Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995—Report on the operation of the Act for 2011-12


Download PDF Download PDF

INFRA2274

Local Government National Report

2011-12

2011-12 report on the operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995

Local Government National Report

2011-12

www.infrastructure.gov.au

2011-12 report on the operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995

Local Government National Report

2011-12

© Commonwealth of Australia, 2014 ISBN 978-1-925216-04-2 September 2014/INFRA2274

Ownership of intellectual property rights in this publication Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to below as the Commonwealth).

Disclaimer The material contained in this publication is made available on the understanding that the Commonwealth is not providing professional advice, and that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use, and seek independent advice if necessary.

The Commonwealth makes no representations or warranties as to the contents or accuracy of the information contained in this publication. To the extent permitted by law, the Commonwealth disclaims liability to any person or organisation in respect of anything done, or omitted to be done, in reliance upon information contained in this publication.

Creative Commons licence With the exception of (a) the Coat of Arms; (b) the Department of Infrastructure’s photos and graphics; copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, communicate and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work to the Commonwealth and abide by the other licence terms.

A summary of the licence terms is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode. This publication should be attributed in the following way: © Commonwealth of Australia 2014, Local Government National Report 2011-12.

Use of the Coat of Arms The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sets the terms under which the Coat of Arms is used. Please refer to the Department’s Commonwealth Coat of Arms and Government Branding web page http://www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines/index. cfm#brand and in particular, the Guidelines on the use of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms publication.

Contact us This publication is available in hard copy or PDF format. All other rights are reserved, including in relation to any Departmental logos or trademarks, which may exist. For enquiries regarding the licence and any use of this publication, please contact:

Director — Publishing and Communications Section Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development GPO Box 594, Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

Email: publishing@infrastructure.gov.au Website: www.infrastructure.gov.au

iv

Local Government National Report 2011-12

v

Contents

Chapter 1 Local government in Australia ....................................................................................1

Local government functions .......................................................................................4

Local government employees .....................................................................................4

Population ....................................................................................................................5

Diversity ........................................................................................................................5

National representation of local government ............................................................5

Involvement in inter-governmental structures ...........................................................6

Local government finances .........................................................................................7

Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government ................................................... 13

Overview of current arrangements .......................................................................... 15

Determining the quantum of the grant ................................................................... 16

Determining entitlements for 2011-12 and 2012-13 ..........................................17

Inter-jurisdictional distribution of grant ................................................................... 23

Quantum of financial assistance grants allocations .............................................. 26

National Principles for the allocation of grants under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act ........................................................................................ 27

Determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions .................................... 27

Bodies eligible to receive financial assistance grants ........................................... 29

Methodologies of local government grants commissions ..................................... 30

Allocation of grants to local government in 2011-12 ........................................... 31

Reviews of grants commission methodologies ...................................................... 38

Impact of local government grants commission capping policies ........................ 39

Chapter 3 Local government efficiency and performance .......................................................41

Long-term financial and asset management .......................................................... 43

Local Government Reform Fund .............................................................................. 46

Comparative performance measures between local governing bodies ................ 46

Measures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government in delivering services .................................................................................................... 48

Local government amalgamations ...........................................................................51

vi

Chapter 4 Local government service provision to Indigenous communities ......................... 53

Reporting requirements ........................................................................................... 55

Closing the Gap ....................................................................................................... 55

State and local government initiatives .................................................................... 56

Australian Government expenditure and progress ................................................. 58

Appendix ............................................................................................................................... . 63

Appendix A National Principles for allocating general purpose and local road grants ............ 65

Appendix B State and territory government and local government association submissions 69

Appendix C Comparison of local government grants commission distribution models ........ 165

Appendix D Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies in 2011-12 ............................................................................................................ 179

Appendix E Ranking of local governing bodies on a relative needs basis 2011-12............. 199

Appendix F Australian classification of local governments ..................................................... 217

vii

List of tables Table 1-1 Local government employment, by jurisdiction, 1998 and 2012 ............................4

Table 1-2 Share of taxation revenue, by sphere of government and source of revenue, 2011-12 ......................................................................................................................7

Table 1-3 Local government revenue sources, by jurisdiction, 2011-12 ................................8

Table 1-4 Local government revenue source, by jurisdiction, $ per capita, 2011-12 ............9

Table 1-5 Local government expenditure, by purpose and jurisdiction, 2011-12 .............. 11

Table 1-6 Local government assets and liabilities, 2011-12 ................................................ 12

Table 2-1 Calculation of financial assistance grants actual entitlements and adjustments for 2011-12 ....................................................................................... 19

Table 2-2 Calculation of financial assistance grants estimated entitlements and actual cash paid for 2012-13 ............................................................................................ 20

Table 2-3 2011-12 allocations of general purpose and local road grants among jurisdictions ............................................................................................................... 24

Table 2-4 2012-13 allocation of estimated grant entitlement among jurisdictions and percentage change from 2011-12 actual grant allocation .................................. 25

Table 2-5 National financial assistance grant allocation, 1974-75 to 2011-12 ................ 26

Table 2-6 Distribution of local governing bodies, by type and jurisdiction, at 1 July 2012 .. 29

Table 2-7 Average general purpose grant per capita to local governing bodies by jurisdiction and by classification, 2011-12 ............................................................................... 32

Table 2-8 Average local road grant per kilometre to local governing bodies by jurisdiction and by classification, 2011-12 ............................................................................... 33

Table 2-9 Local governing bodies on the minimum grant, by jurisdiction, 2002-03 to 2011-12 .............................................................................................................. 34

Table 2-10 Statu s of most recent major methodology reviews, by state, as at 30 June 2012 .................................................................................................. 38

Table 3-1 Local Government Reform Fund, phase two ........................................................... 46

Table 3-2 Number of local governments, by state, 1910 to 2012 ..........................................51

Table 4-1 Distribution of Indigenous local governing bodies, by eligibility type and jurisdiction, at July 2012 .......................................................................................... 59

Table B.1 Major cost drivers and average expenditures ........................................................ 81

Table B.2 Average grant revenue on a per unit basis ............................................................. 82

Table B.3 Derivation of the average rates for each of the property classes ......................... 83

Table B.4 Standard fees and charges ...................................................................................... 84

Table B.5 Change in estimated general purpose grant entitlements .................................... 85

Table B.6 Grants to Council's on natural disasters. ................................................................ 86

Table B.7 Change in length of local roads ............................................................................... 87

Table B.8 Asset reservation base cost ..................................................................................... 87

Table B.9 Change in Local Roads Grants ................................................................................ 89

viii

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table B.10 R evenue assessment model .....................................................................................97

Table B.11 Ou tline of expenditure assessment: 2011-12 ...................................................... 98

Table B.12 R oad expenditure assessment model ..................................................................... 99

Table B.13 Allo wances given for heavy vehicles ........................................................................ 99

Table B.14 Analysis o n size and scaling .................................................................................. 102

Table B.15 Price movements from 2005-06 to 2010-11 ..................................................... 111

Table B.16 Fiv e year moving averages of percentage changes ............................................. 111

Table B.17 Lo cal road allocations ............................................................................................ 120

Table B.18 Spe cial project funds for Indigenous access roads .............................................. 121

Table B.19 F unds for the preservation of bridges ................................................................... 121

Table B.20 SA Expe nditure Function and units of measure ................................................... 130

Table B.21 Su mmary of figures by function ............................................................................. 131

Table C.1 Distribu tion models used by grants commissions for general purpose grants for 2011-12 allocations ........................................................................................ 166

Table C.2 The scope of equalisation in grants commissions’ models for general purpose grants .......................................................................................... 168

Table C.3 Grants treated by inclusion in general purpose grant allocations for 2011-12, by jurisdiction ...........................................................................................................171

Table C.4 Features of local government grants commission models for allocating local road grants, 2011-12 ................................................................ 177

Table D.1 Distribu tion of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 ....................................... 180

Table E.1 Ne w South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 ................................................................................................................. 201

Table E.2 Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 ...... 205

Table E.3 Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 . 207

Table E.4 W estern Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 ........................................................................................ 209

Table E.5 Sou th Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 ................................................................................................................. 213

Table E.6 Tasmanian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 ... 215

Table E.7 Nor thern Territory councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 ................................................................................................................. 216

Table F.1 Str ucture of the classification system ................................................................... 219

Table F.2 ACLG category listing of local governments, by state, July 2011 ........................ 220

Table F.3 Changes in ACLG category for 2011-12: reasons for change, by state, July 2011................................................................................................................. 221

01

Local government in Australia

3

Local government in Australia

01

During 2011-12, Australia had 565 local governing bodies eligible to receive funding under the Australian Government’s Financial Assistance Grant programme. The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) (the Act) provides the legislative basis for this programme. These 565 local governing bodies include 555 local governments and 10 declared local governing bodies: five Indigenous local governing bodies and the Outback Areas Community Development Trust in South Australia; the Trust Account in the Northern Territory; and the Silverton and Tibooburra villages and Lord Howe Island in New South Wales.

The Australian Capital Territory receives funding through the Financial Assistance Grant programme. However, it is considered a special case and not a local governing body because it maintains both territorial and local government functions.

The Act defines the term ‘local governing bodies’ in a way that includes local governments established under state and Northern Territory legislation as well as ‘declared bodies’. The term ‘council’ is regularly employed in this report to encompass all local governing bodies, recognising its common use to denote ‘local government’.

Declared bodies are provided with financial assistance grants and are treated as local governments for the purposes of grant allocations. However, declared bodies are not local governments and have different legislative obligations. Due to this difference, data provided in this report relating to local government may not be directly comparable to that for local governing bodies. Also, data relating to local government cannot be directly compared to that for the Australian Capital Territory, as the Australian Capital Territory performs both territorial and local government functions.

Local government was created in the early 1840s to enable colonial governments to deliver local services and allow local residents to contribute to their cost. The initial focus was on property-based services, particularly building and maintaining local roads, which provided the primary means of transportation. In 1840 the Adelaide Corporation was created, followed in July 1842 by incorporation of the City of Sydney and in August 1842 by the incorporation of Town of Melbourne.

At the time of federation in 1901, the states gave up to the Commonwealth power over certain matters they agreed would be better administered at the national level. These powers included defence, immigration, foreign affairs, customs and excise duties, trade and commerce, and taxation. Since federation, more powers have been transferred to the Australian Government or shared between the states and the Australian Government.

The taxing power passed to the Australian Government has generated regular consultation between the Australian and state governments on the distribution of revenue and other matters. Councils and conferences of ministers frequently convene to cover areas like agriculture, education, housing, employment, minerals and energy, transport and legal matters.

4

Local Government National Report 2011-12

While the structure, powers and responsibilities of the Australian and state governments were established during federation, local government was not one of the areas identified as a Commonwealth responsibility; it is a state and Northern Territory responsibility. The states and the Northern Territory pass the legal and regulatory framework for the creation and operation of local government.

As a consequence, there are often significant differences between the state systems for overseeing councils. The Australian Government has recognised that the national interest is served through improving the capacity of local government to deliver services to all Australians by enhancing the performance and efficiency of the sector. The Act is an important means used to achieve these goals.

Local government functions Local government systems differ from state to state, but the main roles of local government are governance, planning, community development, service delivery, asset management and regulation.

Local governments are close to their communities and have a unique insight into local and community needs. Councils determine service provision according to local needs and the requirements of state and territory local government legislation.

Local government employees In June 2012 there were 1 892 100 public sector employees, including 250 000 employees in Australian Government, 1 449 600 in state government and 192 500 in local government.

Table 1-1 Local government employment, by jurisdiction, 1998 and 2012

Jurisdiction

Employees Aug 1998 ‘000a

Population Sept 1998 ‘000b

Population served per employee Sept 1998

Employees June 2012 ‘000a

Population June 2012 ‘000b

Population served per employee June 2012

NSW 44.6 6 358.1 142.6 59.9 7 290.3 121.7

Vic. 31.1 4 648.9 149.5 50.6 5 623.5 111.1

Qld 36.5 3 460.4 94.8 40.6 4 560.1 112.3

WA 13.3 1 830.8 137.7 23.4 2 430.3 103.9

SA 8.1 1 491.0 184.1 11 1 654.8 150.4

Tas. 3.6 471.9 131.1 #3.7 512 138.4

NT 2.6 190.6 73.3 3.2 234.8 73.4

National 139.9 18 764.6# 132.3* 192.5 22 683.6# 117.8*

Notes: Data ma y not add to totals due rounding.

* These figures are the national ratio of population per local go vernment employee, not totals or averages of state figures.

# Estimat es have a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution.

Sources: a A ustralian Bureau of Statistics, Wage and Salary Earners, Public Sector, Australia, ABS cat. no. 6248.0; Australian Bureau of Statistics, Employment and Earnings, Public Sector, Australia, 2011-12, ABS cat. no. 6248.0.55.002.

b A ustralian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Demographic Statistics, June 2012, ABS cat no. 3101.0.

5

01 • Local government in Australia

Population The estimated resident population of Australia at 30 June 2012 was 22 683 573 persons. There was an increase of 359 640 persons from 30 June 2011 to that date.

Australia’s population grew by 1.6 per cent during the year ended 30 June 2012. All states and territories experienced positive population growth for the year ended 30 June 2012. Western Australia continued to record the fastest growth rate (3.3 per cent), while Tasmania recorded the slowest (0.2 per cent).

Australia’s population density as at June 2012 was 3.0 people per square kilometre. Among the states and territories, the Australian Capital Territory had the highest population density at 160 people per square kilometre, followed by Victoria with 25.0, New South Wales with 9.1 and Tasmania with 7.5. The remaining states and territories all had population densities below the Australian figure, with the Northern Territory having the lowest at just 0.2 people per square kilometre (Australian Bureau of Statistics, Regional Population Growth, Australia 2012, ABS cat. no. 3218.0).

Diversity Considerable diversity can exist both within and between jurisdictions. This diversity extends beyond rural-metropolitan differences. In addition to size and population, other significant differences between local governing bodies include:

• attitudes and aspirations of local communities

• fiscal position (including wide disparity in revenue-raising capacity), resources and skills base

• legislative frameworks within which councils operate, including voting rights and electoral systems

• physical, economic, social and cultural environments of local government areas

• range and scale of functions.

Indigenous councils, for example, have been established under different legislative frameworks. They can be established under the mainstream local government legislation of a jurisdiction or through distinct legislation or they can be ‘declared’ to be local governing bodies by the Australian Government Minister for Local Government on advice from a state minister.

National representation of local government A number of national groups represent the interests of local government and professionals working in the local government sector, including the Local Government Managers Australia (LGMA), the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) and the Australian Council of Local Government (ACLG).

Local Government Managers Australia LGMA is a professional association of local government managers throughout Australia and the Asia-Pacific. LGMA is committed to developing and improving local government management,

6

Local Government National Report 2011-12

maintaining high professional and ethical standards and ensuring its members are at the forefront of change and innovation.

Australian Local Government Association ALGA is a federation of state and Northern Territory local government associations and the Australian Capital Territory Government. ALGA aims to add value, at the national level, to the work of state and territory associations and their member councils. It represents the interests of local government through its participation in the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and ministerial councils where there is a clear local government interest.

Australian Council of Local Government ACLG was established to engage local government directly with the Australian Government. It provided a forum for the Australian Government and local government to consider policies and initiatives in areas of mutual interest and promotes collaboration between the Australian Government and local government as well as between local governments themselves.

Involvement in inter-governmental structures

Council of Australian Governments COAG is the peak inter-governmental forum in Australia. It comprises the Prime Minister, state premiers, territory chief ministers and the ALGA President and was established in May 1992. COAG’s role is to initiate, develop and monitor implementation of policy reforms of national significance and require co-operative action by all Australian governments.

COAG establishes inter-governmental agreements that signify the commitment of jurisdictions to implementing its decisions. In many instances, these agreements are precursors to the passage of legislation at the Commonwealth, state and territory levels.

On 29 November 2008, against the background of the unfolding global financial crisis, COAG agreed to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations (the Agreement).

The Agreement commenced on 1 January 2009 and involved rationalising the number of payments made to state and local governments while increasing the overall payments. It provided clearer specification of the roles and responsibilities of each sphere of government so that the appropriate sphere became accountable to the community. The Agreement also provided incentives for reform through National Partnership Agreement reform payments and more transparent reporting of outcomes to drive better service delivery.

The Agreement provided a foundation for the economic and social reforms needed to boost productivity and workforce participation. It also facilitated delivery of economic stimulus through a short-term expansion in state and local government service delivery programmes, particularly in the schools, infrastructure and housing sectors. This was accompanied by a major rationalisation of the number of payments to the states for specific purpose payments (SPPs), reducing the number of such payments from over 90 to five.

Central to these reforms was a financial package that provides $7.1 billion in SPP funding to the states over five years to improve services for all Australians. Commonwealth-state financial

7

01 • Local government in Australia

relations were placed on a secure footing with the creation of five new national SPPs, including total funding of:

• $60.5 billion for a National Healthcare SPP

• $18 billion for a National Schools SPP

• $6.7 billion for a National Skills and Workforce Development SPP

• $5.3 billion for a National Disability Services SPP

• $6.2 billion for a National Affordable Housing SPP.

Each SPP is associated with a national agreement that contains the objectives, outcomes, outputs and performance indicators, and clarifies the roles and responsibilities that will guide the Commonwealth and states in the delivery of services across the relevant sectors. COAG agreed to six new national agreements: the National Healthcare Agreement, the National Education Agreement, the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development, the National Disability Agreement, the National Affordable Housing Agreement and the National Indigenous Reform Agreement.

Further information is available at www.coag.gov.au.

Local government finances

Share of taxation revenue by sphere of government Local government’s taxation revenue increased by 6.0 per cent from 2010-11 to $13.2 billion in 2011-12. Local government’s taxation revenue in 2011-12 amounted to 3.4 per cent of all taxes raised across all spheres of government in Australia (Table 1.2). Taxes on property were the sole source of taxation revenue for local governments: refer to Australian Bureau of Statistics, Taxation Revenue, Australia, 2011-12, ABS cat. no. 5506.0, for further information.

Table 1-2 Share of taxation revenue, by sphere of government and source of revenue, 2011-12

Revenue source Federal State Local Total

% % % %

Taxes on income 59.2 - - 59.2

Employers payroll taxes 0.1 5.1 - 5.1

Taxes on property - 5.2 3.4 8.6

Taxes on provision of goods and services 21.4 2.8 - 24.2

Taxes on use of goods and performance activities 0.8 2.2 - 3.0

Total 81.5 15.3 3.4 100.0

Notes: Figures ma y not add to totals due to inclusion of external territories and rounding.

- nil or r ounded to zero.

Source: A ustralian Bureau of Statistics, Taxation Revenue, Australia, 2011-12, Total Taxation Revenue, ABS cat. no. 5506.0.

8

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Local government revenue sources Overall, councils raise about 88 per cent of their own revenue, with grants and subsidies only making up about 12 per cent (Table 1.3). Individual councils have differing abilities to raise revenue; this may not be apparent when considering national or even state average. The differences between urban, rural and remote councils, their population size, rating base and ability to levy user charges all affect their ability to raise revenue.

Table 1-3 Local government revenue sources, by jurisdiction, 2011-12

Revenue source NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total

Taxation $m 3 459 3 656 2 943 1 581 1 163 317 91 13 209

% 33.1 41.5 30.1 35.1 56.3 41.7 18.1 35.8

Grants and subsidies $m 1 385 967 783 596 268 106 147 4 251

% 13.3 11.0 8.0 13.2 13.0 13.9 29.2 11.5

Sales of goods and services $m 3 434 1 487 2 700 830 331 142 106 9 029

% 32.9 16.9 27.6 18.4 16.0 18.7 21.0 24.5

Interest $m 368 127 530 142 30 25 13 1 235

% 3.5 1.4 5.4 3.2 1.5 3.3 2.6 3.3

Other $m 1 792 2 578 2 830 1 356 275 172 147 9 151

% 17.2 29.2 28.9 30.1 13.3 22.6 29.2 24.8

Total $m 10 437 8 815 9 785 4 504 2 067 761 504 36 874

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Figures ma y not add to totals due to inclusion of external territories and rounding.

Source: A ustralian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, Australia, 2011-12, ABS cat. no. 5512.0.

Local government revenue - taxes Local government raises taxes through rates on property. In 2011-12, 35.8 per cent of local government revenue nationally came from rates. The proportion of revenue from rates varied notably between jurisdictions - from a high of 56.3 per cent for South Australia to a low of 18.1 per cent for the Northern Territory (Table 1.3).

The variation of revenue per capita across states for all revenue sources is shown in Table 1.4. While South Australian councils levy the highest rates per capita, they raise the lowest revenue per capita for all other revenue sources. As a result, South Australian councils collect the lowest total revenue per capita overall.

9

01 • Local government in Australia

Table 1-4 Local government revenue source, by jurisdiction, $ per capita, 2011-12

Revenue source NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Average

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Taxation 478.29 659.23 626.26 689.34 707.17 624.45 412.23 599.57

Grants and subsidies

191.51 174.36 166.62 259.86 162.96 208.81 665.90 261.43

Sales of goods and services

474.83 268.13 574.55 361.89 201.27 279.72 480.17 377.22

Interest 50.88 22.90 112.78 61.91 18.24 49.25 58.89 53.55

Other 247.79 464.85 602.21 591.23 167.22 338.82 665.90 439.72

Total 1 443.17 1 589.48 2 082.21 1 963.80 1 256.85 1 499.08 2 283.09 1 731.10

Notes: Figures ma y not add to totals due to inclusion of external territories and rounding.

Sources: A ustralian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, ABS cat. no. 5512.0; Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Demographic Statistics, ABS cat.no. 3101.0.

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. New South Wales has statewide requirements that rates are based on the unimproved value of the land. In Victoria and South Australia, different valuation assessments are used depending on the type or primary use of the land.

Local government revenue - other non-grant revenue sources Local government received on average 24.5 per cent of its revenue in 2011-12 from the sale of goods and services (Table 1.3).

Councils in the Northern Territory are more reliant than councils in other jurisdictions on government grants and subsidies, as they raised only 70.8 per cent of their own revenue. For the remaining states, the proportion of revenue raised from own sources ranged from 86.1 per cent for Tasmanian councils to 92.0 per cent for Queensland councils (Table 1.3).

Local government revenue - Australian Government grants The Australian Government supports local government through financial assistance grants, SPPs and direct programme funding.

In 2011-12, the Australian Government provided $2.2 billion in local government financial assistance grants to local governing bodies and the Australian Capital Territory. The means of distributing financial assistance grants is discussed in Chapter 2. The allocation of financial assistance grants is at Appendix D.

Under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations, the Australian Government continues to provide ongoing financial support to local government through:

• national SPPs to be spent in key service delivery sectors

• National Partnership payments to support delivery of specified outputs or projects, facilitate reforms or reward those jurisdictions that deliver on nationally significant reforms

10

Local Government National Report 2011-12

• general revenue assistance, consisting of GST payments and other general revenue assistance.

The national SPPs are distributed among the states each year in accordance with the Australian Statistician’s determination of state population shares as at 31 December of that year. An equal per capita distribution of the National SPPs ensures that all Australians, regardless of the jurisdiction they live in, are provided with the same share of Commonwealth funding support for state service delivery.

Total payments to the states for specific purposes constitute a significant proportion of Commonwealth expenditure. In 2011-12, payments totalled $49.4 billion (Australian Government, Budget measures: Budget paper No. 3, 2012-13, Part 2,), an increase of $2 billion from 2010-11 (Australian Government, Budget measures: Budget paper No. 3, 2012-13, Part 2).

Local government expenditure Local government expenditure is dominated by transport and communication (23.9 per cent) followed by housing and community amenities (22.5 per cent) and general public services (17.9 per cent) (Table 1.5).

11

01 • Local government in Australia

Table 1-5 Local government expenditure, by purpose and jurisdiction, 2011-12

Expenditure NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total

Agriculture, forestry and fishing $m 0 3 15 1 12 0 0 31

% 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1

Education $m 72 79 7 4 0 0 5 166

% 0.8 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.5

Fuel and energy $m 0 0 10 0 13 0 1 25

% 0 0 0.1 0 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.1

General public services $m 1 680 1 044 1 953 400 130 111 144 5 462

% 17.5 15.4 23.9 12.9 7.1 17.4 31.5 17.9

Health $m 81 120 50 57 50 10 5 374

% 0.8 1.8 0.6 1.8 2.7 1.6 1.1 1.2

Housing and community amenities $m 2 590 1 433 1 681 498 434 136 99 6 872

% 27.0 21.1 20.6 16.1 23.8 21.3 21.7 22.5

Mining, manufacturing and construction $m 214 0 91 32 35 0 0 373

% 2.2 0.0 1.1 1.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.2

Other economic affairs $m 313 356 187 111 58 30 38 1 093

% 3.3 5.2 2.3 3.6 3.2 4.7 8.3 3.6

Public debt transactions $m 227 52 277 32 40 4 1 633

% 2.4 0.8 3.4 1.0 2.2 0.6 0.2 2.1

Public order and safety $m 311 169 124 117 33 7 19 779

% 3.2 2.5 1.5 3.8 1.8 1.1 4.2 2.5

Recreation and culture $m 1 321 1 184 837 727 392 104 57 4 622

% 13.8 17.4 10.2 23.5 21.5 16.3 12.5 15.1

Social security and welfare $m 361 884 69 142 115 30 25 1 626

% 3.8 13.0 0.8 4.6 6.3 4.7 5.5 5.3

Transport and communications $m 1 871 1 266 2 740 783 416 182 41 7 297

% 19.5 18.6 33.5 25.3 22.8 28.5 9.0 23.9

Other $m 546 209 135 188 93 23 22 1 215

% 5.7 3.1 1.7 6.1 5.1 3.6 4.8 4.0

Total $m 9 588 6 796 8 176 3 092 1 821 639 457 30 569

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: These figures ma y not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: A ustralian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, Australia, 2011-12, General Expenses by purpose, ABS cat. no. 5512.0.

Assets and liabilities In 2011-12, local government in Australia had a net worth of $331.57 billion, with assets worth $349.79 billion and liabilities worth $18.22 billion (Table 1.6).

12

Local Government National Report 2011-12

At 30 June 2012, local government’s assets exceeded its liabilities, continuing the trend since 30 June 2000 of a net surplus position for local governments nationally. As at 30 June 2012 on a state basis, only councils in South Australia had a net debt position, while all the other states had a net surplus (Table 1.6).

Table 1-6 Local government assets and liabilities, 2011-12

Assets NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total

$m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m

Financial assets

Cash and deposits 2 141 1 292 2 965 1 971 68 402 194 9 033

Advances paid 0 3 0 2 13 0 0 19

Investments, loans and placements 4 739 1 217 5 437 304 109 10 55 11 871

Other non-equity assets 1 124 791 1 079 321 135 44 36 3 531

Equity 49 40 6 919 150 63 1 796 1 9 019

Total 8 054 3 344 16 400 2 747 387 2 254 287 33 472

Non-financial assets

Land and fixed assets

123 580 66 789 75 765 19 525 20 293 6 664 1 839 314 455

Other non-financial assets 757 861 136 9 0 66 30 1 860

Total 124 337 67 650 75 901 19 534 20 293 6 730 1 869 316 315

Total assets 132 390 70 994 92 302 22 281 20 680 8 984 2 156 349 788

Liabilities

Deposits held 59 145 6 30 183 7 0 431

Advances received 15 5 0 1 1 0 0 21

Borrowing 3 243 800 5 156 602 172 78 13 10 064

Unfunded superannuation liability and other employee entitlements

1 291 1 103 633 202 147 70 22 3 470

Other provisions 16 41 251 5 5 36 2 356

Other non-equity liabilities

1 100 700 1 285 386 248 76 86 3 880

Total liabilities 5 725 2 794 7 332 1 225 757 268 123 18 223

Net worth 126 666 68 199 84 970 21 057 19 924 8 716 2 033 331 565

Net debt* -3 563 -1 562 -3 240 -1 644 167 -327 -236 -10 405

Net financial worth# 2 329 549 9 069 1 522 -370 1 986 164 15 249

Notes: These figures ma y not add to totals due to rounding.

* Ne t debt figures are memorandum items for comparison only. They do not derive from the above calculations. Net debt is the sum of selected financial liabilities, deposits held, advances received, government securities, loans, and other borrowing; less the sum of selected financial assets, cash and deposits, advances paid, and investments, loans and placements. Net debt is a common measure of the strength of a government’s financial position.

# Ne t financial worth is the difference between total financial assets and total liabilities.

Source: A ustralian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, Australia, 2011-12, ABS cat. no. 5512.0.

02

Financial assistance grants to local government

15

Financial assistance grants to local government

02

In 2011-12, the Australian Government provided a total of $2.2 billion in financial assistance grants to 565 local governing bodies and the Australian Capital Territory Government - an average of around $96 per capita.

Australian Government financial assistance grants to local government comprise a general purpose component and a local road component. In 2011-12 the general purpose entitlement was $1.5 billion, while the local road entitlement was $663.5 million.

Both components are paid to the states and territories to be passed on to local government. Financial assistance grants are untied in the hands of local governments, which are free to spend them according to local priorities.

The objectives of the general purpose component include improving local governments’ capacity to provide their communities with an equitable level of services and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of local government.

General purpose grants commenced in 1974-75, with allocations 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 (Cwlth) (the Act), which replaced the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986 (Cwlth) from 1 July 1995.

The 1990 Special Premiers’ Conference determined that a local road component would be provided in addition to general purpose component from July 1991. Local road grants are intended to help local government with the cost of maintaining their local roads.

The Australian Government introduced supplementary funding to South Australian councils for local roads in 2004-05 for three years. This funding has been provided in each year since 2004-05.

Overview of current arrangements In determining the distribution of financial assistance grants to local government, 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.

16

Local Government National Report 2011-12

• 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 Australian Capital Territory does not have a local government grants commission, because its government provides local government services in lieu of the territory having a system of local government.

• The state and Northern Territory local government ministers forward the recommendations of the local government grants commission in their jurisdiction to the Australian Government Minister (the Minister) responsible for local government.

• When satisfied that all legislative requirements have been met, the Minister approves payment of the recommended grants.

• The Australian Government pays the grants in quarterly instalments to the states and territories, which, without undue delay, pass them on to local government as untied grants.

• When updated 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 is combined with the estimated entitlement in the next year to determine that next year’s cash payment. This is referred to as the adjustment.

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 (the Treasurer) is to apply each year for calculating the escalation factors used to determine the local government financial assistance grant. The escalation factors are based on changes in CPI and population.

The Act provides the Treasurer with discretion to increase or decrease the escalation factors 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’, below) and any other matter the Treasurer thinks relevant. The same escalation factor is applied to both the general purpose and local road components.

17

02 • Financial assistance grants to local government

OBJECTS OF THE ACT

Section 3(2) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) states the objects of the Act as follows.

The Parliament wishes to provide financial assistance to the states for the purposes of improving:

• the financial capacity o

f local governing bodies

• the capacity o

f local governing bodies to provide their residents with an equitable level of services

• the ce

rtainty of funding for local governing bodies

• the e

fficiency and effectiveness of local governing bodies

• the pr

ovision by local governing bodies of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

Determining entitlements for 2011-12 and 2012-13 Calculation of the 2011-12 actual grant entitlement and the 2012-13 estimated grant entitlement using the final escalation factor (the final factor) and estimated escalation factor (the estimated factor) respectively are set out in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.

In 2011-12, the estimated grant entitlement was $1.6 billion. This comprised $1.1 billion in general purpose grants and $496.5 million in local road grants (Table 2.1).

In June 2012, two quarters of the budgeted allocation for the 2012-13 grant were brought forward and paid to local government so that they had immediate use of the funds, had additional flexibility and could respond to the widespread natural disasters and other pressures. The brought-forward payment totalled $1.1 billion, consisting of $774.2 million in general purpose grant and $343.5 million in local road grant (Table 2.1).

The brought-forward payment was provided for under amendments made in 2009 to the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995.

The 2011-12 final factor was calculated using the CPI for the year ending March 2012 and revised population growth figures to December 2010. To account for, and balance the effect of, the brought-forward payment in June 2011, the Treasurer used his discretionary power provided under the Act to consider the brought-forward payment in determining the 2011-12 final factor. The calculations for the 2011-12 final factor are explained in ‘Determining the final factor for 2011-12’, on page 21.

The 2011-12 final factor of 1.2832 resulted in the 2011-12 actual entitlement being $2.7 billion, comprising $1.9 billion in general purpose grants and $823.8 million in local road grants (Table 2.1). As the 2011-12 actual entitlement was less than the combination of the 2011-12 estimated entitlement and the brought-forward payment in June 2011, there was a negative adjustment of $52.9 million to the grant in the following year.

The 2011-12 actual entitlement was calculated using improved counting methodologies employed in the 2011 Census by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This resulted in a downward revision of Australia’s population. In accordance with the Act, the 2012-13 payment was adjusted down by $52.9 million.

18

Local Government National Report 2011-12

The 2012-13 estimated factor was calculated using the projected CPI for the year ending March 2013 and revised population growth figures to December 2011. To account for, and balance the effect of, the brought-forward payment in June 2012, the Treasurer used his discretionary power provided under the Act to decrease the 2012-13 estimated factor. The calculations for the 2012-13 estimated factor are explained in ‘Determining the estimated factor for 2012-13’, on page 22.

The 2012-13 estimated factor of 0.4007 resulted in the estimated entitlement for 2012-13 being $1.1 billion, comprising $743.9 million in general purpose grants and $330.1 million in local road grants (Table 2.2). The Australian Government paid $2.1 billion in financial assistance grants to local government in 2012-13. This is the combination of the 2012-13 estimated entitlement of $1.1 billion, the 2011-12 negative adjustment of $52.9 million, and the brought-forward payment of $1.1 billion (Table 2.2).

In addition to the general purpose and local road grant, South Australian councils received additional funding of $16.3 million for local roads in 2011-12.

19

02 • Financial assistance grants to local government

Table 2-1

Calculation of financial assistance grants actual entitlements and adjustments for 2011-12

2010-11 actual entitlement

2011-12 final factor

2011-12 actual entitlement

2011-12 estimated entitlement

2012-13 early payment

2011-12 adjustment

$ $ $ $ $

General purpose 1 446 854 689 x 1.2832 = 1 856 603 939 less 1 118 997 417 less 774 232 000 =

(36 625 479)

Local road 642 012 005 x 1.2832 = 823 829 803 less 496 532 083 less 343 548 000 =

(16 250 280)

Total 2 088 866 694 x 1.2832 = 2 680 433 742 less 1 615 529 500 less 1 117 780 000 =

(52 875 759)

General purpose 31 Dec 2010 population

NSW 469 292 512 7 272 158 600 740 701 less 362 071 637 less 249 612 000 =

(10 942 936)

Vic. 359 259 559 5 585 566 460 308 654 less 278 098 334 less 192 460 000 =

(10 249 680)

Qld 292 162 294 4 558 661 372 205 607 less 226 472 133 less 156 982 000 =

(11 248 527)

WA 148 259 290 2 317 064 194 185 073 less 115 363 714 less 80 804 000 =

(1 982 641)

SA 106 787 410 1 650 377 136 710 339 less 82 170 204 less 56 544 000 =

(2 003 865)

Tas. 33 012 434 509 292 42 669 099 less 25 357 011 less 17 414 000 =

(101 912)

NT 14 892 525 229 874 19 296 948 less

11 445 139 less 7 890 000 =

(38 191)

ACT 23 188 665 361 914 30 487 518 less 18 019 245 less 12 526 000 =

(57 727)

Total 1 446 854 689 22 474 906 1 856 603 939 less 1 118 997 417 less 774 232 000 =

(36 625 479)

Local road 2011-12 final factor

NSW 186 267 828 x 1.2832 = 239 018 877 less 144 059 538 less 99 674 000 = (4 714 661)

Vic. 132 359 654 x 1.2832 = 169 843 908 less 102 366 956 less 70 828 000 = (3 351 048)

Qld 120 289 528 x 1.2832 = 154 355 522 less 93 031 921 less 64 368 000 = (3 044 399)

WA 98 164 578 x 1.2832 = 125 964 787 less 75 920 485 less 52 528 000 = (2 483 698)

SA 35 282 907 x 1.2832 = 45 275 026 less 27 287 800 less 18 880 000 = (892 774)

Tas. 34 022 099 x 1.2832 = 43 657 157 less 26 312 691 less 18 206 000 = (861 534)

NT 15 039 018 x 1.2832 = 19 298 067 less 11 631 176 less 8 048 000 = (381 109)

ACT 20 586 393 x 1.2832 = 26 416 459 less 15 921 516 less 11 016 000 = (521 057)

Total 642 012 005 x 1.2832 = 823 829 803 less

496 532 083 less 343 548 000 = (16 250 280)

Note:

Bring f

orward amounts are included in the year in which they are entitled. Source:

Depar

tment of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

20

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table 2-2

Calculation of financial assistance grants estimated entitlements and actual cash paid for 2012-13

2011-12

actual entitlement

2012-13

estimated factor

2012-13

estimated entitlement 2011-12 adjustment 2012-13

early payment

2012-13

actual cash payable

$ $ $ $ $

General purpose 1 856 603 939 x 0.4007 = 743 941 198 plus (36 625 479) plus 774 232 000 = 1 481 547 719

Local road 823 829 803 x 0.4007 = 330 108 602 plus (16 250 280) plus 343 548 000 = 657 406 322

Total 2 680 433 742 x 0.4007 = 1 074 049 800 plus (52 875 759) plus 1 117 780 000 = 2 138 954 041

General purpose 31 Dec 2011 population

NSW 600 740 701 7 247 669 239 826 862 plus (10 942 936) plus 249 612 000 = 478 495 926

Vic. 460 308 654 5 574 455 184 459 866 plus (10 249 680) plus 192 460 000 = 366 670 186

Qld 372 205 607 4 513 009 149 336 399 plus (11 248 527) plus 156 982 000 = 295 069 872

WA 194 185 073 2 387 232 78 993 999 plus (1 982 641) plus 80 804 000 = 157 815 358

SA 136 710 339 1 654 040 54 434 713 plus (2 003 865) plus 56 544 000 = 108 974 848

Tas.

42 669 099 511 718 16 932 854 plus (101 912) plus 17 414 000 = 34 244 942

NT 19 296 948 232 365 7 689 006 plus (38 191) plus 7 890 000 = 15 540 815

ACT 30 487 518 370 729 12 267 499 plus (57 727) plus 12 526 000 = 24 735 772

Total 1 856 603 939 22 482 217 743 941 198 plus (36 625 479) plus 774 232 000 = 1 481 547 719

Local road 2012-13 estimated factor

NSW 239 018 877 x 0.4007 = 95 774 864 plus (4 714 661) plus 99 674 000 = 190 734 203

Vic. 169 843 908 x 0.4007 = 68 056 454 plus (3 351 048) plus 70 828 000 = 135 533 406

Qld 154 355 522 x 0.4007 = 61 850 258 plus (3 044 399) plus 64 368 000 = 123 173 859

WA 125 964 787 x 0.4007 = 50 474 090 plus (2 483 698) plus 52 528 000 = 100 518 392

SA 45 275 026 x 0.4007 = 18 141 703 plus (892 774) plus 18 880 000 = 36 128 929

Tas. 43 657 157 x 0.4007 = 17 493 423 plus (861 534) plus 18 206 000 = 34 837 889

NT 19 298 067 x 0.4007 = 7 732 735 plus (381 109)

plus 8 048 000 = 15 399 626

ACT 26 416 459 x 0.4007 = 10 585 075 plus (521 057) plus 11 016 000 = 21 080 018

Total 823 829 803 x 0.4007 = 330 108 602 plus (16 250 280) plus 343 548 000 = 657 406 322

Note:

Bring f

orward amounts are included in the year in which they are entitled. Source:

Depar

tment of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

21

02 • Financial assistance grants to local government

DETERMINING THE FINAL FACTOR FOR 2011-12

Under s. 8 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth), the unadjusted factor for 2011-12 was calculated as follows:

Unadjusted factor = Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2010 x CPI at March 2012 Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2009 CPI at March 2011

That is:

Unadjusted factor = 22 179 728 x 179.5

= 1.0172

22 149 445 176.7

However, to account for the Australian Government’s decision to bring forward the first two quarters of the budgeted allocation in 2012-13 ($1.1 billion) for payment in the 2011-12 financial year, the unadjusted factor was decreased in accordance with s. 8(1)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) by the adjustment factor as follows:

Unadjusted factor = 2011-12 unadjusted amount - 2010-11 adjustment amount + 2011-12 adjustment amount

2010-11 final entitlement

x

1

Unadjusted factor

That is:

Unadjusted factor = 2 099 274 882 - 536 572 354 + 1 117 780 000 x 1

= 1.2615

2 088 866 694 1.0172

The adjustment amount to be brought forward from 2012-13 to be paid in 2011-12 is $1

117 780 000, as announced in the 2012-13 Commonwealth Budget.

Therefore, the final factor for 2011-12 was determined through the multiplication of the unadjusted factor and the adjustment factor as follows:

Final factor = Unadjusted factor (1.0172) x Adjustment factor (1.2615) = 1.2832

22

Local Government National Report 2011-12

DETERMINING THE ESTIMATED FACTOR FOR 2012-13

Under s. 8 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth), the unadjusted factor for 2012-13 was calculated as follows:

Unadjusted factor = Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2011 x CPI at March 2013 Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2010 CPI at March 2012

That is:

Unadjusted factor = 22 482 217 x 184.9

= 1.0441

22 179 728 179.5

However, to account for the Australian Government’s decision to bring forward the first two quarters of the budgeted allocation in 2012-13 ($1.1 billion) for payment in the 2011-12 financial year, the final factor was decreased, in accordance with s. 8(1)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth), by the adjustment factor as follows:

Unadjusted factor = 2012-13 unadjusted amount - 2011-12 adjustment amount

x

1

2011-12 final entitlement Unadjusted factor

That is:

Unadjusted factor =

2 191 852 904 - 1 117 780 000 x 1 = 0.3838

2 680 433 742 1.0441

The adjustment amount to be brought forward from 2012-13 to be paid in 2011-12 is $1

117 780 000, as announced in the 2012-13 Commonwealth Budget.

Therefore, the estimated factor for 2012-13 was determined through the multiplication of the unadjusted factor and the adjusted factor as follows:

Estimated factor = Unadjusted factor (1.0441) x Adjusted factor (0.3838) = 0.4007

VARIATIONS IN REPORTED GRANTS

At the beginning of each financial year, the quantum of the grant to local government is estimated using the estimated factor, which is based on forecasts of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and population increases for the year.

At the end of each financial year the actual, or final, grant for local government is calculated using the final factor, which is based on updated CPI and population figures.

Invariably there is a difference between the estimated and actual grant entitlements. This difference is combined with the estimated entitlement in the following financial year to provide the actual cash payment for the next year.

Consequently, there are three ways in which the financial assistance grant can be reported: an estimated grant entitlement, an actual grant entitlement and the actual cash paid.

23

02 • Financial assistance grants to local government

Inter-jurisdictional distribution of grant The Act specifies that the general purpose grant is to be divided among the jurisdictions on a per capita basis. The distribution is based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ 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 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 2001-02 Local Government National Report). Therefore the local road grant share for each state and territory is determined by multiplying the previous year’s funding by the estimated factor as determined by the Treasurer.

Table 2.3 shows the allocation of the actual entitlement for 2011-12 among jurisdictions. Table 2.4 shows the allocation of the estimated entitlement for 2012-13 among jurisdictions and the percentage change in the grant from 2011-12 to 2012-13.

24

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table 2-3

2011-12 allocations of general purpose and local road grants among jurisdictions

General purpose (GP) Local road (LR) Total grant

State

GP actual entitlement $

% of total general

purpose pool

31 Dec 2010

population $ per capita

LR actual entitlement $ % of local road pool km

% of local road length $ per km Total actual entitlement $

% of total grant

NSW 600 740 701 32.36 7 272 158 82.61 239 018 877 29.01 145 615 22.00 1 641.44 839 759 578 31.33

Vic. 460 308 654 24.79 5 585 566 82.61 169 843 908 20.62 129 745 19.60 1 309.06 630 152 562 23.51

Qld 372 205 607 20.05 4 558 661 82.61 154 355 522 18.74 154 061 23.27 1 001.91 526 561 129 19.64

WA 194 185 073 10.46 2 317 064 82.61 125 964 787 15.29 126 064 19.05 999.21 320 149 860 11.94

SA 136 710 339 7.36 1 650 377 82.61 45 275 026 5.50 77 823 11.76 581.77 181 985 365 6.79

Tas. 42 669 099 2.30 509 292 82.61 43 657 157 5.30 14 324 2.16 3 047.83 86 326 256 3.22

NT 19 296 948 1.04 229 874 82.61 19 298 067 2.34 14 285 2.16 1 350.93 38 595 015 1.44

ACT 30 487 518 1.64 361 914 82.61 26 416 459 3.21 n/a 0.00 0.00 56 903 977 2.12

Total 1 856 603 939 100.00 22 474 906 82.61 823 829 803 100.00 661 917 100.00 1 244.61 2 680 433 742 100.00

Notes:

A

ustralian Bureau of Statistics,

Australian Demographic Statistics, December 2010, ABS cat.no. 3101.0.

GP

general pur

pose

LR

local r

oad

Km

kilome

tres. Source:

Depar

tment of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

25

02 • Financial assistance grants to local government

Table 2-4

2012-13 allocation of estimated grant entitlement among jurisdictions and percentage change from 2011-12 actual grant allocation

General purpose (GP) Local road (LR) Total grant

State

GP 2012-13 estimated entitlement $

% change from 2011-12 actual

grant

% of total

general purpose pool

31 Dec 2011

population $ per capita

LR 2012-13 estimated entitlement

% change from 2011-12 actual

grant

% of local road pool km

% of local road length

$

per km

Total 2012-13 estimated entitlement

% change from 2011-12 actual

grant

% of total grant

NSW 489 438 862 3.82 32.12 7 247 669 67.78 195 448 864 4.41 28.95 145 950 22.01 1 339.15 684 887 726 3.99 31.15

Vic. 376 919 866 4.64 24.73 5 574 455 67.78 138 884 454 4.41 20.57 129 105 19.47 951.59 515 804 320 4.58 23.46

Qld 312 060 723 5.40 20.48 4 513 009 67.78 127 684 694 4.41 18.91 153 729 23.19 874.85 439 745 417 5.11 20.00

WA 159 797 999 5.36 10.49 2 387 232 67.78 103 002 090 4.41 15.26 128 160 19.33 705.74 262 800 089 4.99 11.95

SA 110 978 713 3.27 7.28 1 654 040 67.78 36 977 703 4.29 5.48 77 851 11.74 253.36 147 956 416 3.52 6.73

Tas. 34 346 854 1.99 2.25 511 718

67.78 35 699 423 4.41 5.29 14 324 2.16 244.60 70 046 277 3.21 3.19

NT 15 579 006 2.33 1.02 232 365 67.78 15 780 735 4.42 2.34 13 872 2.09 108.12 31 359 741 3.37 1.43

ACT 24 793 499 3.64 1.63 370 729 67.78 21 601 075 4.41 3.20 0 0.00 0.00 46 394 574 4.00 2.11

Total 1 523 915 522 4.40 100.00 22 482 217 67.78 675 079 038 4.40 100.00 662 991 100.00 4 625.41 2 198 994 560 4.40 100.00

Notes:

A

ustralian Bureau of Statistics,

Australian Demographic Statistics, December 2010, ABS cat.no. 3101.0. Figures do not include the brought forward (early) payment made in

June

2011.

GP

general pur

pose

LR

local r

oad

Km

kilome

tres. Source:

Depar

tment of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

26

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Quantum of financial assistance grants allocations Table 2.5 shows the aggregate level of financial assistance grants since the Australian Government started to provide general purpose grants in 1974-75 and local road grants in 1991-92.

Table 2-5 National financial assistance grant allocation, 1974-75 to 2011-12

Year General purpose grants ($) Local road grants ($) Total grants ($)

1974-75 56 345 000 n/a 56 345 000

1975-76 79 978 000 n/a 79 978 000

1976-77 140 070 131 n/a 140 070 131

1977-78 165 327 608 n/a 165 327 608

1978-79 179 426 870 n/a 179 426 870

1979-80a 222 801 191 n/a 222 801 191

1980-81 302 226 347 n/a 302 226 347

1981-82 352 544 573 n/a 352 544 573

1982-83 426 518 330 n/a 426 518 330

1983-84 461 531 180 n/a 461 531 180

1984-85 488 831 365 n/a 488 831 365

1985-86 538 532 042 n/a 538 532 042

1986-87 590 427 808 n/a 590 427 808

1987-88 636 717 377 n/a 636 717 377

1988-89 652 500 000 n/a 652 500 000

1989-90 677 739 860 n/a 677 739 860

1990-91 699 291 988 n/a 699 291 988

1991-92b 714 969 488 303 174 734 1 018 144 222

1992-93c 730 122 049 318 506 205 1 048 628 254

1993-94 737 203 496 322 065 373 1 059 268 869

1994-95 756 446 019 330 471 280 1 086 917 299

1995-96d 806 748 051 357 977 851 1 164 725 902

1996-97 833 693 434 369 934 312 1 203 627 746

1997-98 832 859 742 369 564 377 1 202 424 119

1998-99 854 180 951 379 025 226 1 233 206 177

1999-2000 880 575 142 390 737 104 1 271 312 246

2000-01 919 848 794 408 163 980 1 328 012 774

2001-02 965 841 233 428 572 178 1 394 413 411

2002-03 1 007 855 328 447 215 070 1 455 070 398

2003-04 1 039 703 554 461 347 062 1 501 050 616

2004-05 1 077 132 883 477 955 558 1 555 088 441

2005-06 1 121 079 905 497 456 144 1 618 536 049

2006-07 1 168 277 369 518 399 049 1 686 676 418

2007-08 1 234 986 007 547 999 635 1 782 985 642

2008-09 1 621 289 630 719 413 921 2 340 703 551

2009-10 1 378 744 701 611 789 598 1 990 534 300

2010-11 1 446 854 689 642 012 005 2 088 866 694

2011-12 1 856 603 939 823 829 803 2 680 433 742

2012-13e 743 941 198 330 108 602 1 074 049 800

Total 26 799 222 135 8 901 780 662 35 701 002 797

Note: a Grants t o the Northern Territory under the programme commenced in 1979-80, with the initial allocation being $1 061 733. b Bef ore 1991-92, local road funding was provided as tied grants under different legislation (n/a = Not applicable). c In 1 992-93, part of the road grant entitlement of the Tasmanian and Northern Territory governments was

reallocated to local government in these jurisdictions. d Gran ts to the Australian Capital Territory under the programme commenced in 1995-96, with the initial allocation being $13 572 165 in general purpose and $11 478 714 in local road. e F or 2012-13 the national grant allocation is the estimated entitlement. The Bring Forward is included in the

year in which it was paid.

Source: Depar tment of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

27

02 • Financial assistance grants to local government

National Principles for the allocation of grants under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act The Act requires the Australian Government minister (the Minister) to formulate national principles in consultation with state and territory ministers for local government and a body or bodies representative of local government. The National Principles provide guidance for the states and the Northern Territory in allocating financial assistance grants to local governing bodies within their jurisdiction.

The National Principles came into effect in 1996-97. In 2005-06 the Minister formulated an additional national principle, to take effect from 1 July 2006, with respect to local governing bodies formed as a result of amalgamation.

The National Principles are set out in full at Appendix A.

Determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions Under ss. 11 and 14 of the Act, financial assistance grants can only be paid to jurisdictions (other than the Australian Capital Territory) that have established a local government grants commission (see ‘Local government grants commissions’, on page 28).

The Australian Capital Territory does not have a local government grants commission because its government provides local government services in lieu of the territory having a system of local government. The local government grants commissions make recommendations, in accordance with the National Principles, on the quantum of the financial assistance grant allocated to local governing bodies.

The state and Northern Territory governments determine the membership of, and provide resources for, their respective local government grants commissions.

28

Local Government National Report 2011-12

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSIONS

Section 5 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) specifies the criteria a body must satisfy to be recognised as a local government grants commission. These criteria are:

• the bo

dy is established by a law of a state or the Northern Territory

• the pr

incipal 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 Minist

er 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.

Section 11 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) requires local government grants commissions to:

• hold pu

blic hearings in connection with their recommended grant allocations

• pe

rmit or require local governing bodies to make submissions to the commission in relation to the recommendations

• mak

e their recommendations in accordance with the National Principles.

The legislation establishing local government grants commissions in each state and the Northern Territory are:

New South Wales Local Government Act 1993

Victoria Victoria Grants Commission Act 1976

Queensland 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 1986

Once each local government grants commission determines the recommended allocation of grants to local governing bodies in its jurisdiction, the relevant state or Northern Territory minister recommends the allocation to the Australian Government Minister (the Minister) responsible for local government for approval. The Act requires that the Minister is satisfied that the state and the Northern Territory have adopted the recommendations of their 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, the states and the Northern Territory must pay the grants to local government without undue delay and without conditions, thus giving local government discretion to use the funds for local priorities.

Further, the Act requires the state and Northern Territory treasurers to give the Minister, as soon as practicable after 30 June each year, a statement detailing payments made to local

29

02 • Financial assistance grants to local government

government during the previous financial year, including the date the payments were made, as well as a certificate from their respective Auditor-General certifying that the statement is correct.

The grants are paid to the states and the Northern Territory in equal instalments each quarter. The first payment for each 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 All local governing bodies constituted under state and territory local government Acts are automatically local governing bodies. In addition, s. 4(2)(b) 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 addition to the Australian Capital Territory, 565 local governing bodies, including 10 declared local governing bodies made eligible under s. 4(2)(b), received grants in 2011-12 (Table 2.6).

Table 2-6 Distribution of local governing bodies, by type and jurisdiction, at 1 July 2012

Type NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NTc Total

Local governmentsa 152 79 73d 138 68 29 16 555

Declared local governing bodiesb 3 0 0 0 6e 0 1 10

Total 155 79 73 138 74 29 17 565

Notes: a These are local go verning bodies, eligible under s. 4(2)(a) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth), as they are constituted under state or territory legislation.

b These are decla red local governing bodies under s. 4(2)(b) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth).

c Includ es the amalgamations that took effect in the Northern Territory on 1 July 2008 (see ‘Measures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government in delivering services’ in Chapter 3 of this report) and includes the Northern Territory Road Trust Account.

d Includes the tw o Indigenous local governments established under distinct legislation, as reported in Chapter 4 of this report, Table 4.1.

e Includes the tw o Indigenous local governing bodies established under distinct legislation, as reported in Chapter 4 of this report, Table 4.1.

Source: Depar tment of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

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.

30

Local Government National Report 2011-12

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO AUSTRALIA’S TERRITORIES

Under an arrangement between the Australian Government and the Western Australian Government, 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 allocations as if these areas were local governing bodies in Western Australia. This is done on the basis that funding from the Australian Government for these territories should allow them to provide municipal services that align with communities in Western Australia.

Under an arrangement between the Australian Government and the New South Wales Government, the New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission provides an annual assessment of the funding that would be allocated for the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council in the Jervis Bay Territory as if that council were a local governing body in New South Wales. This is done on the basis that funding from the Australian Government to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council would allow it to provide municipal services that align with communities in New South Wales.

On the basis of these assessments, the Australian Government provides funding for the shires of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands as well as the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council. The funding comes from a separate budget allocation to that provided under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth).

The funding provided in 2011-12 was:

• J

ervis Bay Territory - $80 660 in general purpose grants

• Christmas Island Shire

Council - $2 859 160 in general purpose grants and $362

272

in local road grants

• Co

cos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council - $1 784 234 in general purpose grants and $123 898 in local road grants.

Methodologies of local government grants commissions Local government grants commissions each have their own methodology for allocating grants to local government in their jurisdiction.

For allocating general purpose grants, local government grants commissions assess the amount each local government 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 local government grants commissions then develop recommendations taking account of each local governing body’s assessed grant need. The recommended allocation of the local road component is based on the local government grants commissions’ assessments of local governing bodies’ road expenditure need. The local government grants commissions are required to make their recommendations in line with National Principles for the allocation of grants under the Act.

Local government grants commissions meet annually at a national conference to share insights and discuss common issues. The 2011 conference was held in South Australia. The conference

31

02 • Financial assistance grants to local government

included discussions from the national perspective on growth and whether each state’s methodology was doing what they wanted it to do.

A detailed description of each local government grants commission’s methodology can be found in Appendix B.

Further information about local government grants commissions can be found on the internet (see ‘Internet addresses for local government grants commissions’, below) and in Appendix C.

INTERNET ADDRESSES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSIONS

Local government grants commission Internet address New South Wales www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_Commission TribunalIndex. asp?areaindex=GC&index=21

Victoria www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment/victoria-grants-commission

Queensland www.qlggc.qld.gov.au

Western Australia www.dlgrd.wa.gov.au/lggc

South Australia www.localgovt.sa.gov.au/about_us/south_australian_local_government_ grants_commission

Tasmania www.treasury.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/v-stategrants/home

Northern Territory www.grantscommission.nt.gov.au

Allocation of grants to local government in 2011-12 The Australian Government Minister (the Minister) approved the allocation of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies for 2011-12 as recommended by local government grants commissions through state and Northern Territory ministers. Appendix D contains the actual entitlements for 2011-12 and the estimated entitlements for 2012-13.

Table 2.7 sets out the average general purpose grant per capita to local governing bodies by jurisdiction and the Australian Classification of Local Governments (Appendix F provides a description of the classifications). Table 2.8 provides the average local road grant per kilometre by jurisdiction and classification. The Australian Classification of Local Governments was developed to aid comparison of similar local governing bodies. It is used here to indicate trends and allow comparison of grants to individual local governing bodies with the average for their category.

The results in Table 2.7 and Table 2.8 suggest there are some differences in outcomes between jurisdictions. Notwithstanding the capacity of the classification system to group similar local governing bodies, it should be noted that considerable scope for divergence within these categories remains. 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 classification categories.

