Local Government National Report 2005-06

Transkrypt

2005–06
2005
06
Local Government
National Report
2005–06 Report on the Operation of the
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995
© Commonwealth of Australia 2007
ISSN 1441 5739
ISBN 0 9756884 3 X
Information present in this document may be reproduced in whole or in part
for study or training purposes, subject to the inclusion of acknowledgment of
the source and provided no commercial use or sale of the material occurs.
Reproduction for the purposes other than those given above requires the written
permission of the Department of Transport and Regional Services. Requests for
permission should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary, Local Government
and Natural Disasters Branch at the address below.
The report is also available on the Internet at <www.dotars.gov.au>.
Acknowledgments
This report has been compiled by:
Mervyn Carter
Fleur Leary
Mark Mansfield
Barry O’Neill
Diana Rankin
Valentine Thurairaja
For further information about this report contact:
Department of Transport and Regional Services
Local Government Section
GPO Box 594
Canberra ACT 2601
Phone: 1800 065 113
Fax: (02) 6274 6249
Editor: Jenny Cook, PenUltimate
Designer: Philippa Lawrence, Sprout Design
Indexer: Michael Harrington
Printer: National Capital Printing, Fyshwick ACT
Foreword
I am pleased to present to Parliament the 2005–06 report on the operation of the Local Government
(Financial Assistance) Act 1995.
In 2005–06, the Australian Government provided $1.618 billion in financial assistance grants through
state governments to councils in support of the services they provided to communities. These funds
are distributed in accordance with the national principles and this report provides an account of how
the states and the Northern Territory allocate these funds between councils. Importantly, these grants
to councils are untied, so councils are able to devote these funds to the priorities they themselves
have identified.
The government’s response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Economics, Finance and Public Administration’s inquiry into local government, entitled Rates and Taxes:
A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government (known as the Hawker Report), was tabled on 22 June
2005. This national report includes an update on progress made by the Australian Government in
addressing the recommendations of the Hawker Report it agreed to pursue.
The most significant achievement in addressing the Hawker Report recommendations in 2005–06
was the signing of a tri-partite inter-governmental agreement on local government. The agreement,
entitled The Inter-governmental Agreement Establishing Principles Guiding Inter-governmental Relations
on Local Government Matters was finalised in April 2006. For the first time, the three spheres of
government have agreed on a framework within which services are to be funded and delivered to the
community at the local level.
The inter-governmental agreement offers the possibility of a new relationship between local
government and the other spheres of government. The agreement obtained in-principle agreement from
governments that when a responsibility is devolved to local government, local government is consulted
and the financial and other impacts on local government are taken into account. The objectives of
the inter-governmental agreement include providing for greater financial transparency between the
three spheres of government in relation to local government services and functions. In addition,
the agreement aims to improve the relationship and consultation between governments on local
government matters.
The inter-governmental agreement also seeks to provide an overall framework for developing further
agreements between local government and the other spheres of government. This includes consulting
and making agreements with individual local governing bodies and, where appropriate, local government
peak representative bodies.
This report has been prepared with the cooperation of all spheres of government and I would like to
thank the state and territory governments and the local government associations for their contributions.
