201 Nedlands City, 178, 203, 206 Nepabunna, 132, 182, 207, 259 New Mapoon, 172, 199, 252 Newcastle City, 162, 192, 193 Ngaanyatjarraku Shire, 178, 202, 204 Nganmarriyanga, 187, 211 Nillumbik Shire, 108, 167, 196, 197, 292 Noosa, 172, 198, 202 North Sydney, 162, 191, 194 Northam Shire, 122, 178, 204 Northam Town, 178, 202, 205 Northampton Shire, 178, 204, 205 Northern Areas, 182, 207, 208 Northern Grampians Shire, 167, 195, 197 Northern Midlands Municipal, 185, 209, 238, 241 Norwood, Payneham and St Peters City, 182, 207, 208 Ntaria, 187, 211, 263 Numbulwar Numburindi, 187, 210, 211 Nungarin Shire, 178, 202, 205 Nyirranggulung Mardrulk, 187, 210, 211 Nyirripi, 187, 210, 211 Paroo, 172, 199, 201 Parramatta City, 162, 191, 194 Peak Downs, 172, 199, 201 Penrith City, 162, 192, 194, 217 National Awards for Local Government, 276, 278, 290 Peppermint Grove Shire, 179, 203, 205 Peppimenarti, 187, 210 Perenjori Shire, 179, 202, 206 Perry, 172, 198, 201 Perth City, 179, 202, 206 Peterborough District, 183, 207, 208 Pine Creek, 187, 210, 211, Pine Rivers, 173, 198, 202, 291 Pingelly Shire, 179, 204 Pittsworth, 173, 200, 201 Pittwater, 162, 191, 195 Plantagenet Shire, 179, 205 Playford City, 183, 207, , 282, 288 Pormpuraaw, 173, 199, 201, 252 Port Adelaide Enfield, 183, 207, 208 Port Augusta City, 183, 207 Port Hedland Town, 179, 203, 205 Port Lincoln City, 183, 207, 208 Port Phillip City, 108, 167, 195, 197 Port Pirie, 183, 207, 208 Port Stephens, 162, 192, 193, 289 Poruma Island, 173, 198, 199, 252 Prospect City, 183, 206, 208 Pyrenees Shire, 167, 195, 197 Q Quairading Shire, 179, 203, 204 Queanbeyan, 162, 191, 194 Queenscliffe Borough, 108, 167, 196, 197 Quilpie, 173, 198, 202 Index of local governments O Oberon, 162, 192, 194 Onkaparinga District, 182, 207, 208, 257, 283 Orange City, 162, 191, 193, 217 Orroroo Carrieton District, 182, 206, 208 Outback Areas Community Development Trust, 3, , 183, 207, 209 P Palerang, 162, 193 Palm Island, 172, 198, 200 Palmerston Town, 187, 210, 211 Palumpa, 187, 211 Papunya, 187, 211 Parkes Shire, 162, 192, 194 R Ramingining, 187, 210, 211 Randwick City, 162, 191, 195, 279 Ravensthorpe Shire, 179, 204, 206 Redcliffe City, 173, 198, 202 Redland, 173, 198, 202 Renmark Paringa District, 183, 207 Richmond, 173, 198, 202 Richmond Valley, 162, 193 Robe District, 183, 208 Rockdale City, 162, 191, 195 Rockhampton, 173, 198, 202 Rockingham City, 179, 203, 206, 279, 290 Roebourne Shire, 179, 203, 204 Roma, 173, 199,

316 Local Government National Report Rosalie, 119, 173, 198, 200 Roxby Downs Municipal, 183, 207, 208, 277 Ryde City, 163, 191, 195 S Saibai Island, 173, 198, 199 St Paul s Island, 173, 198, 200 Salisbury City, 60, 183, 207, 208, 270, 280 Sandstone Shire, 179, 202, 205 Santa Teresa, 186, 211 Sarina, 173, 199, 201, 273, 291 Seisia Island, 173, 198, 199, 252 Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire, 179, 203, 205 Shark Bay Shire, 179, 203, 204 Shellharbour City, 163, 192, 194 Shoalhaven City, 163, 192, 193 Silverton Village, 163, 191, 195 Singleton Shire, 163, 193 Snowy River Shire, 163, 192, 193, 217 Sorell Municipal, 185, 209, 238, 240 South Gippsland Shire, 167, 196 South Perth City, 179, 203, 206 Southern Grampians Shire, 167, 195, 197 Southern Mallee District, 183, 207, 208 Southern Midlands Municipal, 185, 209, 238, 241 St Paul s Island, 173, 198, 200 Stanthorpe, 173, 200 Stirling City, 179, 203, 206 Stonnington City, 108, 167, 196, 197 Strathbogie Shire, 167, 195, 197 Strathfield Municipal, 163, 191, 194, 214 Streaky Bay District, 183, 207, 208 Subiaco City, 179, 202, 205 Surf Coast Shire, 109, 167, 196 Sutherland Shire, 163, 191, 195 Swan Hill Rural City, 167, 196, 197 National Awards for Local Government, 272, 279 Swan Shire, 179, 203, 206 Sydney City, 163, 191, 194 Temora Shire, 163, 192, 194, 217 Tennant Creek Town, 187, 210, 211 Tenterfield Shire, 163, 191, 194 Thamarrurr, 187, 211 Three Springs Shire, 179, 203, 205 Thuringowa, 173, 198, 202 Tiaro, 173, 200 Tibooburra Village, 163, 191, 195 Timber Creek, 187, 210 Tiwi Island, 187, 210, 211 Toodyay Shire, 179, 204, 205 Toowoomba, 173, 198, 202 Torres, 119, 173, 198, 199 Townsville, 173, 198, 201 Towong Shire, 167, 195, 197 Trayning Shire, 179, 202, 205 Trust Account, 187, 211 Tumbarumba Shire, 163, 191, 193, 217 Tumby Bay District, 183, 207, 208 Tumut, 163, 192, 193, 217 Tweed Shire, 163, 192, 193 U Ugar Island, 174, 198, 199 Umagico, 174, 199 Umbakumba, 187, 210, 211 Unley City, 183, 206, 208 Upper Gascoyne Shire, 179, 202, 206 Upper Hunter, 163, 192, 193 Upper Lachlan, 163, 192, 194 Uralla Shire, 163, 192, 193 Urana Shire, 163, 191, 195 Urapuntja, 188, 210, 211 V Victor Harbor, 183, 207, 209 Victoria Park Town, 180, 202, 205 Victoria Plains Shire, 180, 204, 206 Vincent Town, 180, 202, 206, 287 T Tambellup Shire, 179, 203, 205 Tambo, 173, 198, 202 Tammin Shire, 179, 202, 206 Tamworth Regional, 163, 193 Tapatjatjaka, 187, 211 Tara, 173, 199, 201 Taroom, 173, 199, 201 Tasman Municipal, 185, 209, 238, 241 Tatiara District, 183, 207, 208 Tea Tree Gully City, 183, 207, 208 W Wagga Wagga City, 163, 193 Waggamba, 174, 199, 201 Wagin Shire, 180, 204, 205 Wakefield, 183, 207, 208 Wakool Shire, 163, 191, 193 Walcha, 163, 192, 194 Walgett Shire, 163, 191, 194, 217 Walingeri Ngumpinku, 188, 211 Walkerville Municipal, 183, 207, 209 Wallace Rockhole, 188, 210,