32

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table 2-7

Average general purpose grant per capita to local governing bodies by jurisdiction and by classification, 2011-12

Jurisdiction ($)

Classification NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT

a

Average

Urban Capital City (UCC) 24.17 19.48 19.32 19.84 19.60 19.90 20.69 20.43

Urban Developed Small (UDS) 19.56 n/a n/a 19.84 19.60 n/a n/a 19.67

Urban Developed Medium (UDM) 19.88 n/a n/a 19.84 19.60 n/a n/a 19.77

Urban Developed Large (UDL) 23.60 22.79 n/a 19.84 19.60 n/a n/a 21.46

Urban Developed Very Large (UDV) 34.26 36.13 29.76 19.84 54.38 n/a n/a 34.87

Urban Regional Small (URS) 125.98 154.59 129.49 100.29 116.67 63.86 24.99 102.27

Urban Regional Medium (URM) 92.15 133.02 146.77 42.07 19.60 22.08 n/a 75.95

Urban Regional Large (URL) 74.06 102.39 46.08 n/a n/a n/a n/a 74.18

Urban Regional Very Large (URV) 67.67 71.96 23.08 n/a n/a n/a n/a 54.23

Urban Fringe Small (UFS) n/a 74.30 91.37 n/a 29.57 60.16 20.69 55.22

Urban Fringe Medium (UFM) 37.57 62.07 53.01 30.88 19.60 19.90 n/a 37.17

Urban Fringe Large (UFL) 85.20 86.23 n/a 19.84 94.63 n/a n/a 71.47

Urban Fringe Very Large (UFV) 38.68 54.62 n/a 19.84 36.09 n/a n/a 37.31

Rural Significant Growth (RSG) n/a n/a n/a 79.96 19.60

n/a n/a 49.78

Rural Agricultural Small (RAS) 701.18 n/a n/a 627.29 646.55 482.96 n/a 615.99

Rural Agricultural Medium (RAM) 405.50 558.65 723.74 176.35 323.66 172.41 n/a 393.39

Rural Agricultural Large (RAL) 285.52 340.36 n/a 228.08 206.37 168.81 n/a 245.83

Rural Agricultural Very Large (RAV) 190.46 186.95 367.97 88.75 172.10 111.31 20.69 162.60

Rural Remote Extra Small (RTX) 468.56 n/a 4 783.10 6 937.46 759.83 n/a 55.63 2 600.92

Rural Remote Small (RTS) n/a n/a 2 324.78 2 266.05 n/a n/a n/a 2 295.41

Rural Remote Medium (RTM) 1 057.23 n/a 1 274.00 998.94 n/a n/a 76.62 851.70

Rural Remote Large (RTL) 483.25 n/a 1 196.68 360.02 365.87 n/a 220.67 525.30

Average 65.18 64.95 63.00 66.13 65.35 66.34 68.97 64.84

Notes:

a Ex

cludes the Northern Territory Trust Fund.

n/a no

t applicable. Source:

Depar

tment of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

33

02 • Financial assistance grants to local government

Table 2-8

Average local road grant per kilometre to local governing bodies by jurisdiction and by classification, 2011-12

Jurisdiction ($)

Classification NSW Vic. Qld WA

a

SA a

Tas. NT Average

Urban Capital City (UCC) 3 623.56 2 917.74 2 387.83 3 798.10 1 694.20 5 794.27 3 546.17 3 394.55

Urban Developed Small (UDS) 2 385.09 n/a n/a 2 014.05 2 069.83 n/a n/a 2 156.32

Urban Developed Medium (UDM) 2 704.54 n/a n/a 2 027.95 1 917.64 n/a n/a 2 216.71

Urban Developed Large (UDL) 2 644.91 1 427.90 n/a 1 829.59 1 773.82 n/a n/a 1 919.06

Urban Developed Very Large (UDV) 2 527.82 1 503.99 2 596.97 1 936.63 1 773.44 n/a n/a 2 067.77

Urban Regional Small (URS) 1 298.64 980.83 603.15 1 186.78 372.13 3 189.58 3 327.33 1 565.49

Urban Regional Medium (URM) 1 514.99 1 103.62 611.99 1 765.40 2 172.77 3 723.34 n/a 1 815.35

Urban Regional Large (URL) 2 004.89 1 166.43 829.83 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 333.72

Urban Regional Very Large (URV) 2 117.55 1 332.60 1 399.61 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 616.58

Urban Fringe Small (UFS) n/a 1 166.59 617.60 n/a 470.68 2 260.76 3 298.63 1 562.85

Urban Fringe Medium (UFM) 1 777.08 1 294.19 719.78 1 610.83 588.86 3 194.70 n/a 1 530.91

Urban Fringe Large (UFL) 1 725.50 1 638.03 n/a 1 661.38 2 024.73 n/a n/a 1 762.41

Urban Fringe Very Large (UFV) 2 118.44 1 580.98 n/a 1

747.56 1 436.08 n/a n/a 1 720.76

Rural Significant Growth (RSG) n/a n/a n/a 1 103.80 248.84 n/a n/a 676.32

Rural Agricultural Small (RAS) 871.36 n/a n/a 589.43 342.66 1 495.32 n/a 824.69

Rural Agricultural Medium (RAM) 914.02 760.17 515.72 679.03 271.08 1 721.38 n/a 810.23

Rural Agricultural Large (RAL) 961.57 573.81 n/a 807.54 241.47 2 058.19 n/a 928.51

Rural Agricultural Very Large (RAV) 1 030.97 949.69 535.73 870.55 312.32 2 049.88 2 885.96 1 233.59

Rural Remote Extra Small (RTX) n/a n/a 499.01 436.83 523.65 n/a 834.51 573.50

Rural Remote Small (RTS) n/a n/a 502.46 461.55 n/a n/a n/a 482.00

Rural Remote Medium (RTM) 847.35 n/a 510.66 407.83 n/a n/a 1 084.21 712.51

Rural Remote Large (RTL) 872.79 n/a 517.82 720.64 n/a n/a 727.93 709.80

Northern Territory Trust fund n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 526.91 526.91

Average 1 285.53 1 050.87 793.79 782.56 455.63 2 386.94 1057.98 945.39

Notes:

a A

verages for all classifications in these states includes special roads grants received by local government.

n/a no

t applicable. Source:

Depar

tment of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

34

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table 2-9

Local governing bodies on the minimum grant, by jurisdiction, 2002-03 to 2011-12

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

NSW $ general purpose grant 332 621 822 341 916 239 358 832 105 374 443 598 385 938 812 406 050 359 422 066 453 442 758 903 463 479 161 471 413 267 $ to minimum grant councils 25 175 682 27 799 562 26 481 959 27 451 347 29 279 694 30 793 666 32 070 254 33 460 548 36 160 752 37 593 617

% to minimum grant councils 7.57 8.13 7.38 7.33 7.59 7.58 7.60 7.56 7.80 7.97

Population per jurisdiction 6 608 792 6 662 212 6 710 408 6 749 297 6 790 811 6 854 067 6 943 884 6 983 605 7 133 854 7 232 022

Population for minimum grant councils 1 607 137 1 754 764 1 632 677 1 644 799 1 712 959 1 725 814 1 744 716 1 759 235 1 855 282 1 922 430

% of population in minimum grant councils 24.32 26.34 24.33 24.37 25.22 25.18 25.13 25.19 26.01 26.58

Minimum grant councils/No. local governing bodies 21/166 20/166 20/155 20/155 21/155 21/155 21/155 21/155 22/155 23/155

VIC $ general purpose grant 249 588 629 257 091 396 266 191 972 276 987 692 289 188 062 305 906 191 319 394 720 336 060 498 354 852 579 360 195 861 $ to minimum grant councils 8 681 598 10 542 345 10 883 040 13 194 313 16 041 360 13 310 089 23 450 803 27 458 066 30 577 564 30 820 330

% to minimum grant councils 3.48 4.10 4.09 4.76 5.55 4.35 7.34 8.17

8.62 8.56

Population per jurisdiction 4 836 196 4 884 952 4 941 398 4 992 667 5 088 427 5 163 649 5 262 390 5 313 734 5 443 134 5 545 838

Population for minimum grant councils 559 791 665 812 670 083 789 522 928 552 738 401 1 273 912 1 447 208 1 563 445 1 581 774

% of population in minimum grant councils 11.58 13.63 13.56 15.81 18.25 14.30 24.21 27.24 28.72 28.52

Minimum grant councils/No. local governing bodies 6/79 7/80 8/80 9/80 10/80 7/79 11/79 12/79 12/79 13/79

35

02 • Financial assistance grants to local government

Table 2.9

Lo

cal governing bodies on the minimum grant, by jurisdiction, 2002-03 to 2011-12 cont.

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

QLD

$ general purpose grant 189 108 056 197 578 337 207 097 211 217 821 826 230 151 592 244 752 786 257 092 111 272 006 416 288 922 754 290 459 015 $ to minimum grant councils

34 681 718 33 578 476 34 075 645 26 940 642 25 346 303 26 876 194 27 468 884 29 098 788 30 728 757 50 601 267

% to minimum grant councils 18.34 17.00 16.45 12.37 11.01 10.98 10.68 10.70 10.64 17.42

Population per jurisdiction

3 664 284 3 754 154 3 844 405 3 926 210 4 049 647 4 131 389 4 242 789 4 178 232 4 421 783 4 510 510

Population for minimum grant councils

2 231 630 2 100 117 2 081 206 1 599 555 1 454 323 1 486 720 1 458 827 1 489 934 1 567 615 2 619 274

% of population in minimum grant councils

60.90 55.94 54.14 40.74 35.91 35.99 34.38 35.66 35.45 58.07

Minimum grant councils/No. local governing bodies

11/157 8/157 7/157 3/157 2/157 2/157 2/73 2/73 2/73 6/73

WA

$ general purpose grant 98 770 852 101 937 713 105 930 054 110 620 829 115 836 527 123 301 075 129 395 614 137 579 902 146 620 875 151 667 051 $ to minimum grant councils

19 939 143 21 262 998 22 188 029 24 661 291 25 901 130 27 858 876 29 147 411 31 045 359 33 132 023 34 286 560

% to minimum grant councils 20.19 20.86 20.95 22.29 22.36 22.59 22.53 22.57 22.60 22.61

Population per jurisdiction

1 913 850 1 936 902 1 966 410 1 993 926 2 038 209 2 081 303 2 1380 62 2 171 197 2 245 057 2 293 510

Population for minimum grant councils

1 285 089 1 340 055 1 363 077 1 473 011 1 498 209 1 544 602 1 581 149 1 633 126 1 691 057 1 728 272

% of population in minimum grant councils

67.15 69.19 69.32 73.87 73.51 74.21 73.95 75.22 75.32 75.35

Minimum grant councils/No. local governing bodies

27/142 28/142 28/142 30/142 30/140 31/140 31/139 31/139 31/139 31/138

36

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table 2.9

Lo

cal governing bodies on the minimum grant, by jurisdiction, 2002-03 to 2011-12 cont.

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

SA

$ general purpose grant 78 225 421 80 126 729 82 442 403 85 234 073 88 633 994 93 329 590 96 948 206 101 127 276 105 434 395 107 468 610

$ to minimum grant councils 8 675 109 10 679 916 13 732 563 14 175 161 14 706 754 15 018 873 16 084 800 16 309 932 17 542 801 14 330 230

% to minimum grant councils

11.09 13.33 16.66 16.63 16.59 16.09 16.59 16.13 16.64 13.33

Population per jurisdiction

1 515 748 1 522 475 1 530 402 1 536 333 1 559 565 1 575 389 1 593 494 1 603 361 1 623 590 1 644 582

Population for minimum grant councils 555 400 675 601 847 861 850 511 852 943 834 072 876 276 861 778 900 691 810 045

% of population in minimum grant councils 36.64 44.38 55.40 55.36 54.69 52.94 54.99 53.75 55.48 49.26

Minimum grant councils /No. local government bodies

14/74 17/74 22/74 22/74 22/74 20/74 21/74 20/74 21/74 20/74

TAS

$ general purpose grant 24 365 180 24 962 320 25 866 216 26 841 415 27 766 033 29 129 652 30 163 788 31 433 715 32 611 864 33 677 077

$ to minimum grant councils 1 394 260 1 448 298 781 868 810 666 837 576 1 676 505 2 914 651 3 994 953 4 775 551 3 620 178

% to minimum grant councils

5.72 5.80 3.02

3.02 3.02 5.76 9.66 12.71 14.64 10.75

Population per jurisdiction

472 116 474 305 480 162 483 813 488 559 491 704 495 377 497 529 503 292 507 643

Population for minimum grant councils 89 702 91 602 48 071 48 533 48 794 93 708 158 901 210 772 245 667 181 900

% of population in minimum grant councils 19.00 19.31 10.01 10.03 9.99 19.06 32.08 42.36 48.81 35.83

Minimum grant councils /No. local government bodies

2/29 2/29 1/29 1/29 1/29 2/29 3/29 4/29 5/29 4/29

37

02 • Financial assistance grants to local government

Table 2.9

Local go

verning bodies on the minimum grant, by jurisdiction, 2001-02 to 2011-12 cont. 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 NT

$ general purpose grant

10 198 709 10 424 539 10 713 889 11 142 605 11 865 377 12 590 104 13 203 569 13 880 149 14 733 572 15 224 579

$ to minimum grant councils

0 0 0 1 219 197 0 1 350 251 1 772 176 2 424 889 2 555 872 3 239 988

% to minimum grant councils

0 0 0 10.94 0 10.72 13.42 17.47 17.35 21.28

Population per jurisdiction

197 617 198 075 198 885 200 844 208 778 212 519 217 435 212 983 218 635 220 753

Population for minimum grant councils

0 0 0 69 958 0 70 245 17 856 124 029 126 424 156 597

% of population in minimum grant councils

0 0 0 34.83 0 33.05 8.21 58.23 57.82 70.94

Minimum grant councils/No. local government bodies

0/65 0/63 0/63 1/63 0/62 1/61 2/16 4/16 4/16 6/16

AUSTRALIA $ general purpose grant

982 878 669 1 014 037 273 1 057 073 850 1 103 092 038 1 149 380 397 1 215 059 757 1 268 264 461 1 334 846 859 1 406 655 200 1 430 105 460

$ to minimum grant councils

98 547 510 105 311 595 108 143 104 108 452 617 112 112 817 116 884 454 132 908 979 143 792 535 155 473 320 174 492 170

% to minimum grant councils

10.03 10.39 10.23 9.83 9.75 9.62 10.48 10.77 11.05 12.2

Population per jurisdiction

19 208 603 19 433 075 19 672 070 19 883 090 20 223 996 20 510 020 20 893 431 20 960 641 21 589 345 21 954 858

Population for minimum grant councils

6 328 749 6 627 951 6 642 975 6 475 889 6 495 780 6 493 562 7 111 637 7 526 082 7 950 181 9 000 292

% of population in minimum grant councils

32.95 34.11 33.77 32.57 32.12 31.66 34.39 35.91 34.34 40.99

Minimum grant councils/No. local government bodies

81/712 82/711 86/700 86/700 86/697 84/695 91/565 94/565 97/565 103/564

Source: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

38

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Reviews of grants commission methodologies Local government grants commissions have programmes for monitoring grant outcomes and refining aspects of their allocation methodologies. However, from time to time it is appropriate for local government grants commissions to undertake a thorough review of their allocation methodologies.

Since the Act commenced in July 1995, most local government grants commissions have undertaken major reviews of their methodologies, are currently undertaking such examinations or have such activities planned (Table 2.10).

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 principles of relative need, other grant support and Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders (Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001).

Table 2-10 Status of most recent major methodology reviews, by state, as at 30 June 2012

State General purpose grants Local road grants

NSW Revenue assessment during 2010-11. None planned

Vic. Completed in May 2001 and implemented from 2002-03. Review of revenue component completed in 2004 and implemented over four years from 2005-06.

Completed in July 1999 and implemented from 2001-02.

Qld Completed in 2010 and implemented from 2011-12. Completed in December 2002 and implemented from 2004-05.

WA Completed in May 2012 and will be implemented in 2012-13. None planned.

SA Major review commenced in 2011-12, including a full review of the allocation of general purpose grants and the allocation of grants to the five Aboriginal communities and the Outback Community Authority.

None planned.

Tas. A triennial review was implemented in 2009-10. Last triennial review completed during 2011-12 and will be implemented in 2012-13.

Triennial review was implemented in 2009-10. Next triennial review was completed during 2011-12 and will be implemented in 2012-13.

NT Review of methodology completed in 2004-05 and implemented over five years from 2005-06. None planned.

Source: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

39

02 • Financial assistance grants to local government

Impact of local government grants commission capping policies Year-to-year variations in the data local government grants commissions use to determine allocation of grants can lead to significant fluctuations in grants for individual local governing bodies. Changes in local government 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 local governments’ efficient planning, local government grants commissions have adopted policies to ensure changes are not unacceptably large.

Many local government grants commissions average the data of several years to reduce fluctuations. Nevertheless, policies to limit changes, by capping increases or decreases, may be needed to limit year-to-year variations.

No local governing body receives less than the minimum grant, so local governing bodies on the minimum grant are exempt from capping. In some circumstances, a local government grants commission may decide a local governing body’s grant should not be capped. Usually, this is to allow a larger grant increase than would otherwise be possible.

03

Local government efficiency and performance

42

Local Government National Report 2011-12

43

Local government efficiency and performance

03

Under s. 16 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) (the Act), an annual report must be made to Parliament on the operations of the Act. The report must include an assessment based on comparable national data of the performance of local governments, including their efficiency.

Previous Local Government National Reports have identified the difficulty of basing an assessment on comparable national data, due in large part to the different arrangements each state has to collect and report on local government performance.

Each year the jurisdictions are asked to report on measures undertaken to improve local government efficiency and performance. For this National Report, jurisdictions were asked to provide reports on:

• developments in local government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans — in particular, any developments in the implementation of the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks should be identified

• measures undertaken to develop and implement comparative performance measures between local governing bodies

• reforms undertaken during 2011-12 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery.

Long-term financial and asset management Across the three spheres of government in Australia, there is a clear focus on encouraging local government to pro-actively manage its community’s assets and improve its long-term financial planning.

Jurisdictions were asked to provide reports on developments in local government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans that, in particular, identified any developments in the implementation of the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks during 2011-12. The Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks include:

• Criteria for Assessing Financial Sustainability

• Asset Planning and Management

• Financial Planning and Reporting.

Further information about each state and territory government submission for the report is provided in Appendix B.

44

Local Government National Report 2011-12

New South Wales In New South Wales, an integrated planning and reporting (IP&R) framework was introduced in 2009. The IP&R framework was designed to improve councils’ strategic community planning, including long-term financial and asset management planning, as well as streamline reporting to the community.

A peer review programme is being trialled to assist in the completion of this work, involving participation by 40 local government practitioners from across the state. All New South Wales councils (including county councils) commenced under the IP&R framework on 1 July 2012.

Victoria The Victorian Government continues to assist councils to reform their business practices. In 2011-12, Local Government Victoria supported the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) in the successful delivery of the Regional Asset Management Program and the Local Government Sustainability Program. These two important programmes, funded by the Australian Government, were aimed at improving business practices and building local capacity.

Queensland To progress the national local government sustainability agenda, the Queensland Department of Local Government implemented the sustainability and reporting process that emphasises sustainable communities and sustainable local governments.

In 2011-12, 59 of the 73 local governments submitted data to the Department for the Financial Management (Sustainability) (FMS) evaluation, which evaluates whether a council has a clear and coherent long-term financial management (sustainability) strategy in place; this is defined as the ability to maintain financial and infrastructure capital over the long term.

Combined funding to the Advancing Asset Management in Local Government (Qld) Project from the Australian Government, the Queensland Government, Queensland councils and the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) amounted to approximately $3.2 million. The outputs of the project were intended to meet the Australian Government’s two main objectives (integration and collaboration) and improve the ability of Queensland’s local governments to manage their assets and provide better outcomes for local communities by ensuring effective asset management and financial planning processes and allowing them to anticipate infrastructure needs.

The project, which was delivered by LGAQ in partnership with the state government, promoted and accelerated the implementation of integrated asset and financial management systems by developing core asset management plans for key infrastructure assets.

Western Australia The Western Australian Government continued to support the implementation of the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) Framework and Guidelines in 2011-12.

In August 2011, the Western Australian Government enacted regulations under the Plan for the Future provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) that will require all local governments

45

03 • Local government efficiency and performance

to develop Strategic Community Plans and Corporate Business Plans that are informed by Long Term Financial Plans and Asset Management Plans.

In preparing the local governments for this change, an advisory standard outlining minimum standards for integrated planning performance was published. The advisory standard and related guidelines align these activities with the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks. In addition, the Western Australian Government worked with the Local Government Managers Australia (WA) and the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) to deliver masterclasses and workshops on Integrated Planning, Asset Management Planning and Long Term Financial Planning to local government councillors and practitioners to further support this important initiative.

South Australia In South Australia, all of the 68 local governments have developed and adopted a long-term financial plan and an infrastructure and asset management plan covering a period of at least 10 years, as required by s. 122 of the Local Government Act 1999 (SA). Through the Australian Government’s Local Government Reform Fund, subsidised training has been provided to councils as well as additional material support such as the updated suite of Financial Sustainability Information Papers that reflect the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks.

Tasmania The Tasmanian Government has developed a Financial Sustainability Framework for Local Government, which aligns with the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Framework, and has commenced amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas.) to allow for, and mandate, long-term financial and asset management planning for all Tasmanian councils. The proposal has been endorsed by the Premier’s Local Government Council and will ensure that the financial and asset management practices of Tasmanian councils are viable and sustainable into the future.

Northern Territory In the Northern Territory, significant advancements in asset management practices for local government authorities were achieved in 2011-12 in line with the National Partnership Agreement to Support Local Government and Regional Development.

During the year, the Department of Local Government in the Northern Territory worked in partnership with the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory to deliver a range of activities aimed at enhancing their financial understanding and skills.

Australian Capital Territory The Australian Capital Territory has a Legislative Assembly that combines state and local government functions. However, the Australian Capital Territory does not have local government status as such. The local government functions are delivered by a number of directorates, including Territory and Municipal Services, which delivers the bulk of local government functions

46

Local Government National Report 2011-12

to ensure that the government’s many infrastructure assets are strategically planned, built and maintained.

Local Government Reform Fund The Local Government Reform Fund was introduced in 2009. It provides $25 million to improve the asset and financial management capabilities of councils around Australia. It also encourages greater collaboration between councils and provides nationally consistent data to enable the performance of councils to be measured. Under phase two of the Local Government Reform Fund, the Australian Government approved projects to states and territories worth $2.6 million: see table 3.1 below.

Table 3-1 Local Government Reform Fund, phase two

Recipient Project title

Local

Government Reform Fund funding (GST exclusive)

Project agreement date Grant term

end date

Tasmanian Government

Virtual Support Strategy (Brighton, Tasman and Flinders councils) and Cradle Coast Regional Shared Services

$100 000 29 June 2012 30 June 2013

Northern Territory Government

Quality Measurement of Asset and Financial Management Data in Local Government $200 000 29 June 2012 30 June 2013

Queensland Government

Improving Asset Management in Indigenous Local Government - Pilot: Community Responsibility in Management Assets

$320 000 20 June 2012 30 June 2013

South Australian Government Improving SA Councils’ Asset and Financial Management Practices

$910 000 20 June 2012 30 June 2013

Western Australian Government Western Australian Local Government Service in Aboriginal Communities

$1 100 000 3 July 2012 30 June 2013

Total $2 630 000

Source: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Comparative performance measures between local governing bodies All local governments have a legal requirement, under their state local government Acts, to report on their performance. These reports may be in the form of annual reports, performance statements, financial statements and/or strategic planning reports.

While not all performance information is publicly available, some states provide a comparative analysis of local governments under their jurisdiction. This information is collected by either the responsible state or territory agency or by grants commissions.

47

03 • Local government efficiency and performance

For this National Report, state governments and local government associations were asked to report on measures undertaken in 2011-12 to develop and implement comparative local government performance indicators. A summary of these reports for each state follows.

New South Wales The New South Wales Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet published the Comparative Information on New South Wales Local Government Councils. The 2011-12 report has a new look and includes information about a proposed performance measurement framework. The publication is available at www.dlg.nsw.gov.au.

Data sources include council financial reports, rating records and Australian Bureau of Statistics population data. The information collected has also been used to calculate financial assistance grants, analyse councils’ financial health and check compliance of rates collected.

Victoria The Victorian Government has been working towards the development of a suite of performance benchmarks for local government. MAV and local government have been co-operatively involved in the development of these measures.

The Victorian Government publishes the Statewide Local Government Services Report, which measures community satisfaction with local government performance; and the Annual Community Satisfaction Survey, co-ordinated by Local Government Victoria from 2001 to 2011, which provides participating councils with performance results for the four areas of Overall Performance, Advocacy, Customer Contact and Engagement. The reports are available at www.dpcd.vic.gov.au.

Queensland In 2011-12, The Queensland Government continued to provide information to the community through the Queensland Local Government Comparative Information Report. This report assists local governments in their endeavours to develop new and more effective ways to deliver their services by providing an effective tool by which they can monitor trends over time and benchmark services performance both internally and with other councils.

Western Australia The Western Australian Government continued its implementation of the Performance Measurement Framework for local governments. This framework sets the direction and intent of the state government’s approach to measuring local government reform and capacity building against the requirements set out in the IPR Framework. The IPR Framework measures the sector’s performance on Strategic Community Planning, Workforce Planning, Financial Planning and Asset Management as an aggregated Capability Index. The Capability Index measures the proportion of local governments attaining a baseline level of capability.

48

Local Government National Report 2011-12

South Australia Each year the Local Government Association of South Australia (LGASA) assembles an update report that provides the latest values, history and comparisons of key financial indicators for the local government sector as a whole. The 2012 update report (covering the 11-year period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2011) included data on the operating surplus (deficit), net financial liabilities ratio and the operating surplus ratio for the sector as a whole. In addition, the association continues to extract workforce planning statistics from Local Government Grants Commission data and presents the information in graph and table form for councils seeking comparative statistics for their workforce planning.

Tasmania The Tasmanian Government now produces the Sustainability Objectives and Indicators (SOI) report to measure council performance on an annual basis. The SOI project forms part of the government’s Financial Sustainability Framework for Local Government, which has the overall objective of ensuring that the local government sector improves its sustainability and develops and improves its financial and asset management capability and capacity.

The project is anticipated to promote excellence in council performance and improve community engagement. It will also assist both state and local governments in Tasmania to set priorities for performance improvement within the sector.

Northern Territory In the Northern Territory all councils are required to report on their service delivery efforts in their annual reports.

The Northern Territory Department of Local Government and Regions has undertaken capacity development by working with shire councils to produce resources and hold workshops to develop the use of performance measures. All councils now use these measures as a way to report service delivery performance.

Measures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government in delivering services

New South Wales The New South Wales Government and the local government sector met at the Destination 2036 event to discuss challenges that councils are facing and develop solutions for creating a stronger local government system (for more information, see Appendix B). The New South Wales Government will work with the local government sector on this key initiative to drive improvement to the delivery of efficient and effective local government services across the state.

Victoria The Victorian Government has undertaken a number of reviews and legislative changes that support improved service delivery, including by implementing a range of programmes in

49

03 • Local government efficiency and performance

2011-12 to support councils in responding to natural disasters; bringing forward the date for local government general elections from November to October every four years, giving councillors more time to begin work on their four-year council plans and annual budgets; reviewing Victorian public libraries to consider relevant future services; and significantly reforming Victoria’s food safety regulatory framework by developing a single registration system for temporary and mobile food businesses and allowing councils to streamline inspection regimes.

Through the National Procurement Network, MAV Procurement established strong links with other state and territory local government association procurement divisions. This relationship realised some outstanding savings for Victorian councils by aggregating council requirements nationally, particularly in the fleet and heavy equipment areas.

Councils in MAV’s STEP Planning Process Improvement Program (STEP Planning) delivered significant improvements to permit assessment. The STEP is a low-cost, structured and supported way to regularly review and improve council planning services. Consistency of time frames increased and the time required to process straightforward applications reduced by 30 to 50 per cent, resulting in a reduction of application backlogs.

Queensland In Queensland, local governments currently participate in large-scale shared service arrangements primarily set up by the LGAQ as subsidiary companies. These companies provide a range of services including insurance, administrative, recruitment, infrastructure consultancy, procurement and information technology services.

In early 2012 LGAQ developed a comprehensive diagnostic tool and consulting advisory service, called the Efficiency Performance Scan, for Queensland local governments. The Efficiency Performance Scan has become an important means by which councils can be provided with a detailed measurement of performance and targeted advice to achieve efficiencies and continuous improvement.

LGAQ also provides Queensland local governments with a large suite of online resources to enable best practice templates and resources, and reduce duplication and unnecessary work.

Western Australia In Western Australia, general reforms undertaken in 2011-12 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery focused on the integration of local government’s asset management, financial management and workforce management responsibilities with Strategic Community Plans.

During 2011-12, the Western Australian Government continued to implement its structural reform initiatives with 64 local governments that were progressing amalgamations, engaged in Regional Transition Groups to assess the benefits of amalgamations, engaged in Regional Collaborative Groups to identify opportunities for sharing services or supportive of structural reform but not able to form a group with neighbouring local governments.

Collaborative initiatives have been identified in areas such as regional waste management, town planning, human resources, integrated planning and reporting, information technology and better practice processes. Two groups comprising seven local governments have completed the business planning process and commenced implementation.

50

Local Government National Report 2011-12

South Australia Local Government Association of South Australia continued to assist councils to improve efficiency and effectiveness through a range of measures, including the provision of model governance documents; the establishment of a review of a suite of procurement documents; and the provision of procurement services for networked library management systems. Also, the roll-out of Unity Dynamic Council Websites (DCW) delivered upgrades to more than 60 councils. Further assistance through technology included the Emergency Assessment and Reporting System (EARS) project using smart phone and cloud technologies and a central database to better connect councils in the event of emergencies.

The development of a new Local Government Planning Reform Agenda commenced in March 2012. The reform agenda provides a strategic framework for prioritising and co- ordinating a response to the key issues that are affecting councils.

In addition, an expert panel, appointed to consider the future roles and functions of councils in South Australia under the LGASA Local Excellence program, was announced at the LGASA General Meeting in April 2012. It is expected to deliver a report in 2013 that will consider, the role and functions of councils and engagement and business practices.

Tasmania The Tasmanian Government established the two-phase Role of Local Government project in April 2012. The project aims to establish a clear understanding of the role and capabilities of local government; identify strengths and capability gaps; and develop actions to build a sector that is sustainable, efficient, effective and responsive to community needs. Phase 1 of the project concluded in December 2012 when the Premier’s Local Government Council approved eight role statements describing the role of local government. Information on the project is available at www.dpac.tas.gov.au.

Northern Territory In the Northern Territory during 2011-12, shire councils worked co-operatively at a regional level to identify ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. Some common themes were:

• joint procurement of insurance services

• specialised machinery

• building and maintenance services

• legal and consultancy services

• shared service delivery arrangements such as waste management and animal management services

• sharing of specialised staff, such as engineers, across a number of local governments

• reduction of the need for cross-subsidisation due to inadequate agency management fees by introducing joint negotiations with government service funders

• joint sharing of administrative services, such as human resource management and financial services

• initiatives in local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

51

03 • Local government efficiency and performance

Local government amalgamations Table 3.2 shows changes in the number of councils in Australia at various times since 1910.

Table 3-2 Number of local governments, by state, 1910 to 2012

State 1910a 1991a 2001b 2008* 2012*

NSW 324 176 172 152 152

Vic. 206 210 79 79 79

Qld 164 134 125 73 73

WA 147 138 142 140 138

SA 175 122 68 68 68

Tas. 51 46 29 29 29

NT n/a n/a 7 61 16

Total 1 067 826 622 602 555

Notes: * Ne w South Wales total excludes Silverton and Tibooburra villages and Lord Howe Island; the South Australian total excludes the five Indigenous local governing bodies and the Outback Areas Community Development Trust; and the Northern Territory total excludes the Trust Account.

n/a no t applicable.

Sources: a Spr oats, K 1996, Comparison of agendas and processes in Australian Local Government, paper presented to the Local Government in Queensland Centenary Conference, August 1996, p. 5.

b National Office of Local Government, from information provided by state local government associations and individual councils (totals exclude Indigenous and other local governing bodies receiving federal financial assistance grants).

Structural reform processes have been implemented in most states since the 1990s, generally with the intention of restructuring to improve the performance and cost-effectiveness of local governments.

A report released by the Australian Centre for Excellence in Local Government (ACELG) in May 2011 provided options for ‘consolidation’ in local government, including shared services delivery, regional collaboration, boundary adjustment and amalgamation of councils. The full report and detailed case studies can be downloaded from the ACELG website at www.acelg.org.au.

52

Local Government National Report 2011-12

04

Local government service provision to Indigenous communities

54

Local Government National Report 2011-12

55

Local government service provision to Indigenous communities

04

Reporting requirements Section 16 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) (the Act) requires an assessment, based on comparable national data, of the delivery of local government services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

During 2011-12, states and local governments pursued initiatives aimed at promoting the delivery of local government services to Indigenous people. Appendix B contains reports prepared by state governments and local government associations on these initiatives. A summary of key initiatives is also provided later in this chapter.

Closing the Gap In 2008, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to six ambitious targets for closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in urban, rural and remote areas. The six COAG targets were:

• to close the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by 2031

• to halve the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five by 2018

• to ensure access to early childhood education for all Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities by 2013

• to halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievement for Indigenous children by 2018

• to halve the gap in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates for Indigenous young people by 2020

• to halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by 2018.

Closing the Gap acknowledges that, to improve opportunities for Indigenous Australians, intensive and sustained effort is required from all levels of government. Funding to make long-term improvements has been committed in the following areas:

• Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes

• Supporting Indigenous Early Childhood Development

• Improving Remote Indigenous Housing

• Investments in Schooling

• New Remote Service Delivery Model.

56

Local Government National Report 2011-12

A Single Government Interface, which includes a Government Business Manager and Indigenous Engagement officer, is operating in 29 priority locations in 2011-12. This interface is supported by six Regional Operations Centres staffed by Commonwealth and state/territory officers.

Boards of Management in each jurisdiction and community members made an important contribution through the development and implementation of Local Implementation Plans.

In addition to the substantial contributions made by the Australian and state governments, local government plays an important role in achieving the Closing the Gap targets.

State and local government initiatives An outline of key activities undertaken by states and local government associations in improving the provision of local government services to Indigenous people in 2011-12 follows.

New South Wales In New South Wales, all councils are required to prepare Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) plans to facilitate community strategic planning and delivery of council services to best meet community needs.

The IP&R guidelines include the requirement for a community strategic plan to be developed in consultation with local community groups. The guidelines are based on principles of social justice, including consideration of the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within each local community.

The New South Wales Government will be seeking to renew the IP&R guidelines in 2012-13 to ensure that the needs of the community, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, are being captured.

Victoria In Victoria, there are a number of initiatives between local government and Aboriginal communities. There is considerable sector-wide interest in developing stronger links with the Aboriginal community, including by establishing Indigenous Special Interest Groups such as the Local Government Professionals.

The state government has also funded Reconciliation Victoria, which is currently undertaking the Reconciliation in Local Government Victoria project. The aim of the project is to explore the usefulness, advantages and limitations of the Reconciliation Action Plan tool for Victorian Local Governments to advance reconciliation between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians.

In June 2011, the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal Affairs announced the establishment of the Local Government Aboriginal Partnership Project. The project brought together a partnership of Aboriginal people, the Municipal Association of Victoria, the Victorian Local Governance Association, Local Government Professionals, Reconciliation Victoria and all three levels of government.

57

04 • Local Government service provision to Indigenous Communities

Queensland In Queensland, the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) is assuming greater responsibility in representing and advocating on behalf of Queensland’s Indigenous councils following the demise of the Aboriginal Coordinating Council - their former peak organising body. LGAQ has continued to convene the bi-annual Indigenous Leaders’ Forum (ILF). The ILF held in May 2012 in Cairns attracted 67 participants, with representatives from all of the 16 Queensland Indigenous councils. State and federal ministers regularly attend the ILF to converse with the delegates on various matters raised.

LGAQ and Arup Group Limited developed and produced Preparing a Planning Scheme: A guide for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Councils in 2011. This guide clearly identified local government responsibilities in planning and development, demonstrated the benefits of a planning scheme and provided a step-by-step outline and other practical tools to help integrate a planning scheme with other Indigenous Council business. The guide was warmly welcomed by Indigenous councils.

Western Australia In Western Australia, there was continued progress during 2011-12 towards the development of a proposal for local government delivery of municipal services in Aboriginal communities across remote Western Australia as part of the Local Government Services in Aboriginal Communities Project, in accord with commitments in the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing (2009). The state and Australian governments agreed to work together towards developing new arrangements, including clearer roles and responsibilities and funding for municipal services in Aboriginal communities.

The Western Australian Government, through its Royalties for Regions program, made financial assistance available to 22 local governments in remote and regional Western Australia to undertake a scoping and costing study of local governments delivering municipal services in Aboriginal communities. This study commenced in 2010-11 and was finalised in November 2011. The study examined the asset and operational requirements for local governments to deliver a suite of municipal services in Aboriginal communities. The Western Australian Government is maintaining specialist staff in policy and project management to support this project.

South Australia In South Australia, support continues to be provided to councils involved in native title processes. In particular, support is given to the 27 councils involved in Indigenous land use agreement negotiations in the Kaurna region.

Tasmania In Tasmania there were no specific local government initiatives undertaken in 2011-12 in relation to service delivery to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

58

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Northern Territory In the Northern Territory, all councils undertook activities to enhance their delivery of services. The benefits of enhanced service delivery directly flow to the Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.

Australian Capital Territory In the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs provides strategic advice to the ACT Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in the ACT. The office co-ordinates a whole-of-government approach to issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents and provides secretariat and administrative support to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body and the United Ngunnawal Elders Council; it also administers the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Traineeship Program - an entry level program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who want to pursue a career in the ACT Public Service.

The ACT and Australian governments signed an Overarching Bilateral Indigenous Plan in March 2012. The plan encapsulates the ACT Government’s agreement to undertake annual reporting on Closing the Gap. On 11 June 2012, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs released the ACT Closing the Gap Report 2012 on the ACT’s progress on seven COAG Closing the Gap building blocks. The ACT Closing the Gap Report 2012 is available at www.dhcs.act.gov.au/multicultural.

The President of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) is a member of COAG. ALGA supports the Closing the Gap initiative and notes the important role local government plays in service delivery for Indigenous communities. ALGA welcomes the invitation from Infrastructure Australia to work towards a tangible improvement in remote Indigenous service delivery and looks forward to projects that will flow from this exercise.

Australian Government expenditure and progress

Financial assistance grants to Indigenous local governing bodies Of the 565 local governing bodies that received financial assistance grants in 2011-12 under the Act, 31 were Indigenous (see Table 4.4).

To be eligible to receive funding under the Financial Assistance Grant programme, Indigenous local governing bodies must be established in one of three ways:

• under a state government’s normal local government legislation; for example, the Aurukun and Mornington local governments in Queensland and the Ngaanyatjarraku local government in Western Australia

• under a state government’s distinct legislation; for example, the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) and the Maralinga Tjarutja Councils in South Australia

• following a declaration by the Australian Government minister, acting on advice from the state minister, that it is a local governing body for the purposes of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act.

59

04 • Local Government service provision to Indigenous Communities

Table 4.1 gives the distribution of the 31 Indigenous local governing bodies by jurisdiction and the means by which they became eligible for financial assistance grants.

Table 4-1 Distribution of Indigenous local governing bodies, by eligibility type and jurisdiction, at July 2012

State

Established under state local government legislation

(No.)

Established under distinct state legislation (No.)

Declared local governing bodies (No.)

Total Indigenous local governing bodies (No.)

Qld 16 0 0 16

WA 1 0 0 1

SA 0 2a 3 5

NT 9 0 0 9

Total 26 2 3 31

Notes: a Established under the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 (SA) and the Maralinga TjarutjaLand Rights Act 1984 (SA).

Source: Depar tment of Infrastructure and Regional Development

During 2011-12, $48.9 million in financial assistance grants was provided to 31 Indigenous local governing bodies. Of this, $37.8 million was in general purpose grants and $11.1 million in local road grants. The specific grants provided to these Indigenous local governing bodies are shown in Appendix D and are identified by an asterisk (*) next to their name.

Allocation of general purpose payments to mainstream local governing bodies in relation to their Indigenous population In addition to the funding provided to Indigenous local governing bodies, some of the financial assistance grants funding received by mainstream local governing bodies is provided to reflect the number of Indigenous people within their boundaries.

When the allocation of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies is determined, local government grants commissions must comply with agreed distribution guidelines called National Principles (see Appendix A). 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 factors such as demographic profile, remoteness or climate.

National Principle 1 requires grants commissions to allocate the general purpose grant on the basis of relative needs. In addition, National Principle 5 relates specifically to Indigenous people:

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 National Principle 5, some grants commissions apply cost adjusters reflecting the size of the Indigenous population of a local governing body when assessing the cost of providing certain services.

60

Local Government National Report 2011-12

In this way, grants commissions try to take into account the specific needs of Indigenous people and the subsequent effect on the finances of a local governing body - in terms of revenue received as well as expenditure requirements - when determining the financial assistance grant to be allocated.

National Awards for Local Government Through the National Awards for Local Government, the Australian Government recognises rewards and promotes the innovative work of local governments across Australia.

The 2012 awards supported significant projects that added value to local government and their regions with stand-out ideas and innovation. Over 370 entries were received. This was a tribute to the sector and proof of the growth in community-based initiatives to address the social, economic and environmental priorities of different regions.

In 2012, local councils were given the opportunity to enter a number of new categories, including:

• Active Arts

• Energy Smart

• Excellence in Road Safety

• Improving Services to Remote Communities

• Innovation in Natural Resource Management

• Land-Use Planning - Addressing Disaster Risk and Enhancing Resilience

• Rural and Remote Health

• Strength in Diversity.

Three of the award categories in particular recognised councils that worked together with Indigenous people.

The 2012 Engaging and Strengthening Indigenous Communities category winner was Clarence Valley Council in New South Wales. The council’s innovative Fresh Start Program is a school-to-work transition education programme for young Indigenous people and their families. The need for change was triggered by a combination of record Indigenous youth unemployment and a call from within the community to break barriers and connect young Indigenous people to meaningful futures. The Fresh Start Program builds community connections based on trust and linking young people to learning and encouraging them to aspire to achieve.

The 2012 Improving Services to Remote Communities category winners were:

• Cardinia Shire Council in Victoria, which developed the Playstart Van to increase social support networks for families and children through Playgroups in the Park. The Playstart Van can go anywhere, anytime, and is widely used within the council’s region

• Barkly Shire Council in the Northern Territory, which introduced an animal programme to provide regular veterinary services within the Tennant Creek community, primarily to domestic dogs. The programme aims to reduce dog overpopulation, minimise the number of dog-related injuries to humans and improve the poor health of animals within the Barkly Shire. Initial results of the programme indicate marked improvement in general animal health, which is also flowing to human health in local Indigenous communities.

61

04 • Local Government service provision to Indigenous Communities

The 2012 Promoting Reconciliation category award winners were:

• Wellington Shire Council in Victoria, which promoted reconciliation by holding a conference to celebrate the strength of the Indigenous community and culture across Gippsland and beyond - the Deadly in Gippsland Conference - Promoting Reconciliation through Deep Listening in Action. The event highlighted ‘deadly’ (which is a colloquial word meaning awesome) work being accomplished by Indigenous people in their communities, promoting Indigenous talent and showcasing regional initiatives to build positive relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people

• East Arnhem Shire Council in the Northern Territory, passionate about the reconciliation process, which has firmly embedded the promoting reconciliation principle throughout the organisation. In 2011 East Arnhem developed and launched a Reconciliation Action Plan to formalise its commitment to the people of the region and to provide a framework for moving forward.

Details of all winners of the 2012 Awards are in the Australian Government publication National Awards for Local Government: 2012 Winners. Further information on the awards is available from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development website at www.infrastructure.gov.au.

APPENDIX

65

A

According to s. 3 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth), the federal Parliament provides financial assistance grants to the states and self-governing territories for the purpose 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 (the 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 s. 6(1), for the 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.

National Principles for allocating general purpose and local road grants

66

Local Government National Report 2011-12

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.1

2. 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.1

4. 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.2

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.3

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.

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) among 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.

Notes:

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 req uires 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 t he 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.

67

Appendix A

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 goods and services tax revenue to state and territory governments.

The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) requires the Minister, in formulating the National Principles, to have regard to the need to ensure the funds are allocated, as far as is practicable, on a full horizontal equalisation basis. Section 6(3) of the Act defines horizontal equalisation as being an allocation of funds that:

• 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

• 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 costs each council would incur in providing a normal range and standard of services and by 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 moneys. 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 moneys.

68

Local Government National Report 2011-12

69

B

This appendix contains the submissions from each state and territory government and local government association. Headings have been standardised and minor edits made to achieve consistency in the report.

The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) requires that the relevant state and territory minister and bodies representative of local government be consulted when preparing this report.

During preparation of this report, state and territory governments and local government associations were asked for input on:

• the methodology used for distributing local government financial assistance grants for 2011-12 — in particular, identifying any changes to the methodology from that used in 2010-11

• developments in relation to local government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans - in particular, identifying any developments in implementing the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks

• measures undertaken to develop and implement comparative performance measures between local governing bodies

• reforms undertaken during 2011-12 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery

• initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

All state governments and the Northern Territory Government responded by directly addressing each issue.

Due to its special status as both a territory and a local government, the Australian Capital Territory was not required to directly address the issues. However, it did organise its response under two similar headings: the second, third and fourth issues regarding improving efficiency and effectiveness, use of long-term financial and asset plans and comparative performance indicators; and the sixth regarding improvement of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

While not required to do so, most local government associations also directly addressed the issues, except the first regarding methodology for distributing Australian Government financial assistance grants, which is primarily a state and Northern Territory government matter.

State and territory government and local government association submissions

70

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Report from the New South Wales Division of Local Government of the Department of Premier and Cabinet

Methodology for distributing financial assistance grants for 2011-12, including any changes in methodology from 2010-11 The New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission (NSW 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 1995 (Cwlth).

General purpose component

The general purpose component of the grant attempts to equalise the financial capacity of councils. The NSW 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. To be consistent with the effort neutral principle, council policy decisions concerning the level of service provided, or if there is a service provided at all, are not considered.

Expenditure allowances are calculated for 21 council services. 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 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 division that recognises their isolation.

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 service for 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 twenty-one selected services. The calculation is based on a state-wide average of councils’ net costs, excluding extreme values, using selected items from Special Schedule 1 of councils’ financial reports, averaged over five years

• the disability factor is the measure of disadvantage for the council.

71

Appendix B

A disability factor is the NSW 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. For example, if it estimated that it would cost a council 10 per cent more than the standard for town planning, because of an issue such as population growth in the council area, the disability factor would be 10 per cent. Consistent with the effort neutral principle, the NSW Commission does not compensate councils for cost differences that arise due to policy decisions of council, management performance or accounting differences.

For each service the NSW Commission has identified a number of variables that are considered 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 NSW Commission, ‘other’ disabilities relating to individual councils may be determined. These may arise where unique circumstances have been identified as a result of council visits or special submissions.

The general approach to calculating a disability factor is to take each disability relating to a service and to 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 NSW 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.

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 NSW Commission considers the deduction approach to be more consistent with the ‘effort neutral’ requirement specified in the nationality principles.

The NSW Commission also calculates an allowance for additional costs associated with isolation. The isolation allowance is calculated 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. An additional component of the isolation allowance is included which specifically recognises the additional industrial relations obligations of councils in western New South Wales.

72

Local Government National Report 2011-12

A pensioner rebate allowance is calculated which recognises that a council’s share of pensioner rebates is an additional cost. Councils with high proportions of ratepayers that qualify for eligible pensioner rebates are considered to be more disadvantaged than those with a lower proportion.

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. Importantly, property values are also considered to be a useful indicator of the relative economic strength of local areas.

The NSW 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. For comparative purposes the NSW Commission purchases valuation data that has been calculated to a common base date for all councils by the Valuer-General. To reduce 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 NSW Commission’s approach excludes the rating policies of individual councils (effort neutral).

Separate calculations are made for urban and non-urban properties. Non-rateable properties are excluded from the NSW 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 NSW 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 agreed principles provide that ‘revenue allowances may be discounted to achieve equilibrium with the expenditure allowances’ (see ‘Principle’ below). As a result, both allowances are given equal weight.

The discounting helps reduce the distortion caused to the revenue calculations as a result of the 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.

The NSW Commission does not specifically consider rate pegging, which applies in New South Wales. The property based calculations are essentially dealing with relativities between councils, and rate pegging affects all councils.

Movements in the grants are generally caused by annual variations in property valuations, standard costs, road and bridge length, disability measures and population.

The NSW 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 NSW Commission would have to undertake a survey of each council’s infrastructure needs and then assess the individual projects for which capital

73

Appendix B

assistance is sought. This would undermine council autonomy, because the NSW Commission, rather than the council, would be determining which projects were worthwhile. Further, councils that had 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 NSW Commission, the Local Government and Shires Associations, and local government generally.

The associations and local government recommended to the NSW Commission that water and sewerage services should not be included in the distribution principles because:

• not all general purpose councils in New South Wales perform such services

• the level of funds available for other council services would be significantly diminished if such services were considered

• inclusion would result in a reduced and distorted distribution of funds to general purpose councils

• the state government makes other sources of funds and subsidies available to councils for such service.

The NSW Commission agreed with the submissions of the associations and local government. Accordingly, water and sewerage services are excluded from the distribution formula.

The NSW Commission views income from council business activities as a policy decision and, therefore, does not consider it in the grant calculations (effort neutral). Similarly, losses are not considered either.

Debt servicing is related to council policy and is therefore excluded from the NSW Commission’s calculations. In the same way, the consequences of poor council decisions of the past are not considered.

Generally the levels of a council’s expenditure on a particular service do not affect 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 neutrality approach to 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 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 purposes.

Effective from 1 July 2006, the national principles embodied an amalgamation principle that states:

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.

74

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Accordingly grants to councils affected by boundary changes are maintained at the previous year’s level if the outcome is a negative. No New South Wales councils currently require protection under this provision.

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. Details of the formula are discussed below under ‘Principles’.

Formulae

The formulae used to calculate expenditure and revenue allowances of the general purpose component follow.

Expenditure allowances

General

Allowances for most 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, road length allowances are calculated for each road type based on the following formula:

Ac = Nc × Es × Lc - Ls Nc Ns

where: Ac = allowance for road length allowance

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

75

Appendix B

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 20 000)

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:

1 -

Gc

(Nc x Es) + Ac

where: Gc = the specific purpose grant received by the council for the expenditure service

Nc = number of units to be serviced by council

Es = standard expenditure per unit for the service

Ac = allowance for the council for the expenditure service

Revenue allowances

General

The general formula for calculating revenue allowances is:

Ac = Nc × ts × (Ts - Tc)

where: Ac = revenue allowance for the council

Nc = number of properties (assessments)

ts = standard tax rate (rate-in-the dollar)

Ts = standard value per property

Tc = council’s value per property

The standard value per property (Ts) is calculated as follows:

Ts =

Sum of rateable values for all councils

Sum of number of properties for all councils

76

Local Government National Report 2011-12

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 allowances

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 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.

Principles

General Purpose (Equalisation) Component

These principles, consistent with the National Principles of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth), are based on an extensive programme of consultation with local government.

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 (Cwlth); 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.

77

Appendix B

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.

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.

1. Urban [metropolitan] area

‘Urban area’ means an area designated as an ‘urban area’:

a. the Sydney Statistical Division

b. the Newcastle Statistical District

c. the Wollongong Statistical District

2. Rural [non-metropolitan] area

‘Rural area’ means an area not designated as an ‘urban area’

3. Initial distribution

a. 27.54 per cent to local roads in urban areas

b. 72.46 per cent to local roads in rural areas

4. Local road grant in urban areas

Funds will be allocated:

a. 5 per cent distributed to individual councils on the basis of bridge length

b. 95 per cent distributed to councils on the basis of:

i. 60 per cent distributed on length of roads

ii. 40 per cent distributed on population

5. Local road grant in rural areas

Funds will be allocated:

a. 7 per cent distributed to individual councils on the basis of bridge length

b. 93 per cent distributed to councils on the basis of:

i. 80 per cent distributed on length of roads

ii. 20 per cent distributed on population

6. Data

Population shall be based on the most up-to-date Estimated Resident Population figures available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

Road length shall 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.

78

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Bridge length shall 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 6 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 shall 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.

Developments in relation to local government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans, including any developments in implementing the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks In 2009 an integrated planning and reporting (IP&R) framework was introduced into NSW. The IP&R framework was designed to improve councils’ strategic community planning, including long-term financial and asset management planning, as well as to streamline reporting to the community.

The IP&R framework requires councils to prepare the following plans:

• Community Engagement Strategy

• Community Strategic Plan - 10 Year+ timeframe

• Delivery Programme - 4 year timeframe

• Operational Plan - 1 year timeframe

• Resourcing Strategy - including a Long-Term Financial Plan (10 years+), Asset Management Policy, Strategy and Plans (10 years+), and Workforce Management Strategy (4 years).

Rather than discouraging councils from investing in infrastructure and economic development activities, the framework is designed to ensure that councils approach these activities in a sustainable way, with a view to the future and to delivering outcomes for the community.

All NSW councils (including county councils) commenced under IP&R framework at 1 July 2012. A staged implementation occurred with the first councils producing their first set of IP&R documents in 2010. The NSW Division of Local Government supported the implementation of the framework through guidance, workshops and advice.

The NSW Division of Local Government has reviewed long term financial plans and asset management plans of each council gaining valuable insight into the effectiveness of the implementation of the plans. Each council received feedback outlining the areas identified as strengths, and those areas which require further development.

A peer review programme was trialled to assist in the completion of this work, with participation by 40 local government practitioners from across NSW.

Information provided by councils in relation to long-term financial planning and asset management planning has improved and will continue to do so as the NSW Division of Local Government continues to work closely with councils to ensure ongoing improvements across NSW.

79

Appendix B

Measures undertaken to develop and implement comparative performance measures between local governing bodies

Local Government Performance Indicators

The New South Wales Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet’s 2010-11 Comparative Information on New South Wales Local Government Councils marks the 21st year the publication has been produced. The report contains 19 performance indicators.

Data sources include council financial reports, rating records and Australian Bureau of Statistics’ population data. The information collected has also been used to calculate financial assistance grants, analyse councils’ financial health and check compliance of rates collected.

The 2010-11 publication continues to produce time series data for each indicator. New South Wales will continue to review and develop appropriate performance measures. To promote use, transparency and accountability the NSW Division of Local Government continues to make the publication and the raw data freely available and accessible via the internet.

Measures undertaken during 2011-12 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery In August 2011, the NSW Division of Local Government, in partnership with the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (now Local Government NSW) and Local Government Managers Australia (NSW), hosted Destination 2036, a landmark event in Dubbo which saw every one of the State’s 152 councils come together with State Government leaders to discuss challenges councils are facing and to develop solutions for creating a stronger local government system.

The event and further sector-wide consultation resulted in a Destination 2036 Action Plan, released in June 2012, with 34 actions under five key areas to achieve efficient and effective service delivery, quality governance, financial sustainability, appropriate structures in local government, and strong relationships between state and local government.

Destination 2036 also triggered an approach from the (then) Associations of NSW to the NSW State Government Minister for Local Government to appoint an Independent Local Government review Panel to drive key strategic directions identified through Destination 2036 and develop options to improve the strength of local government in NSW. The Panel was tasked with investigating and identifying options for governance models, structural arrangements and boundary changes for local government in NSW.

A further Destination 2036 action is the development of a consistent performance measurement framework for councils and a comprehensive programme to support improvement. The NSW Division of Local Government will work with the local government sector on this key initiative to drive improvement to the delivery of efficient and effective local government services.

80

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Improvements in local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities From 2011-12, all 152 councils in NSW are required to prepare Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) plans to facilitate community strategic planning and delivery of council services to best meet community needs.

The IP&R framework recognises that most communities share similar aspirations such as opportunities for social interaction, liveable places, opportunities for employment, reliable services and infrastructure and a sustainable environment. The difference lies in how each council and community responds to their own particular needs.

The IP&R framework allows councils and communities to respond flexibly to local need.

The IP&R guidelines include the requirement for a community strategic plan to be developed in consultation with groups within the local community and based on principles of social justice. These requirements include consideration to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within each local community.

The NSW Division of Local Government sought to renew the IP&R guidelines in 2012-13 to ensure the needs of the community, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, are being captured.

Report from the Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development

Methodology for distributing financial assistance grants for 2011-12, including any changes in methodology from 2010-11 The Victoria Grants Commission (Victoria Commission) allocates general purpose and local roads grants in accordance with the national principles formulated under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth).

General Purpose grants

For each council, a raw grant is obtained which 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 requirement in the Commonwealth legislation and associated national distribution principles to provide a minimum grant to each council. As outlined below, increases and decreases in general purpose grant outcomes have been capped, which also affects the relationship between raw grants and actual grants.

Specific grants are allocated 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 2011-12 are on page 85.

81

Appendix B

Standardised expenditure

Under the Victoria Commission’s general purpose grants methodology, standardised expenditure is calculated for each council on the basis of nine expenditure functions. Between them, these expenditure functions include virtually all council recurrent expenditure.

The structure of the model ensures that the gross standardised expenditure for each function equals aggregate actual expenditure by councils, thus ensuring that the relative importance of each of the nine expenditure functions in the Victoria Commission’s model matches the pattern of actual council expenditure.

The total recurrent expenditure by Victorian councils in 2010-11 equalled $5.630 billion. Total gross standardised expenditure in the Victoria Commission’s allocation model for 2011-12 therefore also equals $5.630 billion, with each of the nine expenditure functions 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 derived by multiplying the relevant unit of need (e.g. population) by:

• the average Victorian council expenditure on that function, per unit of need;

• a composite cost adjustor which 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 summarised below:

Table B.1 Major cos t drivers and average expenditures

Expenditure Function Major Cost Driver Average Expend. Per Unit

Governance Population (adjusted) $50.00

Family & Community Services Population $121.91

Aged & Disabled Services Population > 60 years + Disability Pensioners + Carer’s Allowance Recipients $442.51

Recreation & Culture Population $218.85

Waste Management No. of Dwellings $235.49

Traffic & Street Management Population $102.47

Environmental Protection Services Population (adjusted) $57.59

Business & Economic Services Population (adjusted) $120.44

Several different major cost drivers are used. These are viewed by the Victoria Commission as being the most significant determinant of a council’s expenditure need on a particular function.

For three expenditure functions (Governance, Environmental Protection Services and Business and Economic Services), an adjusted population is used as the major cost driver to recognise the fixed costs associated with certain functional areas.

The major cost drivers used in assessing relative expenditure needs for these functions take account of high rates of vacant dwellings at the time the census is taken. Councils with a

82

Local Government National Report 2011-12

vacancy rate above the State average are assumed to have a population higher than the census-based estimate. For the Governance function, councils with an actual population of less than 20 000 are deemed to have a population of 20 000. For the Environmental Protection Services function, councils with a population less than 15 000 are assumed to have a population double that amount, to a maximum of 15 000.

Cost adjustors

A number of cost adjustors are used in various combinations against each function. These allow the Victoria Commission to take account of the particular characteristics of individual councils which impact on the cost of service provision on a comparable basis. Each cost adjustor has been based around a State weighted average of 1.00 with a ratio of 1:2 between the minimum and maximum values, to ensure that the relative importance of each expenditure function in the model is maintained.

The 14 cost adjustors used in the calculation of the 2011-12 general purpose grants were:

• aged pensioners • population growth

• english proficiency • population less than 6 years

• environmental risk • regional significance

• indigenous population • remoteness

• kerbed roads • scale

• population density • socio-economic

• population dispersion • tourism

Because some factors represented by cost adjustors impact more on costs than others, different weightings have been used for the cost adjustors applied to each expenditure function.