The Hon Jim Lloyd MP
Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads
iii
Contents
iv
Foreword
iii
Preface
ix
Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia
Local government roles
Local government functions
Size and diversity
Involvement in inter-governmental structures
National representation of local government
Local government finances
Local government revenue
Local government expenditure
State comparison of expenditure by purpose
Grant funding
State and territory funding
Assets and liabilities
1
2
2
3
9
11
12
12
18
19
20
24
25
Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government
Current arrangements
Determining the quantum of the grant
Determining entitlements for 2005–06 and 2006–07
Inter-jurisdictional distribution of the grants
Quantum of financial assistance grants allocations
Principles for determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions
Determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions
Bodies eligible to receive financial assistance grants
Local government grants commissions’ methods
Allocation of grants to councils in 2005–06
Councils on the minimum grant
Reviews of Grants Commission methods
Impact of grants commission capping policies
Acquittal of the grants
27
29
29
30
34
36
41
43
44
45
46
49
52
53
53
Chapter 3 Local government efficiency and performance
National Competition Policy and local government
A new National Reform Agenda
Local government performance and efficiency
Local government financial position
Summary
55
56
57
58
59
59
Chapter 4 Local government infrastructure
Local government infrastructure responsibilities
Extent of council-managed local road network
Road funding by each sphere of government
Australian Government funding for local roads
State government funding
61
62
64
65
65
68
Chapter 5 Local government service provision to Indigenous communities
Reporting requirements
Australian Government expenditure and progress
National Awards for Local Government
75
77
82
83
Chapter 6 Australian Government response to Rates and Taxes:
A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government
A tri-partite inter-governmental agreement
A Parliamentary resolution on local government
Consultations on impediments to prudent borrowing
Enhancement of the National Awards for Local Government
Council amalgamations
Review of the financial assistance grants
The future financial governance of local government
85
86
87
87
88
88
89
89
Appendixes
A. National principles for allocating general purpose and local road grants
B. State methods for distributing financial assistance grants 2005–06
C. Comparison of local government grants commission distribution models
D. Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies in 2005–06
E. Ranking of local governing bodies on a relative needs basis 2005–06
F. Australian classification of local governments
G. Progress in improving efficiency of local government
H. Progress on performance of local government in service provision
to Indigenous communities
I. Best practice in local government
91
92
95
144
157
189
212
215
Bibliography
294
Glossary
296
Index of local governments
300
General index
308
249
269
v
vi
Tables
Table 1.1: Local government employment, by jurisdiction, 2002–06
4
Table 1.2: Selected characteristics of local governing bodies by jurisdiction, as at 1 July 2006
5
Table 1.3: Characteristics of selected councils, 2005–06
8
Table 1.4: Share of taxation revenue by sphere of government and source of revenue, 2005–06
12
Table 1.5: Local government revenue sources by jurisdiction, 2005–06
14
Table 1.6: Local government revenue by source by jurisdiction, $ per capita, 2005–06
14
Table 1.7: Local government expenditure by purpose, by jurisdiction, 2005–06
18
Table 1.8: Local government expenditure by purpose, by jurisdiction, $ per capita, 2005–06
19
Table 1.9: Specific purpose payments from the Australian Government direct to local government,
by jurisdiction, 2005–06 ($’000)
22
Table 1.10: Regional Partnership grants approved for local government in 2005–06 by jurisdiction
23
Table 1.11: Grants from states to local government by purpose, 2004–05 ($m)
24
Table 1.12: Local government assets and liabilities, at 30 June 2005 ($m)
26
Table 2.1: Calculation of financial assistance grants actual entitlements and adjustments for
2005–06
32
Table 2.2: Calculation of financial assistance grants estimated entitlements and cash grant paid
for 2006–07
33
Table 2.3: 2005–06 allocations of general purpose and local road grants among jurisdictions
35
Table 2.4: 2006–07 allocations of estimated grant entitlement among jurisdictions and
percentage change from 2005–06 actual grant allocation
35
Table 2.5: National financial assistance grant allocation, 1974–75 to 2006–07 ($)
36
Table 2.6: Financial assistance grant allocation New South Wales and Victoria, 1974–75 to
2006–07 ($)
37
Table 2.7: Financial assistance grant allocation Queensland and Western Australia,
1974–75 to 2006–07 ($)
38
Table 2.8: Financial assistance grant allocation South Australia and Tasmania, 1974–75 to
2006–07 ($)
39
Table 2.9: Financial assistance grant allocation Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory,
1974–75 to 2006–07 ($)
40
Table 2.10: Distribution of local governing bodies by type by state at June 2006
44
Table 2.11: Average general purpose grant per capita to councils by state and ACLG category,
2005–06 ($)
47
Table 2.12: Average local road grant per kilometre to councils by state and ACLG category,
2005–06 ($)
48
Table 2.13: Minimum grant council statistics by jurisdiction, 1996–97 to 2006–07