317 Walungurru, 188, 210, 211 Wambo, 174, 200 Wandering Shire, 180, 203, 205 Wangaratta Rural City, 167, 196, 197 Wanneroo City, 180, 203, 206 Waratah Wynyard Municipal, 185, 209, 238, 242 Waroona Shire, 180, 204, 205 Warraber Island, 174, 198 Warren Shire, 164, 191, 194 Warringah, 164, 191, 195 Warrnambool City, 109, 167, 195, 196 Warroo, 174, 198, 202 Warrumbungle, 164, 191, 194, 214 Warruwi, 188, 210, Warwick, 174, 200 Watiyawanu, 188, 210, 211 Wattle Range, 183, 208 Waverley, 164, 191, 194 Weddin Shire, 164, 191, 194, 217 Wellington (NSW), 164, 192, 194 Wellington Shire (Vic.), 109, 167, 196 Wentworth Shire, 164, 191, 194 West Arthur Shire, 180, 204, 205 West Coast Municipal, 185, 209, 238 West Tamar Municipal, 185, 209, 238, 241 West Torrens City, 183, 206, 208 West Wimmera Shire, 167, 195, 197 Westonia Shire, 180, 202, 206 Whitehorse City, 108, 167, 196, 197 Whitsunday, 174, 199, 201 Whittlesea City, 109, 167, 195, 197, 292 Whyalla City, 184, 207 Wickepin Shire, 180, 203, 205 Williams Shire, 180, 205 Willoughby City, 164, 191, 195 Wiluna Shire, 180, 203, 206, 255 Wingecarribee Shire, 164, 192, 194 Winton, 174, 198, 202 Wodonga Rural City, 167, 195, 196 Wollondilly Shire, 164, 192, 194 Wollongong City, 164, 192, 193, 288 Wondai, 174, 199, 201 Wongan Ballidu Shire, 180, 203, 204 Woocoo, 174, 200 Woodanilling Shire, 180, 203, 205 Woollahra Municipal, 164, 191, 195 Woorabinda, 174, 200, 201 Wujal Wujal, 174, 199, 200, 252 Wyalkatchem Shire, 180, 203, 205 Wyndham City, 167, 196, 262 Wyndham East Kimberley Shire, 180, 204 Wyong Shire, 164, 192, 194 Y Yalata, 132, 184, 207, 259 Yalgoo Shire, 180, 202, 206 Yankalilla District, 184, 208, 257 Yarra City, 108, 167, 195, 197, 292 Yarra Ranges Shire, 109, 167, 195, 196 Yarrabah, 174, 198, 201 Yarriambiack Shire, 167, 195, 197 Yass Valley, 164, 193 Yilgarn Shire, 180, 204, 206 Yirrkala Dhanbul, 188, 210, 211 York Shire, 180, 203, 205 Yorke Island, 174, 198, 199 Yorke Peninsula District, 184, 208, 257 National Awards for Local Government, 274, 282 Young Shire, 164, 192, 193, 217 Yuelamu, 188, 210, 211 Yuendumu, 188, 210, 211 Yugul Mangi, 188, 210 Index of local governments 307

318 Local Government National Report General index A Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, 78 Aboriginal communities, see Indigenous communities Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic.), 251 Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, 257 Aboriginal Local Government Association, 254 Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders National Principle, 41, 83, ACLG, acquittal of grants, 53 ACT, see Australian Capital Territory ACT NOWaste, actual entitlements, 30 40, Advanced Step Asset Management program, affordable housing, 10 aged services, airports, 10 aviation security, 262 Alcoa, 276, 288 alcohol awareness, 280 ALGA, see Australian Local Government Association allocation of grants, see grants amalgamations and structural reform, 4, 59 National Principle, 88 9, 92 3 New South Wales, 215, 281; reason for change in ACLG category, 214 Northern Territory, see also National Competition Policy annual reports and publications New South Wales, Northern Territory, 243 Queensland, 229 Tasmania, 236, 242 Victoria, 219, 221 Western Australia, 70 Application of National Competition Policy to Local Government, 236 Are Councils Sustainable?, 218 area of local governing bodies, 5, 6, Indigenous councils, % share, 64 Arnold, Paul, 240 art galleries, 255 asset management, 68, Australian Capital Territory, 246, 247 Victoria, 220 1, see also roads Asset Management Award, Asset Management Performance Measures Project, 220 assets and liabilities, 25 6, see also infrastructure Association for Local Government Professionals, 220 Attorney-General s Department, 254 AusLink, 65 7 Australian Capital Territory, 11, 43, 244 8, general purpose grants, 32 3, 35, 40 Indigenous communities, local government buildings, value of, 64 National Competition Policy payments, 57 rate revenue, 15; land value assessment method, 17 roads, see Australian Capital Territory road network specific purpose payments, 22 Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Consultative Council, 264 Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister s Department, Australian Capital Territory Community Inclusion Fund, 265 Australian Capital Territory Department of Territory and Urban Services, Australian Capital Territory Parks, Conservation and Lands, 247 Australian Capital Territory Ranger Services, Australian Capital Territory road network, 35, 40, 73, calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 estimated value, 63, 73 Roads to Recovery program, 22 sealed and unsealed, 64 Australian Classification of Local Governments, Australian Constitution, 2 Australian Electoral Commission,