There were no changes made to the cost adjustors for the 2011-12 allocation.

Net standardised expenditure

Net standardised expenditure has been derived 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 2010-11) is shown below:

Table B.2 A verage grant revenue on a per unit basis

Expenditure Function Major Cost Driver

Average Grants Per Unit

Governance Population (adjusted) $0.25

Family and Community Services Population $32.24

Aged and Disabled Services Pop. > 60 years + Disability Pensioners + Carer’s Allowance Recipients $193.98

Recreation and Culture Population $7.25

Waste Management No. of Dwellings $0.25

Traffic and Street Management Population $1.94

Environmental Protection Services Population (adjusted) $1.22

Business & Economic Services Population (adjusted) $2.79

83

Appendix B

Diagrammatically, the calculation of net standardised expenditure for each expenditure function is as follows:

Net Standardised Expenditure (for each function)

Standardised expenditure for the Local Roads and Bridges expenditure function within the general purpose grants model is now based on the grant outcomes for each council under the Victoria Commission’s local roads grants model. This incorporates a number of cost modifiers (similar to cost adjustors) to take account of differences between councils. Net standardised expenditure for this function for each council is calculated by subtracting other grant support (based on actual identified local roads grants and a proportion of 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.

Standardised revenue

A council’s standardised revenue is intended to reflect its capacity to raise revenue from its community.

Relative capacity to raise rate revenue, or standardised rate revenue, is calculated for each council by multiplying its valuation base (on a capital improved 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 that all councils are treated on an equitable basis.

Rate revenue raising capacity is calculated separately for each of the three major property classes (residential, commercial/industrial/other and farm) using a three year average of valuation data.

Table B.3 Deriv ation of the average rates for each of the property classes

Category

3 Year Average Valuations $ billions

3 Year Average Rate Revenue $ billions

Average Rate $ billions

Residential $815.816 $2.379 $0.00292

Commercial/Industrial/Other $171.765 $0.611 $0.00356

Farm $68.974 $0.205 $0.00297

84

Local Government National Report 2011-12

As in recent years, the Victoria Commission has 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.

A council’s relative capacity to raise revenue from user fees and charges, or standardised fees and charges revenue, also forms part of the calculation of standardised revenue.

For each council and each of the nine functional areas, the relevant driver (such as population) is multiplied by the State median revenue from user fees and charges. For some functions, this 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 2009-10) are shown below, along with the revenue adjustors applied.

Table B.4 S tandard fees and charges

Expenditure Function Major Driver (Units)

Standard

Fees & Charges Per Unit

Revenue Adjustors

Governance Population $8.64 Nil

Family and Community Services Population $12.95 Socio-Economic

Aged and Disabled Services Population > 60 + Disability Pensioners + Carer’ Allowance Recipients $63.29 Household Income

Recreation and Culture Population $18.49

Valuations (% Commercial)

Waste Management No. of Dwellings $23.06 Nil

Local Roads and Bridges Population $0.18 Nil

Traffic and Street Management Population $4.01

Valuations (% Commercial)

Environmental Protection Services Population $1.01 Nil

Business and Economic Services Population $20.99

Tourism + Value of Development

The assessed capacity to generate user fees and charges for each council is added to its standardised rate revenue to produce total standardised revenue.

Bushfire Affected Councils

Following the February 2009 bushfires, the Victoria Commission made a special allowance in the 2009-10 general purpose grant allocations for the ten councils that had more than ten properties destroyed in those fires. An adjustment was made to the valuations for those councils used in assessing their rate revenue raising capacity, to reflect the sudden loss of rate income. A similar adjustment has been made to the grant calculation for those ten councils for the 2011-12 allocations.

The Victoria Commission continues to take account of the impact of the February 2009 bushfires on the revenue base for a number of Victorian councils, particularly for Murrindindi Shire.

85

Appendix B

In 2010, following a significant reduction in Murrindindi Shire’s population (6.9 per cent), which would have ordinarily resulted in a grant decrease, the Victoria Commission recommended that the Council’s grant be maintained at the previous year’s level, plus the overall rate of growth in the funding pool (net of natural disaster grants).

The Victoria Commission recommended that this measure be continued for a further year, resulting in an increase in Murrindindi Shire Council’s grant of 4.6 per cent in 2011-12.

Minimum grants

The available general purpose grants pool for Victorian councils represents, on average, $66.80 per head of population (using Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates as at 30 June 2010). The minimum grant national distribution principle requires that no council may receive a general purpose grant that is less than 30 per cent of the per capita average (or $20.04 for 2011-12).

Without the application of this principle, general purpose grants for 2011-12 for 13 councils - Bayside, Boroondara, Glen Eira, Hobsons Bay, Kingston, Manningham, Melbourne, Monash, Moonee Valley, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse and Yarra, would have been below the $20.04 per capita level. The minimum grant principle has resulted in the general purpose grants to these councils being increased to that level.

Capping

The Victoria Commission limits downward movements in general purpose grants from year to year to 10 per cent. No council’s general purpose grant for 2011-12 will be less than the amount allocated for 2010-11.

The Victoria Commission also limits upwards movements in general purpose grant outcomes and caps such movements to 20% when compared with estimated entitlement for the previous year. This cap has been applied to one council (Queenscliffe) for the 2011-12 allocations.

Estimated entitlements 2011-12

A summary of the changes in estimated general purpose grant entitlements from 2010-11 to 2011-12 is shown below:

Table B.5 Change in es timated general purpose grant entitlements

Change in General Purpose Grant No. of Councils

Increase of more than 10.0% 7

Increase of 5.0% to 10.0% 9

Increase of up to 5.0% 63

No Change 0

Decrease 0

Total 79

Natural Disaster Assistance

The Victoria Commission provides funds from the general purpose grants pool to councils which have incurred expenditure resulting from natural disasters. Grants of up to $35 000 per council per eligible event are provided to assist with repairs and restoration work.

86

Local Government National Report 2011-12

27 grants to 22 councils have been allocated for 2011-12, totalling $876 098.

Table B.6 Grants t o Council's on natural disasters.

Council Natural Disaster Amount

Alpine Shire Council Flood $35 000

Ararat Rural City Council Flood $35 000

Baw Baw Shire Council Windstorm $21 188

Benalla Rural City Council Floods $70 000

Central Goldfields Shire Council Flood $35 000

Corangamite Shire Council Storm $35 000

Golden Plains Shire Council Flood $35 000

Greater Bendigo City Council Storm $35 000

Hepburn Shire Council Flood $35 000

Horsham Rural City Council Bushfire $34 320

Mitchell Shire Council Bushfire $35 000

Moira Shire Council Flood $22 965

Moorabool Shire Council Flood & Storm $70 000

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council Storms $68 426

Murrindindi Shire Council Storms $47 173

Pyrenees Shire Council Flood $35 000

Towong Shire Council Flood $35 000

Wangaratta Rural City Council Flood $35 000

Whittlesea City Council Bushfire $35 000

Wodonga City Council Windstorm $17 026

Yarra Ranges Shire Council Bushfire & Storm $70 000

Yarriambiack Shire Council Flood $35 000

Total $150 619

Local Roads Funding

The Victoria Commission’s formula for allocating local roads grants is 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 set of five 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 formula is designed to reflect the relative needs of Victorian councils in relation to local roads funding consistent with the national principle relating to the allocation of local roads funding.

Traffic volume data

The allocation of local roads grants for 2011-12 was based on traffic volume data collected by all councils during the 12 months to June 2010. 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.

87

Appendix B

Victorian councils reported a total of 129 723 kilome tres of local roads as at 30 June 2010, an increase of 521 kilometres or 0.4 per cent over the length reported 12 months earlier. Variations were as follows.

Table B.7 Change in length of local r oads

Change in Length of Local Roads No. of Councils

Increase of more than 5.0% 2

Increase of 1.0% to 5.0% 15

Increase of up to 1.0% 28

No change 27

Decrease of up to 1.0% 7

Decrease of 1.0% to 5.0% 0

Decrease of more than 5.0% 0

Total 79

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.

The Victoria Commission has stated that the data on which the local roads methodology is based will be reviewed periodically to maintain its relevance. The most recent review was undertaken by ARRB Group in May 2009 has resulted in a revised set of asset preservation base costs being adopted for the 2009-10 allocations. These same asset preservation base costs were applied for the 2011-12 allocations.

Table B.8 Asse t reservation base cost

Road Type Daily Traffic Volume Range

Standard Annual Asset Preservation Cost $/km

Kerbed < 500 $3 600

500 - <1 000 $4 900

1 000 - <5 000 $6 600

5 000+ $10 700

Unkerbed Natural Surface $350

< 100 $2 500

100 - <500 $5 200

500 - <1000 $5 800

1 000+ $6 600

Bridges Concrete Deck $60 per sq metre

Timber Deck $100 per sq metre

Cost modifiers

The allocation model uses a series of five cost modifiers to reflect differences in circumstances between councils in relation to:

• the volume of freight generated by each council • climate

88

Local Government National Report 2011-12

• the 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 relative to others. Relatively high cost modifiers add to the network cost calculated for each council, and so increase its local roads grant outcome.

No changes were made to the cost modifiers for the 2011-12 allocation. As outlined in the 2010-11 report, the Victoria Commission is undertaking a review of the cost modifiers for its local roads allocation model. Work being undertaken currently includes a review of several of the Victoria Commission’s cost modifiers and a comparative investigation of local road lengths across the State. This work has not impacted on grant outcomes for 2011-12.

Grant calculation

The Victoria Commission calculates a total network cost for each council’s local road network. This represents the relative annual costs faced by the council in maintaining its local road and bridge networks, based on average annual preservation costs and taking account of local conditions, using cost modifiers.

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 $60 per square metre for concrete bridges and $100 per square metre for timber bridges.

Mathematically, the calculation of the network cost for a single traffic volume range for a council can be illustrated as follows:

* Overall cost factor is calculated by multiplying the cost factors for freight loading, climate, materials, 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 2011-12

Local roads grant outcomes for most councils have stabilised following the phased introduction of the ‘network cost’ allocation formula. In general, where a significant change has occurred in a council’s local roads grant for 2011-12, this is due to changed road length and traffic volume data supplied by the council to the Victoria Commission.

89

Appendix B

A summary of the changes in estimated local roads grant entitlements from 2010-11 to 2011-12 is shown below.

Table B.9 Change in Local R oads Grants

Change in Local Roads Grant No. of Councils

Increase of more than 10.0% 1

Increase of 5.0% to 10.0% 15

Increase of up to 5.0% 63

Decrease 0

Total 79

Priorities for 2011-12

Stated priorities for 2011-12 were supporting councils to be more sustainable, resilient and responsive. This was done through:

• targeted assistance to ensure councils’ sustainability and proper governance in response to identified circumstances e.g. bushfire impact

• Tomorrow’s Library, a comprehensive review of the role of Victorian public libraries including services and funding arrangements commenced.

Reforming council systems and processes - linking to National Reform Agenda:

• rollout of the Local Government Reform Fund focussing on ‘Best Value’, procurement and internal audit. These projects focus on aligning capacity, strategy and sustainable outcomes for councils which compliment the nationally funded work

• increase collaborative procurement opportunities between councils, business and the community.

Facilitate open and ongoing communication and partnerships between state and local government:

• establish a Local Government Ministerial and Mayors Advisory Panel to provide high level advice on strategic and policy decisions

• foster strong communications through a number of advisory groups and the Local Government Ministerial-Mayors Forum.

Developments in relation to local government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans A continued emphasis on assisting councils to reform their business practices has taken place over the year.

Both council financial performance and asset management have improved considerably over the past decade. The Victorian Auditor-General audits each council’s financial statements each year. Since 2003-04, the Auditor-General has reported the following major trends. Seven years ago, Victorian councils were, on average, just breaking even on their operating result. Almost half of the councils had operating deficits. By 2011, 22 councils had underlying deficits, and the sector enjoyed an operating surplus of $1.03 billion. Within this significant improving

90

Local Government National Report 2011-12

trend, there was some deterioration since 2009, primarily due to the funding call on the local government defined benefit superannuation plan.

Local governments face challenges in managing their infrastructure. A number of programmes have been established to address this issue. They include the Regional Growth Fund under which local governments are eligible for grants funding through the $100 million Local Government Infrastructure Account. This funding supports a range of council initiatives including roads projects, bridges, new community assets such as sporting grounds and libraries, and upgrades of existing facilities. Forty rural councils are also able to apply for a share of $160 million of funding from a Country Roads and Bridges Fund over four years to ensure regional roads and bridges are renewed and maintained.

2011-12 saw Local Government Victoria (LGV) support the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) in the successful delivery of the Regional Asset Management Programme and the Local Government Sustainability Programme. Funded by the Australian Government these two important programmes were aimed at improving business practices and building local capacity.

The 2011-12 State Budget provided $17.2 million over four years to the Public Library Capital Works programme. Under the programme all councils and regional library services are eligible to apply for grants of up to $750 000 toward a new or refurbished library building or for a mobile library. 32 projects received funding in 2011-12, which comprised of 14 new or relocated libraries, 15 refurbished or extended libraries and three new or refurbished mobile library projects.

Measures undertaken to develop and implement comparative performance measures between local governing bodies The Local Government Reform Fund (LGRF) programme is a $1.5 million State Government investment in local government reform. The programme is designed to assist councils to improve their financial and resource management capabilities and business practices. Overseen by a local government steering committee made up of LGV representatives, council CEOs and peak and professional associations, the programme aims to demonstrate the cost savings and process improvements available to the sector through improved business practice.

The projects are designed to deliver a broad range of outcomes, including:

• cost savings and process improvements that make a positive contribution to the financial viability of councils

• alignment with local government better practices processes

• investigation of alternate service delivery models and an improved understanding of the benefits of collaboration across Victorian local government

• delivery of lessons learnt to the State government and the sector- informing future policy making and planning

• capacity building (people and resources) particularly in regional and rural Victoria councils.

Each project has identified challenges inherent within the existing legislative framework. This information is being used to inform the role of LGV in leading reform and will support future reviews of legislation, standards or guidance documents.

These projects focused on aligning capacity, strategy and sustainable outcomes complimented the nationally funded work. The programme provided for the practical application and

91

Appendix B

implementation of reform tools in areas such as best value, procurement and internal audit. Thirty four councils were directly involved in the programme, the results and learning of which will be shared across the sector. Work also commenced on a programme to promote better integration between asset management and financial planning.

For example, as part of the Procurement in Practice stream, five councils in the Central Highlands region undertook a collaborative procurement of their bituminous resealing service. By joining forces and using their collective purchasing power the five participating councils were able to drive down the costs of procurement and make considerable savings, with an annual savings of $630 000 whe n compared to current contract prices.

Bushfire and flood response

Through LGV, Department of Planning and Community Development delivered a range of programmes in 2011-12 that supported councils in responding to natural disasters. These included:

• the Bushfires Municipal Emergency Resourcing Program, which deploys additional emergency management capacity to councils in conjunction with the Municipal Association of Victoria

• the Community Assistance Gift Program, which administers payments to councils made through the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund;

• the Murrindindi Assistance Package, which assists Murrindindi Shire Council in rebuilding its capacity following the Black Saturday bushfires

• the Building Permit Fees Reimbursement Program, which reimburses building permit fees paid by property owners affected by the February 2009 bushfires

• the $5 million Local Government Clean Up Fund, which provides assistance to councils affected by the floods in early 2011.

Legislative Reform

In September 2011, legislation passed in the Victorian Parliament bringing forward the date for local government general elections from November to October every four years. This will enable more time for councillors to begin work on their four year council plans and annual budgets.

In February 2012, legislation passed in the Victorian Parliament providing the residents and ratepayers of the City of Greater Geelong the opportunity to directly elect their Mayor. In addition, legislation passed in the Victorian Parliament to provide for the Melbourne City Council’s electoral structure to be reviewed independently by the Victorian Electoral Commission, similar to all other councils.

Tomorrow’s Library

Tomorrow's Library is a landmark, two year review of Victorian public libraries being conducted by the Ministerial Advisory Council on Public Libraries. It is an opportunity for Victorian communities to shape the future of Victorian public libraries.

The Tomorrow’s Library review is considering the relevant future services, directions and trends that will lead to changes in the provision and delivery of library services, such as emerging technologies, e-books, telephony, internet, partnership arrangements and the increasing role of libraries as community spaces and changing community needs. This review is also comparing the services provided in Victoria and other jurisdictions, as well as the funding of public libraries.

92

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities There are a number of initiatives between local government and Aboriginal communities throughout Victoria. There is considerable sector-wide interest in developing stronger links with the Aboriginal community. Local Government Professionals established an Indigenous Special Interest Group.

The Victorian government is funding an Aboriginal employment broker housed in the Municipal Association of Victoria to assist local councils with employment and economic development initiatives. There have been strong partnerships with local government to deliver placed based initiatives, such as the establishment of Bubup Wilam (an early learning centre specialising in Aboriginal culture and identity) with Whittlesea City Council. Local Indigenous Networks are also working in partnership with local government with positive results, such as the establishment of the Bendigo Indigenous Homework Centre.

The State Government has also funded Reconciliation Victoria to undertake the Reconciliation in Local Government Victoria project.

In June 2011, the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal Affairs announced the establishment of the Local Government Aboriginal Partnership Project.

The Local Government - Aboriginal Partnership Project is working to ensure:

• there are effective partnerships between Aboriginal Victorians and local government

• more Aboriginal people are employed in local government

• local government purchase goods and services from Aboriginal businesses

• Aboriginal people and businesses are a valued part of the local and regional economy

• local governments take pride in local Aboriginal culture and heritage and support the special place Traditional Owners hold in their community and in caring for country

• local governments actively support reconciliation

• local governments' planning, policy and programmes reflect the needs and aspirations of Aboriginal communities

• Aboriginal people feel comfortable and welcome using council services

• the three levels of government strengthen co-ordination around Aboriginal outcomes.

The Project has brought together a partnership of Aboriginal people, the Municipal Association of Victoria, the Victorian Local Governance Association, Local Government Professionals, Reconciliation Victoria and all three levels of government. A steering committee is leading and shaping the project.

Report from the Municipal Association of Victoria The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) welcomes the opportunity to provide a submission to the 2011-12 National Report. This submission addresses initiatives undertaken in 2011-12 in which local government in Victoria have: • improved the efficiency or effectiveness of their services delivered • development and implementation of comparative performance measures for councils • developments in the use of long-term financial and asset management planning by the

sector.

93

Appendix B

Measures undertaken to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery

Food safety

Significant reform has been achieved in Victoria’s food safety regulatory framework. Local government, through their environmental health units, are responsible for managing and enforcing food safety regulation in Victoria. With many businesses operating across municipal boundaries (either large business/chain restaurants or mobile food businesses), the regulatory framework was failing to keep pace with an evolving and swiftly changing industry.

The MAV managed the development of a single registration system for temporary and mobile food businesses. The system simplifies the registration process and gives councils access to performance histories of businesses across the state, helping them streamline inspection regimes. This increases the efficiency and effectiveness of the food regulatory regime for both councils as the enforcement agency and the food industry.

Over 2011-12, the MAV continued to partner with the Department of Health to implement reforms that will make it easier for businesses to comply with food safety regulation. The MAV facilitated the input of local government data in the inaugural Department of Health food safety report and ensured councils’ role in food safety regulation was effectively promoted.

MAV Procurement

Significant reform to the procurement practices of local government was delivered in 2011-12. The MAV has now established and has been successfully operating a sector-wide procurement unit to deliver benefits to the sector through economies of scale. MAV Procurement delivered twelve tenders this year which achieved significant value and efficiency gains to all 78 member councils involved. Collaborative tenders covered a broad scope of materials and deliverables including building and construction equipment, public maintenance vehicles, IT and administration systems, and work wear.

Through the National Procurement Network, MAV Procurement established strong links with other state and territory local government association procurement divisions. This relationship realised some outstanding savings for Victorian councils by aggregating council requirements nationally, particularly in the fleet and heavy equipment areas. Tender/procurement areas included:

• electricity for contestable sites, green power and street lighting

• microsoft whole of local government software licensing

• incident management system

• corporate wardrobe

• small plant and machinery

• road and bridge making equipment

• earth moving and material handling equipment

• workwear and personal protective apparel

• park and playground equipment

• IT policy system

94

Local Government National Report 2011-12

• gas and buildings and facilities

• bill payment services.

Sector-wide procurement capabilities continue to be advanced by MAV Procurement. Working with a consultant, we developed a best practice contract management guide and training programme for councils to implement better and more consistent contract management processes. A Doing business with local government guide was produced to educate contractors and encourage potential suppliers to form profitable, long-term partnerships with councils. MAV Procurement implemented innovative procurement systems to deliver a robust and efficient process for suppliers and councils. A Vendor Panel quotation management system ensured a fair and competitive process and increased the usage of preferred suppliers. It also provided unprecedented transparency and governance over the procurement process.

Following the success of a single electoral services tender in 2008, another tender was conducted for the provision of electoral services for the October 2012 local government elections. The MAV provided a standard suite of documentation including specifications of core and additional electoral services, required tenders, and contract terms and conditions. The 54 participating councils were provided with an evaluation and assisted to finalise the contract with the preferred service provider.

Land use planning

Councils in the MAV’s STEP planning process improvement programme (STEP Planning) delivered significant improvements to permit assessment. Consistency of timeframes increased and the time required to process straightforward applications reduced by 30 to 50 per cent, also reducing application backlogs. The 2012 annual forum enabled STEP Planning councils to share their improvement ideas with the sector. As participation increased, the MAV reviewed delivery options and went to the market to improve member value. STEP Planning data supported many MAV submissions including two Productivity Commission reviews into performance benchmarking of planning systems and local government as a regulator.

Performance benchmarking

The Victorian Government has been working towards the development of a suite of performance benchmarks for local government. The MAV and local government have been cooperatively involved in the development of these measures. The MAV’s position has been that performance benchmarks need to focus on the services and functions that are common to all councils or their cohorts and any measures need to have a clear conceptual link to the overall objective of that service area.

The project has been progressing well and it is expected that further information will be provided on this matter to the 2012-13 National Report.

Developments in relation to local government's use of long-term financial and asset management plans

Finance and asset management planning

Ongoing collection and analysis of sector financial data continued to fortify the case for financial assistance reforms for rural councils facing significant sustainability challenges. Steady improvement in financial strength was recorded for almost all councils, with ongoing assistance

95

Appendix B

from the MAV’s asset management and other continuous improvement programmes. Detailed costing studies were undertaken for maternal and child health services, carbon tax impacts, public library funding and home and community care. These studies provided critical input to secure better funding outcomes for the sector in negotiations with governments as well ensuring that councils have good comparative data on their financial and asset management performance.

The MAV’s STEP Asset management programme has continued, with the emphasis now on ensuring that the link between asset management systems and financial management systems is strong. Strengthening this link ensures financial management reflects the true asset condition of the organisation and ensure that future financial strategies are developed to accurately reflect target asset levels.

Report from Queensland Department of Local Government

Methodology for distributing financial assistance grants for 2011-12, including any changes in methodology from 2010-11

Identified road component

This component of the Financial Assistance Grant is allocated as far as practicable on the basis of relative need of each local government for roads expenditure and to preserve its road assets.

In the opinion of the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission (Queensland Commission), a formula based on road length and population best meets this National Principle for Queensland. This formula is:

• 62.85 per cent of the pool is allocated according to road length

• 37.15 per cent of the pool is allocated according to population.

General purpose component

The General Purpose Grant (GPG) was reviewed in the years prior to 2011-12, when it was first implemented. The new methodology complies with the National Principles but has been simplified for transparency purposes.

As before, 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 GPG pool distributed on a per capita basis. In 2011-12 this amount equated to $20.07 per capita. The remaining 70 per cent of the GPG pool is distributed according to relative need, according to the National Principles.

To determine relative need, the new methodology derives averages for revenue raising and expenditure on service provision to be applied to all local governments within the State.

After application of these averages, the Queensland Commission uses various cost adjustors which allow for factors outside a council’s control which affect its ability to raise revenue or provide services, again in keeping with the National Principles.

96

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Assessing revenue

In the process of the review, the Commission has decided to keep the existing revenue categories of:

• rates;

• garbage charges;

• fees and charges

• other grants and subsidies.

However, the rating assessment was changed from the pre-existing differential formula (i.e. different categories of land were assessed on a different basis to one another) to a more uniform, simple formula. The Queensland Commission has adopted a ten year averaging of property valuations to minimise the effects of large fluctuations and to better accommodate the government’s valuation cycle. The total State rate revenue is divided by the total State land valuation to derive a cent in the dollar average, which is then multiplied by each council’s total land valuation, as follows:

State total rate revenue = Cent in the dollar average

x

Council total valuation (ten year average) State total valuation (ten year average)

This is then adjusted to allow for a council’s capacity to raise rates, using an ABS product, Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas. The new methodology uses three of the indexes:

• Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (SEIFA 2)

• Index of Economic Resources (SEIFA 3)

• Index of Education and Occupation (SEIFA 4)

- Because Indigenous councils do not charge rates, 20 per cent of their State Government Financial Aid allocation is used as a proxy for rate revenue

- Note that the assessment of rate revenue was previously capped for annual variations, both increases and decreases. The Queensland Commission decided to remove this capping

- Fees and charges are averaged on a per capita basis

- Garbage revenue is averaged on the basis of the number of bins serviced for each local governing body

- In accordance with the National Principle for Other Grant Support, grants relevant to the expenditure categories considered by the Queensland Commission are included as revenue according to the actual amounts received by council. Three grants are included by the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission, as follows:

- Identified Road Grant (50 per cent)

- State Government Financial Aid (Indigenous councils only - 20 per cent)

- Minimum General Purpose Grant (100 per cent).

97

Appendix B

Table B.10 R evenue assessment model

Revenue category Revenue driver(s) Unit of measure (State average)

Rates Total valuations Average cent in dollar rates: $0.01028

Garbage charges Number of bins serviced $236 per bin serviced

Fees and charges Population $244 per capita

Other grants Actual grants received Identified Road Grant (50 per cent used) State Government Financial Aid (20 per cent used) Minimum grant component of the General Purpose Grant (100 per cent used)

Assessing expenditure

In revising the methodology with regards to the expenditure assessment, the Queensland Commission includes nine service categories:

• administration

• public order and safety

• education, health, welfare and housing

• garbage and recycling

• community amenities, recreation, culture and libraries

• building control and town planning

• business and industry development

• roads

• environment.

The Queensland Commission considers which of the revised suite of cost adjustors are applied to which service categories. Table B.11 outlines the expenditure categories, the units of measure and the cost adjustors applied in assessing the cost of service provision.

98

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table B.11 Ou tline of expenditure assessment: 2011-12

Services cost adjustors (see below)

Service expenditure category 2011-12 unit of measure Location

Demography -Indigenous

Demography -age

Demography -Indigenous/ age

Scale

Administration Actual mid-point of remuneration

category + $401 per capita + $407 per property  

Public order and safety $26.84 per capita     

Education, health, welfare and housing $25.61 per capita

    

Garbage and recycling $172.26 per bin / $83.54 per capita (Indigenous councils)  

Community amenities, recreation, culture and libraries $180.55 per capita

    

Building control and town planning $194.15 per residential property / $54.18 per capita (Indigenous councils)

 

Business and industry development

$35.89 per capita

 

Roads Road expenditure assessment (see

below)

 

Environment $44.09 per residential property/

$14.48 per capita (Indigenous councils)  

Roads

The Queensland Commission, in conducting the methodology review, decided to keep the existing road assessment model, an asset preservation model, estimating the cost to maintain a council’s road network, including bridges and hydraulics. Table B.12 provides the dollar values allocated on the basis of traffic volumes and the cost adjustors applied.

Note that the assessment of road expenditure was previously capped for annual variations, both increases and decreases. The Queensland Commission decided to remove this capping.

99

Appendix B

Table B.12 R oad expenditure assessment model

Traffic volume range (adjusted vehicles per day) Base cost

($/km)

Cost adjustors (%)

Climate Soil sub-grade

Locality on-cost Terrain

Favourable (TI -50)

Adverse (TI +100)

Good

(CBR>10)

Poor

(CBR<5)

MR

Reactive

<1.0p/km^2

<0.1p/km^2

Undulating

Hilly

Mountainous

Rural Roads

Unformed $250 - 25 - - - 5 10 2 5 -

<40 $500 - 20 - - - 5 10 2 5 -

40-150 $2 300 - 20 - 10 10 5 10 2 5 -

150-250 $4 650 -10 15 -5 10 10 2.5 5 2 5 10

250-1 000 $6 600 -7.5 10 -5 10 10 2.5 2.5 2 5 10

1 000-3 000 $8 100 -7.5 10 -5 10 10 2.5 2.5 2 5 10

>3000 $11 000 -7.5 10 -5 10 10 2.5 2.5 2 5 10

Urban Roads

<500 $8 500 -7.5 10 -2.5 5 5 2.5 2.5 - 2 5

500-1 000 $15 500 -7.5 10 -2.5 5 5 2.5 2.5 - 2 5

1 000-5 000 $25 400 -7.5 10 -5 10 10 2.5 2.5 - 2 5

5 000-10 000 $41 800 -7.5 10 -5 10 10 2.5 2.5 - 2 5

>10 000 $66 700 -7.5 10 -5 10 10 2.5 2.5 - 2 5

Allowances are given for heavy vehicles and for the provision and barging of plant and material to islands, which increase the traffic volumes, increasing a council road expenditure amount. These are outlined in Table B.13.

Table B.13 Allo wances given for heavy vehicles

Light to medium trucks, 2 axles = 1 vehicle

Heavy rigid and/or twin steer tandem = 2 vehicles

Semi trailers = 3 vehicles

B Doubles = 4 vehicles

Road trains = 5 vehicles

Cost adjustors

Cost adjustors are indices applied to expenditure categories to account for factors outside a council’s control, that impact the cost of providing services to its community. The Queensland Commission decided to review the existing cost adjustors. The following were deemed to represent such cost increases and are based on more reliable data than previous cost adjustors:

• location - represents the additional costs in the provision of services related to the council location and is based on the Accessibility/Remoteness Index for Areas

100

Local Government National Report 2011-12

• scale - recognises economies of scale. In order to make this cost adjustor reflective of movements in population, the new calculation involves a sliding scale from 1 to 2 based on the annual average population

• demography - represents the additional use of facilities and increased service requirements due to the composition of the population according to age and Indigenous descent. These are calculated on a sliding scale from 1 to 2 reflecting the proportion of Indigenous, aged and young residents.

Table B.11 above identifies which cost adjustors are applied to the service categories.

Scaling back

The scaling back that occurs within the previous methodology was based on the two weighting processes of proportional and equalisation, with a 25 per cent weighting given to the proportional method and 75 per cent weighting given to the equalisation method. Under the proportional method, each council’s funding is reduced by the same proportion. Under the equalisation method, the GPG is allocated so that assessed revenue together with the grant equals the same proportion of assessed expenditure for all deficit councils.

In the new methodology, the Queensland Commission has moved to an equal weighting of proportional and equalisation—50 per cent to proportional and 50 per cent to equalisation.

Application of the Amalgamation Principle

The Queensland Commission ensured that the Amalgamation Principle was applied i.e. no amalgamated council from March 2008 dropped below its pre-amalgamation grant levels. Additionally an increase cap of 15 per cent and a decrease cap of 10 per cent was applied to councils, except councils which were found to have material errors in their road data, as confirmed with independent road auditors.

Application of the Minimum Grant Principle

The Queensland Commission determined, on the basis of the methodology, that the following councils were to receive a minimum grant component of the GPG only:

• Brisbane City Council

• Gold Coast City Council

• Ipswich City Council

• Redland City Council

• Moreton Bay Regional Council

• Sunshine Coast Regional Council.

101

Appendix B

Developments in relation to local government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans, including any developments in implementing the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks To progress the national local government sustainability agenda, the Department of Local Government in Queensland implemented the sustainability and reporting process that emphasises sustainable communities and sustainable local governments.

At this time, the sustainability and reporting process applies on a voluntary basis to all 73 Queensland local governments.

The process establishes a consistent reporting framework to evaluate the sustainability of local governments and the local government system using four components: asset management, community engagement, governance and financial management (sustainability).

In 2011-12, 59 of the 73 local governments submitted data to the Department of Local Government in Queensland for the Financial Management (Sustainability) (FMS) evaluation. This evaluates whether a council has a clear and coherent long-term financial management (sustainability) strategy in place, which is defined as the ability to maintain financial and infrastructure capital over the long-term.

The responses from local governments are subject to a review, but are not subject to audit.

Of the 59 respondent local governments:

• 14 have a clear and coherent financial management strategy in place (26 of 56 in 2010-11)

• 21 have a sound financial management strategy in place (16 of 56 in 2010-11)

• 13 are facing financial management challenges (14 of 56 in 2010-11)

• 11 have provided insufficient information for the Department of Local Government in Queensland to form a view and are lacking financial management strategies.

For the first time, the Department of Local Government in Queensland also carried out analyses based on size and scaling by applying the Australian Classification of Local Governments (ACLG) categories and grouping the ACLG categories on two bases:

1. Urban and Rural Groupings

2. Remote, Agricultural, Towns and Metro & Fringe Groupings.

102

Local Government National Report 2011-12

This analysis indicated that:

Table B.14 Analysis on size and scaling

On average over the forecast period, expecting to:

Urban local governments • generate strong and improving levels of operating surpluses; • carry low levels of total liabilities (including debt);

• invest significantly in renewing infrastructure initially, before a sharp decline to at or near recommended levels

Rural local governments • generate consistent operating surpluses; • carry low levels of total liabilities (including debt);

• invest in infrastructure renewals at significant levels initially, before dropping to at or near recommended levels, in the latter part of the forecast period.

On average over the forecast period, expecting to:

Remote local governments • generate operating deficits with isolated operating surpluses in some periods; • carry low levels of total liabilities (including debt);

• invest in infrastructure renewals at significant levels initially, before dropping to at or near recommended levels, in the latter part of the forecast period

Agricultural local governments • generate strong levels of operating surpluses; • carry low levels of total liabilities (including debt);

• invest significantly in renewing infrastructure initially, before a sharp decline to at or near recommended levels

Towns local governments • generate strong levels of operating surpluses; • carry low levels of total liabilities (including debt);

• invest significantly in renewing infrastructure initially, before a sharp decline to at or near recommended levels

Metro & Fringe local governments • generate strong levels of operating surpluses; • carry high levels of total liabilities (including debt);

• invest significantly in renewing infrastructure initially, before a sharp decline to at or near recommended levels.

In Queensland, the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) and the Local Government (Finance, Plans and Reporting) Regulation 2010 require local governments to prepare long term asset management plans and long-term financial forecasts.

Measures undertaken to develop and implement comparative performance measures between local governing bodies The provision of information by the Queensland Government to the community through the Queensland Local Government Comparative Information Report continued in 2011-12. This report assists local governments in their endeavours to develop new and more effective ways to deliver their services by providing an effective tool by which they can monitor trends over time and benchmark services performance both internally and with other councils.

The Local Government (Finance, Plans and Reporting) Regulation 2010 (Qld) included the relevant measures of financial sustainability. These are also included in the City of Brisbane (Finance, Plans and Reporting) Regulation 2010 (Qld). The measures are to be used to evaluate the financial sustainability of local governments in Queensland.

103

Appendix B

Measures undertaken during 2011-12 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery There were no significant reforms or initiatives during the 2011-12 financial year. Major amendments to Queensland local government legislation will be undertaken in the 2012-13 financial year.

Improvements in local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities There were no significant initiatives undertaken during the 2011-12 financial year in relation to local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

However, the Queensland Government continued to provide funding to Indigenous local governments to support them in their provision of local government services to their communities. In 2011-12, $33.482 million was granted to 16 Indigenous councils under the State Government Financial Aid programme provided, in lieu of rates, to assist those councils in meeting the costs incurred for the provision of core municipal and community services. These services included, for example, public order and safety, solid waste management, street lighting, community amenities, community and town planning, urban storm water management, roads, environment and transport, and water and sewerage.

Other funding provided by the Queensland Government to Indigenous councils in 2011-12 included $3.525 million under the Revenue Replacement Program, an initiative under the State’s alcohol-related harm reduction strategy for nine Indigenous local governments whose council-held canteen licence lapsed by 31 December 2009. Funding was provided under this programme to assist councils maintain community services previously funded by the profits from alcohol sales.

The State also continued its commitment to provide funding to all Indigenous councils, except the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, under the Indigenous Economic Development Grant programme. It aimed to support councils to maintain adequate staffing levels to deliver municipal services efficiently. Each council received $80 000 t o support 1.6 full time equivalent positions, except for Yarrabah, Palm Island and Northern Peninsula Area Regional Councils which each received $160 000 t o support 3.2 full time equivalent positions.

Report from Local Government Association of Queensland

Breadth of Local Government During 2011-12, the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) provided comments and submissions to the Federal Government and State Government on a variety of policy platforms, strongly advocating for appropriate consideration of both local government and community interests. The breadth of local government involvement is here demonstrated, as these submissions ranged from responding to the Access and Equity Inquiry undertaken by the Federal Department of Immigration and Citizenship, through to climate change adaptation, Queensland’s urban water services, the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, floodplain management, Resources Legislation (Balance, Certainty, Efficiency) Bill 2011, pest management, trunk infrastructure and the State Planning Policy, amongst others.

104

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Indeed, Queensland local governments, similar to other state and territory councils, are no longer involved in the simple trilogy of 'roads, rates and rubbish'. Not only do Queensland local governments own and manage approximately 80 per cent of Queensland’s road network, and maintain streets, pavements, traffic lights, bridges and car parks, but councils are also involved in diverse services such as, but by no means limited to:

• stormwater and draining systems

• providing water supply and wastewater treatment facilities

• recycling and household waste services

• building standards, including inspection, licensing, certification and enforcement

• strategic planning and development assessment

• community housing

• climate change adaptation and mitigation measures

• local environment conservation initiatives, energy and water saving programmes

• emergency management as part of community recovery and resilience before, during and after natural disasters

• parks and sporting facilities, including swimming pools, sports fields and clubs

• cultural facilities, such as libraries, art galleries, performing arts centres and museums

• social and welfare services, such as childcare services in rural and remote areas, aged care services and accommodation

• public health and sanitary services, such as food inspection, animal licensing and control, immunisation, public toilets and facilities

• tourist promotion and facilities, such as caravan parks and camping grounds

• economic development, business and industry attraction programmes.

Increasing Local Government Efficiency

Council internal operational efficiencies are driven by several factors, including:

• workforce size, employment conditions and efficiencies

• breadth of operational activity and performance

• cost of operations (including procurement practices)

• audit and management skills as related to cost control

• risk management systems and experience

• utilisation of technology

• business models.

Queensland local governments currently participate in large scale shared service arrangements primarily set up by LGAQ as subsidiary companies. Independent analysis has confirmed that councils that participate with LGAQ’s subsidiary businesses save $100 million per annum (as a conservative figure).

105

Appendix B

LGM Queensland

The Queensland Local Government Mutual Liability Pool (LGM Queensland) is a legal liability self insurance scheme that is owned and operated for the sole benefit of Queensland councils and local government controlled entities. It provides a range of covers, including public liability, professional indemnity, Councillors and officers’ liability, employment practices liability and cover provided to casual hirers of council facilities. This scheme has grown in importance since the significant public liability law reforms of 2002 and 2003, and during 2011-12, was invaluable in insulating Queensland local governments from the ongoing insurance cost impacts of local and overseas natural disasters. Data shows that increasing numbers of very large liability claims are being pursued against councils, particularly as procedural failures in areas such as maintenance, roadworks safety and development approvals can leave councils and LGM Queensland exposed to significant liability costs.

LGM Queensland has expanded its range of risk management resources in specific operational areas in 2011-12, such as footpath management, contractual indemnities and labour hire arrangements. These resources are supported by Regional Risk Coordinators and the RiskeMap risk management software. Both these support services are jointly funded with Local Government Workcare, and demonstrate the benefits of the two local government self-insurance schemes working together.

Local Government Workcare

Local Government Workcare (LGW) is a joint undertaking by Queensland councils and council controlled entities to hold a workers compensation self-insurance scheme. Scheme members are provided with full workers compensation cover, proactive claims management, injury management and injury prevention services. LGW has continued to work with councils on improving workplace health and safety management through use of the Safe Plan system, with an updated version of Safe Plan being released to maintain consistency with Queensland’s nationally harmonised work, health and safety legislation.

In mid-2010, the LGAQ partnered with Health Link Consultants and HCF to launch the Queensland Local Government Health Plan to provide an additional affordable workplace benefit specific to local governments and support efforts to identify councils as attractive employers. The Plan is open to council employees and elected members.

Local Government Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd

Operational since 2005, Local Government Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd (LGIS) is a hugely successful joint initiative of Queensland Treasury Corporation and LGAQ. The primary objective is to support local government with a range of infrastructure consultancy and procurement services across water, waste, roads, demand management, disaster management and infrastructure recovery. During 2011-12, LGIS continued to provide advisory and project management services to both State and local governments, and in particular developed practical training assistance in relation to compliance and reporting obligations under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Regulations 2008 and the Clean Energy Act 2011 (Cwlth).

During 2011-12, LGIS also continued to provide a number of services to assist local governments impacted by the natural disasters that occurred in Queensland over the 2010 and 2011 period. In particular, LGIS assisted 12 councils to assess and document over $750 million

106

Local Government National Report 2011-12

worth of damage caused by these flood and cyclone events; completing the recovery task has been a massive undertaking for councils, the Queensland Reconstruction Authority and LGIS.

LGIS also managed the State Government’s ClimateSmart Home Service (CSHS), and the project was wound down in August 2012, a few months ahead of its scheduled closure. The total number of services delivered for this programme was 344 371. During 2011-12, CSHS was recognised with the receipt of a number of State and National Awards - the Tools of Change Landmark Award 2011, the IPAA Public Sector Excellence Awards 2011, and both the 2012 Queensland and National iAwards for green IT and sustainability, and was a finalist in the Premier’s Awards for Excellence in Public Service Delivery (Green Category) 2011.

In addition to these specifics, LGIS delivers individual advisory assignments to councils, including business case development, financial analysis and procurement support.

Local Buy

Queensland councils have continued to utilise Local Buy procurement services since 2001, when it was established to aggregate the buying power of local government, shorten procurement timeframes and streamline the interaction of business and local government. Councils that use Local Buy contracts can purchase a large range of goods and services up to any value without the time consuming and administrative burden of following the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) requirements for seeking tenders and quotes. During 2011-12, Local Buy had 40 contracted arrangements in place, including telecommunications, engineering consultancy and Microsoft software licensing, as well as a number of additional contracts for flood damage relief.

Other services that Local Buy has delivered during 2011-12 included:

• the purchase of an electronic quotation system called vendor-panel, in conjunction with similar organisations in the other states

• a review of electricity tariff arrangements for several councils, generating considerable savings on these councils’ energy costs

• continued provision of LG Tender Box, an electronic tendering solution which provides a simple and effective tender management process for councils

• assistance for numerous councils in probity and tendering services

• the creation of a new contract management arrangement for project management, which can provide significant savings for council project work.

GovCloud

In September 2011, LGAQ and Pacific Technology Group Pty Ltd created GovCloud to provide leading cloud based solutions and services to assist local governments, agencies and utilities by sharing common cloud resources instead of purchasing physical IT software and hardware. For councils that utilise this service, it has reduced costs as GovCloud services include scalable capacity, computing backup and storage, hosted email and document management, and disaster management and business continuity.

Propel Partnerships

Propel was created in 2006 as a joint venture between LGAQ and Aegis Services Australia (with LGAQ holding a controlling stake) to assist local governments in discovering and delivering

107

Appendix B

efficiencies across administrative functions, such as call centre design and implementation, shared administrative services (either as individual councils or on a regional basis) and customer service enhancement.

A major highlight of 2011-12 was the presentation of a tangible financial efficiency dividend to Ipswich City Council, in excess of $500 000. Ipswich City Council has agreed to a 10 year arrangement between Propel and Ipswich to deliver a centralised customer contact centre that manages all customer services, property rates, rates arrears, multiple licensing functions, box office services and other various payment services.

Resolute Information Technology Pty Ltd

Resolute is an information technology business that worked with the majority of Queensland councils in 2011-12 to deliver web hosting and management services, provided consulting and managed services in the private and not-for-profit sector, and partnered with the recently developed GovCloud. In 2011-12, Resolute also signed a Partnering Agreement with Kana Corporation to offer councils a citizen centric customer relationship management solution that is scalable and affordable, so councils are no longer restricted to a choice between marginal 2nd tier products and high-end ICT platforms that are too large and/or expensive for the majority of Queensland councils to purchase.

Efficiency Performance Scan

Through several indepth interview and analysis projects over the past couple of years, the LGAQ has identified an increasing need among Queensland councils to address council performance. This includes:

• discovery of local efficiencies to drive cost savings

• assistance with local compliance with standards and legislation

• identification and local comparison with industry benchmarks

• community perceptions of councils’ financial management and performance.

Accordingly, in early 2012 LGAQ developed a comprehensive diagnostic tool and consulting advisory service to Queensland local governments called the Efficiency Performance Scan. The scan metrics are in the following categories:

• financial and asset management

• governance processes

• workforces strategy and planning

• community engagement

• service delivery models and outcomes

• council systems that promote ongoing efficiencies and improvements.

This service offering was initially piloted with two regional Queensland councils, and one additional council employed this service during 2011-12. Since this time, the Efficiency Performance Scan has become an important means by which councils can be provided with a detailed measurement of performance and targeted advice to achieve efficiencies and continuous improvement.

108

Local Government National Report 2011-12

LGAQ also provides Queensland local governments with a large suite of online resources to enable best practice templates and resources, and reduce duplication and unnecessary work in formulating and updating these resources. They include:

• delegations register

• HR advance

• guidelines for Councillor Conduct, Contact with Developers, contact with officers, use of confidential information and other important governance issues

• Councillor’s Handbook

• Mayor’s Handbook

• online repository for good-to-best practice governance procedures, policies and templates developed by councils

• independent advisory service for councillors

• online commentary on core local government legislation relating to Queensland.

Total Solutions

Total Solutions is LGAQ’s professional consultancy service which delivers a wide range of products, services and projects designed to assist Queensland local governments improve their operations or in situations where they may not currently have available capacity or resources. They are usually provided to councils on a fee for service basis or as a commercial business offering, and comprise the following:

• workforce - general HR consulting, industrial relations consulting, enterprise bargaining, investigation services, salary reviews and an executive coaching service for local government Chief Executive Officers and senior executives

• capacity - providing or procuring staff where councils immediately require skilled staff in hard to fill roles or those with a temporary requirement

• recruitment - a recruitment and placement service

• performance - analysing, identifying and working with councils to improve performance, meet legislative obligations and increase financial return through effective financial management and sustainability, asset management, governance, internal auditing, policy development, community plans and community engagement

• training - LGAQ is a Registered Training Organisation which provides accredited courses, non-accredited courses, short courses and online training, continually tailoring offerings to adapt to changing responsibilities for council CEOs and managers, as well as offering formal recognised qualifications (such as the Diploma of Project Management and the Diploma of Local Government) and specific consultancy services or training requirements for councils on an individual or regional basis. At the end of the 2011-12 financial year, over 1 430 local government graduates have received a formal qualification from LGAQ, and over 2 600 individuals attend LGAQ courses annually.

LGAQ is in a unique position to intimately understand the needs of its members, Queensland councils, and continually adapts and improves these service offerings for councils in order to keep them relevant in an ever-changing legislative environment, provide best practice examples and templates, and assist in performance to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Queensland local governments and service delivery to their communities.

109

Appendix B

Queensland local governments are increasingly coordinating initiatives and receiving funding from the Federal Government, which has been found to coincide with an overall reduction in funding from the Queensland State Government. As such, Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs) are a very important source of funding for councils - FAGs funding to local government across Australia between 1974-75 to 2011-12 inclusive have totalled over $37 billion.

In its Vision 2020 Project, released in May 2009 and looking at the future needs of the Queensland resources industry, the Minerals Council of Australia identified significant gaps in infrastructure that, unless closed, would help produce a lack of connectivity of export supply chains and inadequate road and air transport and telecommunications infrastructure. Such factors, the Minerals Council of Australia argued, would restrict mining activity and negatively impact on economic benefits.

In most resource regions in Queensland, the cost to councils of the capital and recurrent spending to provide for resource industries far outstrips resources-related revenue. The adoption of horizontal fiscal equalisation principles for inter-state distribution of FAGs would more accurately reflect the need for financial assistance across the states and territories and provide a consistent basis for the distribution of Australian Government general revenue sharing arrangements.

Advancing Asset Management in Local Government (Qld) Project

Nationally, local governments control and maintain $300 billion worth of non-financial assets as at June 2011, a 95 per cent increase over the previous decade; Queensland councils own approximately $83 billion. Each year, it is estimated that Queensland local governments spend approximately $15 million on dedicated asset management initiatives.

In part to address this need for appropriate tools to manage these assets, the Australian Government has provided $2.695 million to Queensland local governments from the Local Government Reform Fund through the Advancing Asset Management in Local Government (Qld) Project. Combined funding from the Australian Government, Queensland councils, the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) and the Queensland State Government amount to approximately $3.2 million. The outputs of the project were intended to meet the Australian Government’s two main objectives (ie integration and collaboration) and improve the capability of Queensland’s local governments in managing their assets and providing better outcomes for local communities through effective management of assets, financial planning processes, and anticipating infrastructure needs.

The project’s implementation plan involved a programme of activities to upgrade the asset management capabilities of a total of 61 Queensland councils - 44 non-Indigenous local governments and 17 Indigenous local governments (including Torres Shire Council). There are 12 Queensland local governments that do not receive Local Government Reform Fund (LGRF) funding under the project.

The project, which was delivered by LGAQ in partnership with the Queensland State Government, promoted and accelerated the implementation of integrated asset and financial management systems through developing core asset management plans for key infrastructure assets. The project outcomes include:

• measurement of the current asset management capability against the National Asset Management Assessment Framework (NAMAF)

110

Local Government National Report 2011-12

• development of action plans to assist in completing milestones toward improved asset management

• development of asset management plans for all infrastructure asset classes

• incorporation of whole of life costing, community planning processes and asset management planning into budgeting processes

• further development of the asset management planning skills of councillors and officers

• provision for specific activities, including the development 10-year financial plans for Indigenous local governments.

The project has been recognised as both a success and a very good example across Australia under the national LGRF programme, and in April 2012, Orion Consulting Network analysed and produced the Project Evaluation Final Report, stating that “this project has made good progress towards achieving its objectives". In June 2012, the Australian Government approved the project’s Final Report.

In addition to all of the project milestones having been completed, other activities that have been initiated included:

• the Maintenance Management Improvement Project (at one non-Indigenous council), designed to reduce reactive maintenance by scheduling proactive maintenance

• Building Condition Assessments for several Indigenous councils.

For the majority of the councils, the work undertaken on this project has exceeded the items contained in the project’s implementation plan. Whilst project funds are available, the LGAQ will continue to facilitate regional asset management meetings to promote ongoing management for financial sustainability and completing outstanding days allocated under the project allocation days.

Local Government Cost Index

Each year, the LGAQ publishes a Queensland Local Government Cost Index, which gives an independent analysis of price movements for Queensland local governments.

Between 2006 and 2010, there was an average annual increase in the Local Government Cost Index of 4.2 per cent, and in early 2011, the potential cost pressures from the flood and cyclone damage influenced a prediction of subsequent rate increases of up to 7.5 per cent if there was a consequent rapid increase in civil construction costs.

However, Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data for 2011 released in April 2012 indicated no substantial increase in construction costs, and therefore the 2011-12 general rate increase across Queensland was relatively modest compared with previous financial years. Total general rate revenue on a per capita basis increased by 3.5 per cent in 2011-12, compared with 6.3 per cent in the 2010-11 financial year.

111

Appendix B

The table below provides details of the price movements from 2005-06 to 2010-11 for a number of relevant price indices.

Table B.15 Pr ice movements from 2005-06 to 2010-11

Index

Increase Dec. 05 to Dec. 06

Increase Dec. 06 to Dec. 07

Increase Dec. 07 to Dec. 08

Increase Dec. 08 to Dec. 09

Increase Dec. 09 to Dec. 10

Increase Dec. 10 to Dec. 11

CPI - Brisbane 3.4% 3.9% 4.3% 2.5% 3.0% 2.4%

Road Freight - Australia 3.4% 3.1% 10.9% -2.8% 3.1% 5.4%

Wage Price - Queensland 4.6% 4.4% 4.1% 3.2% 4.2% 3.6%

Road and Bridge Construction - Queensland 7.1% 6.3% 12.9% -2.9% 1.6% 1.9%

Local Government Cost Index (50% CPI and 50% Road & Bridge) 5.3% 5.1% 8.6% -0.2% 2.3% 2.2%

Source: ABS Catalogues 6401.0, 6345.0 and 6427.0.

The next table below provides details of the five year moving averages of percentage changes in each of the above indices, along with the calculation of the Local Government Cost Index for 2012.

Table B.16 Fi ve year moving averages of percentage changes

Index

Five Year Average Increase 2006-07 to 2010-11

CPI - Brisbane 3.2%

Road Freight - Australia 3.9%

Wage Price - Queensland 3.9%

Road and Bridge Construction - Queensland 4.0%

Local Government Cost Index (50% CPI + 50% Road & Bridge) 3.6%

The Local Government Cost Index 2012 change is +3.6 per cent, calculated from a 50 per cent weighted, Five year moving average of changes in the CPI for Brisbane and the Road and Bridge Construction Cost Index for Queensland.

Based on average price movements over the past five years, an average rate increase across the state of +3.6 per cent on a per capita basis was predicted for 2012-13 in order to maintain the current level of service. This prediction assumed other revenue sources (eg grants) increase in line with costs.

The Local Government Cost Index only provides an aggregated picture of cost movements at the state level; the mix of construction and non-construction activity varies from council to council and there are parts of the state where construction costs have been increasing faster than the state average. Such factors will all be of relevance at the local level when determining the level of rate increase necessary to provide the desired level of service. LGAQ believes that local governments should be commended for striving to set the increase of council rates as low as possible in order to alleviate cost of living pressures on ratepayers.

HR Advance

In 2010, in partnership with a private provider, LGAQ developed the HR Advance tool, an online suite of documents such as contracts, policies and employee correspondence that complies

112

Local Government National Report 2011-12

with legislation and best practice principles. By the end of the 2011-12 financial year, almost all Queensland local governments have subscribed to this service, enabling many efficiencies not only within individual councils but across the Queensland local government sector. Other benefits include:

• resources to assist local governments in developing the necessary suite of human resource, workplace health and safety, and other miscellaneous policies

• increased capacity of council staff in the administration and application of these policies and procedures

• improved governance arrangements for councils, particularly with human resource management and workplace health and safety

• improved workforce management practices.

Workforce Planning

During 2011, recognising the need for an efficient, relevant and affordable workforce operating in a contemporary and challenging economic environment, LGAQ with the support of councils embarked upon a project to introduce a regime of comprehensive workforce planning which would assist councils at the local level as well the industry at the regional and state level. At the outset, 19 Queensland councils collaborated with LGAQ on a project entitled HR Metrics, aiming to identify and agree on a common set of workforce data metrics (in excess of 80 measurements within 12 categories) that can be applied across the local government sector. This data allows councils to measure their workforce productivity and will be used to enable councils to benchmark their data against other similar councils as well as at the collective state level. As workforce issues are one of local government’s bigger expenses, this data will be invaluable for each council in order for them to understand, analyse and track trends and improve their performance.

The data gathered by this project, as well as the LGAQ’s annual workforce census, also underpins the common workforce planning approach currently being piloted in excess of 20 councils. Complementing this strategy has been the support and contribution of Queensland local government to the development of the 2013 National Local Government Workforce Strategy, which has been developed under the auspices of the Australian Centre for Excellence in Local Government (ACELG).

Community Wellbeing Indicators

In early 2011, the LGAQ launched its two year Community Wellbeing Indicators Project. This Project was aimed at supporting councils in developing better ways to:

• understand and measure local community wellbeing

• build a better and consistent statistics base

• improve community planning

• strengthen council’s ability to measure progress in achieving community aspirations

• improve citizen involvement.

In late 2011, the LGAQ completed a comprehensive community wellbeing pilot survey in five local government areas that represented a cross-section of local government in Queensland - Sunshine Coast, Isaac, Gladstone, Longreach and Wujal Wujal councils. This pilot survey trialled

113

Appendix B

a limited set of wellbeing indicators based on community perceptions, and demonstrated the usefulness of such an approach to local government.

The majority of Queensland councils have developed a long-term community plan that represents the community’s views, visions and values, and how the community aspires to reach its full potential in the future. This project aims to enhance local government’s ability to measure the value of their investment in their communities across social, cultural, economic, environmental and democratic activities through a standardised community survey. This tool would allow them to:

• measure community wellbeing using a number of standard indicators

• track changes over time in community wellbeing

• benchmark their performance against results from similar councils across the state

• identify policy measures that can improve community outcomes.

At the conclusion of the 2011-12 financial year, the LGAQ partnered with ACELG to build on this initial work. This research will demonstrate how a community wellbeing indicators survey may be adapted for use by all local governments and be used to measure, analyse and assess the progress of community wellbeing in a local government area.

The LGAQ is excited to provide more information on the successful outcomes of this project in due course, as the final report and tool has recently been released by LGAQ and ACELG.

Queensland Water Regional Alliance Program

In late 2011, LGAQ secured Queensland State Government funding to undertake a local government and water industry led initiative to investigate a range of matters, including possible alternative institutional models for urban water service provision outside of South East Queensland.

The resulting project, the Queensland Water Regional Alliance Program, invited expressions of interest from three regional groupings of councils to participate in the programme, with the following objectives:

• to better respond to the significant social, environmental and economic policy drivers impacting urban water provision in remote and regional communities

• identification of institutional arrangements, taking into account the diversity of Queensland communities, that will best secure urban water services while ensuring safety and supply reliability as well as political accountability

• management and technical capacity to appropriately respond to changing economic and technical regulatory frameworks (including reporting obligations)

• capacity to provide for ongoing training, skills enhancement and development needs of staff.

The three regional groupings of councils (based around Longreach, Cairns and Bundaberg) established technical and elected member working groups, with a total of 12 different councils participating in the programme overall. These three pilots have recently finalised their reports, and LGAQ and qldwater have analysed these outcomes. The LGAQ is very pleased to briefly report that the project has been so successful with these pilots that the Queensland State Government has granted an additional $250 000 to extend the programme to additional groupings of councils over a three year period.

114

Local Government National Report 2011-12

The LGAQ and qldwater are excited to have developed this project, in conjunction with the Queensland State Government, to successfully pilot collaborative, efficient, shared service arrangements with these three groupings of 12 councils for the provision of urban water outside South East Queensland. The LGAQ looks forward to providing a more detailed analysis of the pilot reports, in addition to the extended programme, at a later stage.

Urban Water Services Project Memorandum of Agreement

Following the Queensland State election in March 2011, the newly-elected Newman Government recognised the need to renew the Urban Water Services Project Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), that had been signed in June 2010, as well as commit to updating this MoA at some point in 2012-13.