49
Table 2.14: Status of major methodology reviews undertaken since July 1995, by state,
as at 30 June 2006
52
Table 3.1: National Competition Policy payments, 2004–05 and 2005–06 ($m)
57
Table 4.1: Estimated value of local roads and bridges
63
Table 4.2: Value of local government buildings, net of depreciation $m, 2004–05
64
Table 4.3: Local road statistics based on council data at June 2006
64
Table 4.4: Estimated spending on council-managed local roads, 2001–02 to 2003–04
65
Table 4.5: Australian Government funding for council-managed local roads, 2001–02 to 2006–07
66
Table 4.6: AusLink Roads to Recovery program – planned expenditure
67
Table 4.7: Strategic Regional Program – planned estimated expenditure
67
Table 4.8: Australian Government additional funds for local roads in South Australia,
2004–05 to 2010–11
68
Table 4.9: New South Wales – state government funding for council-managed local roads
69
Table 4.10: Victoria – state government funding for local roads
69
Table 4.11: Queensland – state government funding for council-managed local roads,
Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme
70
Table 4.12: Western Australia – State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement
71
Table 4.13: Western Australian local road expenditure by source of funds, 2000–01 to 2004–05
71
Table 4.14: South Australia – state government funding for council-managed local roads,
2003–04 to 2006–07
72
Table 4.15: South Australia – council expenditure on local roads
72
Table 4.16: Tasmania – state government direct spending on council-managed local roads,
2004–05 and 2005–06
72
Table 4.17: Tasmania – council expenditure on local roads
73
Table 5.1: Distribution of Indigenous councils by eligibility type and by state, June 2006
82
Table B.1: Cost drivers and average expenditure per unit – Victoria
104
Table B.2: Average grant revenue per unit – Victoria
106
Table B.3: Standardised fees and charges per unit – Victoria
108
Table B.4: Changes in general purpose grant entitlements from 2004–05 to 2005–06 – Victoria
109
Table B.5: 2005–06 natural disaster assistance from general purpose grant funding – Victoria
109
Table B.6: Changes in local road length from 2004–05 to 2005–06 – Victoria
110
Table B.7: Average annual costs used in allocating local road grants for 2005–06 – Victoria
111
Table B.8: Changes in local road grant entitlement from 2004–05 to 2005–06 – Victoria
112
Table B.9: Outline of expenditure assessment for 2005–06 – Queensland
115
Table B.10: Rural roads standards and cost adjustors – Queensland
117
Table B.11: Urban roads standards and cost adjustors – Queensland
117
Table B.12: Definition of terms used in formulae – Western Australia
124
Table B.13: Local road grant funding 2005–06 – Western Australia
125
Table B.14: Expenditure functions, standard cost and units of measure – South Australia
128
Table B.15: Expenditure functions, standard cost, units of measure and aggregate units of
measure – South Australia
130
Table B.16: Description of non-road expenditure functions – Tasmania
134
vii
Table B.17: Application of cost adjustors to expenditure standards – Tasmania
135
Table C.1: Features of local government grants commission models for assessing local road need,
2005–06
145
Table C.2: Differences in the distribution models grants commissions use for the general purpose
component for 2005–06 allocations
147
Table C.3: The scope of equalisation of grants commission general purpose models
148
Table C.4: Grants treated by inclusion in general purpose grant allocations for 2005–06, by
jurisdiction
154
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification
and population, 2005–06 and 2006–07
158
Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
191
Table E.2: Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
195
Table E.3: Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
198
Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
202
Table E.5: South Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
206
Table E.6: Tasmanian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
209
Table E.7: Northern Territory councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
210
Table F.1: Structure of the classification system
213
Table F.2: Number of councils by ACLG by category and by state, June 2006
214
Table F.3: Changes in ACLG category for 2005–06: reasons for change by state, June 2006
214
Table G.1: Actual payments to local governments under the National Competition Policy Financial
Incentive Package, 1997–98 to 2003–04
228
Table G.2: ACT NOWaste benchmarks
245
Table G.3: Roads ACT benchmarked assets
246
Table H.1: Financial assistance grant entitlements to Indigenous councils for 2005–06
265
Table I.1: Categories for the 2006 National Awards for Local Government
271
Figures
viii
Figure 1.1: Local government revenue by source, by jurisdiction, 2005–06
13
Figure 1.2: Local government rate revenue per capita for 1998–99 to 2005–06, expressed in
1998–99 $, by jurisdiction
15
Figure 1.3: Local government expenditure by jurisdiction, 2005–06
20
Figure 4.1: Australian Government local roads funding
66
Figure A.1: National Principles for allocating general purpose and local road grants
93
Figure G.1: General purpose grants as a proportion of local government revenue,
1995–96 to 2004–05
223
Figure G.2: Aggregate capital funding gap
224
Preface
The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 requires that the minister report to Parliament
on the operation of the Act ‘as soon as practicable’ after 30 June each year.