319 Australian Government funding, 20 3, 65 8 Backing Indigenous Ability, 253 Bilateral Agreement with Northern Territory, 261 Indigenous services, 76 7 see also grants; Hawker Inquiry Australian Greenhouse Office, 270 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), 9, 11, 257, 270, 271 Future of Local Government Summit, 225 Hawker Report, 10, 88 intergovernmental agreement, 239 National Local Roads Database, 246 Australian Museum, 276 Australian Railway Monument and Museum, 276 Australian Transport Council, 11 Australian Water Fund, 231 average grants, 46 8, revenue per unit, Victoria, 106 aviation, 10 aviation security, 262 awards and recognition, 245 see also National Awards for Local Government B Backing Indigenous Ability funding, 253 balanced budget model, 147 Barta, Frank, 242 Batt, Chris, 240, 242 Baulch, David, 240 Bayside Youth Documentary Project 2005, 292 benchmarking, see performance measures Best Practice Guidelines, 220 Best Value Commission (Vic.), 219 Better Roads Victoria Program, 69 Bilateral Agreement, Binks, Mary, 240 biodiversity conservation, Black Spot program, 66 BMX Titles, 292 Boat Harbour Beach, 22 Bondini, 255 borrowings, 87 8 bridges, 125, 139 broadband, 274 Budget papers, state, 65 buildings, 63 4 sale of under-utilised, 68 business development, 276 7, 282 Business Management Assistance Program (Qld), 227, 229 by-laws (local laws), 227, 232, 241 Bynoe Aboriginal Corporation, 272 C Campbell, Jock, 238 Canberra, see Australian Capital Territory Canberra Urban Parks and Places, 247 Cape Barren Island, capital cities, see classification of local governing bodies capping policies, 53, cars, 248, 284 Certificate IV in Local Government (Administration), 254 children s services, 22, 130 Indigenous, 81, 252 National Awards for Local Government, 289, 290 Christmas Island Shire, 44 5 Cities for Climate Protection Program, 284 Clarke Island, 259 classification of local governing bodies, 3, 44 5, average grants, 47 8 estimated spending on local roads, 65 on relative needs basis, see also Indigenous councils; minimum grant councils COAG, see Council of Australian Governments Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire, 44 5 codes of conduct, 233, 241 collaborative services, see resource sharing Commonwealth funding, see Australian Government funding; grants Commonwealth Grants Commission, 28, 139 Hawker Report recommendations concerning, 87, 88; road grant review, 29 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 review (2001), 52, 132, 154 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, 2 Community Business Partnerships Award, community development, 234, 272 3, 276 7, Indigenous, 76 7, 251 2, 255 6, 261 Community Governance Improvement Strategy (Qld), 251 community satisfaction surveys, 221, 244 Community Water Grants, 277 Comparative Information on New South Wales Local Government Councils, comparative performance, see performance measures Comparative Performance Measurement Project (SA), 235 competition policy, see National Competition Policy competitive neutrality, 57, 227, 236 Compton Road upgrade, 282 computing, see information and communications technology conferences, workshops and other forums, 45 6, New South Wales, 216, 249 Northern Territory, 262 Queensland, 254; State Library, 253 General index 309

320 Local Government National Report South Australia, 257 Victoria, 220, 225 Western Australia, 232, 255 Connect Australia initiative, 253 Connecting Communities project, 265 Constitution, 2 consumer price index, 29, 34 contracts and tenders, 241, 245 Cooper, Helen, 240 Cost Shifting Inquiry, see Hawker Inquiry Council of Australian Governments (COAG), 9, 11 Indigenous trials, 259, 264 National Reform Agenda, 57 8 natural disasters review, 230 water reforms, 226, 227, 228, Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, 262 councillors, 256, 258 codes of conduct, 233, 241 training, 253 4, 255, 262 councils, see local governing bodies CPI, 29, 34 Cradle Coast Authority, 238 Creative Riverina Youth Team, 270 Cronin, Bernie, 262 cultural and linguistic diversity, 270, see also Indigenous communities cultural heritage, see heritage management Currie Sewage Treatment Wetlands, 283 customer service charters, 241, 247 D Daly, Emeritus Professor Maurice, 271 Darebin Interfaith Council, 287 Darling Downs Regional Organisation of Councils, 230 databases, 46, 269 Australian Capital Territory, 246 New South Wales, 216 Queensland, Tasmania, 238, 241 debt, Victorian councils, 221 declared local governing bodies, 3, 44 Delta Downs cattle station, 272 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 270 Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 253 Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, 76, 270 Department of Environment and Heritage, 270 Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 270 Department of Health and Ageing, 270 Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 270 Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 270 Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS), 262, 270, 271 Leading Practice Seminar Series, Regional Partnerships program, 23 depression, 272 Desert Gold horticultural lease, 255 Development Assessment Forum, 10 direct assessment model, disability services/initiatives, 22, 234, 249 disaster assistance payments, Victoria, 109 disaster management, 230, 256, 262 distribution of grants, see grants diversity, cultural and linguistic, 270, see also Indigenous communities dog control, 247 domestic garbage and recycling services, Dorothy Waide Centre for Early Learning, 270 Downie, Mike, 238 drainage, see water and sanitation dumping, illegal, 278 E early childhood services, see children s services Easther, Barry, 238 economic development, 276 7, 282 see also employees and employment education and training, 292 community programs, council staff, 221, 227, 228, 247 see also conferences, workshops and other forums education and training, Indigenous community programs Australian Capital Territory, 265 councillors, 254 5, 256 Queensland, 252 3, 254 5, 272 South Australia, 258, Tasmania, 260 Western Australia, 255, 256 efficiency, 56 60, National Awards for Local Government, effort neutrality, 41 Elected Member s Guide to Disaster Management, 230 electoral representation, 256, 258, 264 electronic services, see Internet eligibility criteria, 44 5 local government grants commissions, 43 emergency management, 230, 256, 262 Emergency Management Australia,