The Urban Water Services MoA promotes a collaborative partnership approach between governments (both state and local) and industry to tackle common challenges, with a focus on:

• transparent and streamlined regulations and reporting regime, which results in better decision making at a local, regional and state level

• improved transparency of pricing structures, adequate investment in infrastructure and sustainable institutional arrangements for service providers that support the long term sustainability of their water assets and infrastructure

• promotion of skills development and careers pathway, which results in improved attraction and retention of skills within the water industry

• opportunities for the local government water sector to consider efficient and innovative service delivery models, while continuing to own and manage these assets and provide acceptable levels of service to all local communities.

The LGAQ believes that this collaborative approach at a state, local and industry level that encourages and emphasises efficient and innovative frameworks and models for service delivery, including regional partnerships or shared service arrangements, should be replicated and tailored to other sectors where local government and communities have a vital interest.

Level Crossing Interface Agreements

An Interface Agreement for level crossings is a requirement under the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010 (Qld). Council, as the responsible road manager for locally controlled roads, is required to enter into an Interface Agreement with the rail infrastructure manager to manage the safety risks at level crossings. This legislative requirement came into effect from 1 September 2012 and applies to 46 Queensland councils.

LGAQ engaged with rail infrastructure authorities (Queensland Rail and QR National) during 2011-12 to facilitate, on behalf of Queensland local governments, the establishment of these Interface Agreements. Further, in order to assist councils with their legislative obligations, LGAQ worked with the State Department of Transport and Main Roads and Queensland Rail to develop guidance materials and an Interface Agreement template. This also ensured standardisation across the affected council areas and provided councils with a template with which to begin negotiations.

115

Appendix B

Roads Alliance

The Roads Alliance, a partnership between the Queensland State Government, LGAQ and local governments, celebrated its 10 year anniversary in 2012. This is an outstanding achievement and demonstrates its value as well as continued political investment and support from both sides of state politics. To coincide with this anniversary, the Roads Alliance Board commissioned a formal review of the Roads Alliance, focusing on its operational framework, strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for the future. The review exercise was conducted by consultants de Chastel & Associates, and completed in October 2012.

Following the turmoil created by natural disasters during 2011, the Roads Alliance during the 2011-12 financial year focused on consolidating gains in programme delivery, asset management and road safety. Key highlights included:

• over half a million dollars of state-wide Capability Development Funding being quarantined specifically for bridge asset management initiatives

• the establishment of the Cape York Regional Transport Group, incorporating many of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils on the Cape

• the establishment of a new framework to give regional road groups greater autonomy to direct investment towards regional transport infrastructure priorities

• the establishment of the Roads Alliance Road Asset Valuation Project, which allows local governments to duplicate the road asset valuation methodology used by the State Department of Transport and Main Roads, and will provide councils with a consistent state-wide methodology and standardise reporting requirements.

Regional Development Australia

LGAQ has long advocated for closer engagement with the Regional Development Australia (RDA) framework since the inception of the Queensland RDA Network in March 2010.

Despite representations, arrangements for RDA implementation were sealed with a bilateral agreement between only the Federal and Queensland State Government. If the RDA framework is to continue, the LGAQ believes that the most effective model involves a tripartite agreement, reflective of the arrangement achieved in South Australia.

Queensland operates under a complex array of regional organisations, many of which with substantial financial investment from participating councils. A survey of Queensland councils and RDAs commissioned by LGAQ in November 2011 found that 59 per cent of respondents believed there was scope for the relationship between local government and RDAs to grow. Specific roles identified include the ability to jointly identify regionally significant infrastructure and funding assistance, improved communication into the regional planning process, opportunities to partner in investment, and the provision of targeted business support and planning.

The LGAQ believes that effective engagement and improved recognition of local government as a key partner in the RDA Committee Network is vital to ensure the ongoing success of this (or similar) framework/s. The LGAQ remains keen to enhance relationships between the three levels of government and recognise local governments’ contribution to regional development.

116

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Indigenous Leaders Forum

As indicated in previous National Local Government reports, the LGAQ regularly meets with mayors, councillors and senior council officers of the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils.

Arising out of a comprehensive member and stakeholder review conducted by LGAQ over several years, the LGAQ established a Forum specifically for all Queensland Indigenous councils entitled the Indigenous Leaders Forum (ILF). Convened to allow Indigenous councils the opportunity to come together, discuss common challenges and concerns, and to put forward issues to be addressed, the ILF was also designed to leverage the collective will and effort of participating councils in order to maximise the benefits for councils and provide a focus for identifying opportunities for collaboration amongst Indigenous councils.

The inaugural Forum was held on the Gold Coast, 3-5 October 2011. Membership is comprised of the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer from the following 17 Indigenous councils (including Torres Shire Council):

• Aurukun Shire Council

• Cherbourg Aboriginal Shire Council

• Doomadgee Aboriginal Shire Council

• Hope Vale Aboriginal Shire Council

• Kowanyama Aboriginal Shire Council

• Lockhart River Aboriginal Shire Council

• Mapoon Aboriginal Shire Council

• Mornington Island Aboriginal Shire Council

• Napranum Aboriginal Shire Council

• Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council

• Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council

• Pormparaau Aboriginal Shire Council

• Torres Shire Council

• Torres Strait Island Regional Council

• Woorabinda Aboriginal Shire Council

• Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire Council

• Yarrabah Aboriginal Shire Council.

The inaugural Forum was a success, and a commitment was given to hold the ILF bi-annually. Outcomes included an agreed list of priorities for LGAQ and Indigenous councils to focus on, including:

• sustainability, particularly in the areas of financial and asset management, budgeting and planning

• community safety and justice

• opportunities for shared services

• economic development.

117

Appendix B

The ILF has continued to meet bi-annually, with the Forum held 23-24 May 2012 in Cairns attracting 67 participants, with representatives from all of the 16 Queensland Indigenous councils. State and Federal Ministers regularly attend the Forum to converse with the delegates on various matters raised by the Forum.

The ILF has continued to be a successful and valuable forum for Indigenous councils to meet with each other, LGAQ and State Government Ministers and representatives, to discuss common issues and potential solutions, and to continue to build good working relationships with each other. Members have collaborated and put forward recommendations as the ILF in conjunction with LGAQ to the Queensland State Government on a number of issues.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils continue to show great progress in their development as Local Government Authorities and as the leading 'voice of and for their communities' following their transition from Community Councils with their own legislation to Local Government Authorities covered under the same Local Government Act as all other Queensland local governments.

LGAQ Tool - Indigenous Planning Schemes

Prior to the implementation of the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities were not regulated to perform planning and development related functions. The Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) created a situation that requires all local governments, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils, to prepare a planning scheme and implement development assessment policies.

Arising out of this need to assist Indigenous councils, in 2010, LGAQ engaged consultants Arup to undertake extensive consultation and develop a tool to assist in the preparation of planning schemes, particularly as these councils are characterised by remote locations, small communities with little or no rate base and limited resources, yet they deliver a wide variety of services to their communities. Primary findings arising out of this consultation include:

• Indigenous councils generally do not undertake planning nor allocate resources - most planning work required is undertaken by consultants on an as needs basis;

• identified barriers to implementing planning schemes included:

- general lack of technical knowledge

- lack of funding to employ a town planner or engage consultants

- insufficient volume of work to employ a full or part time planner

- lack of internal processes and record keeping processes to manage development applications

- potential lack of support after the planning scheme is adopted and Queensland State Government training has been completed

• the identified training needs included:

- general training about the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) (SPA), including council responsibilities particularly in relation to the development assessment process

- training on how to use the planning scheme

- GIS training.

Other identified issues included the complex interrelationship between various relevant legislation (such as Leases, Native Title Act, Aboriginal Land Act and SPA), tenure resolution,

118

Local Government National Report 2011-12

unreliability of Census data in Indigenous communities, need for greater regional collaboration, unreliability of funding and the need to better plan for the future.

To respond to these issues and provide specifically targeted information to Indigenous councils, LGAQ and Arup developed and produced the 'Preparing a Planning Scheme: A guide for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Councils' in 2011. This guide clearly identified local government responsibilities in planning and development, demonstrated the benefits of a planning scheme, and provided a 'step by step' outline and other practical tools to help integrate a planning scheme with other Indigenous Council business. The guide was warmly welcomed by Indigenous councils.

Queensland Community Satisfaction Tracking Study 2011

Finally, the LGAQ commissions an independent survey every couple of years to gauge their opinion on various aspects of local government activity. Market Facts conducted the Community Tracking Survey in 2011 and interviewed more than 700 participants through focus groups in metropolitan, provincial and rural locations. The input provided by residents, community leaders and stakeholders during these interviews defined those parameters which the community considers to be important when assessing the relevance of local government to them. These included:

• basic services and infrastructure - such as road construction and maintenance, street lights, traffic management, parking, public transport, water supply, sewerage, drainage and flood mitigation, waste management and community health

• community lifestyle services - such as parks, playgrounds, public amenities, environmental controls, conservation, heritage protection, sporting and recreational facilities, libraries, community safety and services, animal control, shopping centres and community development

• managing the shire/city - such as town planning, building control, economic development, local employment, tourism, financial management and revenue raising

• customer services/communication - such as information services, informing and consulting the community, responding to the community, and providing leadership and advocacy

• qualities of Council - such as the elected council as a whole, councillor(s) dealt with, officers, outdoor workers and indoor staff

While this survey in 2011 found that Queensland councils achieved an overall performance rating of 65 per cent (down from 67 per cent in 2009 and more than 70 per cent in 2007), the LGAQ believes that this result is admirable considering the forced 2008 amalgamations and skyrocketing costs that have helped harden community attitudes to local councils. However, the survey also found an overwhelming majority of respondents (more than 70 per cent) perceived councils to be performing well in providing services such as libraries and sport and recreation facilities. In addition, 73 per cent thought that their council rates and charges were good or reasonable value for money, up from 66 per cent just two years ago, and an excellent result considering the current financially constrained times.

Summary

During the 2011-12 financial year, LGAQ and Queensland local governments have continued to employ innovative solutions to help deliver essential services to their communities and perform efficiently and effectively. With the incredible breadth of services that local government

119

Appendix B

now provide, encompassing far more than the traditional focus on essential infrastructure and municipal services, it is imperative that local government improves its financial sustainability to be less dependent on grants and political will.

LGAQ and its subsidiaries continue to support Queensland local governments in adapting to increasing community expectations, with greater involvement in the delivery of a variety of services, while improving and achieving internal council efficiencies.

Report from the Department of Local Government and Communities in Western Australia

The methodology used for distributing local government Financial Assistance Grants for 2011-12, including any changes in methodology from 2010-11 The Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission (WALGGC) uses the balanced budget method for allocating General Purpose Grants and an Asset Preservation Model for allocating the Identified Local Road Grant component.

The ‘balanced budget’ approach to horizontal equalisation applies to all 138 local governments in Western Australia and is based on the formula:

Assessed expenditure need - assessed revenue capacity = assessed equalisation requirement

Calculation of assessed revenue capacity is based on standardised mathematical formulae, and involves assessing the revenue-raising capacity of each local government in the categories of:

• residential and commercial/industrial rates

• agricultural rates

• pastoral rates

• mining rates

• recreation and culture charges

• building charges

• investment earnings

• other revenue.

Assessed expenditure need is based on standardised mathematical formulae, involving the assessment of 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.

120

Local Government National Report 2011-12

For the 2011-12 grant determinations, 31 local governments received the minimum grant entitlement. Local governments that received a minimum grant in 2011-12 had their grant calculated on a per capita basis, in accordance with the minimum grant principle established under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth).

The WALGGC was still in the process of completing its review of the General Purpose Grant methodology and, as such, the General Purpose Grants for 2011-12 were pegged at 2010-11 levels, with an escalation factor applied, equivalent to the percentage increase in the total Western Australia pool, after deducting the minimum grant local governments.

For the 2011-12 grant determinations, the WALGGC used the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics’ estimated residential population data.

Methodology Review

The methodology review was completed in December 2011 and will be applied to the 2012-13 grant determinations. The WALGGC will reduce the number of disabilities it currently applies to determinations. The balanced budget approach will be retained, albeit with some changes to the overall application of disabilities.

Local Road Grant Funding

Under the current principles, seven per cent of the Australian Government funds provided for local roads are allocated for special projects (one-third for roads servicing remote Indigenous communities and two-thirds for bridges). The remaining 93 per cent is distributed in accordance with road preservation needs, as determined by the WALGGC’s Asset Preservation Model (APM). The model assesses the average annual costs of maintaining each local government’s road network and has the capacity to equalise road standards through the application of minimum standards. These standards help local governments that have not been able to develop their road systems to the same standard as more affluent local governments.

The road data used for the APM is obtained from Main Roads WA and is of a consistently high standard.

For the 2011-12 determinations, the average increase in Local Road Grants for all local governments was 4.59 per cent. A total of 127 local governments received an increase of less than 10 per cent, while five local governments received an increase of more than 10 per cent. Seven local governments had a decrease in their Local Road Grants.

In 2011-12, the Local Road allocations were:

Table B.17 Lo cal road allocations

Roads Servicing Remote Indigenous Communities $ 2,353,473

Bridges $ 4,706,945

Distributed according to the Asset Preservation Model $94,075,845

Total $101,136,263

121

Appendix B

Special Projects - Roads Servicing Remote Indigenous Communities

In 2011-12, the special projects funds for Indigenous access roads were:

Table B.18 Sp ecial project funds for Indigenous access roads

Australian Government funds from WALGGC $2,353,473

State funds from Main Roads WA $1,176,736

Total $3,530,209

The Indigenous Roads Committee advises the WALGGC on procedures for determining the allocations of Australian Government road funds for roads servicing remote Indigenous communities, and recommends the allocations that are made each year.

Membership of the Indigenous Roads Committee comprises one representative from:

• WALGGC

• Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA)

• Main Roads WA

• Department of Indigenous Affairs

• Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

• Department of Local Government and Communities.

The Indigenous Roads Committee has established funding criteria based on factors including the number of Indigenous people serviced by a road, the distance of a community from a sealed road and the proportion of traffic servicing remote Indigenous communities. These criteria provide an effective method of assessing priorities in developing a five-year programme.

Special Projects - Bridges

The WALGGC’s policy for allocating funds for bridges is influenced by the fact that there are many local government bridges that are in poor condition, and that the preservation of these bridges must be given a high priority.

The Special Project funds for bridges are allocated only to preservation type projects, recognising that some of these projects may include some upgrading, and that preservation includes replacement when the existing bridge has reached the end of its economic life.

Main Roads WA contributes one third of the cost of all projects funded under the Special Projects programme. In 2011-12, the funds for the preservation of bridges were:

Table B.19 F unds for the preservation of bridges

Special Project funds from WALGGC $4,706,945

State funds from Main Roads WA $2,353,472

Total $7,060,417

A Bridge Committee advises the WALGGC on priorities for allocating funds for bridges. Membership of the Bridge Committee comprises representatives of:

• WALGGC

• WALGA

• Main Roads WA.

122

Local Government National Report 2011-12

The Bridge Committee received recommendations from Main Roads WA on the priorities of projects under consideration. Main Roads WA has an ongoing programme of inspecting and evaluating the condition of local government bridges and has the expertise to assess priorities and make recommendations on remedial measures. As part of the process, local governments make applications to the WALGGC for bridge funding each year.

Development in local government use of long-term financial and asset management plans The former Department of Local Government in Western Australia continued to support the implementation of the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) Framework and Guidelines. These include a wide range of resources that provide for the development of key strategic management and planning tools informing core local government functions, including long-term financial and asset management planning.

In addition, grant funding was provided to those local governments participating in structural reform within the state to assist in the development of Strategic Community Plans, Long Term Financial Plans and Asset Management Plans.

In 2011-12, local government responses to a survey relating to local government capability indicated that:

• 83 per cent of local governments met the baseline level for Financial Planning

• 30 per cent of local governments met the baseline level for Asset Management.

In August 2011, the WA Government enacted regulations under the Plan for the Future provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA), which will require all Western Australia local governments to develop Strategic Community Plans and Corporate Business Plans that are informed by Long Term Financial Plans and Asset Management Plans. The Department of Local Government in Western Australia also published an Advisory Standard outlining minimum standards for integrated planning performance. The Advisory Standard and related Guidelines align these activities with the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks.

The Department of Local Government in Western Australia continued to conduct the series of two-day Master Classes relating to Integrated Planning, Asset Management Planning and Long Term Financial Planning. These were delivered across the state to local government executives and officers in partnership with Local Government Managers Australia WA Division (LGMA).

The Department of Local Government in Western Australia also commenced a series of workshops relating to Integrated Planning, Asset Management Planning and Long Term Financial Planning, in partnership with WALGA. These were delivered across the state to local government councillors.

Measures undertaken to develop and implement comparative performance measures between local governing bodies In 2011-12, the Department of Local Government in Western Australia continued its implementation of the Performance Measurement Framework for local governments. The Framework set the direction and intent of the Department of Local Government in Western Australia’s approach to measuring local government reform and capacity building against the requirements set out in the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) Framework.

123

Appendix B

The framework was designed to:

• help individual local governments monitor and manage their own progress delivering community services

• provide a common, reliable method of measuring progress sector-wide

• allow trends over time to be reliably measured

• provide information to direct the Western Australia State Government capability activities

• identify the changes arising from capacity building reforms.

2011-12 was the second occasion the Department of Local Government in Western Australia measured the sector’s performance in relation to Strategic Community Planning, Workforce Planning, Financial Planning and Asset Management as an aggregated Capability Index.

The Capability Index provides a measure that shows the proportion of local governments attaining a baseline level of capability. As anticipated, although improvement was seen from the previous year, many local governments did not undertake adequate planning and just four per cent of local governments across Western Australia met all four capability elements. This finding has informed the Department of Local Government in Western Australia’s subsequent capacity building work programme.

Reforms undertaken to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery During 2011-12, there were 64 local governments supporting the Western Australian State Government’s structural reform initiatives. These local governments were either progressing amalgamations, engaged in Regional Transition Groups to assess the benefits of amalgamations, engaged in Regional Collaborative Groups to identify opportunities for sharing services, or supportive of structural reform but not able to form a group with neighbouring local governments.

Sixteen local governments have formed five Regional Transition Groups and 21 local governments representing the remote regions of the state are working together as four Regional Collaborative Groups.

Two Regional Transition Groups comprising five local governments completed the business planning process and resolved not to progress amalgamation within their respective groupings. A further proposed amalgamation between two local governments was defeated by an elector’s poll.

The four Regional Collaborative Groups have identified a range of collaborative initiatives in areas such as regional waste management, town planning, human resources, Integrated Planning and Reporting, Information Technology and better practice processes. Two groups comprising seven local governments have completed the business planning process and commenced implementation.

The creation of the City of Greater Geraldton on 1 July 2011 resulted from the amalgamation of the City of Geraldton-Greenough and Shire of Mullewa. Benefits being realised by the community include:

• increased resources to support liaison with Aboriginal communities

• Mullewa youth programme expanded

124

Local Government National Report 2011-12

• enhanced regional advocacy through Regional Cities Alliance

• Australian Government funding accessed for community infrastructure

• extension of safety and security programme to Mullewa residents

• inclusion of Mullewa in the National Broadband Network rollout

• improved record management practices and compliance reporting processes.

In June 2011, the Western Australia Government appointed an independent Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel to examine the social, economic and environmental challenges facing Perth in the next 50 years.

The Panel was asked to recommend governance models and boundaries for local governments in the Perth metropolitan area that take account of those challenges. The Panel consulted widely with stakeholders and community representatives.

It considered almost 450 submissions received in response to an issues paper and draft findings. The Panel was due to submit its final report to the Minister in July 2012.

Initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities The Department of Local Government in Western Australia continued to progress arrangements during 2011-12 towards the development of a proposal for local government delivery of municipal services in Aboriginal communities across remote Western Australia as part of the Local Government Services in Aboriginal Communities Project, in accord with commitments in the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing (2009). The State and Australian Governments agreed to work together towards developing new arrangements, including clearer roles and responsibilities and funding for municipal services in Aboriginal communities.

The Western Australian Government, through its Royalties for Regions programme, made financial assistance available to 22 local governments in remote and regional Western Australia to undertake a scoping and costing study of local governments delivering municipal services in Aboriginal communities. This study commenced in 2010-11 and was finalised in November 2011. The study examined the asset and operational requirements for local governments to deliver a suite of municipal services in Aboriginal communities.

Progress during the year included:

• the completion of five scoping and costing studies covering Aboriginal communities in:

- the Shire of Broome

- the Kimberley region

- the Pilbara region

- the Gascoyne and Mid-West regions

- the Goldfields region

• the development and sector endorsement of a set of Transition Planning Principles that would guide the implementation phase of the project

• the finalisation of Western Australia’s comments on the Draft National Report on the National Audit of Municipal and Essential Services

125

Appendix B

• development of a sector position on the future of municipal service delivery in Aboriginal communities, by the Western Australian Local Government Association and presented as a Communique to the State Government in March 2012

• the Department of Local Government in Western Australia’s development of a service delivery planning approach in May 2012 to assist local governments to continue to develop individual proposals for their municipal service delivery responsibilities. Local governments were invited to participate in a trial of the approach, that would examine the current service delivery arrangements in communities, how local governments may be able to interact with these arrangements and determine costs of delivery. The service delivery planning approach would be tried in the following financial year.

The Department of Local Government in Western Australia maintained specialist staff in policy and project management to support this project.

Report from the Western Australian Local Government Association

The methodology used for distributing local government Financial Assistance Grants for 2011-12, including any changes in methodology from 2010-11 The distribution of Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs) in 2011-12 was very similar to the distribution in 2010-11. There were no changes to the WALGGC’s methodology for distributing the roads component of FAGs.

The method of allocating the General Purpose Grant (GPG) component was reviewed in 2011-12. Changes resulting from this review will be introduced for the 2012-13 financial year. Because of the impending review, the WALGGC made some interim arrangements for the 2011-12 allocation. Minimum grant councils in 2011-12 had their allocation determined according to the usual methodology, i.e. in accordance with the minimum grant Principle outlined in the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth). All other Councils had their GPG pegged to 2010-11 levels with an escalation factor (4.965 per cent) applied. The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) considers that the WALGGC’s interim arrangements were appropriate for 2011-12 while the methodology review was being conducted.

Developments in Local Government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans (particularly the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks) Working towards the implementation of Integrated Planning and Reporting was a key focus for WA’s Local Government sector during 2011-12. The WALGA worked with the Department of Local Government in Western Australia, Local Government Managers Australia (WA) and officer representatives from local governments to prepare the sector for the changes, through activities such as master classes and workshops. In preparing the Local Governments for this change, the WALGA found that WA was able to benefit from the earlier experience of other states in implementing their own Integrated Planning and Reporting Guidelines.

126

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Measures undertaken to develop and implement comparative performance measures between local governing bodies The sector’s main focus in 2011-12 was working towards the implementation of Integrated Planning and Reporting in July 2013. As a result there was little activity undertaken on comparative performance measures. Nonetheless, some local governments worked with the Department of Local Government in Western Australia to assess their own performance against the future requirements of the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework. As the reforms are bedded down and local governments in Western Australia gain further experience with the integrated frameworks, comparative performance measures will be developed (these are likely to be developed from 2014-15 onwards).

Reforms undertaken during 2011-12 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery General reforms undertaken in 2011-12 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery focused on the integration of local government’s asset management, financial management and workforce management responsibilities with Strategic Community Plans.

Another major reform activity for the sector in 2011-12 was the ‘Metropolitan Local Government Review’, which was announced by the then Minister for Local Government, Hon G M (John) Castrilli MLA in June 2011. During 2011-12, the WALGA consulted extensively with local governments in Western Australia to inform its submission in response to the review’s Issues Paper and then another submission in response to the Review Panel’s draft findings. The WALGA also noted the findings and implications of the Review Panel’s ‘Financial Position Review’ released in May 2012.

Initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities The Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) National Aboriginal Reform Agreement provides the current framework for the Australian, state and territory governments to work together with Aboriginal Australians and the broader community to achieve the target of ‘Closing the Gap’ in Aboriginal disadvantage. The key objective, from a local government perspective, is the progressive transfer of responsibility of municipal and essential services to the states (and thereby, local governments) by 1 July 2013, as outlined in the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Aboriginal Housing (2009). Twenty two local governments are affected in Western Australia.

In 2011-12, WALGA continued to advocate and participate in the normalisation of services to Aboriginal communities agenda; however, we were concerned that adequate provisions had not been made to enable local governments to assume responsibility for service delivery to Aboriginal communities in a fiscally responsible or acceptable manner. Local governments in Western Australia expressed these concerns in a Sector Communiqué to the state government in 2011.

The WALGA has also worked closely with the Department of Local Government in Western Australian on scoping and costing the potential requirements of local governments taking responsibility for service delivery. This project commenced in 2010.

127

Appendix B

Report from the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission, the Local Government Association of South Australia and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

The methodology used for distributing local government financial assistance grants for 2011-12 including any changes in methodology from 2010-11

General Purpose Grant

The methodology used to assess the general-purpose component of the Local Government Financial Assistance Grants is intended to achieve an allocation of grants to local governing bodies in the state consistent with the National Principles. The over-riding 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 the Commonwealth legislation.

The South Australian Local Government Grants Commission (South Australian 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 five Aboriginal Communities) allocations are made on a per capita basis.

A standard formula is used as a basis for both the revenue and expenditure component grants.

Formulae

General financial assistance

The formula for the calculation of the raw revenue grants can be expressed as:

G= Pc x S x [ ( Us x RRIs ) - ( Uc

x RRIc ) ] Ps Pc

Similarly, the formula for the calculation of the raw expenditure grants can be expressed as:

G= Pc x S x [ ( Uc x CRIc ) - ( Us

x CRIs ) ] Pc Ps

Subscripts of s or c are used to describe whether it applies to the state or a particular council.

G = 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

128

Local Government National Report 2011-12

RRI = Revenue Relativity Index. CRI = Cost Relativity Index (previously known as the disability factor). They are centred around 1.00, i.e. RRIs or CRIs equals 1.00. If more than one CRI exists for any function then they are multiplied together to give an overall CRI for that function.

In the revenue calculations for both residential and rural assessments, the South Australian Commission has calculated a revenue relativity index based on the SEIFA Index of Economic Resources (from the Australian Bureau of Statistics). Where no revenue relativity index exists the RRIc = 1.0. Currently in all expenditure calculations with the exception of roads and stormwater there are no disability factors applied and consequently, CRIc = 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, ($19.97 for 2011-12), 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. The South Australian Commission determined limits are then applied to minimise the impact on council’s budgetary processes.

In the calculation of the 2011-12 grants, the South Australian Commission constrained changes to councils grants to between minus 5 and positive 12 per cent. Changes in grant for the majority of councils were in the range of minus 1.5 per cent and positive 9 per cent.

Grants to two councils were reduced at higher levels of minus 3 and 5 per cent as part of a process of decreasing grants in a manageable way for these councils and 2 councils received increased grants of 12 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 South Australian 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 of five land use categories, namely;

• residential

• commercial

• industrial

• rural

• other.

129

Appendix B

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 i.e. they are effort neutral, are treated by the 'inclusion approach'. That is, subsidies such as those for library services and roads are included as a revenue function.

For 2011-12, the South Australian Commission excluded library subsidies from the grant calculations along with the libraries expenditure function (discussed below) due to concerns over the consistency of data provided by councils to the Public Library Services section of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

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 South Australian 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.

A main driver or unit of measure is identified for each function. This 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, in the case of the expenditure function 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, it is recognised that there may be other factors beyond a council’s control which require it to spend more (or less) per unit of measure than the state average, in this example 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, CRI’s 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. The following table details the approach taken to expenditure functions included in the methodology.

For 2011-12, the South Australian Commission excluded the libraries expenditure function from the methodology, as discussed above for library subsidies. Data gathered relating to visitor numbers has shown inconsistencies over the averaging period used by the South Australian Commission (three years), with some significant fluctuations in data for many councils. This

130

Local Government National Report 2011-12

issue is to be investigated as part of the South Australian Commission’s upcoming major methodology review.

Table B.20 SA Expenditure F unction and units of measure

Expenditure Function Standard Cost Units of Measure

Waste Management Reported expenditures1 Number of residential properties Aged Care Services Reported expenditures1 Population aged 65+ per ABS Census and estimated resident population Services to Families and Children Reported expenditures1 Population aged 0-14 yrs per ABS Census and

estimated resident population

Health Inspection Reported expenditures1 Establishments to inspect Libraries Reported expenditures1 Number of library visitors

Sport and Recreation Reported expenditures1 Population aged 5-49 years per ABS Census and estimated resident population

Sealed Roads - Built-Up5 Reported expenditures1 Kilometres of built-up sealed road Sealed Roads - Non-built-up5 Reported expenditures1 Kilometres of non-built-up sealed road Sealed Roads - Footpaths etc Reported expenditures1 Kilometres of built-up sealed road Unsealed Roads - Built-up5 Reported expenditures1 Kilometres of built-up unsealed road Unsealed Roads - Non-built-up5 Reported expenditures1 Kilometres of non-built-up unsealed road Unformed Roads5 Reported expenditures1 Kilometres of unformed road Stormwater Drainage Maintenance2,3 Reported expenditures1 Number of urban properties4 Community Support Reported expenditures1 3 year average population * SEIFA Advantage/

Disadvantage CRI

Jetties and Wharves Reported expenditures1 Number of Jetties and Wharves Public Order and Safety Reported expenditures1 Total number of properties Planning and Building Control Reported expenditures1 Number of new developments and additions Bridges Reported expenditures1 Number of bridges

Other Needs Assessments Set at 1.00. Based on South Australian Commission determined relative expenditure needs in a number of areas6

1 Counci l’s expenditures reported in the South Australian Commissions’ Supplementary returns. 2 Include s both construction and maintenance activities. 3 The South A ustralian Commission has also decided, for these functions, to use CRI’s based on the results of a previous consultancy by BC Tonkin and Associates.

4 U rban properties = sum [residential properties, commercial properties, industrial properties, exempt residential properties, exempt commercial properties, exempt industrial properties]. 5 The South Australian Commission has for these functions, used CRI’s 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. 6 Com prises South Australian Commission determined relative expenditure needs with respect to the following: • 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 (ABS) • Isolation - measured as distance from the GPO to the main service centre for the council (as determined by the RAA) • 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 i.e. car parking and from the Wingfield dump, and their extraordinary expenditure need i.e. due to the requirement that they maintain the entire road network within the City, and due to the daily influx of non-resident population • Environment and Coastal Protection - assessed to be high, medium or low • The Provision of Cultural and Tourist Facilities - assessed to be high, medium or low.

This final factor Other Needs Assessment (also known as Function 50) originates from awareness by the South Australian Commission that there are many non-quantifiable 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 factors. The South Australian Commission is aware that there are many 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 inherent or special factors. Therefore, in determining units of measure and cost relativity indices, the South Australian Commission must exercise its judgement based on experience, the evidence submitted to the South Australian Commission, and the knowledge gained by the South Australian Commission during visits to council areas and as a result of discussions with elected members and staff.

131

Appendix B

The calculated standards by function are outlined below.

Table B.21 Summar y of figures by function Total Population = 1 644 582

Function

Standard in Dollars

Unit of Measure per Capita

Total Units of Measure Unit of Measure

Expenditure Functions

Waste Management 148.40 0.40817 660 1 71 No of residential properties

Aged Care Services 114.08 0.15468 250 1 70 Population aged more than 65

Services To Families And Children 47.18 0.17902 289 53 7 Population aged 0 to 14

Health Inspection 306.92 0.01212 19 603 Establishments to inspect

Libraries - - - Number of visitors

Sport and Recreation 109.94 0.78634 1 271 810 Population aged 5 to 49

Sealed Roads - Built Up 8 257.13 0.00640 10 346 Kilometres of sealed builtup

Sealed Roads - Non Built Up 8 257.13 0.00452 7 306 Kilometres of sealed non-

builtup

Sealed Roads - Footpaths etc 10 603.83 0.00640 10 346 Kilometres of sealed builtup

Unsealed Roads - Built Up 1 421.22 0.00045 733 Kilometres of formed and

surfaced, and natural surface formed builtup road

Unsealed Roads - Non Built Up 1 421.22 0.02910 47 061 Kilometres of formed and

surfaced, and natural surface formed non-builtup road

Roads - Unformed 273.38 0.00560 9 056 Kilometres of natural surfaced

unformed road

Stormwater Drainage - Maintenance

53.16 0.44086 713 034 No of urban, industrial and

commercial properties including exempt

Community Support 29.00 0.99980 1 617 062 3yr average population * SEIFA

Advantage Disadvantage CRI

Jetties and Wharves 10 003.28 0.00005 76 Number of jetties and wharves

Public Order and Safety 16.98 0.56182 908 67 4 Total no of properties

Planning And Building Control

798.68 0.03344 54 093 No of new developments and

additions

Bridges 4 517.54 0.00053 863 Number of bridges

Other Special Needs 1.00 27.76950 44 913 900 Total of dollars attributed

Revenue Functions

Rates

- residential 0.0029 140 102 225 693 045 7 49 Valuation of residential

- commercial 0.0055 17 631 28 515 771 676 Valuation of commercial

- industrial 0.0084 2 730 4 415 544 173 Valuation of industrial

- rural 0.0030 19 709 31 519 832 67 6 Valuation of rural

- other 0.0022 9 697 15 683 1 15 379 Valuation of other

Subsidies 1.00 19.05220 30 814 692 The total of the subsidies

132

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Calculated standards by function

The South Australian Commission uses the above table to enable it to calculate a council’s raw grant for each of the given functions. To do this we calculate each individual councils unit of measure per capita co mpare it with the similar figure from the table and then multiply the difference by the standard from the table and its own population. If CRIs are applicable then they must be included as a multiplier against the council’s unit of measure per capita.

It must be stressed that this only allows the calculation of the raw grant for the individual function, not the estimated grant. The 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.

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, ($19.97 for 2011-12), the grant is adjusted to bring it up to the per capita minimum entitlement. The balance of the allocated amount, less allocation to other local governing bodies outside the incorporated areas, is then apportioned to the remaining councils based on their calculated proportion of the raw grant.

South Australian Commission determined limits may then be applied to minimise the impact on council’s budgetary processes. In the calculation of the 2011-12 grants, this constrained changes to councils to between minus 5 and positive 12 per cent. An iterative process is then undertaken until the full allocation is 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 the metropolitan area, allocations to individual councils are determined again by an equal weighting of road length and population. In the non-metropolitan area, allocations are made on an equal weighting of road length, population and the area of each council.

Distribution of the special local road grants is based on recommendations from the Local Government Transport Advisory Panel. This Committee is responsible for assessing submissions from regional associations on local road projects of regional significance.

Outback Communities Authority

The Outback Areas Community Development Trust was replaced by the Outback Communities Authority from 1 July 2010, and is prescribed as a local governing body for the purposes of the Grants The South Australian Commission’s recommendations, in the same way as the previous Trust.

133

Appendix B

The Outback Communities Authority was established in July 2010 under legislation of the South Australian Parliament. It has a broad responsibility for management and local governance of the unincorporated areas of South Australia. The Authority has a particular emphasis providing assistance in the provision of local government type services normally undertaken by local councils elsewhere in the state.

Due to the lack of comparable data, the South Australian Commission is not able to calculate the grant to the Authority in the same manner as grants to other local governing bodies. Rather, a per capita grant has been established. The 2011-12 per capita grant was $372.70.

Aboriginal Communities

Since 1994-95 the Grants South Australian Commission has allocated grants to five Aboriginal communities recognised as local governing authorities for the purposes of the Commonwealth Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth).

The Aboriginal communities are Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Gerard Community Council Incorporated, Maralinga Tjarutja Incorporated, Nepabunna Community Council Incorporated, and Yalata Community Council Incorporated.

Again due to the unavailability of data, grants for these communities are not calculated in the same manner as grants to other local governing bodies.

Initially, the South Australian Commission utilised the services of Morton Consulting Services, who completed a study on the expenditure needs of the communities and their revenue raising capacities. Comparisons were made with communities in other states and per capita grants were established.

Grants have gradually been increased in line with the increase in the general purpose pool of funding for South Australia since the initial study.

Changes to Methodology for 2011-12

There have been no changes to the South Australian Commissions methodology for 2011-12, except for the exclusion of the libraries expenditure function on the expenditure side and library subsidies on the revenue side, as discussed above.

Any developments in local government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans. In particular, identify any developments implementing the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks

Long-term Financial and Asset Management Plans

Each one of South Australia’s 68 local governments has developed and adopted a long-term financial plan and an infrastructure and asset management plan, each covering a period of at least 10 years, as required by section 122 of the Local Government Act 1999 (SA).

Many councils have found that significant additional work is required to improve the rigour of these plans. The Local Government Association of South Australia (LGASA,) funded by the Local Government Reform Fund, has assisted councils by arranging and subsidising the cost

134

Local Government National Report 2011-12

of Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA SA) providing training and additional support material for those councils.

The training provided by IPWEA SA reflects the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks.

Financial Sustainability

During the year 2011-12, the LGASA revised and updated its suite of Financial Sustainability Information Papers. These series of papers maintained a focus on assisting councils with their financial sustainability reform work.

A particular emphasis in these LGASA Financial Sustainability Information Papers was consistent reminders of the importance of making careful decisions regarding infrastructure priorities based on long-term financial plans and the crucial difference between projects creating new infrastructure (which involve additional ongoing operating expenses, including depreciation) and projects renewing existing infrastructure (which do not involve any increase in operating expenses).

The LGASA’s revised Financial Sustainability Information Papers are entirely consistent with the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks.

Local Government Reform Fund

The Office for State/Local Government Relations (OSLGR) and the Local Government Association of South Australia (LGASA) were successful, in early 2011, in obtaining funding of $1.65 million from the Local Government Reform Fund, for Stage 1 activities.

These activities in 2011-12 adopted principles of continuous improvement to ensure their ongoing relevance. They included:

• the development of accepted standards of good asset and financial management practices

• an assessment of all South Australian councils based upon those standards

• the development of individual improvement plans emphasising the principles of financial and asset management, collaboration, workforce planning and climate change adaptation

• the development of solutions based upon the results of the audit and content of improvement plans.

These assessments and plans were completed for all 68 South Australian local governments in May 2012.

In June 2012, funding of $910 000 for Stage 2 projects was provided by the Australian Government. These projects were:

• workforce planning

• climate change adaptation

• data management

While projects were to have been carried out under the auspices of the LGASA, OSLGR was to have oversight of funding outputs and outcomes to ensure projects were progressed according to the agreed implementation plan.

135

Appendix B

Any measures undertaken to develop and implement comparative performance measures between local governing bodies

Workforce Planning

The LGASA continues to extract workforce planning statistics from the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission data and presents the data in graph and table from for councils seeking comparative statistics for their workforce planning.

Financial Indicators

Each year, the LGASA assembles an update report providing the latest values, history and comparisons of key financial indicators for the local government sector as a whole. The 2012 update report (covering the eleven-year period from 1 July 2000 until 30 June 2011) included data on the:

• Operating surplus (deficit)

• net financial liabilities ratio

• operating surplus ratio for the sector as a whole.

In addition, the report provided a comparison between categories of councils in respect of 2010-11 actual results for their:

• operating surplus ratio

• net financial liabilities ratio.

Any reforms undertaken during 2011-2012 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery

Governance

The LGASA continued to provide a range of material, to assist councils to meet their governance obligations. These materials include model policies and procedures, guidelines, information papers and Codes of Practice.

Those published or updated in 2011-12 included:

• Model Complaints Policy and Procedures

• LGASA Guide Procurement Policy

• LGASA Guide Policy for Disposal of Land and Assets

• Internal Review of a Council Decision: Model Policy and Procedure

• Model Policy for the Selection of Road and Public Place Names

• Model Requests for Services Policy

• Model Whistleblower Protection Policy

136

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Education and Training

During the year the LGASA Education and Training Service continued to provide its extensive training and support programme with more than 2 600 council members and staff attended LGASA courses and seminars during the year.

A total of 148 Council Elected Members enrolled in Online Training Modules and 39 Council Elected Members accessed the Online Self Assessment Tool.

Libraries

The LGASA took a lead role in assisting councils and the Libraries Board of South Australia to establish the One Card Network. This network began providing borrowers with better and easier access to library collections across the entire state. A close partnership was established with the Board, working with councils, to specify requirements and support LGASA Procurement to tender and contract the supplier of networked library management systems.

The tendering was estimated to have saved councils more than $2.6 million in the procurement and implementation phase, with additional annual operating savings locally. Library users gained a range of benefits including access to more than four million items across the network through real time inter-library loan arrangements.

A successful tenderer was announced at the LGASA 2011 AGM and by June 2012 some 20 library branches were using the system across six council areas.

The LGASA also participated in a Department of Education and Childhood Development (DECD) committee reviewing school-based community libraries, which is specifically considering the resourcing of these libraries and how they operate in conjunction with school services.

Council Websites

During 2011-12 the LGASA’s Electronic Services Program (ESP) focused its efforts on the rollout of Unity Dynamic Council Websites edition used by more than 60 South Australian councils. After a successful upgrade to pilot councils Alexandrina, Naracoorte Lucindale and Port Adelaide Enfield a full rollout plan delivered upgrades to all participating council websites by the end of May. The rollout programme included staff training across the state. As a shared service, Unity continues to offer a state of the art content management system tailored for councils at a cost well under those of alternative providers.

Throughout the year the ESP team worked online closely with councils and shared service partner Deloitte Digital to define and implement enhancements to the Unity6 Content Management System. The implementation of the website enhancement programme will ensure that council websites keep pace with rapidly changing technology and remain an effective portal for better communication between councils and their communities.

Local Government Research and Development Scheme

The Local Government Research and Development Scheme is a primary source of funding for research in Local Government. Funded through tax equivalent payments by the Local Government Finance Authority, it is overseen by an Advisory Committee comprising representatives from the LGASA State Executive Committee, Metropolitan CEOs, Country CEOs, Local Government trade unions, South Australian universities, the Office for State/Local Government Relations and the LGASA Secretariat.

137

Appendix B

The scheme has approved a total of 489 projects since inception, with total approved funding of $19.4 million. This has attracted significant matching funds and in-kind support from other sources.

Funding for key projects during 2011-12 included:

• Coastal Inundation Mapping - $20 000 (Eyre Peninsula Local Government Association)

• Flood Damage Remediation Approaches - $75 200 (Ce ntral Local Government Region of Councils)

• Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Community Recreation Facilities - $60 000 (Local Government Recreation & Sport Facilities Sustainability Group)

• Minute Keepers’ Handbook - $11 000 (East ern Region Alliance (ERA) Governance Group and City of Campbelltown)

• Optimum Compaction Rates for Kerbside Recyclables - $25 000 (Ze ro Waste SA (on behalf of the Cities of Marion, Holdfast Bay, West Torrens, Onkaparinga, Charles Sturt, Adelaide, Prospect and Tea Tree Gully and Visy)

• Regional Airport Classification Structure and Training Needs - $18 000 (W orkplace Resources Pty Ltd on behalf of Lower Eyre Peninsula)

• Road Safety Strategic Framework - $15 000 (City o f Prospect and the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure)

• Volunteer Management Toolkit - $24 800 (A ustralian Services Union in conjunction with the Local Government Volunteer Managers Forum)

• Assessing the Performance of the Council - $30 000 (L GASA).

Local Excellence Expert Panel

An Expert Panel, appointed to consider the future roles and functions of councils in South Australia, under the LGASA Local Excellence program, was announced at the LGASA General Meeting in April 2012. The Hon Greg Crafter, a former State Government Minister, was appointed Chair of the Panel and Ms Christine Trenorden - former Senior Judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court and Associate Professor Graham Sansom - Director of the Australian Centre for Excellence in Local Government, were appointed to assist him.

The Panel was tasked with producing a report by October 2013. To assist with this task the Panel planned to seek submissions from Federal, State and Local Governments, experts, academics and the public on topics including:

• the role and functions of councils

• governance frameworks, including accountability and integrity issues

• community engagement and capacity building

• performance aspirations in key functional areas

• financial arrangements

• intergovernmental relationships

• regional collaboration and consolidation

• partnerships with the private sector.

138

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Waste Management

Consistent with the LGASA Waste Strategy, work continued during 2011-12 in a number of areas including e-waste, recycling and the Australian Packaging Covenant.

The LGASA ran a successful e-waste Pathways Forum in June 2012, and developed a model specification for councils looking to engage with industry as part of the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme.

The LGASA maintained its close working relationship with Zero Waste SA through a Service Level Agreement. This allowed the LGASA to act as a conduit between Zero Waste SA and councils on waste-related matters, including grant and funding opportunities. The LGASA and Zero Waste SA worked together in delivering two e-waste collections in both metropolitan and regional areas, as well as the development of a discussion paper for councils relating to e-waste.

Community Wastewater Management Schemes

About $8 million was allocated to current construction projects during the year, the fifth year of a 10 year funding agreement between the State Government and the LGASA. Three schemes were completed, with another five currently either under construction or ready to go to tender. Another $17.5 million was expected to be available for allocation to applicant councils over the remaining five years of the current agreement. Australian Government funding under the Wastewater Reuse Program was implemented over a four-year period, ending in June 2012. A total of 57 projects were undertaken, within 35 council areas, with potential water savings of approximately eight gigalitres per year. Over $17 million of Federal grant money was administered both financially and technically by the LGASA Program Team.

Planning Review

The LGASA continued its involvement in the electronic Development Assessment Interoperability Specification Land Division Pilot Project, working more closely with participating high growth councils to define and test automation of data flow between the councils and the Planning Division of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. The continuing availability of accurate and timely data on the operation of the planning system will help councils and the State to identify areas where improvement is required.

The development of a new Local Government Planning Reform Agenda commenced in March 2012. The Reform Agenda provides a strategic framework for prioritising and coordinating a response to the key issues that are affecting councils and incorporates 37 proposals which respond to 12 key planning issues. The issues range from the broad context of the South Australian Planning Strategy to building relationships with Government, and the development of wind farms.

Supporting councils to plan for, deliver and manage large residential development is an important objective of the LGASA’s planning portfolio and a significant amount of work has been done on a suite of resources for councils. These include an economic forecasting model to assess the long-term financial implication of development and a ‘Council Guide to Development’ which provides a step-by-step guide to the development process.

139

Appendix B

Public Health

Various sections of the new South Australian Public Health Act 2011 (SA) commenced operation in early 2012. The LGASA worked closely with State Government to ensure adequate and appropriate resources were made available to assist councils to implement the new Act.

Climate Change

During the year the LGASA continued to deliver the LGASA Mutual Liability Scheme Climate Adaptation Project, established in mid-2008.

Due for completion in late 2012 this program gave all South Australian councils a framework to understand the risks of climate change to their business operations and to plan ways to adapt in the short and long term.

Emergency Management

The LGASA developed the Emergency Assessment and Reporting System (EARS) project after identifying the need to gather centrally accurate and consistent real time information following the serious flooding events of 2010-11.

EARS will use smart phone and cloud technologies and will retain information in a central database to which councils and the emergency services will have access. A system specification for EARS was developed with input from a reference group comprising representatives from councils, the LGASA, and the State Emergency Services.

Shared Services

The LGASA played a facilitation role during the year in bringing councils together to discuss opportunities to work co-operatively together and councils continued to show strong interest in the potential to achieve efficiencies and cost savings by pooling resources. Work during the year demonstrated that key opportunities exist and are being exploited in the shared use of IT resources, road plant and equipment, administration and payroll services, and statutory functions.

LGASA Schemes

The LGASA Mutual Liability Scheme and the LGASA Workers’ Compensation Scheme exist to provide insurance, liability and risk services to Local Government and its employees. The Schemes’ management is contracted out and their operations are overseen by Boards comprising representatives from major stakeholders including relevant unions, the State Government, councils and the LGASA.

The operation of the Schemes and their day-to-day management has been a long-term success for Member Councils, resulting in significant cost reductions and excellent risk management practices for councils. However, it is appropriate that the Schemes’ administrative and governance arrangements be reviewed from time to time to demonstrate the principles of probity and good practice. A review of both Schemes was scheduled to take place in 2012-13.

LGASA Procurement

The Board of Local Government Corporate Services agreed to a name change to LGASA Procurement. That was subsequently announced at the LGASA General Meeting in April 2012.

140

Local Government National Report 2011-12

A sector wide procurement development survey was completed and results returned to councils and the Secretariat in March 2012, providing councils and LGASA Procurement with extremely valuable information on the current procurement practices, issues and opportunities for improvement.

A Year of Procurement Forum - Improve Your Bottom Line: The Strategic Procurement Opportunity - was held in March 2012 and was attended by over 100 delegates from the local and state government sectors.

A secondment partnership with Norman Waterhouse Lawyers was established to completely review and refresh the entire suite of documents, templates and guidelines that will ultimately provide councils with clarity, certainty, value and support throughout the procurement process.

LGASA Procurement continues to provide over 30 contracts to councils that provide good pricing and can also provide significant administrative efficiencies. These contracts have been developed using rigorous processes, careful attention to probity and meet all the requirements of the Local Government Act 1999 (SA).

Any initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities.

The LGASA continue to provide support to councils involved in Native Title processes - in particular the 27 councils involved in Indigenous Land Use Negotiations in the Kaurna region.

Report from the Tasmanian Government

The methodology used for distributing local government financial assistance grants for 2011-12, including any changes in methodology from 2010-11 The Tasmanian State Grants Commission (Tasmanian Commission) operates a review policy whereby major changes to its assessment methodology are implemented every three years. Changes identified during the previous review were implemented for the 2009-10 distribution. The review undertaken in 2011-12 will be implemented for the 2012-13 distribution.

The 2011-12 distribution was a between year assessment, meaning the Tasmanian Commission only allowed data updates and minor method changes in both the general purpose and road assessments. However, despite this there were still changes in grants for most councils due to relative movements in the data used to assess councils.

Developments relating to local government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans In 2010, through the Australian Government’s Local Government Reform Fund (LGRF), the Tasmanian Government and the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) secured funding of $870 000 through a National Partnership Agreement. The funding was used to develop and implement long-term financial and asset management planning in Tasmanian councils. All Tasmanian councils now have the long-term plans in place.

At the LGAT conference on 13 July 2012, the Tasmanian Government’s announced its intention to consult with local government on a number of initiatives to improve the financial and asset management capacity and efficiency of local government in Tasmania. Most specifically, the

141

Appendix B

Government outlined its commitment to develop a Financial Sustainability Framework for Local Government, which aligned with the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Framework.

The Financial Sustainability Framework for Local Government provides guidance for councils to:

• undertake long-term financial and strategic asset management planning

• improve the consistency and transparency of asset depreciation and revaluation practices

• report the financial and asset management sustainability indicators in their financial statements

• develop an appropriate review/audit process to promote compliance and quality of long term financial and asset management plans and other arrangements.

Since the development of the Financial Sustainability Framework for Local Government, the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Local Government Division has commenced drafting amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) (the Act) to allow for, and mandate, long term financial and asset management planning for all Tasmanian councils.

The proposal has been endorsed by the Premier’s Local Government Council (PLGC) and will ensure that the financial and asset management practices of Tasmanian councils are viable and sustainable into the future.

Actions taken to develop comparable performance measures between local governing bodies The Tasmanian Government now produces the Sustainability Objectives and Indicators (SOI) report to measure council performance on an annual basis.

The SOI project is a key initiative of the Tasmanian Government to drive sustainability reform and improve performance and to encourage the local government sector to do the same. The SOI project forms part of the Government’s Financial Sustainability Framework for Local Government, of which the overall objective is to ensure the local government sector improves its sustainability and develops and improves its financial and asset management capability and capacity.

The project allows councils to assess their performance in key strategic areas of financial and asset management, planning and development. The project is also anticipated to promote excellence in council performance and improve community engagement. It will also assist the State and Local Governments to set priorities for performance improvement within the sector.

The sustainability indicators to which council performance is compared have been developed through a comprehensive consultation process. Council’s performance against these indicators is monitored annually, and councils are encouraged to improve their performance by tracking their performance in relation to other councils:

• using changes in indicators to assess or review the impacts of large projects within their municipality

• communicating with their communities about their performance.

142

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Core local government data continues to be provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics for its Local Government Finance Statistics and to the Tasmanian Commission for its distribution to Australian Financial Assistance Grants, and identified Local Roads Funds to Local Government.

Local Government Service Delivery

The Role of Local Government project, established by the Premier’s Local Government Council (PLGC) in April 2012, aims to establish a clear understanding of the role and capabilities of local government, identify strengths and capability gaps, and develop actions to build a sector that is sustainable, efficient, effective and responsive to community needs.

The project is to be delivered in two phases. Phase one of the project concluded in December 2012 when the PLGC approved eight role statements describing the role of local government.

Phase two of the project aims to identify strengths and capability gaps and to identify actions and strategies to strengthen the local government sector. Data will be drawn from a range of sources, including local government and community surveys, to build an evidence-based picture of the strengths and capability gaps across the local government sector in Tasmania. The PLGC will then establish working groups to make recommendations regarding actions and strategies to strengthen the local government sector in Tasmania.

Up to date information on progress of the project is available on the project’s website at www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/local_government/role_ of_ local_ government2.

Local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities There were no specific local government initiatives undertaken in 2011-12 in relation to service delivery to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

Further Information provided by the Local Government Association of Tasmania

The Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) has worked in partnership with the State Government in developing new Sustainability Objectives and Indicators, in progressing the Role of Local Government project and in securing reform funding for work across the sector on long term financial and strategic asset management.

The Local Government Financial and Asset Reform Project, managed by LGAT has met all the milestones required by the Australian Government and a range of activities in this space are still being progressed. LGAT has worked with the State Government and councils to ensure an appropriate legislative mandate is progressed. An extract from our annual report 2011-12 with regard to that project is provided below, as are other items that may be of relevance and interest.

Local Government Financial and Asset Reform Project

The LGAT was successful in securing $870 000 from the Australian Government’s Local Government Reform Fund to implement frameworks for strategic asset management and long-term financial planning. The project is a partnership between the LGAT, the Australian and State Governments and all Tasmanian councils, as represented in the composition of the Steering Committee overseeing the project.

143

Appendix B

Four Steering Committee meetings were convened from January 2011 with significant work also progressed out of session. Achievements during this reporting period include a completed Project Plan, Communications Strategy and a state Local Government Asset Management Policy as well as factsheets and newsletters for council finance and asset management contacts. An expert Working Group was formed to develop a long-term financial planning framework to be adopted by all Tasmanian councils. Further, an email elected member reference group was established to provide review and advice on major aspects of the project. The second stage of the project including supported asset management planning, introduction of the long-term financial planning framework and conducting training for both elected members and council staff has been commenced.

Review of Local Government Rating and Valuation

A review of Local Government valuation and rating was established in response to a range of issues surrounding council rating, including fluctuations arising from the re-valuation process, variation of rating values and models across councils and the desire for greater flexibility for council rating. The objective of the review process is to seek a land valuation and rating model that will is more efficient and flexible, simpler to use, cost effective, equitable and sustainable. LGAT has participated on the Steering Committee which with specialist assistance produced a discussion paper, conducted workshops, and reviewed recommendations for State Government. A suite of rating tools was developed in terms of legislative amendment. The LGAT has been forceful in its advocacy on this matter.

Sustainability Objectives and Indicators Project (SOI)

In addition to continued participation on the Steering Committee for this project, LGAT facilitated expert working groups to develop potential indicators. The LGAT had some concerns about the nature and timing of workforce development data and so the Careers Development Officer worked with the Local Government Division of the Tasmanian State Government to ensure the best outcomes for all parties. A number of issues remain to be resolved during 2011-12 following further consultation with councils.

Procurement Workshops

Health Insurance for Employees

LGAT collaborated with the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) to allow member councils to access a health insurance scheme which provides a competitive outcome for employees through the piggy-backing on the Victorian base - up to 30 per cent discount on premiums. The scheme is offered on a no cost basis to councils.

Local Buy

The LGAT partnered with the Local Government Association of Queensland’s procurement arm, Local Buy, to maximise the purchasing power of Local Government nationally to minimise the price from manufacturers while ensuring that dealers at the local level were not penalised in the process. Workshops were conducted in each region for council Managers and procurement staff on a regional basis to explain access, pricing and related issues with the contract.

144

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Waste Management

Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Program

The HHW project has been very successful during its first two years of operation.

The Program has:

• conducted 30 drop-off days across 24 council jurisdictions

• accessed by 1 942 people

• collected 52 499 kg of household hazardous waste

• primarily consisted of high-volume low-toxicity material, such as water and solvent-based paint (55.8 per cent), lead acid batteries (10.8 per cent), flammable liquids (eg fuels) (5.9 per cent), gas bottles (5.3 per cent)

• collected substantial quantities of low-volume high-toxicity material, such as toxic pesticides (3 260 kg), toxic organics (1 392.5 kg), cyanides (42 kg), arsenic based compounds (33.5 kg).

Electronic Development Assessment (eDA)

The LGAT continued to roll-out the eDA pilot project at Hobart City Council and Northern Midlands Council. A number of technical and implementation barriers have been overcome although new issues have arisen in relation to the Tasmanian State Government’s Planning Reforms. Following successful negotiation with the Agreement the LGAT was able to run a grants round for councils to improve the reliability and validity of planning data and to develop business cases for three additional councils.

Climate Change

Partnership Committee and Work Plan

LGAT continued to liaise with the Tasmanian Climate Change Office in an effort to address some key issues facing the sector, particularly around planning and liability. A Climate Change Partnership Committee has been convened, along with working groups, and both with broadened Local Government representation, to progress priority climate change issues between Tasmania’s State and Local Governments. The Partnership Committee will oversee the development and implementation of a state-wide Climate Change Work Program on behalf of the Premier’s Local Government Council (PLGC). The Work Plan includes goals to: reduce greenhouse gas emissions; understand and communicate the implications of a national carbon price; better identify, understand and respond to climate change impacts; and develop and implement state, regional and local initiatives and policies to assist councils to adapt to climate change impacts.

Information Sharing and Toolkits

A number of case studies have been developed by Tasmanian councils and are available on the LGAT website. These case studies showcase the work being undertaken by councils to mitigate against, and adapt to, climate change. The purpose of the case studies is to share knowledge and new understandings on climate change projects in order to motivate progressive action within Local Government and local communities. A Climate Change Action Plan Template has been developed as an outcome of the 2010 Climate Change Adaptation Forums held by LGAT and the Tasmanian Climate Change Office. The template is intended as a guide to enable individual councils to set out their own frameworks for climate change action within their own

145

Appendix B

(corporate) activities. The template provides councils with an example Climate Change Action Plan that can be adapted for each council’s situation and required purpose.

Planet Footprint

In January 2010, LGAT reached terms of agreement with Planet Footprint for the provision of data analysis services over the next three years, until the end of 2013. Planet Footprint will provide state-wide or regional aggregated data upon request from LGAT, subject to the terms of the agreement. The work with Planet Footprint continued to bear fruit with an identification that Aurora Energy may have been charging councils for the energy costs associated with water and sewerage assets post the June 2009 hand over, leading to reimbursement for affected councils.