This annual report to Parliament must include an assessment of:
© the extent to which allocation of financial assistance grants has been made on a full horizontal
equalisation basis
© the methods local government grants commissions used in making their recommendations
© the performance by local governing bodies of their functions including:
– their efficiency
– services provided by them to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
Submitting an annual report to Parliament seeks to achieve two of the government’s goals in relation to
the arrangements under the Act. They are:
© to increase the transparency and accountability of methodologies used in allocating the Australian
Government’s grants to local governing bodies
© to promote consistency in the methods by which grants are allocated to achieve equitable levels of
services by local governing bodies.
Reporting on local governing bodies’ performance helps to assess whether two of the Act’s purposes
are being achieved. These purposes are:
© to improve the efficiency of local government
© to improve the provision by local governing bodies of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander communities.
The report covers all local governing bodies in receipt of grants under the Act. It fosters transparency
and accountability by enabling an interstate and an intrastate comparison of the allocation of grants to
local governing bodies.
Chapter 1 provides an overview of local government in Australia, including its roles, functions, size and
diversity, finances and governance arrangements.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the process and principles of apportioning funding between the
states and between local governing bodies within a state. Appendix D sets out the financial outcomes
for all local governing bodies in receipt of financial assistance grants.
The National Principles for allocating the general purpose and local road components of the financial
assistance grants is at Appendix A, and the methodologies each state adopted in allocating funding
to local governing bodies are summarised at Appendix B. Appendix C provides a comparison of the
distribution models used by the state and Northern Territory grants commissions. The grant outcomes
for each council in 2005–06 is at Appendix D, while Appendix E shows the ranking of local governing
bodies within a state on a relative needs basis. The classification system used in Appendixes D and E
to categorise local governing bodies is described in Appendix F.
ix
Local government efficiency and performance is discussed in Chapter 3, which reports on state
developments, Australian Government activities to support local government performance
improvement and application of the National Competition Policy. State reports on performance and
reform are at Appendix G. Improved performance of local governing bodies continues to be promoted
through the National Awards for Local Government. The 2006 Award winners are at Appendix I.
Chapter 4 addresses infrastructure issues, primarily local roads, and asset management issues, and
has a bearing on the efficiency and effectiveness aspects of local government performance.
A report on delivery of local government services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
is in Chapter 5 and the reports from the states and territories are at Appendix H. Also included in
Appendix H is a table providing the financial assistance grants for 2005–06 to the 91 identified
Indigenous councils.
This year Chapter 6 is a report on the Australian Government’s progress in addressing those
recommendations of the report Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government
(the Hawker Report) it agreed to pursue.
x
Chapter 1
Local governance
in Australia
1
Local Government National Report 2005–06
Chapter 1
Local governance in Australia
In Australia, the division of responsibilities between the Commonwealth Government and the state
governments flows from the Australian Constitution. Section 51 of the Constitution enumerates the
areas of responsibility the states granted to the Commonwealth (or Australian) Government at the
time of Federation in 1901. These powers included immigration, foreign affairs, defence, customs
and excise, international and interstate trade, and currency. Later the Commonwealth also assumed
responsibility for Australian territories that were not within any state at the time of Federation. The
states reserved all other areas to themselves, including health, education, most rail transport,
water and sewerage, land development, policing and justice. The area of control for the Australian
Government has since been extended or clarified either by constitutional amendment or by High
Court decisions.
Local government is not one of the areas identified as an Australian Government responsibility and
thus remains a state responsibility. Each state and the Northern Territory provide the legal and
regulatory framework for council operations. As a consequence, there are significant differences
between jurisdictions for overseeing the roles, functions and responsibilities of councils and the
services they deliver.
The Australian Government has recognised that the national interest is served through improving local
governments’ capacity to deliver services to all Australians, while also enhancing the performance and
efficiency of the sector. The Australian Government uses the Local Government (Financial Assistance)
Act 1995 as the primary means to achieve these goals.