321 employees and employment, Indigenous community programs, 253, 255, , see also education and training, Indigenous community programs employees and employment in local government, 3 4 health and safety, Indigenous Australians, 255, 263 women, engineering, 263 see also infrastructure environment protection, 282 3, 284 6, 288 Cape Barren Island renewable energy project, 260 equalisation, see horizontal equalisation equalisation ratio method of factoring back, 156 escalation factor, estimated entitlements, 30, 32 5, Excellence, National Award for, 274 expenditure, assessments, , average per unit, Victoria, 104 GDP ratio, 3 roads, 65, 71, 72 see also Australian Government funding; state government funding F factoring back, 156 females, see women filmmaking, 292 final factor, 30, 32, 34 finance, 12 26, borrowings, 87 8 Hawker Report recommendation, Victoria, 221, 224; workshop, 220 see also expenditure; grants; resource sharing; revenue financial sustainability, 58 New South Wales, 218 South Australia, 234 5, 278; Salisbury City Council financial governance model, 60 Western Australia, 233 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 256 Flint, Deidre, 238 forums, see conferences, workshops and other forums fringe local government bodies, see classification of local governing bodies functions of local government, 2 3, 17 expenditure by, 18 20, 24 see also Hawker Inquiry; infrastructure funding, see finance; grants Future of Local Government Summit, 225 G Garnduwa Indigenous Leadership Program, 256 GDP, 3 general purpose grants, 28 53, Indigenous councils, mainstream councils in relation to Indigenous population, 82 3 as proportion of local government revenue, Victoria, see also minimum grant councils; National Principles general purpose grants distribution methods, New South Wales, 52, 95 9, 102 Northern Territory, 52, Queensland, 52, , 119 South Australia, 52, Tasmania, 52, Victoria, 52, Western Australia, 52, Gibson, John, 240 Gillam, Liz, 240, 242 Gkuthaarn people, 272 goods and services tax (GST), 29, 42 governance, 2 26 Indigenous communities, 251 2, 254 5, parliamentary resolution, 87 see also finance; legislation Government Prices Oversight Amendment Act 1997, 236 Government Prices Oversight Commission (Tas.), grants, 28 53, distribution methods, 41 6, 51 3, ; Hawker Report recommendation, 89 Indigenous councils, 82 3, as revenue source, 13, 14, 17 see also general purpose grants; road grants Grants Commissions, see Commonwealth Grants Commission; local government grants commissions greenhouse gases, 284 Greiner, Kathryn, 271 gross domestic product, 3 GST, 29, 42 Gugan Gulwan Education Support program, 265 Guide to Disaster Risk Management in Northern Territory Aboriginal Communities, 262 Guidelines for Local Government Asset Investment, 220 H Hawker Inquiry, 10, 28 9, 45, 56, 86 90, 223 amalgamation National Principle, 88 9, 92 3 South Australian local roads funding, 31, 67 8, 89 Hawkesdale and District Family Services Centre, 289 Health and Wellbeing Award, General index 311

322 Local Government National Report health services, 272, 280 occupational, for older people, 286 heritage management, 234 Indigenous, 251, 254, 257 Hine, Ross, 238 home-based businesses, development of, 276 horizontal equalisation, 41, 42, impact of capping policies, 53 Hornsey, Linda, 238 House of Representatives, 87 see also Hawker Inquiry household garbage and recycling services, housing, 10 Indigenous, 255 Housing Ministers Conference, 10 Hydro Tasmania, 260 Hyotani, Yoshiyasu, 262 I identified local road grants, see road grants illegal dumping, 278 immigrants, women, 270 Inches, Brian, 240 Increasing Women s Participation Award, Indian Ocean Territories, 44 5 Indigenous communities, 76 84, Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders National Principle, 83, National Awards for Local Government, 257, Indigenous Coordination Centres, 76 Indigenous councils (local governing bodies), 82 3 Queensland, 82, 119, 155, 251 2, 254 5, South Australia, 82, 132, 258 9, 266 Western Australia, 82, 255, 266 Indigenous cultural heritage, 251, 254, 257 Indigenous Knowledge Services, Indigenous Land Use Agreements, 257 Indigenous Leadership Program, 256 Indigenous Women s Law and Justice Support project, 265 industrial relations, 263 Industry Commission, 56 information and communications technology New South Wales, 216, 281 Northern Territory, 263 Queensland, 230 1; Indigenous Knowledge Centres, 253 Victoria, 225 see also Internet infrastructure, Australian Capital Territory, borrowings, 87 8 National Summit on the Future of Australian Cities and Towns, 10 Tasmania, 238; Cape Barren Island, 260 Victoria, 220 1, Wiluna Development Project (WA), 255 see also roads; water and sanitation injury prevention, innovation awards, 272 3, Inquiry into Local Government and Cost Shifting, see Hawker Inquiry Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, 11 Management Manual, 72 Integrating Biodiversity Conservation into Planning and Management Award, interest income, 13, 14 Inter-governmental Agreement, 10, 86 7 inter-governmental structures, 9 11 Internet, 46 Indigenous Knowledge Centres, 253 New South Wales, 216 Northern Territory, 263 South Australia, 274 Tasmania, 238, 241 Victoria, 284 Western Australia, 231 interpreter services, 288 Islander Coordinating Council, 254 J Japan, 262 K Karawatha Forest, 282 Kaurna Tappa Iri Regional Agreement, 257, 258 Key Performance Indicators Project (Tas.), 242 Kimberley region, 256 Know Your Limits Alcohol Awareness Project, 280 Koori communities, see Indigenous communities Kuktj people, 272 Kuraby Forest, 282 kuril dhagun, 252 L land conveyancing, 241 land rates, land use, 257 land value, 62 methods of assessing,