Tasmanian Coastal Adaptation Pathways Project

LGAT and the Tasmania Climate Change Office secured $500 000 in Federal Funding for the Tasmanian Coastal Adaptation Pathways (TCAP) Project. This project, which will be delivered over 2011-12, aims to significantly improve the ability of Tasmanian communities and decision-makers to adapt to climate change. The TCAP Project will explore the types of realistic options available to councils and communities when tackling the localised effects of climate change, and provide councils with a platform to then plan and respond appropriately to likely future scenarios in their area. Working with four councils across the state, the TCAP project will follow a ‘flexible planning pathway’ that will involve participation from a range of stakeholders, including residents and other users of the study areas. The experiences and learning gained can then be used by communities and councils across Tasmania and nationally.

Report from the Northern Territory Department of Local Government

Methodology used in the allocation of the 2011-12 financial assistance grants, including any changes in methodology from 2010-11 The Northern Territory Grants Commission's (Northern Territory Commission) methodology conforms to the requirement for horizontal equalisation as set out in section 6(3) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth).

The Northern Territory Commission, in assessing relative need for allocating general purpose funding, uses the balanced budget approach to horizontal equalisation based on the formula:

Assessed expenditure need - assessed revenue capacity = assessed equalisation requirement.

The methodology calculates standards by applying cost adjustors and average weightings to assess each local government's revenue raising capacity and expenditure need. The assessment is the Northern Territory Commission's measure of each local government's ability to function at the average standard in accordance with the national principles.

Population For the 2008-09 allocations the Northern Territory Commission resolved to use the latest ABS usual resident population figures and then adjusts the figures for estimated residency to align with the population total advised to Canberra from Northern Territory Treasury. The Northern

146

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Territory’s funding is based on this total population figure. The same raison d'être was used for the 2011-12 calculations.

Revenue raising capacity As the ownership of the land on which many communities are located is vested in Land Trusts established pursuant to the Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cwlth), it is not, for all intents and purposes, feasible to use a land valuation system solely as the means for assessing revenue raising capacity.

The collection of actual accurate financial data through the Northern Territory Commission’s annual returns enabled a number of revenue categories to be introduced, including rates where applicable, 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 Roads to Recovery, library and local roads grants are recognised in the methodology. In the case of recipients of the Roads to Recovery grants, 50 per cent of the grant is recognised. Recipients of library grants and local roads grants have the total amount of the grant included.

The Northern Territory Commission considers that, given unique circumstances within the Territory, this overall revenue raising capacity approach provides a reasonable indication of a council’s revenue raising capacity.

For the 2011-12 allocations, financial data in respect of the 2009-10 financial year was used.

Expenditure needs The assessment of standard expenditure is based on the Territory average per capita expenditure within the expenditure categories to which cost adjustors reflecting the assessed disadvantage of each local government are applied.

The Northern Territory Commission currently uses nine expenditure categories in accordance with the Australian Bureau of Statistics Local Government Purpose Classifications.

Cost adjustors

The Northern Territory Commission uses cost adjustors to reflect a local government’s demographics, geographical location, its modes of access, and the area over which it is required to provide local government services. There are three cost adjustors being location, dispersion and Aboriginality.

Minimum grants

For most local governments, the assessed expenditure needs exceed the assessed revenue capacity, meaning there is an assessed need. In six cases, assessed revenue capacity is greater than assessed expenditure need, meaning that there is no assessed need. However, as the Commonwealth legislation requires that local governments cannot get less than 30 per cent of what they would have been allocated had the funding been distributed solely on the basis of population, six local government councils still receive a grant, or what is referred to as the minimum grant.

147

Appendix B

Formula

1. Revenue component

All councils:

Assessed revenue raising capacity = Total identified local government revenue Total local government revenue = Assessed NT average revenue + other grant

support + budget term

Where Revenue category = Domestic waste, garbage, general rates, general

rates other, special rates parking, special rates other, fines and interest

Domestic waste = Per capita

Garbage other = Actual

General rates = Average rate

Service charges = Per capita

Interest = Actual

State income by revenue category 2009-10 = Actual state local government gross income Actual state local government gross income 2009-10 = $131 810 747 Other grant support = Roads to Recovery grant 2010-11

(50% recognised), library grant 2010-11 + roads grant 2010-11

Budget term Population x per capita amount

Total local government revenue 2011-12 allocations = $260 745 541

2. Expenditure components

Total local government expenditure of $260 745 451 is apportioned over each expenditure component.

a. General public services ($101 507 226)

Community population/Northern Territory population x general public services expenditure x Aboriginality

b. Public order and safety ($13 206 108)

Community population/Northern Territory population x public order and safety expenditure x (location + dispersion + Aboriginality)

c. Economic affairs ($21 681 793)

Community population/Northern Territory population x economic affairs expenditure x (location + dispersion)

d. Environmental protection ($8 425 641)

Community population/Northern Territory population x environmental protection expenditure

e. Housing and community amenities ($55 152 194)

Community population/Northern Territory population x housing and community amenities expenditure x (location + dispersion + Aboriginality)

f. Health ($2 633 531)

Community population/Northern Territory population x health expenditure x (location + dispersion + Aboriginality)

148

Local Government National Report 2011-12

g. Recreation, culture and religion ($38 267 080)

Community population/Northern Territory population x recreation, culture and religion expenditure x (location + dispersion)

h. Education ($8 149 856)

Community population/Northern Territory population x education expenditure x (location + dispersion + Aboriginality)

i. Social protection ($11 722 022)

Community population/Northern Territory population x social protection expenditure x (location + dispersion + Aboriginality)

3. Local road grant funding

To determine the local road grant, the Northern Territory Commission applies a weighting to each council by road length and surface type. These weightings are:

Road type Weighting

Kerbed and sealed 10.0

Sealed 8.0

Gravel 4.0

Cycle path 2.0

Formed 1.0

Unformed 0.4

Developments in relation to local government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans, including any developments in implementing the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks In 2011-12, significant advancements in asset management practices for local government authorities were achieved in line with the National Partnership Agreement to Support Local Government and Regional Development.

The Australian Government approved financial assistance of $1.35 million for the Department of Local Government and Regions to accelerate the implementation of frameworks to improve financial sustainability and financial and asset management of Northern Territory councils.

Funding for this project was used to deliver a suite of workshops for local government staff and elected members across the Northern Territory to enhance their understanding of council financial sustainability and develop skills to improve their respective councils’ long-term asset and financial management plans.

During the year, the Department worked in partnership with the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory to deliver a range of activities aimed at meeting the milestones of the funding agreement. Overall, the project achieved an enhanced asset and financial management framework for councils through:

• a series of training sessions for staff and elected members to improve their understanding of their roles and responsibilities in relation to long-term planning, and, to emphasise the

149

Appendix B

importance of sound asset management practices and financial management skills in integrated planning;

• a series of workshops for councillors and relevant staff from Northern Territory councils based on products developed by the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA) tools and programmes including:

- Sustainable Communities - for elected members and senior managers of councils;

- National Asset Management Strategy (NAMS) Plus for larger municipal councils and Asset Management for Small, Rural or Remote Councils for shire councils; and

- Australian Infrastructure Financial Management Guidelines for senior finance and technical staff.

• the development of regional support networks to assist councils to establish and maintain long-term plans and asset and financial management systems.

The overall output from this program has been a range of workshops and training sessions which have better equipped officers and elected members of participating Northern Territory councils with an enhanced understanding of their councils; financial sustainability and skills to improve their asset and financial management framework, strengthen council business processes and facilitate regional collaboration between councils.

The project meets many of the objectives outlined in Framework 2 Asset Planning and Management of the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks.

Framework 1 Criteria for Assessing Financial Sustainability provides indicators that are used in analysing council’s financial reports. These indicators and others will be utilised in analysing the performance of councils in the Northern Territory since the local government reforms and the establishment of the new shires as of 1 July 2008.

Framework 3 Financial Planning and Reporting details the elements of reporting for a council’s strategic long term plans, budgets and annual reports. These elements were embodied in the Northern Territory Local Government Act, which came into force 1 July 2008, as minimum requirements for reporting by local government bodies.

Measures undertaken to develop and implement comparative performance measures between local government bodies.

The Department of Local Government and Regions has undertaken capacity development through the development of resources and workshops with Northern Territory shire councils to develop the use of performance measures. All councils now use these measures as a way to report service delivery performance.

However, at this stage, the Department has not instigated a program of comparative performance measures between local government bodies because of the broad variation between municipal and shire councils and among shire councils themselves. These variations include size, remoteness, revenue raising capacity and viability. These factors are a determinate of the capacity of the council to deliver services and also for the types of services that are delivered. For example, remote, rural, and predominately Indigenous, shire councils have different service delivery priorities and capacity to the much larger urban based municipal councils.

150

Local Government National Report 2011-12

These differences in location, culture, size and revenue make comparative performance measures between local government bodies in the Northern Territory difficult to assess. These may also lead to inappropriate conclusions if the specific historical context of each council is not considered in the analysis.

Reforms undertaken during 2011-2012 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery During 2011-2012 shire councils worked cooperatively at a regional level to identify ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. Each of the three Northern Territory regions planned different strategies to do this. Some common themes were:

• joint procurement of insurance services, specialised machinery, building and maintenance services, legal and consultancy services

• shared service delivery arrangements such as waste management and animal management services

• sharing of specialised staff such as engineers, across a number of local governments

• reducing the need for cross subsidisation due to inadequate agency management fees through joint negotiations with government service funders

• jointly sharing administrative services such as human resource management and financial services.

Any initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities The preponderance of shire service delivery in the Northern Territory is to remote communities whose population is nearly entirely Indigenous. A large majority of these communities are on Aboriginal land. A key reason for implementing the 2008 local government reform was to improve the quality of service delivery to these communities and evidence to date indicates that service delivery in many locations has continued to improve significantly.

More recently, the funding guidelines for the special purpose and Closing the Gap grants have been revised to achieve greater alignment with council strategic and operational plans in relation to the delivery of core local government services.

This has seen funding being provided to councils for the provision of staff housing, recreational facilities, building renovations and upgrades and the replacement of plant and machinery to ensure councils can deliver core local government services in a timely and efficient manner.

In addition, shire councils have been significant contributors to the Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) being developed in the Territory Growth Towns. The LIPs are collaborative community based plans which aim to coordinate the activities and initiatives of all spheres of government. The Growth Towns are the twenty major remote population centres and include the Australian Government’s Remote Service Delivery priority locations under the National Partnership Agreements and National Indigenous Reform Agreement.

151

Appendix B

Report from the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory (LGANT)

Measures taken during 2011-2012 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government to deliver services Some of the more significant measures undertaken during the year were:

• made available an on-line gap-analysis tool for all councils to use for their workforce development plans for their employees

• secured funding from the Northern Territory Department of Health to employ a Waste Management Coordinator based in Alice Springs to work with councils in that region on matters of compliance in terms of landfill site management

• held the ‘Good Governance 2012’ event which:

- was funded by the Federal Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

- provided professional development to 123 elected members of 15 (out of 16) councils in the Northern Territory

- included activities relevant to the needs and roles of elected members as one means of improving the good governance of councils.

• training was delivered between August 2011 and February 2012 to 13 local government employees who completed a Certificate IV in Workplace Training and Assessment. The purpose of this training is to bring more resources to the effort of delivering elected member training in-house in specific areas of need such as induction training for new councillors

• councils received publications providing advice for taking measures to improve:

- road safety around schools

- information in respect of rates

- candidates’ knowledge of local government in the lead up to the March 2012 council elections

• emergency management recovery plans were drafted for 39 towns in council areas

• facilitated Emergency Management and Disaster Recovery workshops for councils which were conducted by Emergency Management Australia

• LGANT partnered with the Local Government and Shires Association of NSW to make available local government specific training webinars over the Internet to Northern Territory councils.

Developments relating to local government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans Two project officers were employed and based in Darwin and Katherine and a consultant commissioned in Alice Springs all of whom worked with councils to develop their asset management and long term financial plans.

All councils in the Northern Territory either have long-term financial and asset management plans in place or are close to completing them.

152

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Actions taken to develop comparable performance measures between local governing bodies All councils are required under the Local Government Act to report on their service delivery efforts in their annual reports and all have done so. Some of the data reported is comparable between councils and much of it was collected by the Northern Territory Grants Commission.

Examples of continuous improvement that deliver significant cost savings for local government

Some examples of continuous improvement that delivered significant cost savings included:

• councils continued to operate the shared services subsidiary, CouncilBIZ, in order to achieve savings with information and telecommunications infrastructure and support services by having them managed centrally

• changes to the Local Government (Accounting) Regulations were introduced which enabled councils to better procure goods and services through tenders

• councils were able to achieve savings by accessing mobile waste bins and various items of plant and equipment through the Local Government National Purchasing Network.

Improvements in local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities All Northern Territory councils are involved in service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens. Municipal councils tend to provide core local government services (for example, waste management, road construction and maintenance, public libraries and swimming pools) whereas for shires the range of services is more diverse and includes:

• services provided under contract on behalf of the Northern Territory government (for example, power, water and sewerage services in remote towns)

• services funded from grants provided by the Territory or Australian Governments (for example, aged care, child care, public housing and Centrelink).

All councils were involved to differing extents in improving in service delivery including:

• organisational changes including reviews of systems and processes that increase councils’ capacities and efficiencies in delivering services

• the facilitation and involvement in National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Observance Day celebrations, local festivals and sporting days

• the upgrade or maintenance of community facilities including halls, offices, multi-purpose centres and broadcasting facilities

• the upgrade and maintenance of public housing stock

• the upgrade and maintenance of local roads and causeways.

153

Appendix B

Report from the Australian Capital Territory Department of Territory and Municipal Services

Any development in local government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans, in particular, please identify any developments in implementing the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks The ACT has a Legislative Assembly which combines state and local government functions, however the ACT does not have local government as such. Local government functions are delivered by a number of directorates. The Territory and Municipal Services (TAMS) Directorate delivers the bulk of those services including roads, parks and reserves, public open spaces, footpaths, cycle paths, a public transport system (ACTION), landfills, waste collection, recycling, public libraries, cemeteries and domestic animal services.

TAMS also manages and maintains Canberra’s built environment. An important element of that is ensuring that the Government’s many infrastructure assets are strategically planned, built and maintained.

The ACT Financial Management Act 1996 (FMA) requires the preparation of annual financial statements for ACT Government directorates. The FMA, and the financial management guidelines issued under the Act, require a directorate’s financial statements to include:

• an operating statement

• a balance sheet as at the end of the year

• a statement of changes in equity for the year

• a cash flow statement for the year

• a statement of appropriation for the year.

The financial statements are prepared in accordance with both the Australian Accounting Standards and ACT accounting policies. Financial statements are prepared using an accrual basis of accounting.

TAMS produces controlled and territorial financial statements. The controlled financial statements include income, expenses, assets and liabilities over which the Directorate has control. The territorial financial statements include income, expenses, assets and liabilities that the Directorate administers on behalf of the ACT Government, but does not control. The purpose of the distinction between controlled and territorial is to enable an assessment of the Directorate’s performance against the decisions it has made in relation to the resources it controls, while maintaining accountability for all resources under its responsibility.

During 2010-11 an ACT Expenditure Review and Evaluation Committee engaged with TAMS to identify opportunities for improvements in its structure, processes and work practices. The review consisted of four parts: TAMS overall structures and processes; the underlying budget drivers; parks and city services; and expenditure and contracts. Implementation of the recommendations has resulted in a more robust financial framework and improved fiscal control throughout the Directorate. A number of recommendations provided for a longer-term focus and have been incorporated into the Directorate’s broader improvement programme.

154

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Any reforms undertaken during 2011-12 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery Significant achievements for TAMS in 2011-12 include the ongoing management of one of the largest infrastructure capital works programmes since self government. During 2011-12 TAMS delivered a significant portion of the ACT Government’s Capital Program, with works in excess of $191 million.

Transport reforms undertaken in 2011-12 were designed to improve traffic flow and safety. Projects included completing the Gungahlin Drive Extension, the Kings Highway realignment and the Tharwa Bridge upgrade as well as progressing the Monaro Highway duplication. Construction tenders were progressed for the Belconnen to City transitway, Parkes Way widening, Cotter Road duplication, Sutton Road upgrade and Majura Parkway.

Several projects were also undertaken to improve sustainable transport options. In May 2012, ACTION implemented a new network (Network 12) which included services to the new Gungahlin suburbs of Bonner, Crace, Forde and Casey; improvements to existing services in Kippax, central Canberra, Fyshwick and Majura Park; improved connections across the network; and the addition of a high frequency link between Woden and Canberra Hospital.

ACTION also negotiated the purchase of 20 articulated buses - the first such buses to be purchased in over 20 years.

The environment continued to be a key area of focus. As part of the Waterways Restoration Program willow debris was removed from over 30 kilometres of waterway, and 6 100 native plants replaced willows removed from along the Molonglo River at Oaks Estate and below Scrivener Dam.

The ACT became the first jurisdiction in Australia to implement the new National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme. The free scheme commenced in May 2012 and enabled Canberrans to dispose of their unwanted televisions, computers and computer peripherals such as printers, keyboards, mice and hard drives.

Roads

Through Roads ACT, TAMS manages the construction, operation and maintenance of roads and associated infrastructure such as bridges, community paths, driveways, street signs, line marking, traffic signals, street lighting and stormwater.

During 2011-12, Roads ACT carried out work funded under the Australian Government’s Black Spot Program. The Australian Government provided $966 000 in 2011-12 to the ACT Government as part of the ongoing funding for the Black Spot Nation Building Program package.

Roads ACT used funding to upgrade several intersections under the Black Spot Program, including College Street/Haydon Drive; Drakeford Drive/Summerland Circuit South; Tharwa Drive/Box Hill Avenue; Girrahween Street/Limestone Avenue; Coppins Crossing Road/William Hovell Drive; Athllon Drive/Hindmarsh Drive; Southern Cross Drive/Kingsford Smith Drive; and William Hovell Drive/Bindubi Street. The works at these locations included improvements to signage, line marking, street lighting, intersection realignments and traffic lights.

The 2011-12 road infrastructure programme was designed to reduce road congestion, improve safety and service areas of new development. Highlights included:

155

Appendix B

• completing construction of the Gungahlin Drive stage 2 works to finalise the duplication from Barton Highway to Glenloch Interchange. This included the construction of nine major bridges and a number of overpasses

• completing construction of the Kings Highway realignment project, including a new 5.5 kilometre stretch of the Kings Highway between Queanbeyan and Bungendore which had a poor safety record.

In 2011-12, Roads ACT developed asset operation plans for lines and signs, driveways and roadside safety barriers and is currently working on street lights. An inspection procedure for retaining walls and free standing walls was developed to capture asset attributes and condition information for the Integrated Asset Management System.

The current Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) covers the period 2010-12 and in March 2012 was converted into a format consistent with the ACT Treasury SAMP Framework. Roads ACT have commenced drafting the SAMP for the period of 2013-15.

Public Transport

ACTION runs regular bus services and dedicated school services in Canberra suburbs. It operates a special needs transport service for clients of the Education and Training Directorate (ETD) as well as charter services for schools, sporting bodies and other organisations hosting events and festivals in the ACT. ACTION’s objective is to deliver safe, reliable, accessible and responsive public transport in the ACT.

In 2011-12, ACTION received $9.551 million over four years as part of the Transport for Canberra programme to deliver additional regular route services. This funding enabled ACTION to implement a new network (Network 12) on 28 May 2012. The new network:

• extended the Blue Rapid to Holt providing 15 minute frequency between Kippax and Belconnen

• delivered more Red Rapid services from Gungahlin in the morning peak period

• improved services to the Australian National University and city west

• improved services to Fyshwick and the Canberra railway

• provided new services to the suburbs of Forde, Bonner, Casey and Crace

• provided services to Majura Park

• improved frequency on the Blue Rapid between Tuggeranong, Woden and the City.

ACTION also received $9.007 million over four years through the 2011-12 ACT Budget to assist in meeting the increased costs of delivering public transport to the community.

An increased focus on service reliability resulted in ACTION meeting or exceeding its established target of 99.5 per cent each month during 2011-12 for services delivered.

In 2011-12, the ACT Government provided $5.581 million to deliver improvements to safety. These included: the replacement of the radio communications system; a bus park brake alarm tester; 74 new driver seats; 54 passenger safety panels to the Scania compressed natural gas fleet; protective security infrastructure; pedestrian lighting and road surface repairs at bus depots; and closed circuit television improvements.

156

Local Government National Report 2011-12

ACTION continued its focus on asset management by finalising water efficiency improvements; commencing the upgrading of fuel facilities; commencing the recommissioning of the Woden bus depot; and the rebuilding of seven engines, eight transmissions and 19 differentials.

Throughout the year ACTION used the recently implemented MyWay ticketing system to more accurately record patronage. In February 2012, ACTION experienced its highest ever recorded daily total of 80 063 trips.

During 2011-12, ACTION continued its focus on corporate governance by establishing a new governance and policy development framework under which policies and procedures are developed and continually updated. A new customer service charter and improved feedback and complaints handling processes were implemented. These changes have led to significant improvements in how the business complies with legislative requirements including accreditation.

In October 2011, ACTION launched its official Twitter site to keep the community informed about a range of issues including major service disruptions, event related bus services, upcoming changes or improvements, new bus stops or bus stop closures and consultation opportunities. In April 2012, ACTION commenced a trial using Twitter to notify the public of morning service cancellations. As at 30 June 2012, 1 352 users had joined the ACTION Twitter site.

At the end of June 2012, ACTION had 403 buses in-service, including 221 wheelchair accessible buses and 185 Euro 3 or better emissions buses. During the year, ACTION continued its programme to replace 135 buses for which the ACT Government has provided $75.5 million. In 2011-12, this resulted in the delivery of 130 buses including 19 easy access MAN buses and 11 easy access Scania steertag buses bringing the total number of buses delivered from this programme to 115. The remaining 20 buses will be new easy access Scania articulated buses, which are programmed for delivery from July 2012 to April 2013. ACTION is aiming to achieve the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwlth) requirement that 55 per cent of the fleet be accessible by December 2012.

By June 2012, ACTION had also completed the installation of bike racks on all in-service buses able to be safely fitted with bike racks. This has resulted in 81 per cent of the fleet being bike rack equipped. The remaining 19 per cent of in-service buses are unable to be fitted with bike racks due to structural reasons or maximum length restrictions established under Australian Standards.

Parks and City Services

TAMS is responsible for the management of the majority of ACT parks, reserves, public open spaces and city places, including lakes and Canberra’s urban trees. TAMS also manages biosecurity, the Domestic Animal Services and other licensing and compliance services, including ranger services and permits for public land use.

Following community consultation and with the involvement of the Tidbinbilla Board of Management, the Tidbinbilla Revised Draft Plan of Management 2011 was prepared. The Plan was referred to the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Planning, Public Works and Territory and Municipal Services in April 2011. The committee conducted an inquiry into the plan and tabled a report on 1 May 2012.

TAMS manages approximately 700 000 trees throughout the city consisting of 300 species making it one of the largest and most diverse urban forests in Australia.

157

Appendix B

In 2010-11, the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment (the Commissioner) investigated the ACT Government’s management of urban trees and the need for an enhanced programme of urban tree renewal. The report was tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly in April 2011 and a response by the ACT Government was tabled in February 2012. The Government agreed or agreed in principle to 40 of the 44 recommendations.

In 2011-12, TAMS continued to implement the Commissioner’s agreed recommendations. Processes have been developed for implementing a number of the other agreed or agreed in principle recommendations including:

• increasing the amount of programmed tree maintenance work delivered which has increased productivity

• the integration of tree management programmes including tree maintenance, removal and planting so that a more coordinated approach to these programmes has been achieved

• commencement of a review of existing policy and legislation around the management and protection of trees

• reconvening a cross agency Tree Network Committee to improve decision making in relation to trees managed by the ACT Government

• increasing levels of training for staff involved in decision making relating to urban trees.

TAMS is responsible for urban open space maintenance and management across Canberra. This includes mowing, cleaning toilets and shopping centres, maintenance of playgrounds, horticultural work, pest control and management of urban lakes and wetlands. Highlights for 2011-12 included:

• mowing 34 per cent more area compared to the 2010-11 programme

• coordinating the floral display for Floriade, one of Australia’s largest horticultural shows that attracts over 400 000 visitors annually. Floriade was selected as one of the sites Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth ll visited on her jubilee tour in October 2011

• installing 37 recycling bins in the City centre as part of a trial that commenced in December 2011 and concluded 30 June 2012. Results of the trial indicate that approximately 18 tonnes of recyclable material was collected

• restoring Molonglo Reach foreshores involving the removal of pest willows and other woody weeds and revegetation using native plants to restore the habitat and improve water quality

• maintaining 503 playgrounds including nine skate parks, with seven of these playgrounds being renewed in 2011-12.

TAMS is responsible for the planning and management of parks, reserves and rural lands. It protects and conserves the natural resources of the ACT and promotes appropriate recreational, educational and scientific uses of the ACT’s parks and reserves. It supports ParkCare/Landcare groups and coordinates hazard reduction activities under the Bushfire Operations Plan.

Highlights in 2011-12 included:

• completing the Gibraltar Peak Trail, creating a greater diversity of day walking opportunities in the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve

• undertaking the Waterways Restoration Program involving cleanup of flood debris, control of willow and other woody weeds and land rehabilitation in priority waterways. The strategic

158

Local Government National Report 2011-12

removal of willow, a nationally significant weed, has been complemented by the planting of 6 100 native plants. These native plantings have transformed riverside environments from one dominated by exotic species to one where native plantings can begin to take hold and attract native fauna such as invertebrates, birds and small reptiles

• planting of 51 000 trees in the Murrumbidgee River Corridor under the One Million Trees initiative.

Libraries ACT

Libraries ACT is made up of nine public libraries, two mobile libraries, the home library service and the ACT Heritage Library. In 2011-12 Libraries ACT membership was 62 per cent of the Canberra population.

Libraries ACT continues to deliver and support literacy and lifelong learning through books, electronic resources and programmes, and saw a 10.7 per cent increase in loans in 2011-12 compared to the previous year.

Libraries ACT offered a wide range of programmes for the community in 2011-12. Attendance at Giggle and Wiggle for 0-2 year olds and Story Time for 3-5 year olds is continuing to increase in popularity, along with programmes for adults and children on topics such as science, social networking, cyber safety, nutrition, music for babies and toddlers, flower arranging, financial management, and the digital television switchover.

As part of Australia’s National Year of Reading in 2012 Libraries ACT led a group of people from across Canberra to deliver projects to improve literacy and celebrate reading locally. Following the launch of the redesigned Libraries ACT website in 2011, use of social media including Twitter and Facebook has continued to grow as an additional channel for communicating with the community.

Libraries ACT continued to expand its partnerships with other ACT Government directorates by encouraging the use of libraries as meeting places for community engagement, education and information sharing and to seek feedback from the community.

Libraries ACT recognises that as technology evolves the popularity of digital resources, including electronic books and downloadable media, will increase. In 2011-12, Libraries ACT continued to monitor and implement new digital services, such as Freegal music downloads.

National Arboretum Canberra

Responsibility for the National Arboretum Canberra (the Arboretum) transferred to TAMS in November 2011 as part of its transition from a major development to an operational entity. TAMS continued to address the master plan for the Arboretum, based on the 100 forests/100 gardens concept.

Sixteen forests were planted bringing the total number of forests to 87 with 36 000 trees planted as at 30 June 2012. Significant works undertaken in 2011-12 include:

• continuing the construction of the visitor centre, to house the National Bonsai and Penjing collection

• completing the ActewAGL Discovery Garden

• constructing the pedestrian path and landscape through the central valley

159

Appendix B

• constructing underground services and utilities, including non-potable water, electricity, stormwater and sewer

• undertaking further development of the irrigation system, including non-potable water supply, filter stations and pumps

• undertaking landscape plantings around the dam, and earthworks and plantings at the front entrance.

ACT NOWaste

ACT NOWaste manages the domestic rubbish and recycling collections for over 149 000 Canberra households. It manages three resource management centres, including Canberra’s domestic Materials Recovery Facility and Landfill at Mugga Lane and four regional recycling centres that contain waste and recycling drop-off facilities. It supports the recycling sector and helps Canberrans recycle more effectively through its industry support programmes, collection and analysis of data about waste and recycling, education and promotional activities and the development of new recycling initiatives and facilities.

Resource recovery activities by the ACT Government and private sector delivered excellent results in 2011-12. A total of 751 159 tonnes of material were recovered with an additional 317 842 tonnes sent to landfill. The overall waste recovery rate was 70.27 per cent, down from 75.1 per cent in 2010-11. This continues the long term result of over 70 per cent resource recovery since 2003-04. The increase in waste to landfill for 2011-12 was significantly impacted by the cleanup of a failed waste recycling company that resulted in an additional 54 114 tonnes of waste that was sent to landfill.

Overall waste generation is increasing. According to the Environment Protection and Heritage Council’s National Waste Report 2010, the ACT is one of the highest generators of waste per capita in Australia. Over the last 10 years, total waste generation in the ACT has grown at over four per cent per annum on average, outstripping population growth. Increasing waste generation leads to increases in both resource recovery and waste to landfill.

ACT NOWaste provides information and education aimed at increasing recycling and ensuring services and facilities are used correctly. ACT NOWaste delivered presentations and tours to over 11 000 visitors and provided around 2 000 email responses to waste and recycling queries. Data from the Materials Recovery Facility that processes the kerbside recycling indicates that education has been effective. Results for 2011-12 show a recycling rate of 92 per cent of all material collected, with more than 58 000 tonnes of material despatched for recycling.

The Bulky Waste Collection Service which provided bulky waste collections to households on a fee-for-service basis, with one free collection for eligible households, will continue into 2012-13. The ACT Government will review the results when considering whether to offer the service on a permanent basis.

TAMS continued to consider options regarding recycling of both compact fluorescent lightbulbs and batteries, and any associated funding requirements. Considerations include the need for a health and safety assessment and the feasibility of extending collection facilities to the recycling drop-off centres.

160

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Highlights in 2011-12 included:

• the ACT became the first jurisdiction in Australia to implement a free electronic waste recycling service which is part of the new National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme. In the first six weeks of operation up to 30 June 2012, a total of 759 tonnes of televisions and computers were recycled

• capturing 29 788 mega watt hours of methane at Canberra’s active landfill at Mugga Lane and Canberra’s former landfill at West Belconnen. This was converted into electricity for approximately 3 000 homes

• securing land for the Mugga stage five landfill expansion.

Any initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people remain the most disadvantaged group in Australian society. Life expectancy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is shorter, health is worse, incomes are lower, education achievements are lower and crime statistics are higher.

The ACT Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs provides strategic advice to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in the ACT. The Office coordinates a whole-of-government approach to issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents and provides secretariat and administrative support to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body and the United Ngunnawal Elders Council and also administers the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Traineeship Program.

The ACT Government has been an active participant in the National Indigenous Reform Agenda that directs effort to close the gap on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage at both the national and ACT levels.

The ACT and the Australian Governments signed an Overarching Bilateral Indigenous Plan in March 2012. The Plan encapsulates the ACT Government’s agreement to undertake annual reporting on ‘Closing the Gap’. In 11 June 2012, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs released the ACT Closing the Gap Report 2012 on the ACT’s progress on the seven COAG Building Blocks:

• early childhood

• schooling

• health

• economic participation

• healthy homes

• safe communities

• leadership and governance.

The ACT Closing the Gap Report 2012 is available on the internet at www.dhcs.act.gov.au/multicultural.

As of 30 June 2012, self-identified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represented 0.9 per cent of the total full time equivalent of the ACT Public Service workforce. The ACT Public

161

Appendix B

Service has set a target to more than double the employment level of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to two per cent of the total full time equivalent of the ACT Public Service. The ACT government has a number of programmes in place to meet this ambitious target.

Disability ACT has developed a policy framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with a disability and their families through its Future Directions: Towards Challenge 2014 initiative. The framework’s objectives include providing culturally competent services, developing culturally competent staff, improving communication and developing strategies to attract and retain Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff.

Housing ACT have committed to reducing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander homelessness by one third under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. In order to meet this target the ACT undertook a number of approaches to ensure that people who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander receive the accommodation and support they require. One of the approaches in the ACT has been the implementation of the Central Access Point for access to the homelessness service system. This service has a designated position for an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander worker who engages with the population group to ensure they can access services. The Joint Government Steering Committee of the Central Intake Service is exploring prioritising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into accommodation and support services.

The ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body provides an important service to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Canberrans and the wider ACT community by receiving, and passing on to the Minister, the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in the ACT on issues of concern to them. The Elected Body runs regular community consultations to foster discussion about issues of concern to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in the ACT and conducts research and community consultation to propose programmes and design services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in the ACT for consideration by the government and its agencies.

The United Ngunnawal Elders Council is a significant Aboriginal body providing advice to the ACT government in relation to heritage and connection to land matters for the Ngunnawal people. The council comprises representatives nominated by each of the Ngunnawal family groups and meets up to four times a year.

The 2011-12 Budget, provided one-off funding of $36 000 to conduct two Aboriginal Elders Camps. Funding provided for the Aboriginal Elders Camps is sensitive to the cultural needs of all Aboriginal traditional custodians of the ACT. The Camps focused on the reconciling of the different Aboriginal traditional custodian groups which make up the regional area of the ACT. Representatives of the traditional family groups have the opportunity to discuss issues of mutual interest in a non-combative environment.

In 2011-12, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services Unit continued to provide support services to the Wreck Bay and Jervis Bay communities including four joint visits to kinship carers; linking families to supports such as the Nowra Aboriginal Medical Service; family mediation; advocacy and other support as needed.

The ACT Public Service Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Traineeship Program is an entry level programme for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who want to pursue a career in the ACT Public Service. The Traineeship programme is funded by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and is administrated by the Directorate’s Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.

162

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Report from the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA)

Financial assistance grants distribution methodology ALGA has highlighted in its Budget submissions and most recently in its submission to the Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) for the review into financial assistance grants, a number of issues in relation to the fundamental components of the grants, namely their insufficient quantum and the lack of a relationship between the current indexation and the real rate of cost increases faced by councils. However, issues relating specifically to the distribution methodology are unique to each jurisdiction and the state and territory local government associations provide input on these methodologies.

Developments in relation to local government’s use of long-term financial and asset management plans Local government is currently confronting a significant asset management challenge. Its infrastructure renewals backlog was estimated in a 2006 PriceWaterhouseCoopers report commissioned by ALGA, to be $14.5 billion nationally and this number is expected to have grown since then.

To address this infrastructure renewals backlog, ALGA identified a two-pronged approach. This involved advocating a better funding model for financial assistance grants from the Australian Government to local government, complemented by the need for internal local government reforms to ensure local community infrastructure could be better managed over the lifecycle.

The Australian Government has shown its commitment to working with local government to achieve real and meaningful outcomes for local and regional communities. This includes the establishment of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, the establishment of a Local Government Reform Fund aimed at improving asset and financial management and commitment to a referendum to ensure the Australian Government can directly fund local government activities and projects.

ALGA has always welcomed the Government’s confidence in local government and its ability to deliver infrastructure projects in order to support local communities. This was most clearly seen through the provision of funding to deliver thousands of large and small ‘shovel ready’ to local and regional communities under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. These projects have been delivered on time and efficiently, and will help drive productive capacity in the Australian economy and improve social cohesion by fostering outcomes at the local level.

The Australian Government’s Roads to Recovery programme, is highly valued by local and regional communities. They benefit directly from improved road safety. It is a popular programme that has the support of all political parties and through it, local government has produced value for money outcomes nationally.

The ALGA strongly believes that the Roads to Recovery programme should be made permanent to provide funding certainty to local government which, given the ongoing nature of the road asset management task, is crucial and the funding should be indexed annually to reflect the constant increases in local road costs faced by councils.

163

Appendix B

ALGA has undertaken a detailed analysis of the current state of local roads networks. That analysis shows that there is a considerable backlog of infrastructure spending. The research shows that in order to restore and maintain the current network would require additional funding of approximately $1.2 billion per annum.

ALGA is seeking additional Australian Government funding to bridge the gap. This additional funding should comprise increased Roads to Recovery funding, funding of a Strategic Regional Roads Program, a dedicated programme of funding for bridge maintenance and additional identified roads grants which are part of FAGs funding. There should be a review of the distribution of FAGs identified for roads so that they more accurately reflect needs noting that any changes in formula should not result in any council being financially disadvantaged.

Given the importance of roads as local government’s single largest asset, there is a need to ensure security of infrastructure funding if local government is to make the best use of long-term asset management plans.

Measures taken to develop comparative performance measures between local governing bodies At the national level, there are no overarching systems designed to produce comparative performance measures and analysis between councils; these are usually currently determined by individual state and territory governments and apply on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. ALGA therefore expects that individual jurisdictions input, as well as direct input from ALGA’s member associations, will address this issue.

As a general observation, ALGA appreciates that accurate, timely and consistent data is critical to enable credible comparative analysis of performance and outcomes. Numerous Australian Government and parliamentary reports over recent years have highlighted that lack of consolidated, quality data on local government is a significant problem.

The need to resolve data issues for local government remains important from a national perspective. ALGA has outlined a case for Australian Government funding to assist in the measurement of improved local government service delivery in the Federal Budget submission 2011-12. In particular, it cited the Productivity Commission’s finding in the Assessing Local Government Revenue Raising Capacity report (April 2008) that ‘[t]here is a need for the Australian Bureau of Statistics and various grants commissions to improve the consistency and accuracy of the local government data collections.’

ALGA also notes that a significant proportion of the funding under the Local Government Reform Fund was provided to the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government to improve local government data.

Any reforms undertaken during 2011-12 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery Local government’s key objective is to serve its communities. Therefore, continued improvements in service delivery are a primary goal.

As previously discussed, a significant barrier to improvement is the lack of financial security, combined with the increased overall financial pressures placed on local governments.

164

Local Government National Report 2011-12

When the funding model for local government was devised in the early 1980s, local council’s responsibilities were generally restricted to the three ‘r’s’ (roads, rates and rubbish). However, since that time and for many reasons, the balance of local government resources directed towards social services continues to increase, as does the cost of providing those services.

Local government has had to make difficult budgetary decisions, in order to maintain service provision, often, in the face of declining levels of support from state and Australian Government grants. Local councils continue to provide essential services such as homecare, libraries, low-cost childcare and elderly and disabled support in spite of current financial issues.

In April 2006, all Australian governments signed the Intergovernmental Agreement Establishing Principles Guiding Intergovernmental Relations on Local Government Matters (the IGA). The IGA outlines a set of principles designed to establish an ongoing framework to address future cost shifting, and prevent the cost shifts that have occurred in the past. ALGA articulates that this practice costs local councils up to $1 billion each year.

The IGA was due for review in April 2011 and there remains a need for a more fundamental look at how the IGA could be strengthened to reduce cost-shifting. Until the burden of cost shifting is lessened the overall efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery will not reach its potential.

Improvements in local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities ALGA supports the Closing the Gap initiatives and notes the important work of local councils in improving local government service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

165

C

Local government grants commissions in each state and the Northern Territory use distribution models to determine the grant they will recommend be allocated to councils in their jurisdiction. They use one model for allocating the general purpose grant among councils and a separate model for allocating the local road grant. This appendix provides a comparison of the approaches the grants commissions used for determining 2011-12 grants.

General purpose grants

In allocating the general purpose grant between councils within a jurisdiction, commissions are required under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) (the Act) to comply with agreed National Principles (see Appendix A). These principles require commissions to satisfy two main objectives:

• to allocate the general purpose grant pool between councils on a horizontal equalisation basis (National Principle A1).

• to ensure that, when allocating the general purpose grant pool between councils, all councils receive at least the minimum grant (National Principle A3).

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.

Usually, this 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’.

In Step 3, because grants to some councils are decreased, the resultant grant may be less than the minimum grant. As a result, Steps 2 and 3 of this procedure may need to be repeated until all councils receive at least the minimum grant and the general purpose grant pool for the jurisdiction has been completely allocated. More details on the approaches grants commissions use for Steps 1 and 3 are below.

Comparison of local government grants commission distribution models

166

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Allocating on a horizontal equalisation basis

An allocation on a horizontal equalisation basis is defined in s. 6 of the Act. Horizontal equalisation:

… ensures that each local governing body in a 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 to be incurred by local governing bodies in the performance of their functions and in their capacity 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.

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 that 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.

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.1 shows the type of distribution model used by each grants commission.

Table C.1 Di stribution models used by grants commissions for general purpose grants for 2011-12 allocations

State Model used

NSW Direct assessment model

Vic. Balanced budget model after assistance for natural disaster relief is taken out of the pool

Qld Balanced budget model

WA Balanced budget model

SA Direct assessment model after allocations for the Outback Areas Community Development Trust and five Indigenous local governing bodies are determined separately and taken out of the pool

Tas. Balanced budget model

NT Balanced budget model

Source: Information provided by local government grants commissions in each state and territory.

167

Appendix C

Balanced budget model

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. The balanced budget model can be summarised 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

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. It can be summarised as:

general purpose grant equals an equal per capita share of general purpose grants

plus expenditure needs

less revenue needs

less 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 that a commission includes when determining an allocation of the general purpose grant on a horizontal equalisation basis. Table C.2 shows the differences in the scope of equalisation of the commissions.

168

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table C.2 Th e scope of equalisation in grants commissions’ models for general purpose grants

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 No 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 No No

Sewerage No No No No No No No

Electricity No No No No No No No

Capital No No No No No No No

Depreciation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Debt servicing No Yes No No No Yes No

Entrepreneurial activity No No No No No No No

Agency arrangements No No No No No No 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 Yes Yes

Water charges No No No No No No No

Sewerage charges No No No No No No No

Airport charges No No Yes No No Yes No

Parking fees and fines No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

Other user charges No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Note: F unctions 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. In addition, Queensland uses two expenditure categories that are not included in the above table. These are Environment and Business and Industry Development. Potentially, Business and Industry Development could fall under Entrepreneurial Activity.

Source: Inf ormation provided by local government grants commissions in each state and territory.

169

Appendix C

Revenue assessments

Sources of revenue for local government are rates, user charges and government grants. The treatment of government grants is discussed in the section below.

New South Wales distinguishes between urban and non-urban properties. Non-rateable properties are excluded from the calculations.

Land values per property for the council are compared to a state standard value and the result is multiplied by a state standard rate-in-the-dollar. To reduce 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. Councils with high values per property are assessed as being advantaged and are brought down to the average. Under this approach, the revenue raising capacity of each council is equalised against the state standard.

Victoria applies an average state-wide rate in the dollar to capital improved values, averaged every three years. Each council’s relative revenue raising capacity is determined by multiplying this average rate by each council’s valuation base on a capital improved value basis.

The rate revenue raising capacity is calculated separately for each of the three major property classes - that is, residential, commercial / industrial / other, and farm. For each of the nine areas of expenditure assessed, a separate assessment is made of each council’s relative capacity to generate revenue from government recurrent grants. This is incorporated on the expenditure side of the method and treated as negative expenditure.

On the revenue side of the method, an assessment is made of each council’s capacity to generate own-source revenue from user fees and charges for each of the nine functional areas. For some functions, this 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.

Queensland changed their rating assessment, following a methodology review, from the pre- existing differential formula to a more uniform formula by adopting a 10-year averaging of property valuations to minimise the effects of large fluctuations and to better accommodate the government’s valuation cycle. The total state rate revenue is divided by the total state land valuation to derive a cent in the dollar average, which is then multiplied by each council’s total land valuation. This is then adjusted to allow for a council’s capacity to raise rates using the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. User fees and charges and garbage revenue are also assessed using state averages. The state average (using population and bins serviced as the unit of measure) is multiplied by each council’s population and number of bins serviced respectively.

Other grants relevant to the expenditure categories are included as revenue according to the actual amounts received by each council rather than a state average.

Western Australia distinguishes urban properties, agricultural properties, pastoral properties and mining property, and assesses the rate revenue capacity by different methods for each.

The rate revenue 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.

170

Local Government National Report 2011-12

The agricultural rate capacity for each council is based on its improved capital value of agricultural land averaged over three years, the 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 also makes an assessment of revenue capacity for recreation and culture; building control fees and charges; and transport.

South Australia estimates each council’s revenue raising capacity for each of five land use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, rural, and other. To make these estimates, the state average rate in the dollar is used - that is, the ratio of total rate revenue to total improved capital values of rateable properties. This result shows how much rate revenue a council is able to raise relative to the average.

To overcome fluctuations in the base data, valuations, rate revenue and population are averaged over three years.

Tasmania applies a state-wide average rate in the dollar to each council’s total assessed annual value (AAV) of rateable properties, averaged over three years. Individual council shares of the state total AAV are used to distribute the total assessed revenue between councils.

Northern Territory standards are calculated by applying costs adjustors and average weightings to assess each local government’s revenue raising capacity and expenditure need. The assessment is the measure of each local government’s ability to function at the average standard.

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 feasible to use a land valuation system solely as the means for assessing revenue raising capacity.

The collection of actual accurate financial data through annual returns has enabled a number of revenue categories to be introduced, including rates where applicable, domestic waste, poll tax and interest.

Other grants support National Principle

The fourth National Principle for the general purpose grant involves the revenue assessment and states:

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. (National Principle A4)

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 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.3 provides details on the grants included by commissions in allocating the general purpose grants in 2010-11.

171

Appendix C

Table C.3 Grants treat ed by inclusion in general purpose grant allocations for 2011-12, by jurisdiction

State Grants treated by inclusion

NSW 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.

Vic. All Australian and state government recurrent grants. This includes each council’s local road grant and 77 per cent of Roads to Recovery funding.

Qld Allocation of previous year’s general purpose grant, 50 per cent of previous years local road grant, 20 per cent of the state Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils State Government Financial Aid grant.

WA 93 per cent of the local road grant, 63 per cent 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.

SA 85 per cent of the local road grants, library grants, and the Roxby Downs unique extraordinary grant.

Tas. Local road grant, Roads to Recovery grant and state motor taxes collected on the registration of heavy vehicles.

NT Local road grant, library grant, and 50 per cent of the Roads to Recovery grant.

Source: Based on information provided by local government grants commissions in each statte and territory.

Expenditure assessments

In addition to expenditure on local roads, local governments’ main expenditures are on general public services, including the organisation and financial administration of councils; recreation facilities; and sanitation and protection of the environment, including disposal of sewerage, stormwater drainage and garbage. Assessing local road expenditure needs for the general purpose grant is discussed in the section below.

New South Wales assesses 21 expenditure categories, including three classes of road maintenance.

Disability factors are also considered among the expenditure categories. A disability factor is the estimate of the additional cost of providing a standard service due to inherent characteristics beyond a council’s control.

A standard expenditure is calculated based on average expenditures, excluding extreme values. Differential expenditure needs are equal to the standard per service unit, most commonly population, multiplied by the average number of service units and the disability factors for the category. In most cases, if the differential expenditure needs per unit is assessed to be negative, zero is substituted, so generally no reductions are made to the standard assessments.

Victoria assesses nine expenditure categories, including: Governance; Family and Community Services; Aged and Disabled Services; Recreation and Culture; Waste Management; Local Roads and Bridges; Traffic and Street Management; Environmental Protection Services; and Business and Economic Services.

With the exception of local roads and bridges, standardised expenditure in each category is calculated by multiplying the relevant unit of need, such as population, by the average council expenditure on that category. A composite cost adjuster is also applied, which takes into account factors that make service provision cost more or less for individual councils.

172

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Queensland assesses nine categories of expenditure, which include: Administration; Public Order and Safety; Education, Health, Welfare and Housing; Garbage and Recycling; Community Amenities, Recreation, Culture and Libraries; Building Control and Town Planning; Business and Industry Development; Roads; and Environment. A combination of up to five cost adjustors are applied to expenditure amounts, including two for Indigenous descent.

Western Australia uses the balanced budget method for allocating the general purpose grant and assesses seven expenditure categories. These categories include Governance; Law, Order and Public Safety; Education, Health and Welfare; Community Amenities; Recreation and Culture; Building Control; and Transport.

South Australia assesses 12 expenditure categories in addition to the local road categories. The 12 categories include Waste Management; Aged Care Services; Services to Families and Children; Health Inspection; Sport and Recreation; Stormwater Drainage Maintenance; Community Support; Jetties and Wharves; Public Order and Safety; Planning and Building Control; Bridges; and Other Needs Assessment. South Australia excluded the libraries expenditure category from the methodology in 2011-12 due to inconsistencies in data returns for visitor numbers.

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.

Tasmania assesses seven expenditure categories as well as assessing local road needs. These categories include General Administration; Health, Housing and Welfare; Waste Management and the Environment; Planning and Community Amenities; Recreation and Culture; Law, Order and Public Safety; and Other.

A range of cost adjustors are applied that take into account factors that influence the cost of service provision for individual councils.

The Northern Territory uses the balanced budget approach and assesses nine expenditure categories, including one for local roads. Three cost adjustors are used and include location, dispersion and Aboriginality.

Assessing local road expenditure needs under the general purpose grants

As part of the expenditure needs assessment for determining the general purpose grant, commissions also assess each council’s local road needs. Some commissions use the same methodology as for the local road grants (discussed below), while others use a different methodology.

The main features of the models commissions use for assessing local road needs when allocating general purpose grants in 2011-12 are as follows.

New South Wales uses a different model for assessing local road needs in the general purpose grant from the model used for the local road grant.

Expenditure allowances are allocated for urban local roads, sealed rural local roads, and unsealed rural local roads. Calculating these expenditure allowances involves the application of disability factors for topography, climate, soils, materials, drainage, heavy traffic, travel, and development. 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 local roads.

173

Appendix C

Victoria uses the same model for assessing local road needs in the general purpose grant as for the local road grant.

The net standardised expenditure for local roads is calculated by subtracting other grant support from gross standardised expenditure.

Queensland uses a different model for assessing local road needs in the general purpose grant from the model used for the local road grant.

The asset preservation model uses 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. As part of the methodology review, changes to the road expenditure category have resulted in the removal of capping for annual variations.

Western Australia uses the same model for assessing local road needs in the general purpose grant as for the local road grant.

The asset preservation model assesses the average annual costs of maintaining each local government’s road network and aims to equalise road standards. These standards help local governments develop their road systems to the same standard as more affluent local governments.

South Australia uses a different model for assessing local road needs in the general purpose grant from that used for the local road grant.

Roads are divided into six categories, with road length used as the unit of measure and cost relativity indices developed for each road category. These indices are used to determine why it costs one council more than another to reconstruct or maintain a kilometre of road. These indices involve factors such as soil, terrain and drainage.

Tasmania uses the same model for assessing local road needs in the general purpose grant as for the local road grant.

The road preservation model uses dimensions of the average Tasmanian road, as well as average costs and maintenance schedules to calculate the state average cost/km/per annum for councils to maintain their road networks. Three road types are included within the assessment. These are urban sealed, rural sealed and unsealed. In addition, cost adjustors and an allowance are applied to account for relative cost advantages or disadvantages faced by councils in maintaining roads.

The Northern Territory uses the same model for assessing local road needs in the general purpose grant as for the allocation of local road grants.

Local road needs are assessed by calculating weighted road lengths. This is done by applying different weights to different road types where the road types are Kerbed and Sealed; Sealed; Gravel; Cycle Paths; Formed; or Unformed. Weighted road lengths are calculated by applying these weightings to the road length of each road type.

174

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Needs of Indigenous communities

The fifth National Principle for distribution of the general purpose grant 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. (National Principle A5)

New South Wales councils with an above-state-average proportion of Indigenous Australians receive recognition for the additional costs of providing services. This cost adjustor is applied to its Administration and General Community Services expenditure assessments.

Victoria applies a cost adjustor reflecting the proportion of each council’s population that is Indigenous. This cost adjuster is applied to its Governance and Family and Community Services expenditure assessments.

Queensland applies a cost adjustor to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous councils for Indigenous descent whereby the assessed expenditure per capita is increased in accordance with the proportion of Indigenous population and, additionally, for Indigenous people aged over 50.

An Indigenous-related cost adjustor is applied to the Public order and safety; Education, Health, Welfare and Housing; and Community Amenities, Recreation, Culture and Libraries expenditure assessments.

Western Australia applies three cost adjustors: Indigenous; socio-economic disadvantage; and population dispersion to their expenditure assessments. In addition, 22 councils received an allowance in remote and regional areas to recognise the additional costs of providing municipal services in Aboriginal communities.

In South Australia, the needs of Indigenous communities within mainstream councils are addressed through allocating additional funding per capita. Additionally, special consideration is given to councils that have a high non-resident use of their facilities, such as those councils that have high seasonal influxes of Indigenous Australians.

The five Indigenous local governing bodies also receive financial assistance grants. Due to a lack of comparable data, general purpose grants for these communities cannot be calculated in the same way as grants to other councils.

Tasmania makes no special allowance for Indigenous people, as there are very few separately identifiable Indigenous communities in the state and no targeted services provided by councils for these communities that are not also provided to other residents.

The Northern Territory applies a cost adjustor based on the proportion of the population that is Indigenous Australian to its expenditure assessments for General Public Services; Public Order and Safety; Housing and Community Amenities; Health; Education; and Social Protection. The majority of shire service delivery in the Northern Territory is to remote communities whose population is almost entirely Indigenous Australian.

While the special needs of Indigenous Australians are recognised when assessing the expenditure of councils on services in all jurisdictions, it remains the decision of each council as to how the grant will be spent and what services will be provided for its Indigenous residents.

175

Appendix C

Council amalgamation National Principle

A sixth National Principle for the general purpose grant applies to councils that amalgamate. The amalgamation principle took effect on 1 July 2006 and states:

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. (National Principle A6)

In addition to complying with the other National Principles for the general purpose grant, grants commissions are required to treat the general purpose grant allocated to councils formed as the result of amalgamation in a way that is consistent with this National Principle.

Factoring back and satisfying the minimum grant principle

Once the revenue capacity and expenditure needs have been determined for each council, the raw grant can be calculated by subtracting its revenue capacity from expenditure needs.

There are two situations that require commissions to apply a ‘factoring back’ process. The first situation 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

• has not 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

• has not used a budget result term for each council when applying the balanced budget approach.

The use of a consistent approach for allocating grants would address this issue.

The second situation occurs when the raw grant allocation for a council 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. (National Principle A3)

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 the 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.

176

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Two approaches are used by commissions for factoring back the raw grant:

• The proportional method - each council’s raw grant is reduced by the same proportion so that the total of the grants equals the available grant.

• The equalisation ratio method - each council’s grant is reduced such that all councils can afford to fund the same proportion of their expenditure needs with their total income (assessed revenue capacity plus other grant support and general purpose grant).

Local road grants

The National Principles require the local road grant to be allocated so that, as far as practicable, the grant is 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. (National Principle B1)

For the local road needs assessment, the models are either relatively simple constructs or more complex asset preservation models.

New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory use relatively simple models to allocate the local road grant. New South Wales and South Australia firstly classify local roads as either metropolitan or non-metropolitan and then allocate funding based mainly on the factors of population and road length. Queensland allocates funding directly based on the factors of population and road length. The Northern Territory allocates funding based on road length and road surface type. These approaches appear to have been based on arrangements that were in place before 1991-92, when these grants were paid to councils as tied grants.

Victoria, Western Australia, and Tasmania use asset preservation models to allocate the local road grant. 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.

Prior to applying their grant allocation methodologies, Western Australia and South Australia quarantine seven and 15 per cent respectively for funding priority local road projects. Expert committees advise on the projects to be funded.

Table C.4 summarises the main features of the models used by the commissions for allocating local road grants in 2010-11.

177

Appendix C

Table C.4 F eatures of local government grants commission models for allocating local road grants, 2011-12

State Features of the distribution model

NSW Based on a model developed by the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, councils in the Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong metropolitan areas receive 27.54 per cent of the grant pool, with 38 per cent of this portion allocated on the basis of population, 57 per cent on the basis of road length and 5 per cent on the basis of bridge length.

The remaining 72.46 per cent is allocated to councils outside the above metropolitan areas, with 19 per cent of the remaining portion allocated on the basis of population, 74 per cent on the basis of road length and 7 per cent on the basis of bridge length.

Vic. Allocation is based on an asset preservation model.

Qld Allocation for 62.85 per cent of the pool is based on road length and 37.15 per cent on population.

WA Allocation of 93 per cent of the road grant pool is based on an asset preservation model.

The remaining 7 per cent is set aside for special projects - with two-thirds of this portion for bridges and one-third for access roads serving remote Indigenous communities.

SA Allocation of 85 per cent 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 per cent of the pool is set aside for special projects.

Tas. Allocation of 95 per cent of the road grant is based on an asset preservation model.

The remaining 5 per cent of the grant allocated on the basis of bridge deck area.

NT Allocation is based on weights applied to road length and surface type.

Source: Inf ormation provided by local government grants commissions in each state and territory.

178

Local Government National Report 2011-12

179

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, the table shows the actual total grant entitlement for 2011-12 and the estimated total grant entitlement for 2012-13. For each of these years, the components of the financial assistance grants, including the general purpose grant and the local road grant, are also provided.

The councils are listed alphabetically by state and the Northern Territory. The Australian Classification of Local Governments (ACLG) category for each council is listed in the second column. An explanation of the ACLG is at Appendix F.

To facilitate comparison, the general purpose grant per capita and the local road grant per kilometre are provided for 2011-12. Additional comparative information on grants received is provided in Chapter 2 as follows:

Table 2.7 provides the average general purpose grant per capita for councils, grouped by state and by ACLG.

Table 2.8 provides the average local road grant per kilometre for councils, grouped by state and by ACLG.

Councils receiving the minimum per capita grant in 2011-12 are indicated with a hash (#) beside their entry in the ‘General purpose grant per capita’ column. The per capita grant of these councils differs slightly between jurisdictions 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 to individual councils. For further information on the minimum grant entitlement, see ‘Local governing bodies on the minimum grant in Chapter 2.

Indigenous local governing bodies are identified by an asterisk (*) against the name of the council.

The source of the data is the relevant state or territory local government grants commission.

Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies in 2011-12

180

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

New South Wales

Albury (C) URM 51 112 306 505 5 022 638 1 197 056 6 219 694 98.27 2 370.41 5 137 972 1 212 864 6 350 836

Armidale Dumaresq URS 25 855 4 235 937 2 751 946 1 218 202 3 970 148 106.44 1 300.11 2 760 349 1 270 797 4 031 146

Ashfield UDM 42 787 8 91 1 007 449 273 585 1 281 034 23.55 3 006.43 995 343 284 680 1 280 023

Auburn (C) UDL 78 597 32 196 2 597 443 541 274 3 138 717 33.05 2 761.60 2 825 715 567 194 3 392 909

Ballina (S) URM 42 708 485 587 2 165 895 1 145 778 3 311 673 50.71 1 951.92 2 265 163 1 195 202 3 460 365

Balranald (S) RAM 2 476 21 700 1 327 1 510 176 1 130 201 2 640 377 609.93 851.70 1 572 760 1 177 081 2 749 841

Bankstown (C) UDV 188 814 77 541 5 618 826 1 404 960 7 023 786 29.76 2 596.97 5 742 324 1 466 436 7 208 760

Bathurst Regional URM 39 915 3 818 1 184 4 330 176 1 676 697 6 006 873 108.48 1 416.13 4 489 125 1 750 764 6 239 889

Bega Valley (S) URM

33 925 6 277 1 168 4 830 926 1 679 615 6 510 541 142.40 1 438.03 4 933 764 1 752 553 6 686 317

Bellingen (S) RAV 13 450 1 602 531 2 327 715 787 531 3 115 246 173.06 1 483.11 2 440 939 822 521 3 263 460

Berrigan (S) RAL 8 644 2 066 1 260 2 817 282 1 175 045 3 992 327 325.92 932.58 2 932 921 1 223 746 4 156 667

Blacktown (C) UDV 307 816 240 1 167 15 785 230 2 733 451 18 518 681 51.28 2 342.29 16 509 899 2 879 540 19 389 439

Bland (S) RAL 6 410 8 560 2 923 2 983 951 2 526 478 5 510 429 465.51 864.34 3 094 928 2 626 063 5 720 991

Blayney (S) RAL 7 259 1 526 681 1 457 151 721 662 2 178 813 200.74 1 059.71 1 553 430 752 944 2 306 374

Blue Mountains (C) UFL 77 943 1 432 720 6 640 365 1 242 359 7 882 724 85.20 1 725.50 6 882 590 1 280 528 8 163 118

Bogan (S) RAM 3 003 14 612 1 407 1 561 929 1 254 019 2 815 948 520.12 891.27 1 624 324 1 306 859 2 931 183

Bombala RAM 2 617 3 945 629 1 012 525 617 364 1 629 889 386.90 981.50 1 062 456 643 551 1 706 007

Boorowa RAM 2 478 2 579 639 781 009 584 690 1 365 699 315.18 915.01 834 514 609 373 1 443 887

Botany Bay (C) UDM 40 463 22 90 791 265

260 805 1 052 070 19.56 # 2 897.83 821 896 270 373 1 092 269

Bourke (S) RAM 3 079 41 652 1 883 2 121 590 1 632 381 3 753 971 689.05 866.90 2 191 701 1 699 151 3 890 852

Brewarrina (S) RAS 1 910 19 188 1 272 1 359 326 1 115 515 2 474 841 711.69 876.98 1 409 176 1 162 635 2 571 811

Broken Hill (C) URS 19 818 170 211 4 204 598 452 634 4 657 232 212.16 2 145.18 4 241 385 468 957 4 710 342

Burwood UDM 33 803 7 82 661 027 228 232 889 259 19.56 # 2 783.32 685 313 237 452 922 765

Byron (S) URM 32 378 567 550 1 353 913 1 058 519 2 412 432 41.82 1 924.58 1 337 644 1 098 733 2 436 377

Cabonne RAV 13 351 6 027 1 832 2 248 552 1 808 321 4 056 873 168.42 987.07 2 371 129 1 885 815 4 256 944

Camden UFM 56 809 201 406 1 538 132 838 887 2 377 019 27.08 2 066.22 1 673 308 913 445 2 586 753

Campbelltown (C) UFV 153 222 312 637 8 289 812 1 488 408 9 778 220 54.10 2 336.59 8 745 250 1 554 544 10 299 794

Canada Bay (C) UDL 78 735 20 186 1 539 683 533 289 2 072 972 19.56 # 2 867.15 1 627 945 560 508 2 188 453

Canterbury (C) UDV 145 668 34 313 4 591 323 940 844

5 532 167 31.52 3 005.89 4 536 153 978 919 5 515 072

Carrathool (S) RAM 2 954 18 940 2 300 1 956 213 1 971 177 3 927 390 662.23 857.03 2 039 875 2 053 952 4 093 827

181

Appendix D

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Central Darling (S) RTM 2 014 53 534 1 602 2 129 261 1 357 457 3 486 718 1 057.23 847.35 2 202 517 1 414 433 3 616 950

Cessnock (C) URM 51 706 1 966 900 5 185 475 1 480 665 6 666 140 100.29 1 645.18 5 415 685 1 551 832 6 967 517

Clarence Valley URM 52 592 10 441 2 057 7 022 517 2 833 578 9 856 095 133.53 1 377.53 7 133 011 2 954 785 10 087 796

Cobar (S) RTL 5 178 45 605 1 693 2 502 261 1 477 638 3 979 899 483.25 872.79 2 607 852 1 539 116 4 146 968

Coffs Harbour (C) URL 72 827 1 175 742 4 928 181 1 777 121 6 705 302 67.67 2 395.04 5 084 667 1 866 954 6 951 621

Conargo (S) RAS 1 689 8 738 1 229 1 241 951 1 058 280 2 300 231 735.32 861.09 1 298 920 1 102 703 2 401 623

Coolamon (S) RAM 4 233 2 431 1 275 1 650 894 1 113 399 2 764 293 390.01 873.25 1 719 021 1 159 717 2 878 738

Cooma-Monaro (S) RAV 10 453 5 184 934 2 334 998 976 857 3 311 855 223.38 1 045.89 2 419 288 1 018 905 3 438 193

Coonamble (S) RAM 4 314

9 925 1 392 1 776 363 1 264 679 3 041 042 411.77 908.53 1 847 467 1 317 709 3 165 176

Cootamundra (S) RAL 7 729 1 524 571 1 855 006 634 221 2 489 227 240.01 1 110.72 1 963 699 661 631 2 625 330

Corowa (S) RAV 11 773 2 329 1 283 2 804 975 1 254 044 4 059 019 238.25 977.43 2 920 430 1 312 190 4 232 620

Cowra (S) RAV 12 957 2 810 1 201 2 678 395 1 247 829 3 926 224 206.71 1 038.99 2 802 735 1 301 624 4 104 359

Deniliquin URS 7 633 143 152 2 014 555 241 252 2 255 807 263.93 1 587.18 2 093 910 250 442 2 344 352

Dubbo (C) URM 41 763 3 428 1 184 5 017 429 1 604 940 6 622 369 120.14 1 355.52 5 158 620 1 676 343 6 834 963

Dungog (S) RAL 8 673 2 252 592 1 303 528 771 381 2 074 909 150.30 1 303.01 1 386 243 803 221 2 189 464

Eurobodalla (S) URM 37 714 3 428 952 4 663 695 1 431 995 6 095 690 123.66 1 504.20 4 861 950 1 495 468 6 357 418

Fairfield (C) UDV 196 567 102 608 9 151 764 1 534 668 10 686 432 46.56 2 524.13 9 268 598 1 593 878 10 862 476

Forbes (S) RAL 9 748 4 720 1 648 2 729 495 1 591 464 4 320 959 280.01 965.69 2 821 248 1 723 700 4 544 948

Gilgandra (S) RAM 4 700 4 836 1 245 1 479 646 1 146 835

2 626 481 314.82 921.15 1 539 972 1 195 142 2 735 114

Glen Innes Severn RAL 9 311 5 487 1 083 2 181 157 1 179 453 3 360 610 234.26 1 089.06 2 238 424 1 230 658 3 469 082

Gloucester (S) RAL 5 181 2 952 640 1 177 163 780 538 1 957 701 227.21 1 219.59 1 253 621 816 508 2 070 129

Gosford (C) UFV 168 188 940 967 6 559 492 1 929 640 8 489 132 39.00 1 995.49 7 135 962 2 004 658 9 140 620

Goulburn Mulwaree URS 28 702 3 220 1 122 3 094 270 1 441 493 4 535 763 107.81 1 284.75 3 223 832 1 510 027 4 733 859

Great Lakes URM 35 924 3 376 976 4 880 614 1 444 870 6 325 484 135.86 1 480.40 5 107 578 1 512 594 6 620 172

Greater Hume (S) RAV 10 447 5 749 1 771 3 059 465 1 743 545 4 803 010 292.86 984.50 3 022 702 1 816 933 4 839 635

Greater Taree (C) URM 48 955 3 732 1 594 4 594 250 2 277 090 6 871 340 93.85 1 428.54 4 759 449 2 381 051 7 140 500

Griffith (C) URS 25 879 1 640 1 242 2 821 933 1 389 268 4 211 201 109.04 1 118.57 3 069 153 1 448 098 4 517 251

Gundagai (S) RAM 3 902 2 457 689 1 025 448 706 441 1 731 889 262.80 1 025.31 1 114 333 739 615 1 853 948

Gunnedah (S) RAV 12 265 4 992 1 348 2 375 786 1 347 916 3 723 702 193.70 999.94 2 430 493

1 406 538 3 837 031

Guyra (S) RAM 4 550 4 394 841 1 104 513 811 367 1 915 880 242.75 964.76 1 106 881 845 875 1 952 756

Gwydir (S) RAL 5 425 9 274 1 898 1 715 767 1 723 277 3 439 044 316.27 907.94 1 764 028 1 794 145 3 558 173

182

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Harden (S) RAM 3 669 1 868 768 1 263 982 731 157 1 995 139 344.50 952.03 1 322 384 762 185 2 084 569

Hawkesbury (C) UFM 64 030 2 776 898 2 804 972 1 542 863 4 347 835 43.81 1 718.11 2 794 753 1 596 156 4 390 909

Hay (S) RAM 3 349 11 328 777 1 601 381 695 076 2 296 457 478.17 894.56 1 677 047 723 700 2 400 747

Hills (S) UFV 179 716 401 837 3 514 392 1 752 545 5 266 937 19.56 # 2 093.84 3 660 071 1 825 336 5 485 407

Holroyd (C) UDL 102 188 40 310 3 274 293 804 096 4 078 389 32.04 2 593.86 3 535 229 841 415 4 376 644

Hornsby (S) UFV 164 034 462 619 3 207 727 1 398 957 4 606 684 19.56 # 2 260.03 3 316 741 1 458 680 4 775 421

Hunters Hill (M) UDS 14 591 6 61 285 332 134 408 419 740 19.56 # 2 203.41 294 867 139 566 434 433

Hurstville (C) UDL 80 823 23 209 1 580 514 558 102 2 138 616 19.56 # 2 670.34 1 637 477 584 514

2 221 991

Inverell (S) RAV 16 841 8 606 1 745 3 130 034 1 762 876 4 892 910 185.86 1 010.24 3 198 242 1 838 359 5 036 601

Jerilderie (S) RAS 1 674 3 373 998 1 051 155 870 980 1 922 135 627.93 872.73 1 101 786 907 475 2 009 261

Junee (S) RAL 6 298 2 030 824 1 630 459 789 209 2 419 668 258.89 957.78 1 722 180 823 498 2 545 678

Kempsey (S) URS 29 442 3 379 1 032 3 721 986 1 558 350 5 280 336 126.42 1 510.03 3 846 386 1 627 215 5 473 601

Kiama (M) URS 20 906 258 259 782 945 470 687 1 253 632 37.45 1 817.32 851 753 492 936 1 344 689

Kogarah (C) UDM 59 200 16 153 1 157 672 408 683 1 566 355 19.56 # 2 671.13 1 206 551 426 448 1 632 999

Ku-ring-gai UDL 114 142 85 444 2 232 076 994 717 3 226 793 19.56 # 2 240.35 2 340 525 1 039 381 3 379 906

Kyogle RAL 9 877 3 589 1 069 2 194 433 1 416 864 3 611 297 222.18 1 325.41 2 230 742 1 483 574 3 714 316

Lachlan (S) RAL 6 844 14 973 3 460 3 504 288 2 989 565 6 493 853 512.02 864.04 3 626 914 3 115 433 6 742 347

Lake Macquarie (C) URV 200 849 648 1 252 12 923 400 2 462 945 15 386 345 64.34 1 967.21 13 417 938 2 573 529 15 991 467

Lane Cove (M)

UDM 33 335 10 93 651 875 238 830 890 705 19.56 # 2 568.06 683 241 249 894 933 135

Leeton (S) RAV 11 929 1 167 876 2 673 343 892 132 3 565 475 224.10 1 018.42 2 817 190 929 086 3 746 276

Leichhardt (M) UDM 55 596 11 140 1 087 195 384 754 1 471 949 19.56 # 2 748.24 1 132 226 401 163 1 533 389

Lismore (C) URM 45 917 1 290 1 088 4 569 904 1 725 990 6 295 894 99.53 1 586.39 4 542 855 1 793 905 6 336 760

Lithgow (C) URS 21 094 4 514 875 3 290 114 1 076 289 4 366 403 155.97 1 230.04 3 404 833 1 121 852 4 526 685

Liverpool (C) UFV 185 481 306 773 6 345 615 1 792 661 8 138 276 34.21 2 319.10 6 903 289 1 892 196 8 795 485

Liverpool Plains (S) RAL 7 965 5 086 1 195 1 747 693 1 178 560 2 926 253 219.42 986.24 1 809 745 1 228 739 3 038 484

Lockhart (S) RAM 3 318 2 896 1 483 1 687 323 1 368 820 3 056 143 508.54 923.01 1 770 256 1 428 071 3 198 327

Lord Howe Island (Bd) RTX 364 16 0 167 199 0 167 199 459.34 0 174 726 0 174 726

Maitland (C) URL 70 296 392 605 5 194 810 1 116 273 6 311 083 73.90 1 845.08 5 340 742 1 174 752 6 515 494

Manly UDM 41 925

14 105 819 855 285 164 1 105 019 19.56 # 2 715.85 860 185 298 637 1 158 822

Marrickville UDL 79 215 16 190 2 588 712 528 132 3 116 844 32.68 2 779.64 2 557 606 552 112 3 109 718

Mid-Western Regional URS 22 860 8 758 1 907 3 520 110 2 029 720 5 549 830 153.99 1 064.35 3 632 837 2 116 946 5 749 783

183

Appendix D

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Moree Plains (S) RAV 14 425 17 929 2 640 3 104 509 2 480 172 5 584 681 215.22 939.46 3 194 517 2 585 016 5 779 533

Mosman (M) UDS 29 232 9 85 571 640 213 815 785 455 19.56 # 2 515.47 591 502 220 950 812 452

Murray (S) RAL 7 319 4 344 1 375 2 141 198 1 329 845 3 471 043 292.55 967.16 2 276 695 1 386 449 3 663 144

Murrumbidgee (S) RAM 2 557 3 507 590 998 429 525 110 1 523 539 390.47 890.02 1 046 865 547 100 1 593 965

Muswellbrook (S) RAV 16 676 3 407 575 2 409 704 788 828 3 198 532 144.50 1 371.87 2 498 574 829 791 3 328 365

Nambucca (S) RAV 19 369 1 493 661 2 393 327 1 031 826 3 425 153 123.56 1 561.01 2 456 254 1 080 645 3 536 899

Narrabri (S) RAV 13 741 13 028 2 116 3 537 393 1 992 182 5 529 575 257.43 941.48 3 640 185 2 076 041 5 716 226

Narrandera (S) RAL 6 280 4 117 1 463 2 204 543 1 320 070 3 524 613 351.04 902.30 2 284 901 1 375 608 3 660 509

Narromine (S) RAL

6 841 5 264 1 337 2 283 123 1 210 593 3 493 716 333.74 905.45 2 390 959 1 261 084 3 652 043

Newcastle (C) URV 156 112 187 748 11 185 649 1 627 143 12 812 792 71.65 2 175.32 11 435 627 1 684 194 13 119 821

North Sydney UDM 64 795 10 143 1 267 083 416 214 1 683 297 19.56 # 2 910.59 1 313 513 433 107 1 746 620

Oberon RAL 5 438 3 628 859 1 278 175 812 585 2 090 760 235.05 945.97 1 366 560 848 721 2 215 281

Orange (C) URM 39 329 284 410 3 599 653 919 552 4 519 205 91.53 2 242.81 3 647 528 968 613 4 616 141

Palerang RAV 14 652 5 147 1 055 1 483 847 1 182 516 2 666 363 101.27 1 120.87 1 551 506 1 237 827 2 789 333

Parkes (S) RAV 15 192 5 958 1 797 3 335 317 1 715 901 5 051 218 219.54 954.87 3 444 232 1 788 503 5 232 735

Parramatta (C) UDV 172 333 61 517 6 846 677 1 389 930 8 236 607 39.73 2 688.45 7 448 386 1 453 024 8 901 410

Penrith (C) UFV 186 221 405 973 8 927 661 2 005 753 10 933 414 47.94 2 061.41 8 948 892 2 096 681 11 045 573

Pittwater UDM 59 847 90 235 1 170 324 536 682 1 707 006 19.56 # 2 283.75 1 220 326 559 095 1 779 421

Port Macquarie-Hastings URL 76 323 3 686

1 228 6 037 130 2 385 732 8 422 862 79.10 1 942.78 6 224 829 2 496 356 8 721 185

Port Stephens URM 67 825 859 626 4 262 185 1 072 026 5 334 211 62.84 1 712.50 4 567 922 1 116 037 5 683 959

Queanbeyan (C) URM 41 430 172 266 2 126 951 805 370 2 932 321 51.34 3 027.71 2 101 393 840 748 2 942 141

Randwick (C) UDV 133 116 36 273 2 603 118 831 477 3 434 595 19.56 # 3 045.70 2 693 568 866 892 3 560 460

Richmond Valley URS 23 115 3 051 1 009 3 149 321 1 369 526 4 518 847 136.25 1 357.31 3 201 364 1 428 781 4 630 145

Rockdale (C) UDL 103 164 28 264 2 017 398 722 942 2 740 340 19.56 # 2 738.42 2 078 700 749 513 2 828 213

Ryde (C) UDL 106 289 40 308 2 078 508 798 353 2 876 861 19.56 # 2 592.06 2 157 891 830 669 2 988 560

Shellharbour (C) URM 67 797 147 360 3 849 004 761 265 4 610 269 56.77 2 114.63 3 974 881 794 294 4 769 175

Shoalhaven (C) URL 96 967 4 531 1 587 7 585 405 2 829 659 10 415 064 78.23 1 783.02 8 040 274 2 966 594 11 006 868

Silverton Village (VC) RTX 57 0 0 27 742 0 27 742 486.70 0 28 785 0 28 785

Singleton URS 24 182 4 896 727

2 077 972 1 054 613 3 132 585 85.93 1 450.64 2 170 279 1 101 485 3 271 764

Snowy River (S) RAL 8 188 6 029 750 2 115 494 777 865 2 893 359 258.37 1 037.15 2 247 121 825 316 3 072 437

Strathfield (M) UDM 36 911 14 86 721 805 248 083 969 888 19.56 # 2 884.69 744 957 257 391 1 002 348

Sutherland (S) UDV 220 835 334 781 4 318 484 1 819 279 6 137 763 19.56 # 2 329.42 4 440 138 1 887 922 6 328 060

184

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Sydney (C) UCC 182 226 27 301 4 404 023 1 090 693 5 494 716 24.17 3 623.56 4 351 104 1 140 154 5 491 258

Tamworth Regional URM 59 461 9 894 2 929 6 174 260 3 552 169 9 726 429 103.84 1 212.76 6 240 349 3 713 259 9 953 608

Temora (S) RAL 6 216 2 803 1 134 1 742 122 1 054 992 2 797 114 280.26 930.33 1 834 087 1 099 300 2 933 387

Tenterfield (S) RAL 7 071 7 332 1 465 2 315 015 1 434 180 3 749 195 327.40 978.96 2 399 012 1 502 226 3 901 238

Tibooburra (VC) RTX 128 0 0 62 298 0 62 298 486.70 0 64 640 0 64 640

Tumbarumba (S) RAM 3 765 4 392 464 1 259 219 500 511 1 759 730 334.45 1 078.69 1 330 485 521 829 1 852 314

Tumut (S) RAV 11 480 4 566 578 2 384 143 712 239 3 096 382 207.68 1 232.25 2 483 389 743 560 3 226 949

Tweed (S) URL 90 090 1 309 1 079 6 361 379 2 398 843 8 760 222 70.61 2 223.21 6 518 115 2 507 568 9 025 683

Upper Hunter (S) RAV 14 198

8 102 1 577 2 250 294 1 663 604 3 913 898 158.49 1 054.92 2 352 421 1 737 342 4 089 763

Upper Lachlan (S) RAL 7 559 7 129 1 707 1 939 679 1 616 800 3 556 479 256.61 947.16 2 110 144 1 748 017 3 858 161

Uralla (S) RAL 6 287 3 230 818 1 207 119 831 290 2 038 409 192.00 1 016.25 1 258 838 866 801 2 125 639

Urana (S) RAS 1 261 3 356 767 968 272 672 453 1 640 725 767.86 876.73 1 005 726 701 586 1 707 312

Wagga Wagga (C) URM 63 500 4 826 2 105 6 884 129 2 784 279 9 668 408 108.41 1 322.70 7 140 708 2 897 618 10 038 326

Wakool (S) RAM 4 389 7 521 1 281 1 948 464 1 257 832 3 206 296 443.94 981.91 2 027 694 1 306 307 3 334 001

Walcha RAM 3 299 6 267 807 755 967 791 570 1 547 537 229.15 980.88 788 981 825 106 1 614 087

Walgett (S) RAL 7 235 22 335 1 950 3 083 378 1 802 080 4 885 458 426.18 924.14 3 163 423 1 881 710 5 045 133

Warren (S) RAM 2 845 10 763 964 1 200 862 889 946 2 090 808 422.10 923.18 1 271 975 927 601 2 199 576

Warringah UDV 145 865 149 473 2 852 427 1 157 913 4 010 340 19.56 # 2 448.02 2 957 042 1 186 799 4 143 841

Warrumbungle (S) RAV 10 330 12 381 2 276 3 466 336

2 111 762 5 578 098 335.56 927.84 3 551 787 2 200 170 5 751 957

Waverley UDM 69 420 9 113 1 554 203 394 811 1 949 014 22.39 3 493.90 1 546 691 411 837 1 958 528

Weddin (S) RAM 3 780 3 410 968 1 396 014 868 240 2 264 254 369.32 896.94 1 449 396 904 987 2 354 383

Wellington RAL 8 875 4 112 1 234 2 205 096 1 174 579 3 379 675 248.46 951.85 2 289 831 1 221 581 3 511 412

Wentworth (S) RAL 7 120 26 267 1 941 2 664 686 1 732 353 4 397 039 374.25 892.51 2 752 274 1 804 283 4 556 557

Willoughby (C) UDL 70 008 22 199 1 369 025 522 327 1 891 352 19.56 # 2 624.76 1 421 843 545 673 1 967 516

Wingecarribee (S) URM 46 960 2 689 1 028 2 484 777 1 558 849 4 043 626 52.91 1 516.39 2 607 501 1 626 073 4 233 574

Wollondilly (S) UFM 44 050 2 557 692 1 851 212 1 165 306 3 016 518 42.03 1 683.97 2 013 903 1 218 940 3 232 843

Wollongong (C) URV 203 487 684 919 13 814 318 2 091 033 15 905 351 67.89 2 275.34 14 701 044 2 203 692 16 904 736

Woollahra (M) UDM 56 005 12 140 1 095 192 391 730 1 486 922 19.56 # 2 798.07 1 144 352 408 982 1 553 334

Wyong (S) UFV 151 527 740 1 028 9 120 397 1 991 009 11 111 406

60.19 1 936.78 9 799 241 2 070 069 11 869 310

Yass Valley RAV 15 190 3 998 1 048 1 568 449 1 128 634 2 697 083 103.26 1 076.94 1 621 522 1 179 403 2 800 925

Young (S) RAV 13 078 2 693 1 055 2 198 641 1 103 436 3 302 077 168.12 1 045.91 2 289 323 1 151 518 3 440 841

185

Appendix D

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Victoria

Alpine (S) RAV 13 262 4 787 788 2 312 090 1 048 402 3 360 492 174.34 1 330.46 2 348 648 1 089 881 3 438 529

Ararat (RC) RAV 12 026 4 210 2 289 2 983 499 2 004 750 4 988 249 248.09 875.82 3 110 455 2 099 577 5 210 032

Ballarat (C) URL 96 097 740 1 331 8 519 438 1 833 083 10 352 521 88.65 1 377.22 9 293 008 2 019 747 11 312 755

Banyule (C) UDV 124 249 63 546 3 331 399 816 912 4 148 311 26.81 1 496.18 3 543 789 861 747 4 405 536

Bass Coast (S) UFM 30 974 864 1 042 4 090 626 1 277 732 5 368 358 132.07 1 226.23 4 197 296 1 283 993 5 481 289

Baw Baw (S) URM 42 931 4 028 1 789 5 321 790 2 473 844 7 795 634 123.96 1 382.81 5 508 320 2 578 815 8 087 135

Bayside (C) UDL 97 283 37 354 1 895 526 453 057 2 348 583 19.48 # 1 279.82 1 968 419 481 039 2 449 458

Benalla (RC) RAV 14 293 2 352 1 347 2 209 275 1 222 119 3 431 394 154.57 907.29 2 203 345 1 266 791 3 470 136

Boroondara (C)

UDV 169 507 60 582 3 302 786 756 815 4 059 601 19.48 # 1 300.37 3 428 599 758 861 4 187 460

Brimbank (C) UDV 189 386 123 883 11 379 966 1 461 143 12 841 109 60.09 1 654.75 11 634 042 1 529 248 13 163 290

Buloke (S) RAL 7 028 8 004 5 313 2 888 199 1 938 405 4 826 604 410.96 364.84 3 003 848 2 033 204 5 037 052

Campaspe (C) URM 38 983 4 519 4 132 6 491 001 3 985 464 10 476 465 166.51 964.54 6 813 205 4 008 515 10 821 720

Cardinia (S) UFL 73 318 1 281 1 408 6 414 463 2 356 893 8 771 356 87.49 1 673.93 6 854 274 2 413 666 9 267 940

Casey (C) UDV 255 659 813 1 389 13 820 657 1 935 870 15 756 527 54.06 1 393.71 14 265 512 2 076 746 16 342 258

Central Goldfields (S) RAV 12 896 1 534 1 149 2 256 930 1 001 721 3 258 651 175.01 871.82 2 315 942 1 032 228 3 348 170

Colac Otway (S) URS 22 097 3 433 1 676 3 341 478 2 304 220 5 645 698 151.22 1 374.83 3 388 950 2 337 395 5 726 345

Corangamite (S) RAV 17 514 4 404 2 725 3 518 187 3 036 802 6 554 989 200.88 1 114.42 3 657 180 3 123 285 6 780 465

Darebin (C) UDV 141 139 53 508 3 802 464 817 849 4 620 313 26.94 1 609.94 3 927 712 858 464 4 786 176

East Gippsland (S) URM 44 262 20 931

2 905 8 896 840 4 257 770 13 154 610 201.00 1 465.67 9 252 465 4 416 758 13 669 223

Frankston (C) UDV 130 462 130 673 7 359 838 1 066 051 8 425 889 56.41 1 584.03 7 512 243 1 069 906 8 582 149

Gannawarra (S) RAV 11 617 3 732 2 287 2 871 993 1 834 761 4 706 754 247.22 802.26 3 116 404 1 964 431 5 080 835

Glen Eira (C) UDV 137 712 39 465 2 683 272 522 109 3 205 381 19.48 # 1 122.82 2 783 530 548 300 3 331 830

Glenelg (S) URS 21 249 6 210 2 713 3 839 469 3 066 936 6 906 405 180.69 1 130.46 3 939 250 3 098 674 7 037 924

Golden Plains (S) RAV 18 625 2 703 1 844 2 899 815 1 838 112 4 737 927 155.69 996.81 3 101 289 1 948 761 5 050 050

Greater Bendigo (C) URL 104 192 2 999 3 022 11 018 528 2 825 544 13 844 072 105.75 934.99 11 348 438 2 997 120 14 345 558

Greater Dandenong (C) UDV 138 558 130 644 8 967 982 1 204 698 10 172 680 64.72 1 870.65 9 162 923 1 261 449 10 424 372

Greater Geelong (C) URV 220 068 1 247 2 025 15 835 345 2 698 505 18 533 850 71.96 1 332.60 16 269 878 2 799 000 19 068 878

Greater Shepparton (C) URM 63 335 2 422 2 500 7 342 354 2 663 046 10 005 400 115.93 1 065.22 7 875 362 2 774 643 10 650 005

Hepburn (S) RAV 14 974 1 470 1 394 2 542 258 1 279 356

3 821 614 169.78 917.76 2 646 469 1 324 105 3 970 574

Hindmarsh (S) RAL 6 150 7 550 3 257 2 343 700 1 471 901 3 815 601 381.09 451.92 2 392 460 1 511 859 3 904 319

Hobsons Bay (C) UDL 88 053 64 421 1 715 683 621 026 2 336 709 19.48 # 1 475.12 1 776 972 635 167 2 412 139

186

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Horsham (RC) URS 20 232 4 249 2 946 3 336 447 1 851 636 5 188 083 164.91 628.53 3 582 383 1 968 558 5 550 941

Hume (C) UFV 171 996 504 1 042 10 143 098 1 705 855 11 848 953 58.97 1 637.10 10 710 564 1 812 546 12 523 110

Indigo (S) RAV 16 111 2 044 1 859 2 544 402 1 510 877 4 055 279 157.93 812.74 2 736 464 1 544 237 4 280 701

Kingston (C) UDV 148 830 91 602 2 899 902 1 167 399 4 067 301 19.48 # 1 939.20 3 008 792 1 218 314 4 227 106

Knox (C) UDV 156 997 114 712 6 478 422 977 442 7 455 864 41.26 1 372.81 6 589 152 1 026 586 7 615 738

Latrobe (C) URL 76 144 1 426 1 548 8 766 332 2 224 453 10 990 785 115.13 1 436.99 8 961 401 2 334 413 11 295 814

Loddon (S) RAL 8 047 6 694 4 722 3 699 848 2 947 635 6 647 483 459.78 624.23 3 896 593 3 097 976 6 994 569

Macedon Ranges (S) URM 42 645 1 747 1 563 4 160 754 1 893 558 6 054 312 97.57 1 211.49 4 424 514 1 982 124 6 406 638

Manningham (C) UDL

119 190 113 592 2 322 377 744 074 3 066 451 19.48 # 1 256.88 2 402 649 753 822 3 156 471

Mansfield RAL 8 242 3 843 844 1 689 736 881 465 2 571 201 205.02 1 044.39 1 742 316 894 883 2 637 199

Maribyrnong (C) UDL 72 896 31 276 2 355 405 419 810 2 775 215 32.31 1 521.05 2 454 241 437 843 2 892 084

Maroondah (C) UDL 106 932 61 476 4 041 249 686 177 4 727 426 37.79 1 441.55 4 343 039 718 851 5 061 890

Melbourne (C) UCC 96 552 36 204 1 881 283 595 218 2 476 501 19.48 # 2 917.74 1 988 676 629 080 2 617 756

Melton (C) UFL 107 150 527 835 9 148 093 1 317 217 10 465 310 85.38 1 577.51 9 812 311 1 482 062 11 294 373

Mildura (RC) URM 54 337 22 087 5 128 8 316 962 3 219 014 11 535 976 153.06 627.73 8 834 316 3 345 487 12 179 803

Mitchell (S) URM 35 044 2 862 1 404 4 292 595 1 615 196 5 907 791 122.49 1 150.42 4 444 036 1 675 057 6 119 093

Moira (S) URS 29 385 4 045 3 625 5 137 486 3 035 345 8 172 831 174.83 837.34 5 510 076 3 309 836 8 819 912

Monash (C) UDV 177 726 81 729 3 462 931 1 010 660 4 473 591 19.48 # 1 386.36 3 636 016 1 057 880 4 693 896

Moonee Valley (C) UDL 112 804

44 412 2 197 948 591 274 2 789 222 19.48 # 1 435.13 2 286 356 614 595 2 900 951

Moorabool (S) URS 28 606 2 110 1 497 3 663 869 1 758 255 5 422 124 128.08 1 174.52 3 770 219 1 807 522 5 577 741

Moreland (C) UDV 150 838 51 516 4 531 843 824 542 5 356 385 30.04 1 597.95 4 697 515 857 337 5 554 852

Mornington Peninsula (S) UFV 150 238 723 1 698 3 708 351 2 230 537 5 938 888 24.68 1 313.63 3 884 382 2 342 382 6 226 764

Mount Alexander (S) RAV 18 421 1 529 1 303 2 513 870 1 299 233 3 813 103 136.47 997.11 2 650 645 1 360 262 4 010 907

Moyne (S) RAV 16 856 5 478 2 962 3 433 966 3 627 376 7 061 342 203.72 1 224.64 3 627 960 3 677 663 7 305 623

Murrindindi (S) RAV 13 505 3 873 1 223 2 656 951 1 575 291 4 232 242 196.74 1 288.05 2 763 438 1 644 369 4 407 807

Nillumbik (S) UFM 64 184 433 778 1 815 775 1 077 692 2 893 467 28.29 1 385.21 1 960 001 1 097 377 3 057 378

Northern Grampians (S) RAV 12 316 5 728 3 420 3 435 133 2 318 802 5 753 935 278.92 678.01 3 605 566 2 433 645 6 039 211

Port Phillip (C) UDL 97 429 21 212 1 898 371 352 043 2 250 414 19.48 # 1 660.58 1 981 937 370 418 2 352 355

Pyrenees (S) RAL 6 924 3 433 2 018

2 660 179 1 918 240 4 578 419 384.20 950.56 2 693 096 1 969 163 4 662 259

Queenscliffe (B) UFS 3 314 36 46 220 450 52 168 272 618 66.52 1 134.09 204 822 46 679 251 501

South Gippsland (S) URS 28 079 3 295 2 098 4 613 145 3 038 365 7 651 510 164.29 1 448.22 4 825 765 3 089 906 7 915 671

Southern Grampians (S) RAV 17 531 6 652 2 662 3 650 553 2 738 993 6 389 546 208.23 1 028.92 3 884 132 2 924 164 6 808 296

187

Appendix D

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Stonnington (C) UDL 100 351 26 257 1 955 305 361 693 2 316 998 19.48 # 1 407.37 2 035 607 375 240 2 410 847

Strathbogie (S) RAV 10 012 3 302 2 210 2 424 315 1 815 245 4 239 560 242.14 821.38 2 606 454 1 952 959 4 559 413

Surf Coast (S) UFS 26 173 1 552 1 060 1 970 419 1 238 083 3 208 502 75.28 1 168.00 2 110 890 1 311 973 3 422 863

Swan Hill (RC) URS 22 231 6 117 3 487 3 902 320 1 832 603 5 734 923 175.54 525.55 4 021 888 1 909 024 5 930 912

Towong (S) RAL 6 343 6 673 1 217 2 204 010 1 316 992 3 521 002 347.47 1 082.16 2 212 846 1 376 348 3 589 194

Wangaratta (RC) URS 28 938 3 639 1 940 3 973 907 2 079 681 6 053 588 137.32 1 072.00 4 097 483 2 175 077 6 272 560

Warrnambool (C) URM 33 922 121 312 2 800 617 597 254 3 397 871 82.56 1 914.28 2 862 875 668 735 3 531 610

Wellington (S) URM 43 610 10 809 3 090 6 777 372 4 206 265 10 983 637 155.41 1 361.25 7 398 297 4 402 345 11 800 642

West Wimmera (S) RAM

4 591 9 106 2 835 2 564 772 2 155 086 4 719 858 558.65 760.17 2 707 562 2 245 217 4 952 779

Whitehorse (C) UDV 156 797 64 609 3 055 136 760 888 3 816 024 19.48 # 1 249.41 3 166 846 795 364 3 962 210

Whittlesea (C) UFV 155 113 490 1 000 8 904 379 1 538 660 10 443 039 57.41 1 538.66 9 458 403 1 720 956 11 179 359

Wodonga (C) URM 36 432 433 500 3 530 799 828 346 4 359 145 96.91 1 656.69 3 652 613 871 009 4 523 622

Wyndham (C) UFV 156 573 542 1 076 10 194 205 1 526 912 11 721 117 65.11 1 419.06 11 064 812 1 683 142 12 747 954

Yarra (C) UDL 79 540 20 216 1 549 810 362 976 1 912 786 19.48 # 1 680.44 1 615 519 380 707 1 996 226

Yarra Ranges (S) UFV 150 198 2 470 1 766 9 879 731 3 404 060 13 283 791 65.78 1 927.55 10 649 049 3 500 892 14 149 941

Yarriambiack (S) RAL 7 614 7 310 4 817 2 634 187 1 709 978 4 344 165 345.97 354.99 2 705 122 1 787 054 4 492 176

Queensland

Aurukun* RTM 1 216 7 375 184 1 533 683 103 170 1 636 853 1 261.25 560.71 1 831 756 107 611 1 939 367

Balonne RAM 4 847 31 151 2 319 3 507 990 1 195 953 4 703 943 723.74 515.72 3 382 747 1 250 572 4 633 319

Banana RAV 15 595

28 606 4 069 5 520 904 2 169 061 7 689 965 354.02 533.07 5 709 754 2 202 702 7 912 456

Barcaldine RTL 3 406 53 651 3 156 5 214 676 1 595 906 6 810 582 1 531.03 505.67 4 929 340 1 679 198 6 608 538

Barcoo RTX 346 61 953 1 768 2 553 371 878 386 3 431 757 7 379.68 496.82 2 844 738 919 098 3 763 836

Blackall-Tambo RTM 2 086 30 452 1 880 2 785 047 951 292 3 736 339 1 335.11 506.01 2 932 402 978 871 3 911 273

Boulia RTS 469 61 109 1 321 1 961 552 658 444 2 619 996 4 182.41 498.44 2 146 649 688 917 2 835 566

Brisbane UCC 1 067 279 1 340 5 614 20 618 564 13 405 286 34 023 850 19.32 # 2 387.83 21 672 241 13 980 516 35 652 757

Bulloo RTX 377 73 874 2 087 3 267 870 1 036 906 4 304 776 8 668.09 496.84 3 902 936 1 085 048 4 987 984

Bundaberg URL 96 936 6 449 3 196 5 448 844 2 546 876 7 995 720 56.21 796.89 5 275 177 2 659 236 7 934 413

Burdekin RAV 18 531 5 058 1 161 1 926 538 759 097 2 685 635 103.96 653.83 2 300 934 813 910 3 114 844

Burke RTS 554 40 167 1 191 2 318 922 594 950 2 913 872 4 185.78 499.54 2 769 573 622 568 3 392 141

Cairns URV 168 251 4 129 1 653 3 433 462

2 493 228 5 926 690 20.41 1 508.30 3 425 059 2 614 546 6 039 605

Carpentaria RTM 2 149 64 334 1 723 3 484 369 873 998 4 358 367 1 621.39 507.25 3 799 084 943 713 4 742 797

188

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Cassowary Coast URM 31 291 4 700 1 491 2 265 670 1 049 310 3 314 980 72.41 703.76 2 267 865 946 898 3 214 763

Central Highlands URM 31 078 59 970 4 683 6 844 211 2 627 235 9 471 446 220.23 561.02 6 397 038 2 748 169 9 145 207

Charters Towers RAV 12 837 68 571 4 370 5 087 266 2 290 358 7 377 624 396.30 524.11 4 754 980 2 350 264 7 105 244

Cherbourg* RTM 1 260 32 70 352 372 47 190 399 562 279.66 674.14 420 856 49 599 470 455

Cloncurry RAM 3 384 48 117 1 836 3 211 893 942 291 4 154 184 949.14 513.23 3 836 079 985 908 4 821 987

Cook RAM 3 976 106 170 2 697 5 694 400 1 374 452 7 068 852 1 432.19 509.62 6 801 028 1 420 240 8 221 268

Croydon RTX 273 29 579 861 1 911 371 428 823 2 340 194 7 001.36 498.05 2 282 820 448 642 2 731 462

Diamantina RTX 322 94 870 1 040 1 918 692 517 682 2 436 374 5 958.67 497.77 2 212 639 541 675 2 754 314

Doomadgee RTM 1 285

1 841 45 839 965 35 065 875 030 653.67 779.22 1 003 214 71 816 1 075 030

Etheridge RTS 925 39 324 1 657 2 492 989 829 270 3 322 259 2 695.12 500.46 2 977 466 931 844 3 909 310

Flinders RTM 1 821 41 306 2 277 3 257 722 1 145 037 4 402 759 1 788.97 502.87 3 890 816 1 197 708 5 088 524

Fraser Coast URL 102 080 7 117 3 828 3 907 243 2 911 198 6 818 441 38.28 760.50 3 865 846 3 079 938 6 945 784

Gladstone URM 60 316 10 489 2 447 4 801 279 1 811 532 6 612 811 79.60 740.31 5 734 269 1 963 657 7 697 926

Gold Coast UDV 527 828 1 334 3 230 10 197 011 6 853 510 17 050 521 19.32 # 2 121.83 10 771 549 7 198 032 17 969 581

Goondiwindi RAV 11 413 19 284 2 471 4 929 903 1 336 612 6 266 515 431.96 540.92 4 607 803 1 399 390 6 007 193

Gympie URM 49 334 6 897 2 367 3 689 598 1 662 407 5 352 005 74.79 702.33 3 474 331 1 690 490 5 164 821

Hinchinbrook RAV 12 271 2 810 682 1 195 635 459 715 1 655 350 97.44 674.07 1 427 991 479 280 1 907 271

Hope Vale* RTS 847 1 109 100 621 427 57 925 679 352 733.68 579.25 742 169 71 969 814 138

Ipswich UDV 168 131 1 090 1 474 3 248 091

2 403 364 5 651 455 19.32 # 1 630.50 3 468 267 2 585 325 6 053 592

Isaac URS 22 629 58 869 3 455 4 728 856 1 934 973 6 663 829 208.97 560.05 3 846 969 1 917 707 5 764 676

Kowanyama* RTM 1 198 2 552 352 1 053 083 186 362 1 239 445 879.03 529.44 1 257 750 194 890 1 452 640

Lockhart River* RTS 641 3 592 323 981 615 166 210 1 147 825 1 531.38 514.58 1 172 394 173 825 1 346 219

Lockyer Valley URM 36 591 2 272 1 378 2 199 612 1 046 292 3 245 904 60.11 759.28 2 627 052 1 122 326 3 749 378

Logan UDV 282 673 960 2 096 5 474 544 3 851 847 9 326 391 19.37 1 837.71 5 771 918 4 005 203 9 777 121

Longreach RTL 4 344 40 666 3 026 5 481 284 1 540 854 7 022 138 1 261.81 509.20 6 035 259 1 614 378 7 649 637

Mackay URL 118 842 7 622 2 461 4 234 518 2 401 100 6 635 618 35.63 975.66 4 147 612 2 497 742 6 645 354

Mapoon Aboriginal Council* RTX 267 550 35 794 731 19 980 814 711 2 976.52 570.86 949 189 20 891 970 080

Maranoa RAV 13 369 58 817 5 304 9 934 301 2 758 324 12 692 625 743.08 520.05 10 674 598 2 884 231 13 558 829

McKinlay RTS 944 40 849 1 978 3 016 401 988 284 4 004 685 3 195.34

499.64 3 602 597 1 034 067 4 636 664

Moreton Bay UDV 382 280 2 037 3 353 7 385 197 5 465 679 12 850 876 19.32 # 1 630.09 7 824 151 5 743 186 13 567 337

Mornington* RTM 1 101 1 248 560 1 676 800 288 110 1 964 910 1 522.98 514.48 1 504 276 134 767 1 639 043

Mount Isa URS 21 994 43 314 2 033 2 835 450 1 225 131 4 060 581 128.92 602.62 3 386 480 1 278 870 4 665 350

189

Appendix D

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Murweh RTL 4 910 40 774 2 759 4 504 677 1 414 117 5 918 794 917.45 512.55 5 055 618 1 479 067 6 534 685

Napranum* RTS 951 2 005 63 671 644 40 648 712 292 706.25 645.21 802 178 42 542 844 720

North Burnett RAV 10 805 19 707 5 062 6 297 060 2 612 427 8 909 487 582.79 516.09 7 520 251 2 660 854 10 181 105

Northern Peninsula Area* RTM 2 389 1 061 363 2 738 130 203 215 2 941 345 1 146.14 559.82 3 270 291 212 758 3 483 049

Palm Island* RTM 2 221 71 39 752 030 41 268 793 298 338.60 1 058.15 898 189 43 174 941 363

Paroo RTM 1 951 47 688 2 136 3 484 392 1 076 585 4 560 977 1 785.95 504.02 3 440 693 1 126 196 4 566 889

Pormpuraaw* RTS 698 4 445 570 847 303 289 047 1 136 350 1 213.90 507.10 1 011 979 302 433 1 314 412

Quilpie RTM 1 035 67 547 2 041 3 378 325 1 020 810 4 399 135 3 264.08 500.15 3 576 150 1 067 543 4 643 693

Redland UDV 142 822

537 1 038 2 759 152 1 935 731 4 694 883 19.32 # 1 864.87 2 910 053 2 026 547 4 936 600

Richmond RTS 951 26 656 1 385 2 405 254 694 835 3 100 089 2 529.18 501.69 2 872 680 726 844 3 599 524

Rockhampton URL 115 526 18 356 3 399 6 378 253 2 832 356 9 210 609 55.21 833.29 5 961 523 2 957 053 8 918 576

Scenic Rim UFM 38 304 4 254 1 696 2 030 624 1 220 740 3 251 364 53.01 719.78 1 897 951 1 318 455 3 216 406

Somerset UFS 22 519 5 383 1 826 2 057 549 1 127 732 3 185 281 91.37 617.60 2 054 865 1 199 247 3 254 112

South Burnett URM 33 040 8 397 3 281 6 004 994 1 952 816 7 957 810 181.75 595.19 5 612 652 2 039 267 7 651 919

Southern Downs URM 35 996 7 122 3 028 6 108 469 1 856 990 7 965 459 169.70 613.27 5 709 518 1 937 548 7 647 066

Sunshine Coast UDV 330 934 3 126 3 671 6 393 252 5 111 634 11 504 886 19.32 # 1 392.44 6 731 676 5 335 926 12 067 602

Tablelands URM 46 937 65 008 4 141 6 955 595 2 516 710 9 472 305 148.19 607.75 6 501 145 2 619 017 9 120 162

Toowoomba URV 162 057 12 978 7 748 10 852 394 5 447 941 16 300 335 66.97 703.14 10 517 473 5 691 891 16 209 364

Torres RTL 3 700 886 84

2 665 851 78 411 2 744 262 720.50 933.46 2 882 624 95 907 2 978 531

Torres Strait Island* RTL 5 082 491 282 7 792 628 190 095 7 982 723 1 533.38 674.10 9 307 139 242 399 9 549 538

Townsville URV 185 768 3 739 1 607 4 516 553 2 644 876 7 161 429 24.31 1 645.85 4 440 504 2 797 728 7 238 232

Western Downs URM 32 071 38 005 7 499 13 228 111 4 031 073 17 259 184 412.46 537.55 14 104 874 4 216 668 18 321 542

Whitsunday URM 34 765 23 871 1 805 3 024 488 1 239 458 4 263 946 87.00 686.68 3 141 062 1 319 350 4 460 412

Winton RTM 1 414 53 950 2 545 3 608 465 1 273 619 4 882 084 2 551.96 500.44 4 046 349 1 310 421 5 356 770

Woorabinda* RTM 1 001 391 80 319 694 49 510 369 204 319.37 618.88 381 828 51 960 433 788

Wujal Wujal* RTX 354 11 20 293 043 13 424 306 467 827.81 671.20 349 997 14 076 364 073

Yarrabah* RTM 2 722 159 50 552 163 51 848 604 011 202.85 1 036.96 659 476 53 954 713 430

190

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Western Australia

Albany (C) URM 36 042 4 324 1 619 1 773 106 1 974 641 3 747 747 49.20 1 219.67 2 009 581 1 662 919 3 672 500

Armadale (C) UFM 60 983 560 638 2 324 818 1 095 599 3 420 417 38.12 1 717.24 2 135 870 1 112 278 3 248 148

Ashburton (S) RTL 6 730 105 647 2 186 3 416 753 1 212 558 4 629 311 507.69 554.69 3 177 935 1 253 848 4 431 783

Augusta-Margaret River

(S)

RAV 12 509 2 138 893 248 162 875 071 1 123 233 19.84 # 979.92 280 220 919 581 1 199 801

Bassendean (T) UDS 14 790 11 95 293 413 198 190 491 603 19.84 # 2 086.21 306 084 206 826 512 910

Bayswater (C) UDM 61 865 33 345 1 227 317 686 708 1 914 025 19.84 # 1 990.46 1 277 942 711 176 1 989 118

Belmont (C) UDM 35 082 40 228 695 979 466 344 1 162 323 19.84 # 2 045.37 734 173 485 179 1 219 352

Beverley (S) RAS 1 755 2 310 696 619 819 1 236 785 1 856 604 353.17 1 776.99 702 482 436 044 1 138 526

Boddington (S) RAS 1 692 1 900 257 270 562 170 897 441 459 159.91 664.97 248 572 184 908 433 480

Boyup Brook (S) RAS 1 619 2 838 1 030 306 930 606 896 913 826 189.58 589.22 347 864 612 913 960 777

Bridgetown-Greenbushes (S) RAM 4 560 1 691 713 893 611 598 522 1 492 133 195.97 839.44 1 012 790 652 047 1 664 837

Brookton (S) RAS 1 006 1 626 528 440 772 292 798 733 570 438.14 554.54 499 557 311 742 811 299

Broome (S) RTL 16 298 56 000 573 2 806 243 859 401 3 665 644 172.18 1 499.83 2 578 167 801 697 3 379 864

Broomehill - Tambellup

(S)

RAS 1 256 2 810 971 848 821 538 738 1 387 559 675.81 554.83 962 026 582 699 1 544 725

Bruce Rock (S) RAS 1 039 2 772 1 175 1 090 859 705 984 1 796 843 1 049.91 600.84 1 236 344 717 983 1 954 327

Bunbury (C) URM 34 623 66 321 686 873 800 151 1 487 024 19.84 # 2 492.68 719 134 835 195 1 554 329

Busselton (S) URM 31 767 1 454 1 089 630 214 1 658 605 2 288 819 19.84 # 1 523.05 666 161 1 349 984 2 016 145

Cambridge (T) UDS 26 959 22 172 534 830 343 286 878 116 19.84 # 1 995.85 559 971 356 470 916 441

Canning (C) UDL 88 433 65 567 1 754 390 1 213 174 2 967 564 19.84 # 2 139.64 1 834 035 1 272 557 3 106 592

Capel (S) RSG 13 370 554 490 892 095 495 581 1 387 676 66.72 1 011.39 916 746 532 172 1 448 918

Carnamah (S) RAS 762 2 835 642 641 699 357 397 999 096 842.12 556.69 727 281 367 544 1 094 825

Carnarvon (S) RAL 6 219 53 000 1 522 3 082 949 1 008 757 4 091 706 495.73 662.78 3 494 114 1 105 527 4 599 641

Chapman Valley (S) RAS 1 059 4 007 864 227 437 441 641 669 078 214.77 511.16 257 770 471 320 729 090

Chittering (S)

RAM 4 519 1 220 420 494 809 393 721 888 530 109.50 937.43 560 800 397 356 958 156

Claremont (T) UDS 9 891 5 47 196 224 95 353 291 577 19.84 # 2 028.79 204 750 99 184 303 934

Cockburn (C) UDL 91 313 148 747 1 811 525 1 274 069 3 085 594 19.84 # 1 705.58 1 918 188 1 368 103 3 286 291

Collie (S) RAL 9 470 1 685 386 1 781 250 413 408 2 194 658 188.09 1 071.01 1 636 480 435 153 2 071 633

Coolgardie (S) RTL 3 963 30 400 847 398 852 451 813 850 665 100.64 533.43 452 046 478 010 930 056

Coorow (S) RAS 1 184 4 137 879 707 019 507 724 1 214 743 597.14 577.62 738 883 526 288 1 265 171

Corrigin (S) RAS 1 278 3 095 1 076 816 923 584 420 1 401 343 639.22 543.14 909 522 623 647 1 533 169

191

Appendix D

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Cottesloe (T) UDS 8 222 4 47 163 114 93 742 256 856 19.84 # 1 994.51 170 530 97 615 268 145

Cranbrook (S) RAS 1 145 3 390 1 015 434 927 997 823 1 432 750 379.85 983.08 492 933 592 531 1 085 464

Cuballing (S) RAS 869 1 250 558 566 927 799 451 1 366 378 652.39 1 432.71 520 850 309 270 830 120

Cue (S) RTX 278 13 716 744 856 201 408 620 1 264 821 3 079.86 549.22 970 391 405 638 1 376 029

Cunderdin (S) RAS 1 268 1 872 783 667 849 465 228 1 133 077 526.69 594.16 756 918 473 593 1 230 511

Dalwallinu (S) RAS 1 363 7 187 1 918 999 306 1 016 527 2 015 833 733.17 529.99 1 132 581 1 060 847 2 193 428

Dandaragan (S) RAM 3 308 6 934 1 231 545 431 863 630 1 409 061 164.88 701.57 618 174 874 848 1 493 022

Dardanup (S) RSG 13 125 518 401 741 530 865 236 1 606 766 56.50 2 157.70 840 427 445 046 1 285 473

Denmark (S) RAL

5 379 1 842 617 692 341 454 133 1 146 474 128.71 736.03 636 749 433 395 1 070 144

Derby-West Kimberley (S) RTL 8 092 118 560 1 811 5 232 501 975 135 6 207 636 646.63 538.45 4 807 233 804 961 5 612 194

Donnybrook-Balingup (S) RAL 5 473 1 541 660 894 420 625 428 1 519 848 163.42 947.62 1 013 707 608 700 1 622 407

Dowerin (S) RAS 744 1 867 939 613 640 515 277 1 128 917 824.78 548.75 695 480 500 022 1 195 502

Dumbleyung (S) RAS 650 2 553 992 663 494 521 169 1 184 663 1 020.76 525.37 751 982 540 410 1 292 392

Dundas (S) RTM 1 159 92 725 627 978 178 443 846 1 422 024 843.98 707.89 1 108 635 375 232 1 483 867

East Fremantle (T) UDS 7 534 3 37 149 464 67 313 216 777 19.84 # 1 819.27 158 164 69 451 227 615

East Pilbara (S) RTL 8 113 371 696 3 043 3 441 413 2 012 079 5 453 492 424.19 661.22 3 161 714 1 615 307 4 777 021

Esperance (S) RAV 14 570 44 500 4 233 1 563 624 2 431 765 3 995 389 107.32 574.48 1 772 161 2 653 899 4 426 060

Exmouth (S) RTM 2 487 6 261 291 1 297 725 368 681 1 666 406 521.80 1 266.95 1 386 317 378 543 1 764 860

Fremantle (C) UDS 28 626 19 177

567 901 363 826 931 727 19.84 # 2 055.51 599 578 377 465 977 043

Gingin (S) RAL 5 054 3 325 872 693 593 787 021 1 480 614 137.24 902.55 786 096 814 413 1 600 509

Gnowangerup (S) RAS 1 370 5 000 1 011 447 117 552 164 999 281 326.36 546.16 506 748 580 319 1 087 067

Goomalling (S) RAS 1 064 1 845 587 332 759 322 791 655 550 312.74 549.90 333 227 335 693 668 920

Gosnells (C) UFL 106 724 127 727 2 117 259 1 382 869 3 500 128 19.84 # 1 902.16 2 225 048 1 426 944 3 651 992

Greater Geraldton (C) URM 39 368 0 0 3 177 804 1 753 462 4 931 266 80.72 0.00 3 601 620 1 837 118 5 438 738

Halls Creek (S) RTL 3 345 143 025 1 414 4 006 742 871 114 4 877 856 1 197.83 616.06 3 681 096 681 844 4 362 940

Harvey (S) URS 24 151 1 766 840 1 163 085 878 873 2 041 958 48.16 1 046.28 1 318 203 907 140 2 225 343

Irwin (S) RAM 3 664 2 223 435 388 787 301 441 690 228 106.11 692.97 357 188 309 837 667 025

Jerramungup (S) RAS 1 166 6 540 1 081 398 313 525 093 923 406 341.61 485.75 451 435 560 956 1 012 391

Joondalup (C) UDV 164 445 99 1 007 3 262 365 1 976 256

5 238 621 19.84 # 1 962.52 3 420 673 2 053 529 5 474 202

Kalamunda (S) UFM 55 814 349 608 1 107 273 987 803 2 095 076 19.84 # 1 624.68 1 156 977 1 035 414 2 192 391

Kalgoorlie/Boulder (C) URM 32 620 95 228 1 348 1 069 572 1 540 291 2 609 863 32.79 1 142.65 982 643 1 463 009 2 445 652

192

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Katanning (S) RAM 4 703 1 523 693 1 137 071 451 690 1 588 761 241.78 651.79 1 288 719 469 148 1 757 867

Kellerberrin (S) RAS 1 336 1 852 940 953 732 506 855 1 460 587 713.87 539.21 1 080 928 523 222 1 604 150

Kent (S) RAS 579 6 552 1 324 336 055 601 482 937 537 580.41 454.29 380 874 652 026 1 032 900

Kojonup (S) RAM 2 237 2 937 1 135 508 415 617 295 1 125 710 227.28 543.87 576 221 633 829 1 210 050

Kondinin (S) RAS 1 021 7 340 1 336 582 108 660 684 1 242 792 570.14 494.52 659 742 700 788 1 360 530

Koorda (S) RAS 474 2 662 1 088 1 014 476 602 827 1 617 303 2 140.24 554.07 1 138 912 579 214 1 718 126

Kulin (S) RAS 914 4 790 1 438 542 794 708 489 1 251 283 593.87 492.69 615 186 786 658 1 401 844

Kwinana (T) UFS 29 029 118 356 575 896 589 422 1 165 318 19.84 # 1 655.68 621 004 619 481 1 240 485

Lake Grace (S) RAS

1 450 10 747 2 284 650 190 1 096 639 1 746 829 448.41 480.14 736 904 1 185 423 1 922 327

Laverton (S) RTS 749 183 198 4 209 1 187 822 736 767 1 924 589 1 585.88 175.05 1 346 239 679 251 2 025 490

Leonora (S) RTM 1 875 31 743 1 291 438 089 541 040 979 129 233.65 419.09 496 516 561 796 1 058 312

Mandurah (C) UFM 70 413 174 662 1 396 898 1 125 213 2 522 111 19.84 # 1 699.72 1 512 606 1 164 889 2 677 495

Manjimup (S) RAV 10 159 7 028 1 306 1 919 434 1 407 927 3 327 361 188.94 1 078.05 2 175 424 1 281 916 3 457 340

Meekatharra (S) RTM 1 228 100 733 2 493 1 782 922 993 051 2 775 973 1 451.89 398.34 2 020 706 1 021 402 3 042 108

Melville (C) UDL 102 434 53 529 2 032 151 1 002 085 3 034 236 19.84 # 1 894.30 2 117 428 1 037 328 3 154 756

Menzies (S) RTX 242 128 353 2 086 1 301 805 837 457 2 139 262 5 379.36 401.47 1 475 424 711 429 2 186 853

Merredin (S) RAM 3 402 3 372 1 285 1 131 637 754 848 1 886 485 332.64 587.43 1 282 561 776 214 2 058 775