Local government roles
State legislation provides the framework for local government roles. These roles are not prescribed,
so local government bodies in all jurisdictions have the authority to provide generally for the
good governance of their local government area. In effect, this confers on local government the
powers of general competence, or the power to take action in any area not expressly precluded by
other legislation.
Local government has roles in governance, advocacy, service delivery, planning and community
development, and regulation.
Local government functions
Councils determine service provision according to local needs and the requirements of the various
state local government Acts and they are increasingly providing services above and beyond those
traditionally associated with local government. Examples of local government functions and
services include:
2
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
engineering (public works design, construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, footpaths,
drainage, cleaning, waste collection and management)
recreation (golf courses, swimming pools, sports courts, recreation centres, halls, kiosks, camping
grounds and caravan parks)
health (water sampling, food sampling, immunisation, toilets, noise control, meat inspection and
animal control)
community services (child care, elderly care and accommodation, refuge facilities, meals on
wheels, counselling and welfare)
building (inspection, licensing, certification and enforcement)
planning and development approval
administration (of aerodromes, quarries, cemeteries, parking stations and street parking)
cultural/educational (libraries, art galleries and museums)
water and sewerage (in some states)
other (abattoirs, sale-yards, markets and group purchasing schemes).
©
Unlike local government in many other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) member countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, Australian local
governments do not have primary responsibility for services such as education, policing and public
housing – in Australia, these are primarily state and territory government responsibilities.
Size and diversity
Local government has a small but significant role in the Australian economy, with local government
expenditure around $19.43 billion in 2004–05, representing 2.07 per cent of gross domestic product.
In 2005–06, 701 local governing bodies were eligible to receive financial assistance grants from the
Australian Government and of these 91 were Indigenous bodies.
The term ‘local governing bodies’ is defined in the financial assistance grants legislation and includes
councils established under state and territory legislation as well as ‘declared bodies’. Declared
bodies are provided with financial assistance grants and are treated as councils for the purposes of
grant allocations. However, declared bodies are not councils and do not have the same legislative
requirements as councils. Declared bodies include the Outback Areas Community Development Trust in
South Australia, the Roads Trust in the Northern Territory and certain Indigenous Community Councils.
Due to differences in defining councils and local governing bodies, some of the data provided in tables
and figures in this report that relate to councils may not be strictly comparable with those for local
governing bodies.
Employees
In May 2006, 167 400 people were estimated to be employed by the local government sector
nationally (see Table 1.1). Between May 2002 and May 2006, local government in the Northern
Territory (37.5%) had the largest increase in the number of employees, followed by South Australia
(20.2%) and Victoria (18.8%). The smallest increase was in New South Wales (3.5%).
The population served per employee varies considerably across jurisdictions – from 62 in the Northern
Territory to 154 in South Australia – with the national average being 121. The differences between
states reflect the relative size of the local government sector in the state, the extent of outsourcing, and
the range of functions local government performs.
3
Table 1.1: Local government employment, by jurisdiction, 2002–06
Employeesb (‘000)
Populationa March
2005 (‘000)
May 2002
May 2004
May 2006
Population served
per employee
May 2006
NSW
6 817.14
48.7
51.1
50.4
135
Vic.
5 078.47
32.5
36.5
38.6
132
Qld
4 035.71
38.9
38.4
43.5
93
WA
2 042.78
14.7
15.8
17.1
119
SA
1 552.32
8.4
9.9
10.1
154
Jurisdiction
Tas.
488.70
4.1
4.1
4.4
111
NT
205.92
2.4
3.4
3.3
62
20 221.04
149.7
159.2
167.4
121
Total
Sources: a Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Demographic Statistics, cat. no. 3101.0, March 2006.
b Australian Bureau of Statistics, Employed Wage and Salary Earners, Australia: Original Series, cat. no. 6248.0, various issues.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Wage and Salary Earners, Public Sector, Australia: Original Series, cat. no. 6248.0.55.001,
May 2006.
Population
Table 1.2 shows that across all jurisdictions, the average population for local governing bodies at
30 June 2005 was just over 28 432. However, 50 per cent of local governing bodies have less than
7293 residents. Population ranges from zero for the Roads Trust in the Northern Territory to 971 757
for Brisbane City Council. Although the Roads Trust is considered a local governing body for the
purpose of grants, it has no physical area and no responsibility for providing local government services
other than roads.