323 Leading Practice Database, 269 Leading Practice Seminar Series, Legge, Robert, 238 legislation, 2, 7 Airports Act 1996, 10 establishing state grants commissions, 43 New South Wales, 43, 250 Queensland, 43, 226, 255; local laws, 227 South Australia, 43, 72, 234, 235 Tasmania, 43, 236, 239, Victoria, 43, 251; road maintenance, 220 Western Australia, 43, 233, 234, 256; local laws, 232 see also Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 length of local roads, 5, 6, Lennon, Hon. Paul, 238 liabilities, 25 6 library services, 225, 291 Indigenous, linguistic and cultural diversity, 270, see also Indigenous communities local governance, see governance local governing bodies, 3 8, 44 5 see also amalgamations and structural reform; classification of local governing bodies; Indigenous councils Local Government Aboriginal Network (NSW), 249 Local Government/Aboriginal Service Agreement Project, 257 Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), 43, 250 Local Government Act 1993 (Qld), 43, 226, 255 Local Government Act 1993 (Tas.), 236, 239, Local Government Act 1995 (WA), 233 Local Government Act 1999 (SA), 72, 234 Local Government Amendment Act 2005 (Tas.), Local Government and Cost Shifting inquiry, see Hawker Inquiry Local Government and Planning Joint Committee, 9 Local Government and Planning Ministers Council, 9 10, 58, 88 agreement on nationally consistent frameworks, 58 Inter-governmental Agreement, 10, 87 National Reform Agenda actions, 57 Local Government Association of Queensland, 229, 230 1, 254 5, 286 Local Government Association of South Australia, 72, 234 5, 256 9, 278 Local Government Association of Tasmania, 236, 238, 242 Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, 73, Local Government Board of Tasmania, Local Government Division (Tas.), , Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986, 28, 45, 98, 102 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995, 2, 28, 44 Commonwealth Grants Commission review (2001), 52, 132, 154 escalation factor determinations, grant distribution requirements, 43, 44 Indigenous communities reporting requirement, 249 performance assessment requirement, 56 Local Government Financial Incentive Package (Qld), Local Government (Financial Management and Rating) Amendment Act 2005 (SA), 235 Local Government (General) Amendment (Code of Conduct) Regulations 2006 (Tas.), 241 Local Government (General) Amendment (Section 337 Certificate) Regulations 2006 (Tas.), 241 Local Government Grants Act 1978 (WA), 43 Local Government Grants Commission Act 1995 (NT), 43 Local Government Grants Commission Act 1992 (SA), 43 local government grants commissions, 43 4, 45 6, 52 3, Local Government Improvement Incentive Program (Vic.), 219 Local Government in Victoria, 221 Local Government Joint Officers Group, 9, 239 Local Government Leadership Award for Injury Prevention and Management, Local Government Managers Australia, 11, 271 Local Government (Official Conduct) Amendment Bill 2005 (WA), 233 Local Government Reform Program (NSW), Local Government Regulations 1994 (Tas.), 237 Local Government Victoria, , 251 Local Greenhouse Action Award, 284 local laws, 227, 232, 241 local roads, see roads Lotterywest, 234 M Main Roads WA, 70, 125 Marni Waeindi Indigenous Transition Pathways, 271 2, 288 Mason, Cr Lynn, 238 MacGrath, Steve, 271 General index 313

324 Local Government National Report Measuring Council Performance in Tasmania , 242 mental illnesses, 272 mentoring programs, 249 mergers, see amalgamations and structural reform Merit, National Award for, 272 methods of distribution, 45 6, 51 3, Hawker Report recommendation, 89 microeconomic reform, 261 see also National Competition Policy MidCoast Water County Council, 275, 284 migrants, women, 270 Milikapiti, 263 minimum grant councils, 42, 49 52, 156 Northern Territory, 49 51, 141 Queensland, 49 51, 119 symbol indicating in Appendix D, 157 Victoria, 49 51, 108 ministerial councils, 9 11 see also Council of Australian Governments; Local Government and Planning Ministers Council Moir, Alderman Kerry, 271 Morton Consulting Services, 132 motor vehicles, 248, 284 Municipal Association of Victoria, 78, 220, 221 6, 251 Municipal Engineering Australia, see Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia municipal libraries, 225, 291 municipal rates, Murr Murr Corporation, 272 museums, 276 Mutujulu, 263 N Narungga Nations Aboriginal Corporation, 257 National Awards for Local Government, 88, 269, Strengthening Indigenous Communities Award, 83 4, 257, National Competition Council, 56, 236 National Competition Policy, 56 7 Queensland, Tasmania, 236 7, 241 Victoria, 219 National Competition Policy Applying the Principles to Local Government in Tasmania, 236 National Competition Policy Water Reform Progress Report, 237 national conference of local government grants commissions, 45 national local roads database, 46 National Native Title Tribunal, 258 National Principles, 41 3, 92 4, Hawker Report recommendation for additional, 87 8, 92 3 impact of capping policies, 53 National Reform Agenda, 57 8 national representation, 11 National Summit on the Future of Australian Cities and Towns, 10 National Water Commission, 237 native title, 254, 257, 258 natural disaster assistance payments, 109 natural disaster management, 230, 256, 260 natural resource management, Indigenous communities, 254, 257, 263 urban land and parks, 247 needs basis, ranking of councils on, net debt, 26 net worth, 25, 26 Networking the Nation program, 263 New South Wales, 4 8, 11, 35, 37, 58, assets and liabilities, 26 average grant per capita, 47, buildings, value of, 64 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 distribution methods, 52, ; comparison with other grants commission models, employment in local government sector, 3 4 expenditure by purpose, Indigenous communities, 154, Leading Practice Seminar, Griffith, 270 local governing bodies by ACLG category, 47 8, 214; grant distribution, local governing bodies by relative needs ranking, local governing bodies by type, 44 minimum grant councils, National Awards for Local Government, 274 9, 281, 283 6, , 292 National Competition Policy payments, 57 revenue sources, specific purpose payments, 22 state funding, 24 see also New South Wales road network New South Wales Department Environment and Conservation, 278 New South Wales Department of Commerce, 276 New South Wales Department of Local Government, , New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development,