Mingenew (S) RAS 450 1 927 456 276 593 444 191 720 784 614.65 974.10 254 113 294 800 548 913

Moora (S) RAM 2 543 3 788

940 529 167 600 289 1 129 456 208.09 638.61 599 740 647 365 1 247 105

Morawa (S) RAS 881 3 528 970 738 963 505 450 1 244 413 838.78 521.08 837 517 516 677 1 354 194

Mosman Park (T) UDS 9 440 4 43 187 277 76 409 263 686 19.84 # 1 776.95 194 119 79 127 273 246

Mount Magnet (S) RTS 639 13 877 620 1 182 760 288 760 1 471 520 1 850.95 465.74 1 132 308 292 655 1 424 963

Mount Marshall (S) RAS 653 10 134 1 731 1 029 629 835 602 1 865 231 1 576.77 482.73 1 166 949 799 942 1 966 891

Mukinbudin (S) RAS 549 3 414 905 806 618 475 190 1 281 808 1 469.25 525.07 914 194 489 484 1 403 678

Mundaring (S) UFM 38 910 644 654 2 473 238 902 358 3 375 596 63.56 1 379.75 2 272 227 969 914 3 242 141

Murchison (S) RTX 112 49 500 1 877 1 892 690 725 794 2 618 484 16 899.02 386.68 2 145 114 745 158 2 890 272

Murray (S) RSG 15 401 1 821 706 1 461 998 735 468 2 197 466 94.93 1 041.74 1 343 175 759 596 2 102 771

Nannup (S) RAS 1 338 2 953 486 648 564 423 175 1 071 739 484.73 870.73 735 061 444 523 1 179 584

Narembeen (S) RAS 835 3 821 1 412 867 390 726 388

1 593 778 1 038.79 514.44 983 072 737 786 1 720 858

Narrogin (S) RAS 865 1 618 724 463 693 375 956 839 649 536.06 519.28 525 535 389 419 914 954

Narrogin (T) URS 4 765 13 67 930 288 145 287 1 075 575 195.23 2 168.46 1 054 358 150 169 1 204 527

193

Appendix D

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Nedlands (C) UDS 22 508 21 150 446 528 285 681 732 209 19.84 # 1 904.54 467 656 295 107 762 763

Ngaanyatjarraku (S)* RTM 1 543 159 948 1 326 2 977 983 1 111 829 4 089 812 1 930.00 838.48 3 066 853 562 243 3 629 096

Northam (S) RAV 11 258 1 443 752 1 918 879 733 139 2 652 018 170.45 974.92 2 174 795 734 786 2 909 581

Northampton (S) RAM 3 568 12 499 1 069 579 013 632 026 1 211 039 162.28 591.23 656 235 655 638 1 311 873

Nungarin (S) RAS 233 1 145 510 686 502 266 084 952 586 2 946.36 521.73 778 059 279 671 1 057 730

Peppermint Grove (S) UDS 1 749 2 9 34 697 18 437 53 134 19.84 # 2 048.56 36 302 19 307 55 609

Perenjori (S) RAS 533 8 214 1 439 734 220 763 064 1 497 284 1 377.52 530.27 832 141 783 506 1 615 647

Perth (C) UCC 17 955 9 92 356 203 349 425 705 628 19.84 # 3 798.10 379 871 364 306 744 177

Pingelly (S) RAS 1 288 1 223 566 589 087 369 729 958 816 457.37 653.23 667 652 327 735 995 387

Plantagenet (S) RAL 5 071 4 792 1 311 468 731 797 110 1 265 841 92.43 608.02 531 244 826 567 1 357 811

Port Hedland (T) RTL 14 624 11 844 641 2 201 380 950 315 3 151 695 150.53 1 482.55 2 022 464 643 484 2 665 948

Quairading (S) RAS 1 111 2 040 863 800 092 504 798 1 304 890 720.15 584.93 906 798 521 876 1 428 674

Ravensthorpe (S) RAM 2 349 12 872 1 295 663 629 670 437 1 334 066 282.52 517.71 752 135 742 418 1 494 553

Rockingham (C) UDL 104 130 261 906 2 065 797 1 540 220 3 606 017 19.84 # 1 700.02 2 204 254 1 636 727 3 840 981

Roebourne (S) RTL 19 143 15 196 600 2 726 668 764 324 3 490 992 142.44 1 273.87 2 505 060 814 832 3 319 892

Sandstone (S) RTX 143 28 218 998 1 280 024 410 448 1 690 472 8 951.22 411.27 1 450 738 407 734 1 858 472

Serpentine-Jarrahdale (S) RSG 17 212 905 662 1 553 247 775 998 2 329 245 90.24 1 172.20 1 510 585 811 893 2 322 478

Shark Bay (S) RTS 980 25 000 573 1 072 918 371 527 1 444 445 1 094.81 648.39 1 216 011 404 109 1 620 120

South Perth (C) UDM 43 908

20 192 871 075 370 073 1 241 148 19.84 # 1 927.46 913 355 382 752 1 296 107

Stirling (C) UDV 202 014 109 1 028 4 007 682 1 964 783 5 972 465 19.84 # 1 911.27 4 202 759 2 034 380 6 237 139

Subiaco (C) UDS 18 862 7 89 374 196 201 932 576 128 19.84 # 2 268.90 389 278 211 732 601 010

Swan (S) UFL 112 960 1 043 1 317 2 240 972 2 012 994 4 253 966 19.84 # 1 528.47 2 368 438 2 135 556 4 503 994

Tammin (S) RAS 469 1 087 495 577 105 261 816 838 921 1 230.50 528.92 654 072 271 184 925 256

Three Springs (S) RAS 704 2 629 713 442 610 381 377 823 987 628.71 534.89 406 637 398 553 805 190

Toodyay (S) RAM 4 707 1 683 635 741 645 495 679 1 237 324 157.56 780.60 840 556 516 311 1 356 867

Trayning (S) RAS 393 1 632 764 736 489 415 323 1 151 812 1 874.02 543.62 834 713 426 794 1 261 507

Upper Gascoyne (S) RTX 330 44 602 1 861 1 958 114 848 952 2 807 066 5 933.68 456.18 2 219 263 787 460 3 006 723

Victoria Park (T) UDM 32 958 18 160 653 842 320 920 974 762 19.84 # 2 005.75 688 587 332 059 1 020 646

Victoria Plains (S) RAS

943 2 563 809 254 622 457 490 712 112 270.01 565.50 288 581 495 023 783 604

Vincent (T) UDM 31 209 11 143 619 144 321 807 940 951 19.84 # 2 250.40 648 306 333 489 981 795

Wagin (S) RAS 1 893 1 950 783 686 331 438 620 1 124 951 362.56 560.18 777 865 450 503 1 228 368

Wandering (S) RAS 439 1 955 356 177 032 196 383 373 415 403.26 551.64 200 642 208 900 409 542

194

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Wanneroo (C) UFV 150 106 686 1 235 2 977 899 2 158 238 5 136 137 19.84 # 1 747.56 3 190 151 2 344 895 5 535 046

Waroona (S) RAM 3 842 835 339 697 100 343 449 1 040 549 181.44 1 013.12 790 071 363 264 1 153 335

West Arthur (S) RAS 890 2 850 858 288 363 963 130 1 251 493 324.00 1 122.53 326 822 469 077 795 899

Westonia (S) RAS 197 3 268 882 514 059 449 435 963 494 2 609.44 509.56 582 618 468 970 1 051 588

Wickepin (S) RAS 772 1 989 873 687 073 456 696 1 143 769 889.99 523.13 778 707 474 441 1 253 148

Williams (S) RAS 1 000 2 295 475 73 544 276 884 350 428 73.54 582.91 83 352 283 650 367 002

Wiluna (S) RTS 746 184 000 1 920 1 113 859 762 762 1 876 621 1 493.11 397.27 1 262 412 745 220 2 007 632

Wongan-Ballidu (S) RAS 1 498 3 368 1 323 841 066 714 596 1 555 662 561.46 540.13 953 237 736 149 1 689 386

Woodanilling (S) RAS

464 1 126 523 381 522 640 735 1 022 257 822.25 1 225.11 432 405 283 382 715 787

Wyalkatchem (S) RAS 524 1 743 724 715 496 395 077 1 110 573 1 365.45 545.69 810 921 409 264 1 220 185

Wyndham-East Kimberley (S) RTL 7 971 121 189 1 121 3 386 249 1 052 958 4 439 207 424.82 939.30 3 111 035 826 185 3 937 220

Yalgoo (S) RTX 265 33 258 1 190 1 260 130 564 931 1 825 061 4 755.21 474.73 1 428 192 564 805 1 992 997

Yilgarn (S) RAS 1 558 30 720 2 712 468 502 1 100 210 1 568 712 300.71 405.68 530 986 1 091 997 1 622 983

York (S) RAM 3 638 2 010 666 636 460 550 317 1 186 777 174.95 826.30 721 343 567 468 1 288 811

South Australia

Adelaide (C) UCC 19 876 15 123 389 658 208 387 598 045 19.60 # 1 694.20 402 965 218 050 621 015

Adelaide Hills UFM 40 072 792 1 088 785 590 640 682 1 426 272 19.60 # 588.86 811 718 672 614 1 484 332

Alexandrina UFS 23 868 1 826 1 340 553 177 499 719 1 052 896 23.18 372.92 608 495 525 912 1 134 407

Anangu Pitjantjatjara* RTM 2 438 0 3 087 1 057 099 132 678 1 189 777 433.59 42.98 1 091 666 139 149 1 230 815

Barossa UFS 22 908

891 966 449 099 410 442 859 541 19.60 # 424.89 489 518 431 690 921 208

Barunga West (DC) RAM 2 634 1 581 980 347 863 179 397 527 260 132.07 183.06 360 048 183 216 543 264

Berri Barmera RAV 11 270 507 414 2 233 020 198 093 2 431 113 198.14 478.49 2 339 912 208 455 2 548 367

Burnside (C) UDM 44 449 27 234 871 399 430 486 1 301 885 19.60 # 1 839.68 892 922 448 360 1 341 282

Campbelltown (C) UDM 49 716 24 254 974 656 475 113 1 449 769 19.60 # 1 870.52 1 001 925 496 044 1 497 969

Ceduna (DC) RAM 3 834 5 433 1 714 2 120 430 398 715 2 519 145 553.06 232.62 2 118 044 417 388 2 535 432

Charles Sturt (C) UDL 108 332 56 567 2 123 790 1 047 171 3 170 961 19.60 # 1 846.86 2 198 216 1 099 484 3 297 700

Clare and Gilbert Valleys RAL 8 882 1 886 1 826 435 419 345 529 780 948 49.02 189.23 487 670 362 390 850 060

Cleve (DC) RAS 1 916 4 488 1 395 935 355 764 130 1 699 485 488.18 547.76 941 742 335 826 1 277 568

Coober Pedy (DC) URS 1 928 78 421 817 911 42 825 860 736 424.23 101.72 834 334 44 803 879 137

Coorong (DC) RAL 5 805

8 863 1 884 2 104 585 595 915 2 700 500 362.55 316.30 2 252 368 624 216 2 876 584

Copper Coast (DC) RAV 13 144 776 947 1 600 566 287 784 1 888 350 121.77 303.89 1 552 549 288 920 1 841 469

195

Appendix D

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Elliston (DC) RAS 1 154 6 679 1 148 726 315 368 167 1 094 482 629.39 320.70 744 855 385 463 1 130 318

Flinders Ranges RAS 1 793 4 106 1 262 1 130 489 951 106 2 081 595 630.50 753.65 1 192 457 283 003 1 475 460

Franklin Harbour (DC) RAS 1 369 3 278 935 967 735 230 569 1 198 304 706.89 246.60 1 054 831 241 309 1 296 140

Gawler (M) UFS 21 041 41 180 1 003 313 259 944 1 263 257 47.68 1 444.13 1 093 611 273 347 1 366 958

Gerard* RTX 82 0 10 41 255 17 677 58 932 503.11 1 767.70 42 604 18 539 61 143

Goyder RAM 4 287 6 688 3 247 2 477 820 606 957 3 084 777 577.98 186.93 2 625 398 634 959 3 260 357

Grant (DC) RAL 8 270 1 917 1 598 808 337 419 648 1 227 985 97.74 262.61 881 087 316 456 1 197 543

Holdfast Bay (C) UDM 35 923 14 171 704 251 333 167 1 037 418 19.60 # 1 948.35 724 505 347 779 1 072 284

Kangaroo Island RAM

4 661 4 434 1 362 1 345 881 1 003 775 2 349 656 288.75 736.99 1 345 881 373 417 1 719 298

Karoonda-East Murray (DC) RAS 1 172 4 409 1 299 1 143 412 305 916 1 449 328 975.61 235.50 1 127 032 320 145 1 447 177

Kimba (DC) RAS 1 133 3 966 1 716 939 061 271 759 1 210 820 828.83 158.37 993 684 284 496 1 278 180

Kingston (DC) RAM 2 477 3 351 743 572 699 226 065 798 764 231.21 304.26 564 109 236 595 800 704

Light RAV 13 984 1 273 1 457 274 148 362 557 636 705 19.60 # 248.84 285 058 381 724 666 782

Lower Eyre Peninsula (DC) RAM 4 921 4 755 1 368 400 064 366 338 766 402 81.30 267.79 436 070 384 577 820 647

Loxton Waikerie (DC) RAV 12 073 7 964 2 316 3 210 388 1 281 617 4 492 005 265.91 553.38 3 443 024 694 210 4 137 234

Mallala (DC) RAL 8 535 932 957 955 799 411 964 1 367 763 111.99 430.47 1 021 698 234 586 1 256 284

Maralinga RTX 110 0 147 86 201 47 469 133 670 783.65 322.92 89 019 49 784 138 803

Marion (C) UDL 85 398 56 470 1 674 181 845 093 2 519 274 19.60 # 1 798.07 1 726 670 883 782 2 610 452

Mid Murray RAL 8 599 6 252

3 382 3 018 307 582 911 3 601 218 351.01 172.36 3 068 144 610 085 3 678 229

Mitcham (C) UDM 65 692 76 397 1 287 856 677 663 1 965 519 19.60 # 1 706.96 1 324 570 707 119 2 031 689

Mount Barker (DC) URM 30 540 593 725 598 720 1 575 261 2 173 981 19.60 # 2 172.77 624 467 503 241 1 127 708

Mount Gambier (C) URS 26 128 34 197 1 856 559 557 305 2 413 864 71.06 2 828.96 2 023 649 367 376 2 391 025

Mount Remarkable (DC) RAM 2 966 3 412 2 064 1 565 375 328 360 1 893 735 527.77 159.09 1 675 438 344 113 2 019 551

Murray Bridge RAV 19 577 1 824 974 3 024 924 409 735 3 434 659 154.51 420.67 2 990 943 429 834 3 420 777

Naracoorte Lucindale RAL 8 530 4 531 1 614 1 861 193 434 968 2 296 161 218.19 269.50 2 028 700 455 609 2 484 309

Nipapanha* RTX 101 0 10 26 464 17 600 44 064 262.02 1 760.00 27 329 18 459 45 788

Northern Areas RAM 4 843 2 974 2 197 1 198 685 364 219 1 562 904 247.51 165.78 1 306 567 380 930 1 687 497

Norwood Payneham and St Peters (C) UDM 36 498 15 157 715 523 324 480 1 040 003 19.60 # 2 066.75 735 720 340 466 1 076 186

Onkaparinga UFV 162 925

519 1440 5 880 478 2 067 950 7 948 428 36.09 1 436.08 5 792 271 2 175 675 7 967 946

Orroroo/Carrieton (DC) RAS 931 3 306 1628 822 817 604 425 1 427 242 883.80 371.27 896 870 240 214 1 137 084

196

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Outback Communities Authority* RTL 3 656 0 0 1 337 631 0 1 337 631 365.87 0.00 1 437 631 0 1 437 631

Peterborough (DC) RAS 1 969 3 006 1 230 1 274 348 222 545 1 496 893 647.21 180.93 1 317 934 232 873 1 550 807

Playford (C) UFL 79 850 344 789 7 556 270 1 597 515 9 153 785 94.63 2 024.73 8 128 410 1 147 618 9 276 028

Port Adelaide Enfield (C) UDL 113 257 94 665 2 220 341 1 155 600 3 375 941 19.60 # 1 737.74 2 307 138 1 214 465 3 521 603

Port Augusta (C) URS 14 784 1 189 408 2 792 386 262 232 3 054 618 188.88 642.73 2 750 500 273 004 3 023 504

Port Lincoln (C) URS 14 726 32 158 927 946 201 709 1 129 655 63.01 1 276.64 1 011 462 210 573 1 222 035

Port Pirie RAV 18 255 1 783 1 175 4 000 842 392 479 4 393 321 219.16 334.02 3 940 829 408 851 4 349 680

Prospect (C) UDS 21 105 8 87 413 752 184 004 597 756 19.60 # 2 114.99 423 386 191 487 614 873

Renmark Paringa (DC) RAL 9 897 900 496 2 310 772 202 614 2 513 386 233.48 408.50 2 479 965 210 796 2 690 761

Robe (DC) RAS 1 502 1 098 435 29 446 98 090 127 536 19.60 # 225.49 30 251 102 675 132 926

Roxby Downs (M) URS 4 478 109 39 87 789 64 266 152 055 19.60 # 1 647.85 90 028 67 061 157 089

Salisbury (C) UDV 132 473 158 748 7 203 936 1 326 533 8 530 469 54.38 1 773.44 6 843 739 1 419 559 8 263 298

Southern Mallee (DC) RAM 2 172 5 702 1 336 1 064 888 361 754 1 426 642 490.28 270.77 1 079 307 378 377 1 457 684

Streaky Bay (DC) RAM 2 203 6 241 1 731 1 363 062 888 287 2 251 349 618.73 513.16 1 485 738 433 843 1 919 581

Tatiara (DC) RAL 7 194 6 525 1 932 1 986 237 507 156 2 493 393 276.10 262.50 2 164 998 530 413 2 695 411

Tea Tree Gully (C) UDL 100 593 95 593 1 972 071 1 023 051 2 995 122 19.60 1 725.21 2 019 527 1 064 503 3 084 030

Tumby Bay (DC) RAM 2 762 2 670 1 108 532 370 236 331 768 701 192.75 213.30 551 623 247 813 799 436

Unley (C) UDM 38 767 14 164 760 006 415 100 1 175 106 19.60 # 2 531.10 778 815 356 318 1 135 133

Victor Harbor (C)

URS 13 971 386 377 273 894 227 387 501 281 19.60 # 603.15 285 802 241 136 526 938

Wakefield RAL 6 856 3 462 2 681 1 495 367 452 140 1 947 507 218.11 168.65 1 629 950 473 796 2 103 746

Walkerville (M) UDS 7 408 4 35 145 230 68 515 213 745 19.60 # 1 957.57 149 182 71 437 220 619

Wattle Range RAV 12 623 3 946 2 456 1 560 311 496 292 2 056 603 123.61 202.07 1 716 342 517 586 2 233 928

West Torrens (C) UDM 56 169 37 289 1 101 163 538 776 1 639 939 19.60 # 1 864.28 1 132 555 562 284 1 694 839

Whyalla (C) URS 23 214 1 072 280 4 048 088 359 951 4 408 039 174.38 1 285.54 3 987 367 376 012 4 363 379

Wudinna (DC) RAS 1 365 5 369 1 707 1 280 511 354 974 1 635 485 938.10 207.95 1 261 303 371 154 1 632 457

Yalata* RTX 105 0 64 148 494 38 218 186 712 1 414.23 597.16 153 350 40 082 193 432

Yankalilla (DC) RAM 4 661 757 542 103 637 136 310 239 947 22.23 251.49 112 964 142 250 255 214

Yorke Peninsula (DC) RAV 11 782 5 928 3 887 1 359 955 734 670 2 094 625 115.43 189.01 1 438 264 768 928 2 207 192

197

Appendix D

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Tasmania

Break O'Day (M) RAL 6 514 3 521 548 1 057 237 1 290 018 2 347 255 162.30 2 354.05 1 126 190 1 436 933 2 563 123

Brighton (M) URS 16 358 171 171 1 133 670 487 846 1 621 516 69.30 2 852.90 1 132 396 486 929 1 619 325

Burnie (C) URS 19 892 610 346 1 204 125 1 148 605 2 352 730 60.53 3 319.67 1 416 664 1 116 661 2 533 325

Central Coast (M) URS 21 747 931 664 2 158 806 1 782 041 3 940 847 99.27 2 683.80 2 252 001 1 834 884 4 086 885

Central Highlands (M) RAM 2 322 7 976 752 755 863 1 072 422 1 828 285 325.52 1 426.09 792 631 1 250 945 2 043 576

Circular Head (M) RAL 8 263 4 891 769 916 631 1 455 159 2 371 790 110.93 1 892.27 963 646 1 661 141 2 624 787

Clarence (C) UFM 52 935 377 460 1 053 513 1 546 241 2 599 754 19.90 # 3 361.39 1 080 987 1 489 893 2 570 880

Derwent Valley (M) RAV 10 118 4 103 330 1 250 973 616 345 1 867 318 123.64 1 867.71 1 280 061 724 496 2 004 557

Devonport (C)

URS 25 551 111 269 838 591 1 206 392 2 044 983 32.82 4 484.73 806 899 1 126 525 1 933 424

Dorset (M) RAL 7 355 3 223 739 1 483 315 1 465 857 2 949 172 201.67 1 983.57 1 537 327 1 625 140 3 162 467

Flinders (M) RAS 900 1 994 385 651 480 573 588 1 225 068 723.87 1 489.84 670 589 674 380 1 344 969

George Town (M) RAL 6 892 653 273 934 951 714 858 1 649 809 135.66 2 618.53 951 699 747 242 1 698 941

Glamorgan - Spring Bay (M) RAM 4 507 2 587 353 348 770 848 351 1 197 121 77.38 2 403.26 429 468 866 672 1 296 140

Glenorchy (C) UFM 44 716 121 310 889 939 1 434 305 2 324 244 19.90 # 4 626.79 904 059 1 309 020 2 213 079

Hobart (C) UCC 50 078 78 325 996 654 1 883 139 2 879 793 19.90 # 5 794.27 1 013 009 1 623 703 2 636 712

Huon Valley (M) RAV 15 372 5 497 706 1 512 236 1 202 291 2 714 527 98.38 1 702.96 1 436 424 1 346 784 2 783 208

Kentish (M) RAL 6 286 1155 452 1 495 397 956 767 2 452 164 237.89 2 116.74 1 436 758 1 071 422 2 508 180

King Island (M) RAS 1 683 1 094 436 596 016 654 070 1 250 086 354.14 1 500.16 645 749 776 828 1 422 577

Kingborough (M) UFM 34 171

719 537 680 072 1 194 930 1 875 002 19.90 # 2 225.20 702 890 1 264 451 1 967 341

Latrobe (M) RAL 10 020 600 287 732 251 687 913 1 420 164 73.08 2 396.91 661 019 715 434 1 376 453

Launceston (C) URM 65 826 1 411 738 1 453 425 2 747 827 4 201 252 22.08 3 723.34 1 332 696 2 605 148 3 937 844

Meander Valley (M) RAV 19 694 3 320 849 1 987 730 1 902 259 3 889 989 100.93 2 240.59 1 946 806 2 056 057 4 002 863

Northern Midlands (M) RAV 12 654 5 126 975 1 542 999 2 046 053 3 589 052 121.94 2 098.52 1 548 728 2 200 793 3 749 521

Sorell (M) RAV 13 407 583 404 1 300 700 859 583 2 160 283 97.02 2 127.68 1 694 588 906 500 2 601 088

Southern Midlands (M) RAL 6 146 2 611 803 1 642 612 1 198 710 2 841 322 267.27 1 492.79 1 659 803 1 408 507 3 068 310

Tasman (M) RAM 2 413 659 257 488 805 423 747 912 552 202.57 1 648.82 537 623 456 350 993 973

Waratah - Wynyard (M) RAV 14 096 3 526 535 1 904 494 1 160 974 3 065 468 135.11 2 170.04 1 819 027 1 231 153 3 050 180

West Coast (M) RAL 5 251 9 574 195 1 313 726 599 301 1 913 027 250.19 3 073.34 1 218 215 608 468 1 826 683

West Tamar (M) UFS 22 476 690 456 1 352 096

1 030 906 2 383 002 60.16 2 260.76 1 348 902 1 076 964 2 425 866

198

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table D.1

Di

stribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2011-12 and 2012-13 continued... Council Name Classi-fication Population

Council Area (sq km)

Total Road Length (km)

2011-12 actual entitlement 2012-13 estimated entitlement

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant GP grant per capita Min Roads grant

per km

General

Purpose grant Roads grant Total grant

Northern Territory

Alice Springs URS 28 008 327 254 579 485 886 272 1 465 757 20.69 # 3 489.26 694 943 881 650 1 576 593

Barkly* RTL 8 143 322 693 621 1 606 605 440 467 2 047 072 197.30 709.29 1 463 227 459 296 1 922 523

Belyuen* RAS 209 42 84 23 120 29 972 53 092 110.62 356.81 22 742 31 253 53 995

Central Desert* RTL 4 822 282 090 2172 1 067 329 796 090 1 863 419 221.35 366.52 924 435 809 886 1 734 321

Coomalie RAS 1 323 1 512 164 27 372 375 036 402 408 20.69 # 2 286.80 26 334 396 552 422 886

Darwin UCC 77 347 142 507 1 600 308 1 797 910 3 398 218 20.69 # 3 546.17 1 653 469 1 879 304 3 532 773

East Arnhem* RTL 10 088 33 302 1 238 2 788 410 1 025 918 3 814 328 276.41 828.69 3 124 745 1 105 817 4 230 562

Katherine URS 10 112 7 421 180 373 046 557 791 930 837 36.89 3 098.84 327 551 607 632

935 183

Litchfield RAV 19 428 3 072 767 401 965 2 213 533 2 615 498 20.69 # 2 885.96 421 096 2 292 688 2 713 784

MacDonnell* RTL 7 257 268 784 1 732 1 796 098 934 731 2 730 829 247.50 539.68 1 687 344 974 689 2 662 033

Palmerston UFS 30 162 56 211 624 051 696 010 1 320 061 20.69 # 3 298.63 615 727 734 958 1 350 685

Roper Gulf* RTL 7 044 185 176 933 1 663 079 876 790 2 539 869 236.10 939.75 1 735 587 914 272 2 649 859

Tiwi Islands* RTM 2 536 7 501 925 268 313 805 667 1 073 980 105.80 870.99 369 344 840 109 1 209 453

Trust Account ZZZ 0 0 2 180 0 1 148 666 1 148 666 N/A 526.91 0 1 217 967 1 217 967

Victoria - Daly* RTL 7 032 167 575 1 125 1 309 494 1 418 674 2 728 168 186.22 1 261.04 1 304 972 1 481 542 2 786 514

Wagait UFS 329 6 13 6 807 50 975 57 782 20.69 # 3 921.15 8 722 53 154 61 876

West Arnhem* RTL 6 913 49 698 1 179 1 089 097 1 058 675 2 147 772 157.54 897.94 1 198 768 1 099 966 2 298 734

199

E

Councils often compare the grant they receive with the grants of other councils in their state and assume that, if another council gets a similar sized grant, 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 the local road grants to councils, local government grants commissions implicitly determine a ranking for each council in their state on the basis of relative needs. A comparison of councils on the basis of relative needs is preferred to a comparison on the basis of the actual grant they receive. In this appendix, the grant per capita is used as the basis for comparing relative need for the general purpose grants. For local road grants, 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 the ranking obtained for both grants. Each council’s Australian Classification of Local Government (ACLG) category is also provided (see Appendix F).

Councils are ranked from the council in the greatest assessed relative need to the council in the least assessed relative need. For each state and the Northern Territory, the positions 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 their financial assistance grants with those other councils in their state. For instance, Appendix D shows that in Victoria, Banyule City Council received $3 331 399 in general purpose grants in 2011-12, while Frankston City Council received $7 359 838. This translates to Banyule’s grant being $26.81 per capita, while Frankston’s grant is $56.41. This suggests that, while the two councils have similar populations and similar locations, the Victoria Grants Commission has assessed Frankston City as having the greater relative need. In Table E.2, Frankston is shown to rank 57th among Victoria’s councils for general purpose grants, while Banyule is ranked 65th.

Ranking of local governing bodies on a relative needs basis 2011-12

200

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Below is a key to symbols used in Tables E.1 to E.7. See Appendix F for a full explanation.

RAL Rural Agricultural Large

RAM Rural Agricultural Medium

RAS Rural Agricultural Small

RAV Rural Agricultural Very Large

RSG Rural Significant Growth

RTL Rural Remote Large

RTM Rural Remote Medium

RTS Rural Remote Small

RTX Rural Remote Extra Small

UCC Urban Capital City

UDL Urban Developed Large

UDM Urban Developed Medium

UDS Urban Developed Small

UDV Urban Developed Very Large

UFL Urban Fringe Large

UFM Urban Fringe Medium

UFS Urban Fringe Small

UFV Urban Fringe Very Large

URL Urban Regional Large

URM Urban Regional Medium

URS Urban Regional Small

URV Urban Regional Very Large

201

Appendix E

Table E.1 Ne w South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name Classif- ication GP grant

per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication Roads grant

per km

1 Central Darling (S) RTM $1,057.23 1 Sydney (C) UCC $3,623.56

2 Urana (S) RAS $767.86 2 Waverley UDL $3,493.90

3 Conargo (S) RAS $735.32 3 Randwick (C) UDV $3,045.70

4 Brewarrina (S) RAS $711.69 4 Queanbeyan (C) URM $3,027.71

5 Bourke (S) RAM $689.05 5 Ashfield UDM $3,006.43

6 Carrathool (S) RAM $662.23 6 Canterbury (C) UDV $3,005.89

7 Jerilderie (S) RAS $627.93 7 North Sydney UDM $2,910.59

8 Balranald (S) RAM $609.93 8 Botany Bay (C) UDM $2,897.83

9 Bogan (S) RAM $520.12 9 Strathfield (M) UDM $2,884.69

10 Lachlan (S) RAL $512.02 10 Canada Bay (C) UDL $2,867.15

11 Lockhart (S) RAM $508.54 11 Woollahra (M) UDM $2,798.07

12 Tibooburra (VC) RTX $486.70 12 Burwood UDM $2,783.32

13 Silverton Village (VC) RTX $486.70 13 Marrickville UDL $2,779.64

14 Cobar (S) RTL $483.25 14 Auburn (C) UDL $2,761.60

15 Hay (S) RAM $478.17 15 Leichhardt (M) UDM $2,748.24

16 Bland (S) RAL $465.51 16 Rockdale (C) UDL $2,738.42

17 Lord Howe Island (Bd) RTX $459.34 17 Manly UDM $2,715.85

18 Wakool (S) RAM $443.94 18 Parramatta (C) UDV $2,688.45

19 Walgett (S) RAL $426.18 19 Kogarah (C) UDM $2,671.13

20 Warren (S) RAM $422.10 20 Hurstville (C) UDL $2,670.34

21 Coonamble (S) RAM $411.77 21 Willoughby (C) UDL $2,624.76

22 Murrumbidgee (S) RAM $390.47 22 Bankstown (C) UDV $2,596.97

23 Coolamon (S) RAM $390.01 23 Holroyd (C) UDL $2,593.86

24 Bombala RAM $386.90 24 Ryde (C) UDL $2,592.06

25 Wentworth (S) RAL $374.25 25 Lane Cove (M) UDM $2,568.06

26 Weddin (S) RAM $369.32 26 Fairfield (C) UDV $2,524.13

27 Narrandera (S) RAL $351.04 27 Mosman (M) UDS $2,515.47

28 Harden (S) RAM $344.50 28 Warringah UDV $2,448.02

29 Warrumbungle (S) RAV $335.56 29 Coffs Harbour (C) URL $2,395.04

30 Tumbarumba (S) RAM $334.45 30 Albury (C) URM $2,370.41

31 Narromine (S) RAL $333.74 31 Blacktown (C) UDV $2,342.29

32 Tenterfield (S) RAL $327.40 32 Campbelltown (C) UFV $2,336.59

33 Berrigan (S) RAL $325.92 33 Sutherland (S) UDV $2,329.42

34 Gwydir (S) RAL $316.27 34 Liverpool (C) UFV $2,319.10

35 Boorowa RAM $315.18 35 Pittwater UDM $2,283.75

36 Gilgandra (S) RAM $314.82 36 Wollongong (C) URV $2,275.34

37 Greater Hume (S) RAV $292.86 37 Hornsby (S) UFV $2,260.03

38 Murray (S) RAL $292.55 38 Orange (C) URM $2,242.81

39 Temora (S) RAL $280.26 39 Ku-ring-gai UDL $2,240.35

40 Forbes (S) RAL $280.01 40 Tweed (S) URL $2,223.21

41 Deniliquin URS $263.93 41 Hunters Hill (M) UDS $2,203.41

202

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table E.1 Ne w South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 continued...

Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name Classif- ication GP grant

per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication Roads grant

per km

42 Gundagai (S) RAM $262.80 42 Newcastle (C) URV $2,175.32

43 Junee (S) RAL $258.89 43 Broken Hill (C) URS $2,145.18

44 Snowy River (S) RAL $258.37 44 Shellharbour (C) URM $2,114.63

45 Narrabri (S) RAV $257.43 45 Hills (S) UFV $2,093.84

46 Upper Lachlan (S) RAL $256.61 46 Camden UFM $2,066.22

47 Wellington RAL $248.46 47 Penrith (C) UFV $2,061.41

48 Guyra (S) RAM $242.75 48 Gosford (C) UFV $1,995.49

49 Cootamundra (S) RAL $240.01 49 Lake Macquarie (C) URV $1,967.21

50 Corowa (S) RAV $238.25 50 Ballina (S) URM $1,951.92

51 Oberon RAL $235.05 51 Port Macquarie-

Hastings

URL $1,942.78

52 Glen Innes Severn RAL $234.26 52 Wyong (S) UFV $1,936.78

53 Walcha RAM $229.15 53 Byron (S) URM $1,924.58

54 Gloucester (S) RAL $227.21 54 Maitland (C) URL $1,845.08

55 Leeton (S) RAV $224.10 55 Kiama (M) URS $1,817.32

56 Cooma-Monaro (S) RAV $223.38 56 Shoalhaven (C) URL $1,783.02

57 Kyogle RAL $222.18 57 Blue Mountains (C) UFL $1,725.50

58 Parkes (S) RAV $219.54 58 Hawkesbury (C) UFM $1,718.11

59 Liverpool Plains (S) RAL $219.42 59 Port Stephens URM $1,712.50

60 Moree Plains (S) RAV $215.22 60 Wollondilly (S) UFM $1,683.97

61 Broken Hill (C) URS $212.16 61 Cessnock (C) URM $1,645.18

62 Tumut (S) RAV $207.68 62 Deniliquin URS $1,587.18

63 Cowra (S) RAV $206.71 63 Lismore (C) URM $1,586.39

64 Blayney (S) RAL $200.74 64 Nambucca (S) RAV $1,561.01

65 Gunnedah (S) RAV $193.70 65 Wingecarribee (S) URM $1,516.39

66 Uralla (S) RAL $192.00 66 Kempsey (S) URS $1,510.03

67 Inverell (S) RAV $185.86 67 Eurobodalla (S) URM $1,504.20

68 Bellingen (S) RAV $173.06 68 Bellingen (S) RAV $1,483.11

69 Cabonne RAV $168.42 69 Great Lakes URM $1,480.40

70 Young (S) RAV $168.12 70 Singleton URS $1,450.64

71 Upper Hunter (S) RAV $158.49 71 Bega Valley (S) URM $1,438.03

72 Lithgow (C) URS $155.97 72 Greater Taree (C) URM $1,428.54

73 Mid-Western Regional URS $153.99 73 Bathurst Regional URM $1,416.13

74 Dungog (S) RAL $150.30 74 Clarence Valley URM $1,377.53

75 Muswellbrook (S) RAV $144.50 75 Muswellbrook (S) RAV $1,371.87

76 Bega Valley (S) URM $142.40 76 Richmond Valley URS $1,357.31

77 Richmond Valley URS $136.25 77 Dubbo (C) URM $1,355.52

78 Great Lakes URM $135.86 78 Kyogle RAL $1,325.41

79 Clarence Valley URM $133.53 79 Wagga Wagga (C) URM $1,322.70

80 Kempsey (S) URS $126.42 80 Dungog (S) RAL $1,303.01

81 Eurobodalla (S) URM $123.66 81 Armidale Dumaresq URS $1,300.11

82 Nambucca (S) RAV $123.56 State average $1,285.53

203

Appendix E

Table E.1 Ne w South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 continued...

Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name Classif- ication GP grant

per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication Roads grant

per km

83 Dubbo (C) URM $120.14 82 Goulburn Mulwaree URS $1,284.75

84 Griffith (C) URS $109.04 83 Tumut (S) RAV $1,232.25

85 Bathurst Regional URM $108.48 84 Lithgow (C) URS $1,230.04

86 Wagga Wagga (C) URM $108.41 85 Gloucester (S) RAL $1,219.59

87 Goulburn Mulwaree URS $107.81 86 Tamworth Regional URM $1,212.76

88 Armidale Dumaresq URS $106.44 87 Palerang RAV $1,120.87

89 Tamworth Regional URM $103.84 88 Griffith (C) URS $1,118.57

90 Yass Valley RAV $103.26 89 Cootamundra (S) RAL $1,110.72

91 Palerang RAV $101.27 90 Glen Innes Severn RAL $1,089.06

92 Cessnock (C) URM $100.29 91 Tumbarumba (S) RAM $1,078.69

93 Lismore (C) URM $99.53 92 Yass Valley RAV $1,076.94

94 Albury (C) URM $98.27 93 Mid-Western Regional URS $1,064.35

95 Greater Taree (C) URM $93.85 94 Blayney (S) RAL $1,059.71

96 Orange (C) URM $91.53 95 Upper Hunter (S) RAV $1,054.92

97 Singleton URS $85.93 96 Young (S) RAV $1,045.91

98 Blue Mountains (C) UFL $85.20 97 Cooma-Monaro (S) RAV $1,045.89

99 Port Macquarie-Hastings URL $79.10 98 Cowra (S) RAV $1,038.99

100 Shoalhaven (C) URL $78.23 99 Snowy River (S) RAL $1,037.15

101 Maitland (C) URL $73.90 100 Gundagai (S) RAM $1,025.31

102 Newcastle (C) URV $71.65 101 Leeton (S) RAV $1,018.42

103 Tweed (S) URL $70.61 102 Uralla (S) RAL $1,016.25

104 Wollongong (C) URV $67.89 103 Inverell (S) RAV $1,010.24

105 Coffs Harbour (C) URL $67.67 104 Gunnedah (S) RAV $999.94

State average $65.18 105 Cabonne RAV $987.07

106 Lake Macquarie (C) URV $64.34 106 Liverpool Plains (S) RAL $986.24

107 Port Stephens URM $62.84 107 Greater Hume (S) RAV $984.50

108 Wyong (S) UFV $60.19 108 Wakool (S) RAM $981.91

109 Shellharbour (C) URM $56.77 109 Bombala RAM $981.50

110 Campbelltown (C) UFV $54.10 110 Walcha RAM $980.88

111 Wingecarribee (S) URM $52.91 111 Tenterfield (S) RAL $978.96

112 Queanbeyan (C) URM $51.34 112 Corowa (S) RAV $977.43

113 Blacktown (C) UDV $51.28 113 Murray (S) RAL $967.16

114 Ballina (S) URM $50.71 114 Forbes (S) RAL $965.69

115 Penrith (C) UFV $47.94 115 Guyra (S) RAM $964.76

116 Fairfield (C) UDV $46.56 116 Junee (S) RAL $957.78

117 Hawkesbury (C) UFM $43.81 117 Parkes (S) RAV $954.87

118 Wollondilly (S) UFM $42.03 118 Harden (S) RAM $952.03

119 Byron (S) URM $41.82 119 Wellington RAL $951.85

120 Parramatta (C) UDV $39.73 120 Upper Lachlan (S) RAL $947.16

121 Gosford (C) UFV $39.00 121 Oberon RAL $945.97

122 Kiama (M) URS $37.45 122 Narrabri (S) RAV $941.48

204

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table E.1 Ne w South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 continued...

Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name Classif- ication GP grant

per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication Roads grant

per km

123 Liverpool (C) UFV $34.21 123 Moree Plains (S) RAV $939.46

124 Auburn (C) UDL $33.05 124 Berrigan (S) RAL $932.58

125 Marrickville UDL $32.68 125 Temora (S) RAL $930.33

126 Holroyd (C) UDL $32.04 126 Warrumbungle (S) RAV $927.84

127 Canterbury (C) UDV $31.52 127 Walgett (S) RAL $924.14

128 Bankstown (C) UDV $29.76 128 Warren (S) RAM $923.18

129 Camden UFM $27.08 129 Lockhart (S) RAM $923.01

130 Sydney (C) UCC $24.17 130 Gilgandra (S) RAM $921.15

131 Ashfield UDM $23.55 131 Boorowa RAM $915.01

132 Waverley UDL $22.39 132 Coonamble (S) RAM $908.53

133 Hunters Hill (M) UDS $19.56 133 Gwydir (S) RAL $907.94

134 Mosman (M) UDS $19.56 134 Narromine (S) RAL $905.45

135 Strathfield (M) UDM $19.56 135 Narrandera (S) RAL $902.30

136 Manly UDM $19.56 136 Weddin (S) RAM $896.94

137 Burwood UDM $19.56 137 Hay (S) RAM $894.56

138 Leichhardt (M) UDM $19.56 138 Wentworth (S) RAL $892.51

139 Botany Bay (C) UDM $19.56 139 Bogan (S) RAM $891.27

140 Lane Cove (M) UDM $19.56 140 Murrumbidgee (S) RAM $890.02

141 Kogarah (C) UDM $19.56 141 Brewarrina (S) RAS $876.98

142 Pittwater UDM $19.56 142 Urana (S) RAS $876.73

143 Willoughby (C) UDL $19.56 143 Coolamon (S) RAM $873.25

144 Randwick (C) UDV $19.56 144 Cobar (S) RTL $872.79

145 North Sydney UDM $19.56 145 Jerilderie (S) RAS $872.73

146 Hornsby (S) UFV $19.56 146 Bourke (S) RAM $866.90

147 Ku-ring-gai UDL $19.56 147 Bland (S) RAL $864.34

148 Canada Bay (C) UDL $19.56 148 Lachlan (S) RAL $864.04

149 Woollahra (M) UDM $19.56 149 Conargo (S) RAS $861.09

150 Hills (S) UFV $19.56 150 Carrathool (S) RAM $857.03

151 Warringah UDV $19.56 151 Balranald (S) RAM $851.70

152 Rockdale (C) UDL $19.56 152 Central Darling (S) RTM $847.35

153 Sutherland (S) UDV $19.56 153 Tibooburra (VC) RTX $0.00

154 Hurstville (C) UDL $19.56 154 Silverton Village (VC) RTX $0.00

155 Ryde (C) UDL $19.56 155 Lord Howe Island (Bd) RTX $0.00

205

Appendix E

Table E.2 Vi ctorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name

Classif- ication GP grant per capita Rank Council Name

Classif- ication Roads grant per km

1 West Wimmera (S) RAM $558.65 1 Melbourne (C) UCC $2,917.74

2 Loddon (S) RAL $459.78 2 Kingston (C) UDV $1,939.20

3 Buloke (S) RAL $410.96 3 Yarra Ranges (S) UFV $1,927.55

4 Pyrenees (S) RAL $384.20 4 Warrnambool (C) URM $1,914.28

5 Hindmarsh (S) RAL $381.09 5 Greater Dandenong (C) UDV $1,870.65

6 Towong (S) RAL $347.47 6 Yarra (C) UDL $1,680.44

7 Yarriambiack (S) RAL $345.97 7 Cardinia (S) UFL $1,673.93

8 Northern Grampians (S) RAV $278.92 8 Port Phillip (C) UDL $1,660.58

9 Ararat (RC) RAV $248.09 9 Wodonga (C) URM $1,656.69

10 Gannawarra (S) RAV $247.22 10 Brimbank (C) UDV $1,654.75

11 Strathbogie (S) RAL $242.14 11 Hume (C) UFV $1,637.10

12 Southern Grampians (S) RAV $208.23 12 Darebin (C) UDV $1,609.94

13 Mansfield RAL $205.02 13 Moreland (C) UDV $1,597.95

14 Moyne (S) RAV $203.72 14 Frankston (C) UDV $1,584.03

15 East Gippsland (S) URM $201.00 15 Melton (C) UFL $1,577.51

16 Corangamite (S) RAV $200.88 16 Whittlesea (C) UFV $1,538.66

17 Murrindindi (S) RAV $196.74 17 Maribyrnong (C) UDL $1,521.05

18 Glenelg (S) RAV $180.69 18 Banyule (C) UDV $1,496.18

19 Swan Hill (RC) URS $175.54 19 Hobsons Bay (C) UDL $1,475.12

20 Central Goldfields (S) RAV $175.01 20 East Gippsland (S) URM $1,465.67

21 Moira (S) URS $174.83 21 South Gippsland (S) URS $1,448.22

22 Alpine (S) RAV $174.34 22 Maroondah (C) UDL $1,441.55

23 Hepburn (S) RAV $169.78 23 Latrobe (C) URL $1,436.99

24 Campaspe (C) URM $166.51 24 Moonee Valley (C) UDL $1,435.13

25 Horsham (RC) RAV $164.91 25 Wyndham (C) UFV $1,419.06

26 South Gippsland (S) URS $164.29 26 Stonnington (C) UDL $1,407.37

27 Indigo (S) RAV $157.93 27 Casey (C) UDV $1,393.71

28 Golden Plains (S) RAV $155.69 28 Monash (C) UDV $1,386.36

29 Wellington (S) URM $155.41 29 Nillumbik (S) UFM $1,385.21

30 Benalla (RC) RAV $154.57 30 Baw Baw (S) URM $1,382.81

31 Mildura (RC) URM $153.06 31 Ballarat (C) URL $1,377.22

32 Colac Otway (S) URS $151.22 32 Colac Otway (S) URS $1,374.83

33 Wangaratta (RC) URS $137.32 33 Knox (C) UDV $1,372.81

34 Mount Alexander (S) RAV $136.47 34 Wellington (S) URM $1,361.25

35 Bass Coast (S) UFM $132.07 35 Greater Geelong (C) URV $1,332.60

36 Moorabool (S) URS $128.08 36 Alpine (S) RAV $1,330.46

37 Baw Baw (S) URM $123.96 37 Mornington Peninsula

(S)

UFV $1,313.63

38 Mitchell (S) URM $122.49 38 Boroondara (C) UDV $1,300.37

39 Greater Shepparton (C) URM $115.93 39 Murrindindi (S) RAV $1,288.05

40 Latrobe (C) URL $115.13 40 Bayside (C) UDL $1,279.82

41 Greater Bendigo (C) URL $105.75 41 Manningham (C) UDL $1,256.88

42 Macedon Ranges (S) URM $97.57 42 Whitehorse (C) UDV $1,249.41

43 Wodonga (C) URM $96.91 43 Bass Coast (S) UFM $1,226.23

206

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table E.2 Vict orian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 continued...

Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name

Classif- ication GP grant per capita Rank Council Name

Classif- ication Roads grant per km

44 Ballarat (C) URL $88.65 44 Moyne (S) RAV $1,224.64

45 Cardinia (S) UFL $87.49 45 Macedon Ranges (S) URM $1,211.49

46 Melton (C) UFL $85.38 46 Moorabool (S) URS $1,174.52

47 Warrnambool (C) URM $82.56 47 Surf Coast (S) UFS $1,168.00

48 Surf Coast (S) UFS $75.28 48 Mitchell (S) URM $1,150.42

49 Greater Geelong (C) URV $71.96 49 Queenscliffe (B) UFS $1,134.09

50 Queenscliffe (B) UFS $66.52 50 Glenelg (S) RAV $1,130.46

51 Yarra Ranges (S) UFV $65.78 State average $1,025.21

52 Wyndham (C) UFV $65.11 51 Glen Eira (C) UDV $1,122.82

State average $64.95 52 Corangamite (S) RAV $1,114.42

53 Greater Dandenong (C) UDV $64.72 53 Towong (S) RAL $1,082.16

54 Brimbank (C) UDV $60.09 54 Wangaratta (RC) URS $1,072.00

55 Hume (C) UFV $58.97 55 Greater Shepparton (C) URM $1,065.22

56 Whittlesea (C) UFV $57.41 56 Mansfield RAL $1,044.39

57 Frankston (C) UDV $56.41 57 Southern Grampians (S) RAV $1,028.92

58 Casey (C) UDV $54.06 58 Mount Alexander (S) RAV $997.11

59 Knox (C) UDV $41.26 59 Golden Plains (S) RAV $996.81

60 Maroondah (C) UDL $37.79 60 Campaspe (C) URM $964.54

61 Maribyrnong (C) UDL $32.31 61 Pyrenees (S) RAL $950.56

62 Moreland (C) UDV $30.04 62 Greater Bendigo (C) URL $934.99

63 Nillumbik (S) UFM $28.29 63 Hepburn (S) RAV $917.76

64 Darebin (C) UDV $26.94 64 Benalla (RC) RAV $907.29

65 Banyule (C) UDV $26.81 65 Ararat (RC) RAV $875.82

66 Mornington Peninsula (S) UFV $24.68 66 Central Goldfields (S) RAV $871.82

67 Moonee Valley (C) UDL $19.48 67 Moira (S) URS $837.34

68 Glen Eira (C) UDV $19.48 68 Strathbogie (S) RAL $821.38

69 Manningham (C) UDL $19.48 69 Indigo (S) RAV $812.74

70 Hobsons Bay (C) UDL $19.48 70 Gannawarra (S) RAV $802.26

71 Yarra (C) UDL $19.48 71 West Wimmera (S) RAM $760.17

72 Monash (C) UDV $19.48 72 Northern Grampians (S) RAV $678.01

73 Melbourne (C) UCC $19.48 73 Horsham (RC) RAV $628.53

74 Port Phillip (C) UDL $19.48 74 Mildura (RC) URM $627.73

75 Kingston (C) UDV $19.48 75 Loddon (S) RAL $624.23

76 Stonnington (C) UDL $19.48 76 Swan Hill (RC) URS $525.55

77 Whitehorse (C) UDV $19.48 77 Hindmarsh (S) RAL $451.92

78 Boroondara (C) UDV $19.48 78 Buloke (S) RAL $364.84

79 Bayside (C) UDL $19.48 79 Yarriambiack (S) RAL $354.99

207

Appendix E

Table E.3 Qu eensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name Classif- ication GP grant

per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication Roads grant

per km

1 Bulloo RTS $8,668.09 1 Brisbane UCC $2,387.83

2 Barcoo RTX $7,379.68 2 Gold Coast URV $2,121.83

3 Croydon RTX $7,001.36 3 Redland URV $1,864.87

4 Diamantina RTX $5,958.67 4 Logan URV $1,837.71

5 Burke RTS $4,185.78 5 Townsville URV $1,645.85

6 Boulia RTS $4,182.41 6 Ipswich URV $1,630.50

7 Quilpie RTM $3,264.08 7 Moreton Bay URV $1,630.09

8 McKinlay RTM $3,195.34 8 Cairns URV $1,508.30

9 Mapoon Aboriginal Council RTX $2,976.52 9 Sunshine Coast URV $1,392.44

10 Etheridge RTS $2,695.12 10 Palm Island RTM $1,058.15

11 Winton RTM $2,551.96 11 Yarrabah RTM $1,036.96

12 Richmond RTS $2,529.18 12 Mackay URL $975.66

13 Flinders RTM $1,788.97 13 Torres RTL $933.46

14 Paroo RTM $1,785.95 14 Rockhampton URL $833.29

15 Carpentaria RTM $1,621.39 15 Bundaberg URL $796.89

16 Torres Strait Island RTL $1,533.38 State average $787.43

17 Lockhart River RTS $1,531.38 16 Doomadgee RTM $779.22

18 Barcaldine RTL $1,531.03 17 Fraser Coast URL $760.50

19 Mornington RTM $1,522.98 18 Lockyer Valley URM $759.28

20 Cook RTM $1,432.19 19 Gladstone URM $740.31

21 Blackall-Tambo RTM $1,335.11 20 Scenic Rim UFM $719.78

22 Longreach RTL $1,261.81 21 Cassowary Coast URS $703.76

23 Aurukun RTM $1,261.25 22 Toowoomba URV $703.14

24 Pormpuraaw RTS $1,213.90 23 Gympie URM $702.33

25 Northern Peninsula Area RTM $1,146.14 24 Whitsunday URM $686.68

26 Cloncurry RTM $949.14 25 Cherbourg RTM $674.14

27 Murweh RTL $917.45 26 Torres Strait Island RTL $674.10

28 Kowanyama RTM $879.03 27 Hinchinbrook RAV $674.07

29 Wujal Wujal RTX $827.81 28 Wujal Wujal RTX $671.20

30 Maranoa RAV $743.08 29 Burdekin RAV $653.83

31 Hope Vale RTM $733.68 30 Napranum RTS $645.21

32 Balonne RAM $723.74 31 Woorabinda RTS $618.88

33 Torres RTL $720.50 32 Somerset UFS $617.60

34 Napranum RTS $706.25 33 Southern Downs URM $613.27

35 Doomadgee RTM $653.67 34 Tablelands URM $607.75

36 North Burnett RAV $582.79 35 Mount Isa URS $602.62

37 Goondiwindi RAV $431.96 36 South Burnett URM $595.19

38 Western Downs URM $412.46 37 Hope Vale RTM $579.25

39 Charters Towers RAV $396.30 38 Mapoon Aboriginal

Council

RTX $570.86

40 Banana RAV $354.02 39 Central Highlands URM $561.02

41 Palm Island RTM $338.60 40 Aurukun RTM $560.71

42 Woorabinda RTS $319.37 41 Isaac URS $560.05

43 Cherbourg RTM $279.66 42 Northern Peninsula

Area

RTM $559.82

44 Central Highlands URM $220.23 43 Goondiwindi RAV $540.92

45 Isaac URS $208.97 44 Western Downs URM $537.55

208

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table E.3 Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 continued...

Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name Classif- ication GP grant

per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication Roads grant

per km

46 Yarrabah RTM $202.85 45 Banana RAV $533.07

47 South Burnett URM $181.75 46 Kowanyama RTM $529.44

48 Southern Downs URM $169.70 47 Charters Towers RAV $524.11

49 Tablelands URM $148.19 48 Maranoa RAV $520.05

50 Mount Isa URS $128.92 49 North Burnett RAV $516.09

51 Burdekin RAV $103.96 50 Balonne RAM $515.72

52 Hinchinbrook RAV $97.44 51 Lockhart River RTS $514.58

53 Somerset UFS $91.37 52 Mornington RTM $514.48

54 Whitsunday URM $87.00 53 Cloncurry RTM $513.23

55 Gladstone URM $79.60 54 Murweh RTL $512.55

56 Gympie URM $74.79 55 Cook RTM $509.62

57 Cassowary Coast URS $72.41 56 Longreach RTL $509.20

58 Toowoomba URV $66.97 57 Carpentaria RTM $507.25

State average $64.40 58 Pormpuraaw RTS $507.10

59 Lockyer Valley URM $60.11 59 Blackall-Tambo RTM $506.01

60 Bundaberg URL $56.21 60 Barcaldine RTL $505.67

61 Rockhampton URL $55.21 61 Paroo RTM $504.02

62 Scenic Rim UFM $53.01 62 Flinders RTM $502.87

63 Fraser Coast URL $38.28 63 Richmond RTS $501.69

64 Mackay URL $35.63 64 Etheridge RTS $500.46

65 Townsville URV $24.31 65 Winton RTM $500.44

66 Cairns URV $20.41 66 Quilpie RTM $500.15

67 Logan URV $19.37 67 McKinlay RTM $499.64

68 Redland URV $19.32 68 Burke RTS $499.54

69 Moreton Bay URV $19.32 69 Boulia RTS $498.44

70 Gold Coast URV $19.32 70 Croydon RTX $498.05

71 Brisbane UCC $19.32 71 Diamantina RTX $497.77

72 Sunshine Coast URV $19.32 72 Bulloo RTS $496.84

73 Ipswich URV $19.32 73 Barcoo RTX $496.82

209

Appendix E

Table E.4 W estern Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name

Classif- ication

GP grant per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication

Roads grant per km

1 Murchison (S) RTX $16,899.02 1 Perth (C) UCC $3,798.10

2 Sandstone (S) RTX $8,951.22 2 Bunbury (C) URM $2,492.68

3 Upper Gascoyne (S) RTX $5,933.68 3 Subiaco (C) UDS $2,268.90

4 Menzies (S) RTS $5,379.36 4 Vincent (T) UDM $2,250.40

5 Yalgoo (S) RTS $4,755.21 5 Narrogin (T) URS $2,168.46

6 Cue (S) RTX $3,079.86 6 Canning (C) UDL $2,139.64

7 Nungarin (S) RAS $2,946.36 7 Bassendean (T) UDS $2,086.21

8 Westonia (S) RAS $2,609.44 8 Fremantle (C) UDS $2,055.51

9 Koorda (S) RAS $2,140.24 9 Peppermint Grove (S) UDS $2,048.56

10 Ngaanyatjarraku (S) RTM $1,930.00 10 Belmont (C) UDM $2,045.37

11 Trayning (S) RAS $1,874.02 11 Claremont (T) UDS $2,028.79

12 Mount Magnet (S) RTS $1,850.95 12 Victoria Park (T) UDM $2,005.75

13 Laverton (S) RTM $1,585.88 13 Cambridge (T) UDS $1,995.85

14 Mount Marshall (S) RAS $1,576.77 14 Cottesloe (T) UDS $1,994.51

15 Wiluna (S) RTM $1,493.11 15 Bayswater (C) UDM $1,990.46

16 Mukinbudin (S) RAS $1,469.25 16 Joondalup (C) UDV $1,962.52

17 Meekatharra (S) RTM $1,451.89 17 South Perth (C) UDM $1,927.46

18 Perenjori (S) RAS $1,377.52 18 Stirling (C) UDV $1,911.27

19 Wyalkatchem (S) RAS $1,365.45 19 Nedlands (C) UDS $1,904.54

20 Tammin (S) RAS $1,230.50 20 Melville (C) UDL $1,894.30

21 Halls Creek (S) RTL $1,197.83 21 Gosnells (C) UFL $1,877.40

22 Shark Bay (S) RTS $1,094.81 22 East Fremantle (T) UDS $1,819.27

23 Bruce Rock (S) RAS $1,049.91 23 Mosman Park (T) UDS $1,776.95

24 Narembeen (S) RAS $1,038.79 24 Wanneroo (C) UFV $1,747.56

25 Dumbleyung (S) RAS $1,020.76 25 Cockburn (C) UDL $1,705.58

26 Wickepin (S) RAS $889.99 26 Rockingham (C) UDL $1,700.02

27 Dundas (S) RTM $843.98 27 Mandurah (C) UFM $1,699.72

28 Carnamah (S) RAS $842.12 28 Kwinana (T) UFM $1,655.68

29 Morawa (S) RAS $838.78 29 Kalamunda (S) UFM $1,624.68

30 Dowerin (S) RAS $824.78 30 Armadale (C) UFM $1,613.79

31 Woodanilling (S) RAS $822.25 31 Swan (S) UFL $1,528.47

32 Dalwallinu (S) RAS $733.17 32 Mundaring (S) UFM $1,379.75

33 Quairading (S) RAS $720.15 33 Broome (S) RTL $1,293.89

34 Kellerberrin (S) RAS $713.87 34 Roebourne (S) URS $1,273.87

35 Broomehill - Tambellup (S) RAS $675.81 35 Exmouth (S) RTM $1,266.95

36 Cuballing (S) RAS $652.39 36 Busselton (S) URM $1,203.49

37 Derby-West Kimberley (S) RTL $646.63 37 Serpentine-Jarrahdale (S) RSG $1,172.20

38 Corrigin (S) RAS $639.22 38 Dardanup (S) RAV $1,088.01

39 Three Springs (S) RAS $628.71 39 Collie (S) RAL $1,071.01

210

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table E.4 W estern Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 continued..

Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name

Classif- ication

GP grant per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication

Roads grant per km

40 Mingenew (S) RAS $614.65 40 Kalgoorlie/Boulder (C) URM $1,066.98

41 Coorow (S) RAS $597.14 41 Harvey (S) URS $1,046.28

42 Kulin (S) RAS $593.87 42 Murray (S) RAV $1,041.74

43 Kent (S) RAS $580.41 43 Waroona (S) RAM $1,013.12

44 Kondinin (S) RAS $570.14 44 Capel (S) RSG $1,011.39

45 Wongan-Ballidu (S) RAS $561.46 45 Albany (C) URM $1,007.19

46 Narrogin (S) RAS $536.06 46 Augusta-Margaret River (S) RAV $979.92

47 Cunderdin (S) RAS $526.69 47 Northam (S) RAV $974.92

48 Exmouth (S) RTM $521.80 48 Port Hedland (T) RTL $945.89

49 Ashburton (S) RTL $507.69 49 Chittering (S) RAM $937.43

50 Carnarvon (S) RAL $495.73 50 Manjimup (S) RAL $912.65

51 Nannup (S) RAS $484.73 51 Gingin (S) RAM $902.55

52 Pingelly (S) RAS $457.37 52 Nannup (S) RAS $870.73

53 Lake Grace (S) RAS $448.41 53 Donnybrook-Balingup (S) RAL $862.77

54 Brookton (S) RAS $438.14 54 Bridgetown-Greenbushes (S) RAM $839.44

55 Wyndham-East Kimberley (S) RTL $424.82 55 York (S) RAM $826.30

56 East Pilbara (S) RTL $424.19 56 Toodyay (S) RAM $780.60

57 Wandering (S) RAS $403.26 57 Wyndham-East Kimberley (S) RTL $711.83

58 Cranbrook (S) RAS $379.85 State average $726.55

59 Wagin (S) RAS $362.56 58 Dundas (S) RTM $707.89

60 Beverley (S) RAS $353.17 59 Dandaragan (S) RAM $701.57

61 Jerramungup (S) RAS $341.61 60 Irwin (S) RAM $692.97

62 Merredin (S) RAM $332.64 61 Denmark (S) RAL $680.93

63 Gnowangerup (S) RAS $326.36 62 Boddington (S) RAM $664.97

64 West Arthur (S) RAS $324.00 63 Carnarvon (S) RAL $662.78

65 Goomalling (S) RAS $312.74 64 Katanning (S) RAM $651.79

66 Yilgarn (S) RAS $300.71 65 Shark Bay (S) RTS $648.39

67 Ravensthorpe (S) RAM $282.52 66 Moora (S) RAM $638.61

68 Victoria Plains (S) RAS $270.01 67 Mingenew (S) RAS $618.84

69 Katanning (S) RAM $241.78 68 Plantagenet (S) RAM $608.02

70 Leonora (S) RTM $233.65 69 Bruce Rock (S) RAS $600.84

71 Kojonup (S) RAM $227.28 70 Cunderdin (S) RAS $594.16

72 Chapman Valley (S) RAS $214.77 71 Northampton (S) RAM $591.23

73 Moora (S) RAM $208.09 72 Beverley (S) RAS $590.21

74 Bridgetown-Greenbushes (S) RAM $195.97 73 Merredin (S) RAM $587.43

75 Narrogin (T) URS $195.23 74 Quairading (S) RAS $584.93

76 Boyup Brook (S) RAS $189.58 75 Williams (S) RAS $582.91

77 Manjimup (S) RAL $188.94 76 Coorow (S) RAS $577.62

78 Collie (S) RAL $188.09 77 Esperance (S) RAV $574.48

79 Waroona (S) RAM $181.44 78 Cranbrook (S) RAS $569.28

211

Appendix E

Table E.4 W estern Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 continued..

Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name

Classif- ication

GP grant per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication

Roads grant per km

80 York (S) RAM $174.95 79 Boyup Brook (S) RAS $565.92

81 Broome (S) RTL $172.18 80 Victoria Plains (S) RAS $565.50

82 Northam (S) RAV $170.45 81 Pingelly (S) RAS $564.89

83 Dandaragan (S) RAM $164.88 82 Wagin (S) RAS $560.18

84 Donnybrook-Balingup (S) RAL $163.42 83 Carnamah (S) RAS $556.69

85 Northampton (S) RAM $162.28 84 Broomehill - Tambellup (S) RAS $554.83

86 Boddington (S) RAM $159.91 85 Brookton (S) RAS $554.54

87 Toodyay (S) RAM $157.56 86 Koorda (S) RAS $554.07

88 Port Hedland (T) RTL $150.53 87 Wandering (S) RAS $551.64

89 Roebourne (S) URS $142.44 88 Ashburton (S) RTL $550.58

90 Gingin (S) RAM $137.24 89 Goomalling (S) RAS $549.90

91 Denmark (S) RAL $128.71 90 Cue (S) RTX $549.22

92 Chittering (S) RAM $109.50 91 Gnowangerup (S) RAS $546.16

93 Esperance (S) RAV $107.32 92 Wyalkatchem (S) RAS $545.69

94 Irwin (S) RAM $106.11 93 Kojonup (S) RAM $543.87

95 Coolgardie (S) RTL $100.64 94 Trayning (S) RAS $543.62

96 Murray (S) RAV $94.93 95 Corrigin (S) RAS $543.14

97 Plantagenet (S) RAM $92.43 96 Wongan-Ballidu (S) RAS $540.13

98 Serpentine-Jarrahdale (S) RSG $90.24 97 Kellerberrin (S) RAS $539.21

99 Greater Geraldton (C) URM $80.72 98 Three Springs (S) RAS $534.89

100 Williams (S) RAS $73.54 99 Coolgardie (S) RTL $533.43

101 Capel (S) RSG $66.72 100 Perenjori (S) RAS $530.27

State average $66.13 101 Dalwallinu (S) RAS $529.99

102 Mundaring (S) UFM $63.56 102 Cuballing (S) RAS $529.48

103 Dardanup (S) RAV $56.50 103 Tammin (S) RAS $528.92

104 Albany (C) URM $49.20 104 West Arthur (S) RAS $528.12

105 Harvey (S) URS $48.16 105 Dumbleyung (S) RAS $525.37

106 Armadale (C) UFM $38.12 106 Mukinbudin (S) RAS $525.07

107 Kalgoorlie/Boulder (C) URM $32.79 107 Wickepin (S) RAS $523.13

108 Cottesloe (T) UDS $19.84 108 Nungarin (S) RAS $521.73

109 Augusta-Margaret River (S) RAV $19.84 109 Morawa (S) RAS $521.08

110 Mosman Park (T) UDS $19.84 110 Narrogin (S) RAS $519.28

111 Perth (C) UCC $19.84 111 Ravensthorpe (S) RAM $517.71

112 Kwinana (T) UFM $19.84 112 Woodanilling (S) RAS $517.66

113 Cambridge (T) UDS $19.84 113 Dowerin (S) RAS $516.80

114 Fremantle (C) UDS $19.84 114 Narembeen (S) RAS $514.44

115 Victoria Park (T) UDM $19.84 115 Chapman Valley (S) RAS $511.16

116 Claremont (T) UDS $19.84 116 Westonia (S) RAS $509.56

117 Wanneroo (C) UFV $19.84 117 Kondinin (S) RAS $494.52

118 South Perth (C) UDM $19.84 118 Kulin (S) RAS $492.69

212

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table E.4 W estern Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 continued..

Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name

Classif- ication

GP grant per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication

Roads grant per km

119 Gosnells (C) UFL $19.84 119 East Pilbara (S) RTL $490.99

120 Joondalup (C) UDV $19.84 120 Jerramungup (S) RAS $485.75

121 Mandurah (C) UFM $19.84 121 Mount Marshall (S) RAS $482.73

122 Busselton (S) URM $19.84 122 Lake Grace (S) RAS $480.14

123 Melville (C) UDL $19.84 123 Yalgoo (S) RTS $474.73

124 Vincent (T) UDM $19.84 124 Halls Creek (S) RTL $469.34

125 Belmont (C) UDM $19.84 125 Mount Magnet (S) RTS $465.74

126 Nedlands (C) UDS $19.84 126 Kent (S) RAS $454.29

127 Stirling (C) UDV $19.84 127 Derby-West Kimberley (S) RTL $431.88

128 Canning (C) UDL $19.84 128 Leonora (S) RTM $419.09

129 Rockingham (C) UDL $19.84 129 Ngaanyatjarraku (S) RTM $413.14

130 Bunbury (C) URM $19.84 130 Sandstone (S) RTX $411.27

131 Swan (S) UFL $19.84 131 Upper Gascoyne (S) RTX $411.04

132 Bayswater (C) UDM $19.84 132 Yilgarn (S) RAS $405.68

133 Cockburn (C) UDL $19.84 133 Meekatharra (S) RTM $398.34

134 Kalamunda (S) UFM $19.84 134 Murchison (S) RTX $386.68

135 Subiaco (C) UDS $19.84 135 Wiluna (S) RTM $380.08

136 Bassendean (T) UDS $19.84 136 Menzies (S) RTS $327.64

137 East Fremantle (T) UDS $19.84 137 Laverton (S) RTM $157.94

138 Peppermint Grove (S) UDS $19.84 138 Greater Geraldton (C) URM $0.00

213

Appendix E

Table E.5 So uth Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name

Classif- ication

GP grant per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication

Roads grant per km

1 Yalata RTX $1,414.23 1 Prospect (C) UDS $2,114.99

2 Karoonda-East Murray (DC) RAS $975.61 2 Unley (C) UDM $2,085.98

3 Wudinna (DC) RAS $938.10 3 Norwood Payneham and

St Peters (C)

UDM $2,066.75

4 Orroroo/Carrieton (DC) RAS $883.80 4 Walkerville (M) UDS $1,957.57

5 Kimba (DC) RAS $828.83 5 Holdfast Bay (C) UDM $1,948.35

6 Maralinga RTX $783.65 6 Campbelltown (C) UDM $1,870.52

7 Franklin Harbour (DC) RAS $706.89 7 West Torrens (C) UDM $1,864.28

8 Peterborough (DC) RAS $647.21 8 Charles Sturt (C) UDL $1,846.86

9 Flinders Ranges RAS $630.50 9 Burnside (C) UDM $1,839.68

10 Elliston (DC) RAS $629.39 10 Marion (C) UDL $1,798.07

11 Streaky Bay (DC) RAM $618.73 11 Salisbury (C) UDV $1,773.44

12 Goyder RAM $577.98 12 Mount Gambier (C) URS $1,773.12

13 Ceduna (DC) RAM $553.06 13 Gerard RTX $1,767.70

14 Mount Remarkable (DC) RAM $527.77 14 Nipapanha RTX $1,760.00

15 Gerard RTX $503.11 15 Port Adelaide Enfield (C) UDL $1,737.74

16 Southern Mallee (DC) RAM $490.28 16 Tea Tree Gully (C) UDL $1,725.21

17 Cleve (DC) RAS $488.18 17 Mitcham (C) UDM $1,706.96

18 Anangu Pitjantjatjara RTM $433.59 18 Adelaide (C) UCC $1,694.20

19 Coober Pedy (DC) URS $424.23 19 Roxby Downs (M) URS $1,647.85

20 Outback Communities Authority RTL $365.87 20 Gawler (M) UFS $1,444.13

21 Coorong (DC) RAL $362.55 21 Onkaparinga UFV $1,436.08

22 Mid Murray RAL $351.01 22 Playford (C) UFL $1,368.21

23 Kangaroo Island RAM $288.75 23 Whyalla (C) URS $1,285.54

24 Tatiara (DC) RAL $276.10 24 Port Lincoln (C) URS $1,276.64

25 Loxton Waikerie (DC) RAV $265.91 25 Mount Barker (DC) URM $655.53

26 Nipapanha RTX $262.02 26 Port Augusta (C) URS $642.73

27 Northern Areas RAM $247.51 27 Victor Harbor (C) URS $603.15

28 Renmark Paringa (DC) RAL $233.48 28 Yalata RTX $597.16

29 Kingston (DC) RAM $231.21 29 Adelaide Hills UFM $588.86

30 Port Pirie RAV $219.16 30 Berri Barmera RAV $478.49

31 Naracoorte Lucindale RAL $218.19 31 Barossa UFS $424.89

32 Wakefield RAL $218.11 32 Murray Bridge URS $420.67

33 Berri Barmera RAV $198.14 33 Renmark Paringa (DC) RAL $408.50

34 Tumby Bay (DC) RAM $192.75 State average $385.56

35 Port Augusta (C) URS $188.88 34 Alexandrina UFS $372.92

36 Whyalla (C) URS $174.38 35 Port Pirie RAV $334.02

37 Murray Bridge URS $154.51 36 Maralinga RTX $322.92

38 Barunga West (DC) RAM $132.07 37 Elliston (DC) RAS $320.70

39 Wattle Range RAV $123.61 38 Coorong (DC) RAL $316.30

40 Copper Coast (DC) RAV $121.77 39 Kingston (DC) RAM $304.26

214

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table E.5 So uth Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name

Classif- ication

GP grant per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication

Roads grant per km

41 Yorke Peninsula (DC) RAV $115.43 40 Copper Coast (DC) RAV $291.22

42 Mallala (DC) RAL $111.99 41 Loxton Waikerie (DC) RAV $286.54

43 Grant (DC) RAL $97.74 42 Southern Mallee (DC) RAM $270.77

44 Playford (C) UFL $94.63 43 Naracoorte Lucindale RAL $269.50

45 Lower Eyre Peninsula (DC) RAL $81.30 44 Lower Eyre Peninsula

(DC)

RAL $267.79

46 Mount Gambier (C) URS $71.06 45 Tatiara (DC) RAL $262.50

State average $65.35 46 Kangaroo Island RAM $261.95

47 Port Lincoln (C) URS $63.01 47 Yankalilla (DC) RAM $251.49

48 Salisbury (C) UDV $54.38 48 Light RAV $248.84

49 Clare and Gilbert Valleys RAL $49.02 49 Franklin Harbour (DC) RAS $246.60

50 Gawler (M) UFS $47.68 50 Streaky Bay (DC) RAM $239.33

51 Onkaparinga UFV $36.09 51 Karoonda-East Murray

(DC)

RAS $235.50

52 Alexandrina UFS $23.18 52 Mallala (DC) RAL $234.03

53 Yankalilla (DC) RAM $22.23 53 Ceduna (DC) RAM $232.62

54 Robe (DC) RAS $19.60 54 Cleve (DC) RAS $230.20

55 Roxby Downs (M) URS $19.60 55 Robe (DC) RAS $225.49

56 Walkerville (M) UDS $19.60 56 Flinders Ranges RAS $214.03

57 Campbelltown (C) UDM $19.60 57 Tumby Bay (DC) RAM $213.30

58 Burnside (C) UDM $19.60 58 Wudinna (DC) RAS $207.95

59 Victor Harbor (C) URS $19.60 59 Wattle Range RAV $202.07

60 Adelaide Hills UFM $19.60 60 Grant (DC) RAL $190.02

61 West Torrens (C) UDM $19.60 61 Clare and Gilbert Valleys RAL $189.23

62 Barossa UFS $19.60 62 Yorke Peninsula (DC) RAV $189.01

63 Holdfast Bay (C) UDM $19.60 63 Goyder RAM $186.93

64 Unley (C) UDM $19.60 64 Barunga West (DC) RAM $183.06

65 Mitcham (C) UDM $19.60 65 Peterborough (DC) RAS $180.93

66 Charles Sturt (C) UDL $19.60 66 Mid Murray RAL $172.36

67 Tea Tree Gully (C) UDL $19.60 67 Wakefield RAL $168.65

68 Prospect (C) UDS $19.60 68 Northern Areas RAM $165.78

69 Mount Barker (DC) URM $19.60 69 Mount Remarkable (DC) RAM $159.09

70 Marion (C) UDL $19.60 70 Kimba (DC) RAS $158.37

71 Port Adelaide Enfield (C) UDL $19.60 71 Orroroo/Carrieton (DC) RAS $140.92

72 Adelaide (C) UCC $19.60 72 Coober Pedy (DC) URS $101.72

73 Norwood Payneham and St Peters (C) UDM $19.60 73 Anangu Pitjantjatjara RTM $42.98

74 Light RAV $19.60 74 Outback Communities

Authority

RTL $0.00

215

Appendix E

Table E.6 T asmanian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name Classif- ication GP grant

per capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication Roads grant

per km

1 Flinders (M) RAS $723.87 1 Hobart (C) UCC $5,794.27

2 King Island (M) RAS $354.14 2 Glenorchy (C) UFM $4,626.79

3 Central Highlands (M) RAM $325.52 3 Devonport (C) URS $4,484.73

4 Southern Midlands (M) RAL $267.27 4 Launceston (C) URM $3,723.34

5 West Coast (M) RAL $250.19 5 Clarence (C) UFM $3,361.39

6 Kentish (M) RAL $237.89 6 Burnie (C) URS $3,319.67

7 Tasman (M) RAM $202.57 7 West Coast (M) RAL $3,073.34

8 Dorset (M) RAL $201.67 8 Brighton (M) URS $2,852.90

9 Break O'Day (M) RAL $162.30 9 Central Coast (M) URS $2,683.80

10 George Town (M) RAL $135.66 10 George Town (M) RAL $2,618.53

11 Waratah - Wynyard (M) RAV $135.11 11 Glamorgan - Spring

Bay (M)

RAM $2,403.26

12 Derwent Valley (M) RAV $123.64 12 Latrobe (M) RAL $2,396.91

13 Northern Midlands (M) RAV $121.94 State average $2,386.94

14 Circular Head (M) RAL $110.93 13 Break O'Day (M) RAL $2,354.05

15 Meander Valley (M) RAV $100.93 14 West Tamar (M) UFS $2,260.76

16 Central Coast (M) URS $99.27 15 Meander Valley (M) RAV $2,240.59

17 Huon Valley (M) RAV $98.38 16 Kingborough (M) UFM $2,225.20

18 Sorell (M) RAV $97.02 17 Waratah - Wynyard (M) RAV $2,170.04

19 Glamorgan - Spring Bay (M) RAM $77.38 18 Sorell (M) RAV $2,127.68

20 Latrobe (M) RAL $73.08 19 Kentish (M) RAL $2,116.74

21 Brighton (M) URS $69.30 20 Northern Midlands (M) RAV $2,098.52

State average $66.34 21 Dorset (M) RAL $1,983.57

22 Burnie (C) URS $60.53 22 Circular Head (M) RAL $1,892.27

23 West Tamar (M) UFS $60.16 23 Derwent Valley (M) RAV $1,867.71

24 Devonport (C) URS $32.82 24 Huon Valley (M) RAV $1,702.96

25 Launceston (C) URM $22.08 25 Tasman (M) RAM $1,648.82

26 Hobart (C) UCC $19.90 26 King Island (M) RAS $1,500.16

27 Glenorchy (C) UFM $19.90 27 Southern Midlands (M) RAL $1,492.79

28 Kingborough (M) UFM $19.90 28 Flinders (M) RAS $1,489.84

29 Clarence (C) UFM $19.90 29 Central Highlands (M) RAM $1,426.09

216

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table E.7 N orthern Territory councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2011-12 Councils ranked by funding per capita Councils ranked by funding per km

Rank Council Name Classif- ication GP grant per

capita Rank Council Name Classif- ication Roads grant

per km

1 East Arnhem RTL $276.41 1 Wagait RTX $3,921.15

2 MacDonnell RTL $247.50 2 Darwin UCC $3,546.17

3 Roper Gulf RTL $236.10 3 Alice Springs URS $3,489.26

4 Central Desert RTL $221.35 4 Palmerston UFS $3,298.63

5 Barkly RTL $197.30 5 Katherine URS $3,098.84

6 Victoria - Daly RTL $186.22 6 Litchfield RAV $2,885.96

7 West Arnhem RTL $157.54 7 Coomalie RTM $2,286.80

8 Belyuen RTX $110.62 8 Victoria - Daly RTL $1,261.04

9 Tiwi Islands RTM $105.80 State average $1,057.98

State average $68.97 9 Roper Gulf RTL $939.75

10 Katherine URS $36.89 10 West Arnhem RTL $897.94

11 Litchfield RAV $20.69 11 Tiwi Islands RTM $870.99

12 Darwin UCC $20.69 12 East Arnhem RTL $828.69

13 Alice Springs URS $20.69 13 Barkly RTL $709.29

14 Palmerston UFS $20.69 14 MacDonnell RTL $539.68

15 Wagait RTX $20.69 15 Trust Account ZZZ $526.91

16 Coomalie RTM $20.69 16 Central Desert RTL $366.52

17 Trust Account ZZZ 17 Belyuen RTX $356.81

217

F

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 1995 (Cwlth). Therefore, bodies declared by the federal 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 formed from letters of the alphabet to develop a three-letter identifier for each class of local government. There are a total of 22 categories. 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.

The system developers 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. For this reason the figures in Appendix D should 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 profile of the population and geographic differences. The 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 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 July 2012, by ACLG category and by state. As there were changes to the ACLG reported for local governing bodies in 2011-12, Table F.3 gives changes to local governing body classifications and reasons for the change.

Australian classification of local governments

218

Local Government National Report 2011-12

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, published by the Department of Housing and Regional Development in 1994.

Table F.1 S tructure of the classification system

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Identifiers Category

URBAN (U) Population more than 20 000 OR If population less than 20 000, 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 1 000 000 or population density more than 600/sq km

SMALL (S) MEDIUM (M) LARGE (L) VERY LARGE (V)

up to 30 000 30 001-70 000 70 001-120 000 more than 120 000

UDS UDM UDL UDV

REGIONAL TOWNS/CITY (R) Part of an urban centre with population less than 1 000 000 and predominantly urban in nature

SMALL (S) MEDIUM (M) LARGE (L) VERY LARGE (V)

up to 30 000 30 001-70 000 70 001-120 000 more than 120 000

URS URM URL URV

FRINGE (F) A developing LGA on the margin of a developed or regional urban centre

SMALL (S) MEDIUM (M) LARGE (L) VERY LARGE (V)

up to 30 000 30 001-70 000 70 001-120 000 more than 120 000

UFS UFM UFL UFV

RURAL (R) A local governing body with population less than 20 000 AND Population density less than 30 persons per sq km AND Less than 90 per cent of local governing body population is urban

SIGNIFICANT GROWTH (SG) Average annual population growth more than 3 per cent, population more than 5000 and not remote

Not applicable RSG

AGRICULTURAL (A) SMALL (S)

MEDIUM (M) LARGE (L) VERY LARGE (V)

up to 2000 2001-5000 5001-10 000 10 001-20 000

RAS RAM RAL RAV

REMOTE (T) EXTRA SMALL (X)

SMALL (S) MEDIUM (M) LARGE (L)

up to 400 401-1000 1001-3000 3001-20 000

RTX RTS RTM RTL

219

Appendix F

Table F.2 A CLG category listing of local governments, by state, July 2011

State NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS NTa Australia

Urban Capital City (UCC) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Urban Development Small (UDS) 2 0 0 10 2 0 0 14

Urban Development Medium (UDM) 12 0 0 5 7 0 0 24

Urban Development Large (UDL) 9 9 0 4 4 0 0 26

Urban Development Very Large (UDV) 8 13 6 2 1 0 0 30

Urban Regional Small (URS) 11 8 2 2 8 4 2 37

Urban Regional Medium (URM) 19 10 10 5 1 1 0 46

Urban Regional Large (URL) 5 3 4 0 0 0 0 12

Urban Regional Very Large (URV) 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 7

Urban Fringe Small (UFS) 0 2 1 1 3 1 2 10

Urban Fringe Medium (UFM) 3 2 1 4 1 3 0 14

Urban Fringe Large (UFL) 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 6

Urban Fringe Very Large (UFV) 7 5 0 1 1 0 0 14

Rural Significant Growth (RSG) 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 5

Rural Agricultural Small (RAS) 4 0 0 50 9 2 2 67

Rural Agricultural Medium (RAM) 20 1 3 13 13 3 0 53

Rural Agricultural Large (RAL) 25 7 0 6 9 8 0 55

Rural Agricultural Very Large (RAV) 20 15 7 4 7 6 1 60

Rural Remote Extra Small (RTX) 3 0 6 6 4 0 0 19

Rural Remote Small (RTS) 0 0 9 4 0 0 0 13

Rural Remote Medium (RTM) 1 0 15 5 0 0 1 22

Rural Remote Large (RTL) 1 0 5 9 1 0 7 23

Total 155 79 73 138 74 29 16 564

Note: a NT T otal excludes Roads Trust Account

220

Local Government National Report 2011-12

Table F.3 Changes in A CLG category for 2011-12: reasons for change, by state, July 2011

Council Name Classification Reason for change

New South Wales

Maitland URL 2

Willoughby UDL 2

Victoria

Bass Coast UMF 2

Cardinia UFL 2

Strathbogie RAV 2

Queensland

Cassowary Coast URM 4

Central Highlands URM 4

Cherbourg RTM 4

Cloncurry RAM 4

Cook RAM 4

Gold Coast UDV 4

Ipswich UDV 4

Logan UDV 4

Moreton Bay UDV 4

Napranum RTS 4

Palm Island RTM 4

Redland UDV 4

Scenic Rim UFM 4

Sunshine Coast UDV 4

Woorabinda RTM 4

Wujal Wujal RTX 4

Western Australia

Geraldton-Greenough (URM) and Mullewa (RAS) amalgamate to form Greater Geraldton 1 July 2011

URM 1

Augusta-Margaret River RAV 2

Broome RTL 4

Coolgardie RTL 4

Gingin RAL 2

Gosnells UFL 4

Kwinana UFS 4

Manjimup RAV 2

Mount Magnet RTS 4

Northam RAV 2

Plantagenet RAL 2

Port Hedland RTL 4

Roebourne RTL 4

South Australia

Mount Barker URM 2

Key: Reasons for Changes 1 Amalgamations/Splits/Boundary Changes 2 Changes due to population movements 3 Declared council 4 Revision of classification to more adequately reflect circumstances

221

Index of Local Governments

A Adelaide, 137, 194, 213, 214 Adelaide Hills, 194, 213, 214 Albany, 190, 210, 211 Albury, 180, 201, 203 Alexandrina, 136, 194, 213, 214 Alice Springs, 151, 197, 216 Alpine, 86, 185, 205 Anangu Pitjantjatjara, 58, 133, 194, 213, 214 Ararat, 86, 185, 205, 206 Armadale, 190, 209, 211 Armidale Dumaresq, 180, 202, 203 Ashburton, 190, 210, 211 Ashfield, 180, 201, 204 Auburn, 180, 201, 204 Augusta-Margaret River, 190, 210, 212, 221 Aurukun, 58, 116, 187, 207

B Ballarat, 185, 205, 206 Ballina, 180, 202, 203 Balonne, 187, 207, 208 Balranald, 180, 201, 204 Banana, 187, 207, 208 Bankstown, 180, 201, 204 Banyule, 185, 199, 205, 206 Barcaldine, 187, 207, 208 Barcoo, 187, 207, 208 Barkly, 60, 197, 216 Barossa, 194, 213, 214 Barunga West, 194, 213, 214 Bass Coast, 185, 205, 221 Bassendean, 190, 209, 212 Bathurst Regional, 180, 202, 203 Baw Baw, 86, 185, 205 Bayside, 85, 185, 205, 206 Bayswater, 190, 209, 212 Bega Valley, 180, 202 Bellingen, 180, 202 Belmont, 190, 209, 212 Belyuen, 198, 216 Benalla, 86, 185, 205, 206 Berri Barmera, 194, 213 Berrigan, 180, 201, 204 Beverley, 190, 210 Blackall-Tambo, 187, 207, 208 Blacktown, 180, 201, 203 Bland, 180, 201, 204 Blayney, 180, 202, 203 Blue Mountains, 180, 202, 203 Boddington, 190, 210, 211

Bogan, 180, 201, 204 Bombala, 180, 201, 203 Boorowa, 180, 201, 204 Boroondara, 85, 185, 205, 206 Botany Bay, 180, 201, 204 Boulia, 187, 207, 208 Bourke, 180, 201, 204 Boyup Brook, 190, 211, Break O'Day, 196, 215 Brewarrina, 180, 201, 204 Bridgetown-Greenbushes, 190, 210, 211 Brighton, 197, 215 Brimbank, 185, 205, 206 Brisbane, 187, 207, 208 Broken Hill, 180, 202, Brookton, 190, 210, 211 Broome, 190, 209, 211 Broomehill - Tambellup, 190, 209, 211 Bruce Rock, 190, 209, 210 Bulloo, 187, 207, 208 Buloke, 185, 205, 206 Bunbury, 190, 209 Bundaberg, 187, 207, 208 Burdekin, 187, 207, 208 Burke, 187, 207, 208 Burnie, 197, 215 Burnside, 194, 213, 214 Burwood, 180, 201, 204 Busselton, 190, 209, 212 Byron, 180, 202, 203

C Cabonne, 180, 202, 203 Cairns, 188, 207, 208 Cambridge, 190, 209, 212 Camden, 180, 202, 204 Campaspe, 185, 205, 206 Campbelltown (NSW), 180, 201, 203 Campbelltown (SA), 194, 213, 214 Canada Bay, 180, 201, 204 Canning, 190, 209, 212 Canterbury, 180, 201, 204 Capel, 190, 210, 211 Cardinia, 185, 205, 206 Carnamah, 190, 209, 211 Carnarvon, 190, 210 Carpentaria, 188, 207, 208 Carrathool, 180, 201, 204 Casey, 185, 205, 206 Cassowary Coast, 188, 207, 208 Ceduna, 194, 213, 214 Central Coast, 197, 215

Central Darling, 181, 201, 204 Central Desert, 198, 216, Central Goldfields, 86, 185, 205, 206 Central Highlands (Qld), 188, 207, 221 Central Highlands (Tas.), 197, 215 Cessnock, 188, 202, 203 Chapman Valley, 190, 210, 212 Charles Sturt, 194, 213, 214 Charters Towers, 188, 207, 208 Cherbourg, 188, 207, 221 Chittering, 190, 210, 211 Circular Head, 197, 215 Clare and Gilbert Valleys, 194, 214 Claremont, 190, 209, 212 Clarence, 197, 215 Clarence Valley, 181, 202 Cleve, 194, 213, 214 Cloncurry, 188, 207, 208, 221 Cobar, 181, 201, 204 Cockburn, 190, 209, 212 Coffs Harbour, 181, 201, 203 Colac Otway, 185, 205 Collie, 190, 210, 211 Conargo, 181, 201, 204 Coober Pedy, 194, 213, 214 Cook, 188, 207, 208, 221 Coolamon, 181, 201, 204 Coolgardie, 190, 211 Cooma-Monaro, 181, 202, 203 Coomalie, 198, 216 Coonamble, 181, 201, 204 Coorong, 194, 213 Coorow, 190, 210, 211 Cootamundra, 181, 202, 203 Copper Coast, 194, 213, 214 Corangamite, 86, 185, 205, 206 Corowa, 181, 202, 203 Corrigin, 190, 210, 211 Cottesloe, 191, 209, 211 Cowra, 181, 202, 203 Cranbrook, 191, 210, 211 Croydon, 188, 207, 208 Cuballing, 191, 209, 211 Cue, 191, 209, 211 Cunderdin, 191, 210

D Dalwallinu, 191, 209, 211 Dandaragan, 191, 210, 211 Dardanup, 191, 209, 211 Darebin, 185, 205, 206 Darwin, 151, 198, 216 Deniliquin, 181, 201, 202 Denmark, 191, 210, 211 Derwent Valley, 197, 215 Devonport, 197, 215 Diamantina, 188, 207, 208 Donnybrook-Balingup, 191, 210, 211 Doomadgee, 116, 188, 207 Dorset, 197, 215 Dowerin, 209, 209, 211 Dubbo, 79, 181, 202, 203 Dumbleyung, 191, 209, 211 Dundas, 191, 209, 210 Dungog, 181, 202

E East Arnhem, 61, 198, 216 East Fremantle, 191, 209, 212 East Gippsland, 185, 205 East Pilbara, 191, 210, 212 Elliston, 195, 213, 241 Esperance, 191, 210, 211 Etheridge, 188, 202, 208 Eurobodalla, 181, 224, 225 Exmouth, 191, 209, 210

F Fairfield, 181, 201, 203 Flinders (Qld), 188, 207, 208 Flinders (Tas.), 46, 197, 215 Flinders Ranges, 195, 213, 214 Forbes, 181, 201, 203 Franklin Harbour, 195, 213, 214 Frankston, 185, 199, 205, 206 Fraser Coast, 188, 207, 208 Fremantle, 191, 209, 211

G Gannawarra, 185, 205, 206 Gawler, 195, 213, 214 George Town, 197, 215 Geraldton-Greenough, 123, 220 Gerard, 133, 195, 213 Gilgandra, 181, 201, 204 Gingin, 210, 211, 220 Gladstone, 112, 188, 207,208 Glen Eira, 85, 185, 206 Glen Innes Severn, 181, 202, 203 Glenelg, 185, 205, 206 Glenorchy, 197, 215 Gloucester, 181, 202, 203 Gnowangerup, 191, 210, 211 Gold Coast, 100, 116, 188, 207, 208, 220 Golden Plains, 86, 185, 205, 206 Goomalling, 191, 210, 211 Goondiwindi, 188, 207 Gosford, 181, 202, 203 Gosnells, 191, 209, 212, 220 Goulburn Mulwaree, 181, 203 Goyder, 194, 213, 214 Grant, 195, 214 Great Lakes, 181, 202 Greater Bendigo, 86, 185, 205, 206 Greater Dandenong, 185, 205, 206 Greater Geelong, 91, 185, 205, 206 Greater Hume, 181, 201, 203 Greater Shepparton, 185, 205, 206 Greater Taree, 181, 202, 203 Griffith, 181, 203 Gundagai, 181, 202, 203 Gunnedah, 181, 202, 203 Guyra, 181, 202, 203 Gwydir, 181, 201, 204 Gympie, 188, 207, 208

H Halls Creek, 191, 209, 212 Harden, 182, 201, 203 Harvey, 191, 210, 211 Hawkesbury, 182, 202, 203

Hay, 182, 201, 204 Hepburn, 86, 185, 205, 206 Hills, 182, 202, 204 Hinchinbrook, 188, 207, 208 Hindmarsh, 185, 205, 206 Hobart, 144, 197, 215 Hobsons Bay, 85, 185, 205, 206 Holdfast Bay, 137, 195, 213, 214 Holroyd, 182, 201, 204 Hope Vale, 116, 188, 207 Hornsby, 182, 201, 204 Horsham, 86, 186, 205, 206 Hume, 186, 205, 206 Hunters Hill, 182, 201, 204 Huon Valley, 197, 215 Hurstville, 182, 201, 204

I Indigo, 186, 205, 206 Inverell, 182, 202, 203 Ipswich, 100, 107, 188, 207, 208, 220 Irwin, 191, 210, 211 Isaac, 112, 188, 207

J Jerilderie, 182, 201, 204 Jerramungup, 191, 210, 212 Joondalup, 191, 209, 212 Junee, 182, 202, 203

K Kalamunda, 191, 209, 212 Kalgoorlie/Boulder, 191, 210, 211 Kangaroo Island, 195, 213, 214 Karoonda-East Murray, 195, 213, 214 Katanning, 192, 210 Katherine, 151, 198, 216 Kellerberrin, 192, 209, 211 Kempsey, 182, 202 Kent, 192, 210, 212 Kentish, 197, 215 Kiama, 182, 202, 203 Kimba, 195, 213, 214 King Island, 197, 215 Kingborough, 197, 215 Kingston (SA), 195, 213 Kingston (Vic.), 85, 186, 205, 206 Knox, 186, 205, 206 Kogarah, 182, 201, 204 Kojonup, 192, 210, 211 Kondinin, 192, 210, 211 Koorda, 192, 209, 211 Kowanyama, 116, 188, 207, 208 Ku-ring-gai, 182, 201, 204 Kulin, 192, 210, 211 Kwinana, 192, 209, 211, 220 Kyogle, 182, 202

L Lachlan, 182, 201, 204 Lake Grace, 192, 210, 212 Lake Macquarie, 182, 202, 204 Lane Cove, 182, 201, 204 Latrobe (Tas.), 197, 215

Latrobe (Vic.), 186, 205 Launceston, 197, 215 Laverton, 192, 209, 212 Leeton, 182, 202, 203 Leichhardt, 182, 201, 204 Leonora, 192, 210, 212 Light, 195, 214 Lismore, 182, 202, 203 Litchfield, 198, 216 Lithgow, 182, 202, 203 Liverpool, 182, 201, 204 Liverpool Plains, 182, 202, 203 Lockhart, 182, 201, 204 Lockhart River, 116, 188, 207, 208 Lockyer Valley, 188, 207, 208 Loddon, 186, 205, 206 Logan, 188, 207, 208, 220 Longreach, 112, 113, 188, 207, 208 Lord Howe Island, 3, 51, 182, 201, 204 Lower Eyre Peninsula, 137, 195, 214 Loxton Waikerie, 195, 213, 214

M MacDonnell, 198, 216 Macedon Ranges, 186, 205, 206 Mackay, 188, 207, 208 Maitland, 182, 202, 203, 220 Mallala, 195, 214 Mandurah, 192, 209, 212 Manjimup, 192, 210, 220 Manly, 182, 201, 204 Manningham, 85, 186, 205, 206 Mansfield, 186, 205, 206 Mapoon Aboriginal Council, 188, 207 Maralinga, 58, 59, 133, 195, 213 Maranoa, 188, 207, 208 Maribyrnong, 186, 205, 206 Marion, 137, 195, 213, 214 Maroondah, 186, 205, 206 Marrickville, 182, 201, 204 McKinlay, 188, 207, 208 Meander Valley, 197, 215 Meekatharra, 192, 209, 212 Melbourne, 85, 91, 186, 205, 206 Melton, 186, 205, 206 Melville, 192, 209, 212 Menzies, 192, 209, 212 Merredin, 192, 210 Mid Murray, 195, 213, 214 Mid-Western Regional, 182, 202, 203 Mildura, 186, 205, 206 Mingenew, 192, 210 Mitcham, 195, 213, 214 Mitchell, 86, 186, 205, 206 Moira, 86, 186, 205, 206 Monash, 85, 186, 205, 206 Moonee Valley, 85, 186, 205, 206 Moora, 192, 210 Moorabool, 86, 186, 205, 206 Morawa, 192, 209, 211 Moree Plains, 183, 202, 204 Moreland, 186, 205, 206 Moreton Bay, 100, 188, 207, 208, 220 Mornington, 58, 116, 188, 207, 208 Mornington Peninsula, 86, 186, 205, 206 Mosman, 183, 201, 204 Mosman Park, 192, 209, 211 Mount Alexander, 186, 205, 206 Mount Barker, 195, 213, 214, 220

Mount Gambier, 195, 213, 214 Mount Isa, 188, 207, 208 Mount Magnet, 192, 209, 212, 220 Mount Marshall, 192, 209, 212 Mount Remarkable, 195, 213, 214 Moyne, 186, 205, 206 Mukinbudin, 192, 209, 211 Mullewa, 123, 124, 220 Mundaring, 192, 209, 211 Murchison, 192, 209, 212 Murray (NSW), 183, 201, 203 Murray (WA), 192, 210, 211 Murray Bridge, 195, 213 Murrindindi, 84, 85, 86, 91, 186, 205 Murrumbidgee, 183, 201, 204 Murweh, 189, 207, 208 Muswellbrook, 183, 202

N Nambucca, 183, 202 Nannup, 192, 210 Napranum, 116, 189, 207, 220 Naracoorte Lucindale, 136, 195, 213, 214 Narembeen, 192, 209, 211 Narrabri, 183, 202, 203 Narrandera, 183, 201, 204 Narrogin Shire, 192, 210, 211 Narrogin Town, 192, 209, 210 Narromine, 183, 201, 204 Nedlands, 193, 209, 212 Nepabunna, 133 Newcastle, 183, 202, 203 Ngaanyatjarraku, 58, 193, 209, 212 Nillumbik, 186, 205, 206 North Burnett, 189, 207, 208 North Sydney, 183, 201, 204 Northam, 193, 210, 211, 220 Northampton, 193, 210, 211 Northern Areas, 195, 213, 214 Northern Grampians, 186, 205, 206 Northern Midlands, 144, 197, 215 Northern Peninsula Area, 103, 116, 189, 207 Norwood Payneham and St Peters, 195, 213, 214 Nungarin, 193, 209, 211

O Oberon, 183, 202, 203 Onkaparinga, 137, 195, 213, 214 Orange, 183, 201, 203 Orroroo/Carrieton, 195, 213, 214 Outback Areas Community Development Trust, 3, 51, 127, 132,

166, 196, 213, 214

P Palerang, 183, 203 Palm Island, 103, 116, 189, 207, 220 Palmerston, 198, 216 Parkes, 183, 202, 203 Paroo, 189, 207, 208 Parramatta, 183 201, 203 Penrith, 183, 202, 203 Peppermint Grove, 193, 209, 212 Perenjori, 193, 209, 211 Perth, 124, 193, 209, 211 Peterborough, 196, 213, 214 Pingelly, 193, 210, 211

Pittwater, 183, 201, 204 Plantagenet, 193, 210, 211, 220 Playford, 196, 213, 214 Pormpuraaw, 189, 207, 208 Port Adelaide Enfield, 136, 196, 213, 214 Port Augusta, 196, 213 Port Hedland, 193, 210, 211, 220 Port Lincoln, 196, 213, 214 Port Macquarie-Hastings, 183, 202, 203 Port Phillip, 85, 186, 205, 206 Port Pirie, 196, 213 Port Stephens, 183, 202, 203 Prospect, 137, 196, 213, 214 Pyrenees, 86, 186, 205, 206

Q Quairading, 193, 209, 210 Queanbeyan, 155, 183, 201, 203 Queenscliffe, 85, 186, 206 Quilpie, 189, 207, 208

R Randwick, 183, 201, 204 Ravensthorpe, 193, 210, 211 Redland, 100, 189, 207, 208, 220 Renmark Paringa, 196, 213 Richmond, 183, 207, 208 Richmond Valley, 183, 202 Robe, 196, 214 Rockdale, 183, 201, 204 Rockhampton, 189, 207, 208 Rockingham, 193, 209, 212 Roebourne, 193, 209, 211, 220 Roper Gulf, 198, 216 Roxby Downs, 171, 196, 213, 214 Ryde, 183, 201, 204

S Salisbury, 196, 213, 214 Sandstone, 193, 209, 212 Scenic Rim, 189, 207, 208, 220 Serpentine-Jarrahdale, 193, 209, 211 Shark Bay, 193, 209, 210 Shellharbour, 183, 202, 203 Shoalhaven, 183, 202, 203 Silverton Village, 183, 201, 204 Singleton, 183, 202, 203 Snowy River, 183, 202, 203 Somerset, 189, 207, 208 Sorell, 197, 215 South Burnett, 189, 207, 208 South Gippsland, 186, 205 South Perth, 193, 209, 211 Southern Downs, 189, 207, 208 Southern Grampians, 186, 205, 206 Southern Mallee, 196, 213, 214 Southern Midlands, 197, 215 Stirling, 193, 209, 212 Stonnington, 85, 187, 205, 206 Strathbogie, 187, 205, 206, 220 Strathfield, 183, 201, 204 Streaky Bay, 196, 213, 214 Subiaco, 193, 209, 212 Sunshine Coast, 100, 112, 189, 207, 208, 220 Surf Coast, 187, 206 Sutherland, 183, 201, 204

Swan, 193,209, 212 Swan Hill, 187, 205, 206 Sydney, 3, 184, 201, 204

T Tablelands, 189, 207, 208 Tammin, 193, 209, 211 Tamworth Regional, 184, 203 Tasman, 197, 215 Tatiara, 196, 213, 214 Tea Tree Gully, 196, 213, 214 Temora, 184, 201, 204 Tenterfield, 184, 201, 203 Three Springs, 193, 209, 211 Tibooburra, 3, 51, 184, 201, 204 Tiwi Islands, 198, 216 Toodyay, 193, 210, 211 Toowoomba, 189, 207, 208 Torres, 189, 207 Torres Strait Island, 189, 207 Townsville, 189, 207, 208 Towong, 86, 187, 205, 206 Trayning, 193, 209, 211 Trust Account, 3, 29, 51, 198, 216, 219 Tumbarumba, 184, 201, 203 Tumby Bay, 196, 213, 214 Tumut, 184, 202, 203 Tweed, 184, 201, 203

U Unley, 196, 213, 214 Upper Gascoyne, 193, 209, 212 Upper Hunter, 184, 202, 203 Upper Lachlan, 184, 202, 203 Uralla, 184, 202, 203 Urana, 184, 201, 204

V Victor Harbor, 196, 213, 214 Victoria - Daly, 198, 216 Victoria Park, 193, 209, 211 Victoria Plains, 193, 210, 211 Vincent, 193, 209, 212

W Wagait, 206, 224 Wagga Wagga, 192, 210, 211 Wagin, 201, 218, 219 Wakefield, 204, 221, 222 Wakool, 192, 209, 211 Walcha, 192, 210, 211 Walgett, 192, 209, 212 Walkerville, 204, 221, 222 Wandering, 201, 218, 219 Wangaratta, 94, 195, 213, 214 Wanneroo, 202, 217, 219 Waratah - Wynyard, 205, 223 Waroona, 202, 218 Warren, 192, 209, 212 Warringah, 192, 209, 212 Warrnambool, 195, 213, 214 Warrumbungle, 192, 209, 212 Wattle Range, 204, 221, 222 Waverley, 192, 209, 212

Weddin, 192, 209, 212 Wellington (NSW), 192, 210, 211 Wellington (Vic.), 69, 195, 213 Wentworth, 192, 209, 212 West Arnhem, 206, 224 West Arthur, 202, 218, 219 West Coast, 205, 223 West Tamar, 205, 223 West Torrens, 145, 204, 221, 222 West Wimmera, 195, 213, 214 Western Downs, 197, 215 Westonia, 202, 217, 219 Whitehorse, 93, 195, 213, 214 Whitsunday, 197, 215, 216 Whittlesea, 94, 100, 195, 213, 214 Whyalla, 204, 221 Wickepin, 202, 217, 219 Williams, 202, 218, 219 Willoughby, 192, 209, 212, 228 Wiluna, 202, 217, 220 Wingecarribee, 192, 210, 211 Winton, 197, 215, 216 Wodonga, 94, 195, 213 Wollondilly, 192, 210, 211 Wollongong, 85, 185, 192, 209, 211 Wongan-Ballidu, 202, 218, 219 Woodanilling, 202, 217, 219 Woollahra, 192, 209, 212 Woorabinda, 124, 197, 215, 228 Wudinna, 204, 221, 222 Wujal Wujal, 120, 124, 197, 215, 228 Wyalkatchem, 202, 217, 219 Wyndham, 195, 213, 214 Wyndham-East Kimberley, 202, 218 Wyong, 192, 210, 211

Y Yalata, 141, 204, 221 Yalgoo, 202, 217, 220 Yankalilla, 204, 222 Yarra, 93, 195, 213, 214 Yarra Ranges, 94, 195, 213, 214 Yarrabah, 111, 124, 197, 215, 216 Yarriambiack, 94, 195, 213, 214 Yass Valley, 192, 211 Yilgarn, 202, 218, 220 York, 202, 218, 219 Yorke Peninsula, 204, 222 Young, 192, 210, 211

227

Index

A Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, 17, 50, 55, 56, 57, 65, 66, 69, 80, 92, 103, 117, 124, 126, 140, 142, 150, 152, 160, 164

Aboriginal communities, 38, 46, 56-57, 77, 92, 123-7, 133, 174 see also Indigenous communities ACELG, 51, 112-113 ACLG, 5-6, 101, 179, 199, 217-218, 220-221 ACT NOWaste, 159 actual grant entitlement, 16-17, 22 adjustments, 19, 127, 172 ALGA, 5-6, 58, 162-164 amalgamations, 29, 49, 51, 118, 123, 221 annual report, 43, 46, 48, 58, 142, 149, 152, 160 assets and liabilities, 11-12, 153 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 17,

23-25, 47, 77, 79, 85, 110, 120, 128, 130, 142, 146, 163, 169 Australian Capital Territory, 3, 5-6, 9, 15-16, 26-27, 29, 45, 58, 69, 153, 217 Australian Capital Territory Department of Territory and

Municipal Services, 153 Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, 163 Australian Classification of Local Governments, 31, 101,

179, 217 Australian Council of Local Government, 5-6 Australian Local Government Association, 5-6, 45, 58,

162

B balanced budget model, 166-167 bushfire, 84, 86, 89, 91, 157

C capping policies, 39 children, 55, 60, 70, 130-131, 158, 172 Christmas Island Shire Council, 30 climate change, 103-104, 134, 139, 144-145 Closing the Gap initiative, 58, 164 Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council, 30 Commonwealth Grants Commission, 15, 38, 162 community planning, 44, 47, 78, 110, 112, 123 consumer price index (CPI), 15, 22 'council' (term), use of, 3 Council of Australian Governments (COAG), 6, 55, 126 CPI, 15-16, 17-18, 21-22, 111 current arrangements, Overview, 15

D declared local governing bodies, 3, 29, 59 Determining entitlements, 17 direct assessment, 70, 127, 166-167, 172 distribution of grants, 27, 67 diversity, 5, 60, 113, 157

E Efficiency and effectiveness, 15, 17, 29, 43, 48-50, 65, 69, 79, 93, 103, 108, 123, 126, 135, 150-151, 154, 163-164

employees, 4, 105, 139, 143, 151 escalation factor, 15-17, 120, 125 estimated grant entitlement, 17, 22, 25 expenditure, vii, vii, 10-11, 30, 58, 60, 66-67, 70-77,

80-85, 95-100, 119, 127-133, 145-148, 153, 166-176, 199

F factoring back, 165, 175-176 final factor, 17, 19, 21-22, 130 finance, 7-9, 11-12, 60, 94, 102, 136, 142-143, 149,

170

financial and asset management planning, 44-45, 78, 92, 122, 140-141 Financial assistance grants to local government, 13, 15, 17-19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 65

G grants, 3, 8-9, 13, 15-31, 33, 35, 37-39, 46-48, 51, 58-60, 65-67, 69-83, 85-86, 89-90, 95-97, 109, 111, 119-120, 125, 127-129, 132-133, 135,

140, 142, 144-146, 150, 152, 162-177, 179-199, 217-218 grants commissions, 16, 27-28, 30-31, 38-39, 46, 59-60, 65,163, 165-166, 168, 171, 175, 177, 179,

199, 217-218

H horizontal equalisation, 39, 66-67, 119, 145, 165-167, 170

I identified local road grants, 66, 132 Indian Ocean Territories, 29 Indigenous communities, 53, 55, 57-61, 118, 120-121

174, 177 Indigenous Land Use Negotiations, 140 infrastructure, 6, 19-20, 24-26, 29, 32-33, 37-38,

44-46, 49, 58-59, 61, 72, 78, 80, 90, 101-103, 105, 109-110, 114-115, 118-119, 124, 127, 130, 133-134, 137-138, 149, 152-155, 162-163 Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, 134, 149 Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (WA), 126 Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations, 6, 9 inter-governmental structures, 6 Internet, 31, 79, 91, 151, 160 Initiatives, 6, 49-50, 55-57, 60-61, 69, 90, 92, 103-104, 109, 115, 123-124, 126, 140, 142, 144, 150, 159-160, 164

J Jervis Bay Territory, 30 Jurisdictions, 5-6, 8-9, 23-27, 31, 43

K Kilometre, 5, 24-25, 31, 33, 74, 87, 129-131, 154-155, 172-173, 179, 199 km, 24-25, 87, 99, 173, 180-198, 201-216, 218

L landfill, 151, 153, 159-160 legislation, 3-6, 26, 28-29, 58-59, 66, 80, 90-91, 103, 105, 107-108, 112, 117, 127, 133, 146, 157

library services, 70-71, 90-91, 129 Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), 28 Local Government Act 1993 (TAS), 45, 141 Local Government Act 1993 (Qld), 28 Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), 102, 106, 117 Local Government Act 1999 (SA), 45, 133, 140 Local Government Act 1995 (WA), 44, 122 Local Government and Shires Associations (NSW), 73, 78-79 Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ), 44, 57,

103, 109, 143 Local Government Association of South Australia (LGASA), 48, 50, 127, 133-134 Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT), 140, 142 Local Government Association of the Northern Territory (LGANT),

45, 148, 151 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986 (Cwth), 15 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth), 3,

15, 17, 21-22, 28-30, 43, 55, 65, 67, 69-70, 76, 80, 120, 125, 133, 145, 165, 217 Local Government (Finance, Plans and Reporting) Regulation 2010 (Qld), 102 Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent

Frameworks, 43, 45, 69, 78, 101, 122, 125, 133-134, 148-149, 153 Local Government Grants Act 1978 (WA), 28 Local Government Grants Commission Act 1986 (NT), 28 local government grants commissions, 16, 27-28, 30-31, 38- 39, 59, 65, 165-166, 168, 171, 177, 179, 199, 217-218 Local Government Managers Australia, 5, 45, 79, 122, 125 Local Government Reform Fund, 45-46, 89-90, 109, 133-134, 140, 142, 162-163 Local Government Research and Development Scheme (SA), 136 Local Government Victoria, 44, 47, 56, 90, 92

M Main Roads WA, 120-122 minimum grant, 34-37, 39, 66, 80, 85, 95, 97, 100, 120, 125, 146, 165, 175, 179

ministerial councils, 6 Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), 44, 56, 90-92, 143 Mutual Liability Scheme (SA), 139

N National Asset Management Assessment Framework, 109 National Awards for Local Government, 60-61 National Indigenous Reform Agreement, 7, 150 National Partnership Agreements, 150 National Principles, 27-28, 59, 65-67, 70, 73, 76, 80, 95, 127,

145-146, 165, 175-176 national representation, 5 Native Title, 57, 117, 140 net worth, 11-12 New South Wales, 3, 5, 9, 28, 30-31, 44, 47-48, 51, 56, 60,

70-74, 77-79, 167, 169, 171-172, 174, 176, 180, 201- 204, 220 New South Wales Division of Local Government, 47 New South Wales Local Government Act 1993, 28 New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission, 30, 70 Northern Territory, 3-6, 8-9, 16, 26-29, 31-33, 45-46, 48, 50-51, 58, 60-61, 69, 145-152, 165, 167, 170, 172-174, 176, 179, 198-199, 216 Northern Territory Grants Commission, 145, 152 Northern Territory Local Government Association, 6

O Office for State/Local Government Relations, 134, 136 Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (ACT), 58, 160-161

P per capita grants, 133 performance measures, 43, 46, 48, 69, 79, 90, 92, 102, 122, 126, 135, 141, 149-150, 152, 163

population, 4-5, 8, 10, 15-25, 31, 34-37, 47, 59-60, 66, 70-75, 77, 79, 81-82, 84-85, 95, 97, 100, 120, 127-132, 145-148, 150, 158-159, 161, 169-172, 174, 176-177, 179-199, 217-218, 220

Productivity Commission, 94, 163 publications, 151

Q Queensland, 9, 28, 31, 44, 46-47, 49, 51, 57-58, 95-119, 143, 167-169, 172-174, 176, 187, 207-208, 220 Queensland Local Government Act 1993, 28 Queensland Local Government Comparative Information Report,

47, 102 Queensland Local Government Grants Commission, 95-96

R rates, 8-9, 30, 47, 55, 67, 72, 76, 79, 81, 83, 96-97, 103-104, 107, 111, 118-119, 128, 130-131, 137, 146-147, 151, 164, 169-170

Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, 162 Regional Collaborative Group (WA), 49, 123 Regional Transition Group (WA), 49, 123 relative need, 38, 59, 66, 86, 95, 127, 145, 176, 199 reporting, 6, 43-44, 49-50, 55-56, 58, 78, 80, 101-102, 105,

113-115, 122-126, 139, 143, 149, 160 road grants, 15-18, 23-24, 26, 30, 38, 59, 65-66, 120, 132, 171-173, 176-177, 199 Roads ACT, 154-155

S sales of goods and services, 8-9 scope of equalisation, 167-168 South Australia, 3, 8-9, 12, 15, 18, 28, 30-31, 45-46, 48,

50-51, 57-58, 115, 127-130, 132-139, 167, 170, 172- 174, 176, 194, 199, 213-214, 220

South Australian Local Government Grants Commission, 28, 31, 127, 135 South Australian Local Government Grants Commission Act 1992, 28 Special Premiers' Conference, 15, specific purpose payments, 6, 75 state grants, 28, 140, 171 State Grants Commission Act 1976 (Tas.), 28 structural reform, 49, 51, 122-123

T Tasmania, 5, 9, 26, 28, 31, 45-46, 48, 50, 57, 140-145, 167, 170, 172-174, 176, 197, 215 Tasmanian State Grants Commission, 140 Tasmania State Grants Commission Act 1976, 28 taxation revenue, 7

U Unadjusted, 29-30 Unsealed road, 130-131

V Victoria, 5, 9, 28, 31, 44, 47-49, 56, 60-61, 80-94, 143, 167, 169, 171, 173-174, 176, 185, 193, 198-199, 205- 206, 209-211, 216, 220

Victoria Grants Commission, 28, 31, 80, 199 Victoria Grants Commission Act 1976 (Vic.), 28

W waste management, 49-50, 81-82, 84, 103, 118, 123, 130- 131, 138, 144, 150-152, 171-172 water and sewerage, 73, 103, 145, 152 Western Australia, 5, 28, 30-31, 44-47, 49, 57-58, 119-126,

167, 169-170, 172-174, 176, 190, 199, 209-212, 220 Western Australian Local Government Association, 45, 121, 125 Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission, 30, 119 workers compensation, 105, 139 Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council, 30,

Y young people, 55, 60

INFRA2274

Local Government National Report

2011-12

2011-12 report on the operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995

Local Government National Report

2011-12

www.infrastructure.gov.au