The average population size of local governing bodies by jurisdiction differs markedly, varying from
3016 in the Northern Territory, where there are many small Indigenous communities, to 62 774
in Victoria.
Table 1.2 shows different characteristics of the distribution of local governing bodies by population
within jurisdictions. These different measures are provided because average population size can mask
the variability of the population of local governing bodies within a jurisdiction. For instance, the average
population for Queensland local governing bodies is around 25 234, but half of them have a population
of less than 3558.
The median population size for Western Australian local governing bodies is 2743 the smallest median
for all the states. Western Australia is the only state not to have undergone major structural reform
since the early 1990s.
4
80
157
142
74
29
64
701
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
All jurisdictions
0
0
Area (sq km)
0
0
0
Population (no)
Area (sq km)
0
Area (sq km)
Road length (km)
0
5
Population (no)
Road length (km)
80
67
Population (no)
Road length (km)
Area (sq km)
2
Area (sq km)
877
9
Road length (km)
154
150
Population (no)
Population (no)
0
Road length (km)
2
Area (sq km)
7
Road length (km)
Road length (km)
3 191
Population (no)
3
0
Area (sq km)
57
0
Area (sq km)
57
Population (no)
Road length (km)
Population (no)
Minimum
Characteristic
113
310
1 437
0
51
320
654
298
5 784
56
308
2 403
852
507
959
695
265
1 012
114
599
15 751
221
477
6 789
First quartileb
1 824
727
7 293
5
145
530
1 158
437
11 454
984
941
8 282
2 000
738
2 743
2 422
834
3 558
1 532
1 293
39 744
2 689
881
20 357
Medianc
4 787
1 273
28 807
257
301
1 307
3 556
721
20 914
3 826
1 397
20 670
6 924
1 121
12 282
10 501
1 322
12 545
4 032
2 401
110 078
4 945
1 257
59 500
Third quartiled
Notes: a Includes all local government bodies that received financial assistance grant funding in 2004–05.
b The first quartile is the characteristic size at which 25 per cent of local governing bodies have smaller populations and 75 per cent are larger.
c The median is the characteristic size at which 50 per cent of local governing bodies have smaller populations and 50 per cent are larger.
d The third quartile is the characteristic size at which 75 per cent of local governing bodies have smaller populations and 25 per cent are larger.
Source: Derived from local government grants commission’s unpublished data.
155
No. of bodies
NSW
Jurisdiction
Table 1.2: Selected characteristics of local governing bodiesa by jurisdiction, as at 1 July 2006
378 533
5 562
971 757
28 700
2145
69 262
9 750
980
65 021
8 860
3 882
154 514
378 533
4 147
182 047
117 084
5 562
971 757
22 087
5 168
217 349
53 511
3 245
283 458
Maximum
7 833
923
28 432
1 453
220
3 016
2 379
485
16 733
2 102
1 018
20 838
17 515
866
14 156
11 153
904
25 234
2 841
1 615
62 774
4 568
895
41 339
Average
5 491 161
646 965
19 987 643
92 989
14 108
193 035
68 982
14 079
485 263
155 581
75 310
1 542 033
2 487 130
122 993
2 010 113
1 751 096
174 522
3 961 698
227 316
129 171
5 021 886
708 067
143 782
6 773 615
Total
5
Local road length maintained
In 2005–06, local governing bodies were responsible for around 647 000 kilometres of local roads
nationally. This is a significant proportion (over 80%) of the nation’s roads by length. For all jurisdictions,
except Queensland and the Northern Territory, the proportion of the length of local government roads
that is sealed is around 33 per cent with the proportion varying from 14 per cent in the Northern
Territory to 48 per cent in Tasmania.
Table 1.2 shows the average length of road for which local governing bodies are responsible is
923 kilometres. However, 25 per cent of local governing bodies are responsible for less than
310 kilometres of local road and 25 per cent are responsible for more than 1273 kilometres. The local
governing body responsible for the longest road length is Brisbane City Council with 5562 kilometres.