325 New South Wales Grants Commission, , Internet address, 46 legislation establishing, 43 methodology reviews, 52 New South Wales Local Government Aboriginal Network, 249 New South Wales Local Government Act 1993, 43, 250 New South Wales Local Government and Shires Association, 216 New South Wales Local Government Reform Program, New South Wales Ongoing Strategic Alliance Network, 216 New South Wales Promoting Better Practice in Local Government program, New South Wales road network, 35, 37, average grant per kilometre, 48 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 estimated value, 63 grant distribution method, , 102 3; status of methodology reviews, 52 length, 5, 6, ; sealed and unsealed, 64 relative needs basis, Roads to Recovery program, 22 state funding, 68 9 New South Wales Social Justice Initiatives Survey, New South Wales Strategic Alliance Conference, 216 New Zealand, 9 Ngunnawal Elders Council, 265 Nhulunbuy, 263 Noble Park, 290 Normanton Youth Rural Training Program, 272, 288 Northern Skateboard and BMX Titles, 292 Northern Tasmania Development, 238, Northern Territory, 4 8, 11, 35, 40, assets and liabilities, 26 average grant per capita, 47, buildings, value of, 64 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 distribution methods, 52, ; comparison with other grants commission models, employment in local government sector, 3 4, 263 expenditure by purpose, Indigenous communities, 83, 155, 261 3, local governing bodies by ACLG category, 47 8, 214; grant distribution, local governing bodies by relative needs ranking, local governing bodies by type, 3, 44 minimum grant councils, 49 51, 141 National Awards for Local Government, 284 National Competition Policy payments, 57 revenue sources, specific purpose payments, 22 territory funding, 24, 262 Northern Territory Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, 243 Northern Territory Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport, 242 3, Northern Territory Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 73 Northern Territory Emergency Services, 262 Northern Territory Local Government Association, 73, Northern Territory Local Government Grants Commission, , , 243 Internet address, 46 legislation establishing, 43 methodology reviews, 52 Northern Territory Local Government Grants Commission Act 1995, 43 Northern Territory Police, 262 Northern Territory road network, 35, 40, 185 8, 263 average grant per kilometre, 48 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 estimated value, 63 length, 5, 6, 185 8; sealed and unsealed, 64 methodology reviews, 52 relative needs basis, Roads to Recovery program, 22, 263 Roads Trust, 3, 4 territory funding, 73 O occupational health and safety, Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination, 83 older people, services for, On Track program, 265 Ongoing Strategic Alliance Network, 216 online services, see Internet other grant support National Principle, Out There & Active program, 293 Outstanding Achievement, National Award for, Over 55 and Understood Project, 286 Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs, Owen, Daniel, 271 P Paddy O Donoghue Community Services Centre, 290 parking, 248 parks management, 247 parliamentary inquiries, see Hawker Inquiry General index 315

326 Local Government National Report parliamentary resolution, 87 partnership agreements, 237 8, 239, 257 8, 259 Paul, Andrew, 240 pay parking, ACT, 248 Penrith City Children s Services Cooperative, 290 per capita expenditure, 19 per capita grants, 35, 46 7, Indigenous councils, minimum grant councils, 42, per capita revenue from rates, per kilometre local road grants, 46, 48, Indigenous councils, Performance Development Plans, 251 performance measures Australian Capital Territory, 245, 246, 247 New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, 229 South Australia, 235 Tasmania, 242 Victoria, 221; asset management, 220 Western Australia, 232 Phillip s Gate Anglican Community, 289 Picture This program, 273 planning, 218 health services, 280 Indigenous land use, 257 waterways management, 285 Planning for an Ageing Community Award, Planning Officials Group, 10 Playford Indigenous Transition Pathways Centre, population, 4 5, 33, areas of rapid growth, 10, 275, 280 Indigenous council areas, % in minimum grant councils, served per employee, 3 4 power generation, Cape Barren Island, 260 prices oversight, Tasmania, Prime Minister s Community Business Partnership, 270 principles, see also National Principles procurement, 241, 245 Productivity Commission, Project Connect, 280 Promoting Better Practice in Local Government program, property taxes/rates, proportional method of factoring back, 156 public libraries, 225, 291 public place management, 247, 279 public toilets, 122 publications New South Wales, 216, , 250 Northern Territory, 262 Queensland, 230, 252 South Australia, 257, 258 Tasmania, 236, 242 Victoria, 78, 220 Western Australia, 232 see also annual reports and publications purchasing, 241, 245 Q quantum of allocations, quantum of grant, difference between estimated and actual entitlements, 34 Queensland, 4 8, 11, 35, 38, 58, 59, assets and liabilities, 26 average grant per capita, 47, buildings, value of, 64 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 distribution methods, 52, ; comparison with other grants commission models, employment in local government sector, 4 expenditure by purpose, Indigenous communities, 82, 119, 155, 251 5, local governing bodies by ACLG category, 47 8, 214; grant distribution, local governing bodies by relative needs ranking, local governing bodies by type, 44 minimum grant councils, 49 51, 119 National Awards for Local Government, 272, 273, 277, 282, 286, 287, 288, 291, 293 National Competition Policy, 57, revenue sources, specific purpose payments, 22 state funding, 24 see also Queensland road network Queensland Aboriginal Local Government Association, 254 Queensland Business Management Assistance Program, 227, 229 Queensland Community Governance Improvement Strategy, 251 Queensland Competition Authority, 227 Queensland Department of Emergency Services, 230 Queensland Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation, 226 9, 231, 251 2, 254, 255 Queensland Disaster Management Alliance,

327 Queensland Local Government Act 1993, 43, 226, 255 Queensland Local Government Association, 229, 230 1, 254 5, 286 Queensland Local Government Comparative Information , 229 Queensland Local Government Financial Incentive Package, Queensland Local Government Grants Commission, , Internet address, 46 legislation establishing, 43 methodology reviews, 52 Queensland road network, 35, 38, average grant per kilometre, 48 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 estimated value, 63 grant distribution method, , ; methodology reviews, 52 length, 5, 6, ; sealed and unsealed, 64 relative needs basis, Roads to Recovery program, 22 state funding, 65, 70 Queensland Roads Management and Investment Alliance, 70 Queensland State Indigenous Natural Resource Management Murri Network, 254 Queensland State Library, Queensland Statewide Water Information Management (SWIM) project, Queensland Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme, 65 Queensland Water Directorate, 230 R RailCorp, 276 rates, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government, see Hawker Inquiry Raukkan Community Council, recognition and awards, 245 see also National Awards for Local Government reconciliation, 249, 253, 257 Reconciliation Australia, 261 recreation and sport, 255, 263, 273, recycling, Regional Aviation Security Program - Security our Regional Skies, 262 Regional Development Council, 11 regional local government bodies, see classification of local governing bodies Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs) New South Wales, 217, 218 Queensland, 230 Tasmania, 238, Regional Partnership Agreements, 76, 261 Regional Partnerships program, 23 regionalisation, 122, 262 Regulation Reduction Incentive Fund, 22 regulatory reform, 57 relative needs basis, ranking of councils on, religion, 287 remote local governing bodies, see classification of local governing bodies renewable energy, 260, 284 Report on Local Government Road Assets and Expenditure, 70, 71 reporting requirements, 56 on Indigenous services, 249 see also annual reports and publications resource sharing, 58 New South Wales, , 274, 278 South Australia, Tasmania, 237 8, 239, 259, Victoria, revenue, ACT parking fees, 248 assessments, National Competition Policy payments, 56 7 road grants, 28 40, average per kilometre, 46, 48 Indian Island Territories, 45 Indigenous communities, 83 Indigenous councils, methodology reviews, 52 National Principle, Roads to Recovery program, 22, 66, 67 road grants distributions methods, New South Wales, , Northern Territory, 143 Queensland, , reviews, 29, 52 South Australia, 131 Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, Road Management Act 2004 (Vic.), 220 road safety education, 292 road signs, 275 road traffic camera operations, 248 General index 317

328 Local Government National Report roads, assessing expenditure needs for general purpose model, Australian Capital Territory, Cape Barren Island, 260 estimated value, 62 3 length maintained, 5, 6, ; Indigenous councils, 265 8; sealed and unsealed, 64 National Awards for Local Government, 275 see also road grants Roads ACT, Roads to Recovery program, 22, 66, 67, 263 Roads Trust, NT, 3, 4 Rockingham Community Health and Wellbeing Project, 279 Rocks Riverside Park Water Mining Project, 277 ROCS, see Regional Organisations of Councils role, see functions of local government RSPCA, 247 rural local governing bodies, see classification of local governing bodies rural roads, spending on, 65 S safety, on roads, 292 sale of goods and services, 13, 14, 17 Sales, David, 240, 242 satisfaction surveys, 221, 244 scope of equalisation, Scott, Marguerite, 240 sealed roads, 64, 130, 149 seminars, see conferences, workshops and other forums Senate, 87 service agreements, 256, 260 service charters, 241, 247 sewerage, see water and sanitation Shared Responsibility Agreements, 76, 251 Shoal Bay, 284 Significant Business Activities and Local Government in Tasmania, 236 Sing, Margaret, 240 Sisters Beach, 22 skateboarding, 292 small business development, 276 Social Justice Initiatives Survey (NSW), social planning, 250 see also community development solid waste management, see waste management Somerville Park Early Childhood Education Centre, 270 South Australia, 4 8, 11, 35, 39, 58, assets and liabilities, 26 average grant per capita, 47, buildings, value of, 64 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 distribution methods, 52, ; comparison with other grants commission models, employment in local government sector, 3 4 expenditure by purpose, Indigenous communities, 82, 132, 155, 256 9, 266 local governing bodies by ACLG category, 47 8, 214; grant distribution, local governing bodies by relative needs ranking, local governing bodies by type, 3, 44 minimum grant councils, National Awards for Local Government, 271 2, 274, 277, 278, 280, 282, 283, 288 National Competition Policy payments, 57 revenue sources, Salisbury City Council financial governance model, 60 specific purpose payments, 22 state funding, 24 see also South Australian road network South Australian Comparative Performance Measurement Project, 235 South Australian Local Government/Aboriginal Service Agreement Project, 257 South Australian Local Government Act 1999, 72, 234 South Australian Local Government Association, 72, 234 5, 256 9, 278 South Australian Local Government Financial Accountability Advisory Committee, 235 South Australian Local Government (Financial Management and Rating) Amendment Act 2005, 235 South Australian Local Government Financial Management Group, 235 South Australian Local Government Grants Commission, , Internet address, 46 legislation establishing, 43 methodology reviews, 52 South Australian Local Government Grants Commission Act 1992, 43 South Australian Local Government Transport Advisory Panel, 131 South Australian Office for State Local Government Relations, 234 5,

329 South Australian road network, 35, 39, average grant per kilometre, 48 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 estimated value, 63 grant distribution method, 131; methodology reviews, 52 length, 5, 6, 180 4; sealed and unsealed, 64 relative needs basis, Roads to Recovery program, 22 state funding, 65, 71 2 supplementary funding to overcome disadvantage, 31, 66, 67 8, 89 South Australian State Aquatic Centre, 22 Southern Kaurna, 257 Special Premiers Conference 1990, 28 specific purpose payments, 20 1, 22 Spectacles Cultural Tours, 288 spending, see expenditure sponsorship of National Awards for Local Government, 270 sport and recreation, 255, 263, 273, staff, see employees and employment state government funding, 24, 65, Northern Territory, 24, 262 Queensland, 24, 65, 70 Tasmania, 24, 260 Western Australia, 24, 256 State Grants Commission Act 1976 (Tas.), 43 state grants commissions, 43 4, 45 6, 52 3, State Indigenous Natural Resource Management Murri Network, 254 State Library of Queensland, state responsibilities, 2 State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement (WA), 65, 70 1 Statewide Water Information Management (SWIM) project (Qld), Step program, Strategic Alliance Conference, 218 Strategic Regional program, 66, 67 streets, see roads Strength in Diversity Award, Strengthening Indigenous Communities Award, 83 4, 257, Strengthening Tasmania, 22 Strong and Resilient Communities Award, Strong Safe Cohesive Communities, 264 Stronger Regions - Stronger Futures strategy, 262 structural reform, see amalgamations and structural reform suicide prevention, 272 Swan Hill Health Minds Network, 272 SWIM project, swimming pools, 255, 263 Systemic Sustainability Study Panel, T Taking IT On project, 253 Tasmania, 4 8, 11, 35, 39, 58, assets and liabilities, 26 average grant per capita, 47, buildings, value of, 64 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 distribution methods, 52, 132 9; comparison with other grants commission models, employment in local government sector, 4, 259 expenditure by purpose, Indigenous communities, 155, local governing bodies by ACLG category, 47 8, 214; grant distribution, local governing bodies by relative needs ranking, local governing bodies by type, 44 minimum grant councils, National Awards for Local Government, 68, 275, 281 2, 283 National Competition Policy payments, 57 revenue sources, specific purpose payments, 22 state funding, 24, 260 see also Tasmanian road network Tasmanian Department of Premier and Cabinet, , Tasmanian Government Prices Oversight Commission, Tasmanian Key Performance Indicators Committee, 242 Tasmanian Local Government Act 1993, 236, 239, Tasmanian Local Government Amendment Act 2005, Tasmanian Local Government Association, 236, 238, 242 Tasmanian Local Government Board, Tasmanian Local Government Division, , Tasmanian Local Government (General) Amendment (Code of Conduct) Regulations 2006, 241 Tasmanian Local Government (General) Amendment (Section 337 Certificate) Regulations 2006, 241 Tasmanian Local Government Grants Commission, 132 9, , 242 Internet address, 46 legislation establishing, 43 methodology reviews, 52 General index 319