Table 1.2 shows that in New South Wales and South Australia the minimum road length is zero. This is
due to some local governing bodies, although eligible for financial assistance grants under the Act, not
having a local roads responsibility.
Area
Table 1.2 highlights some of the variations in the area of local governing bodies in Australia. It shows
that, like population, the area of local governing bodies varies considerably within and between states.
Nationally, the average area of local governing bodies is 7833 square kilometres. However, 50 per cent
of local governing bodies have an area of less than 1824 square kilometres. Nine local governing
bodies in Western Australia and Queensland cover areas greater than 100 000 square kilometres. The
council with the largest area is East Pilbara in Western Australia with 378 533 square kilometres.
Table 1.2 shows that the minimum for many jurisdictions is zero square kilometres. Some local
governing bodies are recorded as having no area because either their boundaries are not defined (for
example, some Indigenous community councils) or they are not responsible for providing property
services within a particular area of land, such as the Outback Areas Community Development Trust in
South Australia.
With 75 per cent of local governing bodies in the Northern Territory occupying less than 257 square
kilometres, local governing bodies in the Northern Territory have the smallest areas. This is because a
large proportion of the Northern Territory is unincorporated (that is, not included within the boundary of
a local governing body) and many Indigenous community councils do not have their boundaries defined.
The area of local governing bodies in South Australia is generally smaller than the area in other states
and this reflects the fact that a large proportion (around 85%) of South Australia is unincorporated.
Diversity
Diversity can be great both within and between jurisdictions and goes beyond rural–metropolitan
differences. In addition to size and population, other significant differences between local governing
bodies include:
© range and scale of functions
© councils’ fiscal position (including wide disparity in revenue-raising capacity), resources and
skills base
© physical, economic, social and cultural environments of local government areas
© attitudes and aspirations of local communities
© legislative frameworks within which councils operate, including voting rights and electoral systems.
6
Table 1.3 gives some flavour of the physical and financial diversity showing, for a selection of
councils, the range of areas, populations, local road lengths and income from rates and financial
assistance grants.
For instance, it shows the variation in population between an urban fringe council (Casey City in Victoria
with 210 389 people) and a rural remote council (Barcoo Shire in Queensland with 464 people).
For instance, in relation to legislative frameworks, Indigenous councils are established under different
arrangements. Indigenous councils can be established under the mainstream local government
legislation of a jurisdiction, or through separate, specific legislation, or can be ‘declared’ to be local
governing bodies by the Australian Minister for Local Government, on advice from a state minister.
Chapter 5 has more details on this issue.
The population density of councils can vary significantly too. The City of Marion in South Australia with
an area of 56 square kilometres has a population density of 1438 residents per square kilometre
compared with Shark Bay Shire, a rural remote council in Western Australia, with an area of 2500
square kilometres and a population density of 0.39 residents per square kilometre.
Table 1.3 shows that total grants per capita in rural areas are usually significantly higher than in
urban areas. This can be explained by the need for assistance in accessing services in rural areas like
Jerilderie Shire in New South Wales with a population of 1883 and an area of 3375 square kilometres.
Jerilderie Shire received nearly $785 per capita in 2005–06. Some rural councils – Jerilderie, Barcoo
and Shark Bay shires – received more in financial assistance grants than they received in rate income.
Per capita grant versus per capita rate income also varies significantly. The grant per capita for Barcoo
($4195) is more than 98 times that of the grant per capita for the City of Hobart ($42.68). Conversely,
rate income per capita for the City of Hobart ($1221) is nearly 4.4 times that of Wollondilly Shire
($278). Appendix D lists all local governing bodies, the area they cover, their population, their local road
length and details of financial assistance grants they receive.
7
URM
URS
NSW
NSW
NT
NT
Vic.
Vic.
Tas.
SA
NSW
Qld
WA
Wollondilly Shire
Coffs Harbour City
Alice Springs Town
Tennant Creek Town
Surf Coast Shire
Moyne Shire
Dorset Municipal
Kingston District
Jerilderie Shire
Barcoo Shire
Shark Bay Shire
968
464
1 883
2 313
7 131
15 851
22 471
3 395
28 328
66 529
40 661
57 448
210 389
56 565
80 512
48 533
Population
2 500
61 974
3 375
3 363
112
5 478
1 553
25
327
1 118
2 557
1 867
410
33
56
120
Area
(sq km)
602
1 696
998
947
739
3 471
1 011
45
250
703
688
543
1 205
344
464
296
Road length
(km)
Notes: a Australian Classification of Local Governments – see Appendix F.
b These councils received the minimum per capita general purpose grant in 2005–06.