330 Local Government National Report Tasmanian Local Government Regulations 1994, 237 Tasmanian Premier s Local Government Council, Tasmanian road network, 35, 39, average grant per kilometre, 48 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 Cape Barren Island, 260 estimated value, 63 grant distribution method, 138 9; methodology reviews, 52 length, 5, 6, 184 5; sealed and unsealed, 64 relative needs basis, Roads to Recover program, 22 state funding, 65, 72 3 Tasmanian State Grants Commission Act 1976, 43 taxation, GST, 29, 42 telecommunications, see Internet tenders and contracts, 241, 245 territories, 44 5 see also Australian Capital Territory; Northern Territory thoroughfares, see roads Threlfall, Jeremy, 242 toilets, public, 122 Toomnangi, 78 Torres Strait Islander communities, see Indigenous communities Town Planning Regulations 1967 (WA), 234 traffic camera services, 248 training, see education and training Two Ways Together, Partnerships: a new way of doing business with Aboriginal people , 250 U unincorporated areas, 6 roads in, 65, 67, 69, 71 unsealed roads, 64, 130, 144 urban local governing bodies, see classification of local governing bodies urban roads, spending on, 65 V Valentine, Rob, 238 valuation of land, methods of assessing, value of buildings, 63 4 value of local road network, 62 3 Valuing and Promoting Quality Childcare Award, 290 verbyl Youth Project, 291 VicHealth, 292 Victoria, 4 8, 11, 35, 37, 58, assets and liabilities, 26 average grant per capita, 47, buildings, value of, 64 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 distribution methods, 52, ; comparison with other grants commission models, employment in local government sector, 3 4 expenditure by purpose, Indigenous communities, 78, 154, 251 local governing bodies by ACLG category, 47 8, 214; grant distribution, local governing bodies by relative needs ranking, local governing bodies by type, 44 minimum grant councils, 49 51, 108 National Awards for Local Government, 272 3, 275, 279, 280, 284, 286, 287, , 292 National Competition Policy, 57, 219 revenue sources, 13 17; general purpose grants as proportion, specific purpose payments, 22 state funding, 24 see also Victorian road network Victoria Grants Commission, , Internet address, 46 legislation establishing, 43 methodology reviews, 52 Victoria Grants Commission Act 1976 (Vic.), 43 Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, 251 Victorian Asset Management Performance Measure Project, 220 Victorian Best Value Commission, 219 Victorian Communities Asset Management Performance Measures Project, 220 Victorian Department for Victorian Communities, , 251 Victorian Local Government Improvement Incentive Program, 219 Victorian road network, 35, 37, 164 7, 220 average grant per kilometre, 48 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 estimated value, 63 grant distribution method, ; methodology reviews, 52 length, 5, 110, 164 7; sealed and unsealed, 64 relative needs basis, 195 7* road signs, 275 Roads to Recovery program, 22 state funding, 65, 69 volatile substance misuse,

331 W waste management Australian Capital Territory, Cape Barren Island, 260 New South Wales, 278 Northern Territory, 263, 284 Waste Wise Schools program (ACT), 245 water and sanitation New South Wales, 274, 275, 285 Queensland, 230 1, 277 Tasmania, 236 7, 283 Wiluna Development Project, 255 web sites, see Internet Weipa Structural Adjustment Package, 22 Werris Creek, 276 West, Paul, 240, 242 West Byron Integrated Water Management Reserve, 285 West Heidelberg Everyday Living and Learning (WHELL) Project, 289 Western Arnhem Land, 262 Western Australia, 4 8, 11, 35, 38, 59, assets and liabilities, 26 average grant per capita, 47, buildings, value of, 64 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 distribution methods, 52, 120 6; comparison with other grants commission models, employment in local government sector, 4, 255 expenditure by purpose, Indigenous communities, 82, 155, 255 6, 266 local governing bodies by ACLG category, 47 8, 214; grant distribution, local governing bodies by relative needs ranking, local governing bodies by type, 44 minimum grant councils, National Awards for Local Government, 276, 278 9, 287, 288, 290 National Competition Policy payments, 57 revenue sources, specific purpose payments, 22 state funding, 24, 65, 256 see also Western Australian road network Western Australian Aboriginal Roads Committee, 83 Western Australian Bridge Committee, 125 Western Australian Council of Social Services, 234 Western Australian Department Housing and Works New Living Program, 255 Western Australian Department of Indigenous Affairs, 83 Western Australian Department of Local Government and Regional Development, 231 2, Western Australian Disabilities Services Commission, 234 Western Australian Electoral Commission, 256 Western Australian Emergency Management Act 2005, 256 Western Australian Fire and Emergency Services Authority, 256 Western Australian Human Services Director Generals Group, 255 Western Australian Indigenous Leadership Program, 256 Western Australian Local Government Act 1995, 233 Western Australian Local Government Association, 70, 125, 232 4, 263 local government emergency management role project, 256 Western Australian Local Government Grants Act 1978, 43 Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission, 45, 83, , 256 Information Return, 231 Internet address, 46 legislation establishing, 43 methodology reviews, 52 publication of comparative data, 232 Western Australian Local Government (Official Conduct) Amendment Bill 2005, 233 Western Australian Planning Commission, 234 Western Australian road network, 35, 38, 125 6, average grant per kilometre, 48 calculation of grant entitlements, 32 3 estimated value, 63, length, 5, ; sealed and unsealed, 64 methodology reviews, 52 relative needs basis, Roads to Recovery program, 22 state funding, 65, 70 1 Western Australian State Local Government Heritage Working Party, 234 Western Australian State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement, 65, 70 1 Western Australian Town Planning Regulations 1967, 234 Western Australian Young Indigenous Local Government Scholarships, 256 Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping Squad, 278 whole-of-government approach to Indigenous service delivery, 76 7 COAG trials, 259, 264 Wiggins, Kim, 242 Wiluna Development Project, 255 women, culturally and linguistically diverse, 270 workers, see employees and employment workshops, see conferences, workshops and other forums General index 321

332 Local Government National Report X XROADS Project, 292 Y Yardstick Benchmarking Program, 247 Yargin Aboriginal Corporation, 272 Yeoland, Graeme, 240 Young Indigenous Local Government Scholarships, 256 young people, 238, 273, 287, Indigenous, 249, 252, 256, 271 2, 272 Youth Engagement Award,