Source: Derived from Department of Transport and Regional Services unpublished data.
RTS
RTS
RAS
RAM
RAL
RAV
RSG
URS
UFM
UFM
Qld
Thuringowa City
UFV
UDM
Vic.
WA
UDL
UCC
Classifiationa
Casey City
Bayswater
Cityb
SA
Marion
Tas.
Cityb
State
Hobart Cityb
Council
Table 1.3: Characteristics of selected councils, 2005–06
558
485
1 204
2 259
5 514
9 350
19 217
1 256
10 102
20 728
11 320
25 345
76 522
22 629
36 694
59 260
Rate
income
($’000)
576.45
1045.25
639.41
976.65
773.24
589.87
855.19
369.96
356.61
311.56
278.40
441.18
363.72
400.05
455.76
1 221.02
Rate
income per
capita
($)
1 104 094
1 283 673
795 838
398 897
910 987
2 387 613
1 457 415
592 555
663 033
681 832
175 245
1 318 698
2 730 726
922 128
732 725
140 079
989 959
1 319 294
921 631
719 156
1 410 334
558 898
1 040 408
1 260 782
Local road
($)
394 845
4 221 074
1 648 723
1 335 692
10 514 455
947 017
1 341 865
810 666
General
purpose
($)
1 696 649
1 946 706
1 477 670
574 142
2 229 685
5 118 339
2 379 543
534 924
1 722 684
5 540 368
2 570 354
2 054 848
11 924 789
1 505 915
2 382 273
2 071 448
Total
($)
1752.74
4195.49
784.74
248.22
312.67
322.90
105.89
157.56
60.81
83.28
63.21
35.77
56.68
26.62
29.59
42.68
Total grant
per capita
($)
2005–06 financial assistance grant entitlement
8
Council of Australian Governments
COAG is the peak inter-governmental forum in Australia comprising the Prime Minister, state premiers,
territory chief ministers and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) President. COAG’s
role is to initiate, develop and monitor the implementation of policy reforms which are of national
significance and which require cooperative action by Australian governments.
The issues COAG considers generally arise from international treaties that affect the states and
territories, initiatives of one government that impact on other governments, and ministerial council
deliberations. Ministerial councils are regular meetings of commonwealth, state and territory ministers
sharing common responsibilities.
Involvement in inter-governmental structures
There are over 40 commonwealth–state ministerial councils and forums currently facilitating
consultation and cooperation between governments. Ministerial councils initiate, develop and monitor
policy reform and take joint action to resolve issues that arise between governments. In particular,
they develop policy reforms for COAG consideration and oversee implementation of COAG-agreed
policy reforms.
Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council
The Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council includes federal, state and territory
local government and planning ministers, the New Zealand local government minister and the
ALGA President.
The Council’s primary objective is to lead debate and decision-making on key strategic policy matters
for local government and planning in Australia and New Zealand that can be addressed at the
national level.
The Council’s terms of reference are to:
© agree policy and strategic approaches for local government and planning issues
© exchange information and brief jurisdictions on significant current and emerging local government
and planning issues, experiences and initiatives
© promote cooperation between all levels of government and encourage harmonisation across
jurisdictional boundaries in the development and implementation of public policy, strategies and
programs affecting local government and planning
© foster accountability to stakeholders through the monitoring and evaluation of policies, strategies
and programs developed and implemented under the aegis of the Council
© provide leadership to all areas of government, industry and the community in working
collaboratively to advance local government and planning issues
© liaise with other ministerial councils and other bodies on matters relevant to the activities of
the Council.
The Local Government and Planning Joint Committee supports the Council, with the Local Government
Joint Officers Group and the Planning Officials Group as standing sub-committees. The Local
Government and Planning Joint Committee consists of senior officers from the Australian Government,
state, territory and the New Zealand departments with responsibility for local government and planning
matters, and a senior representative from ALGA.
9
In June 2004 the Council held a special roundtable meeting in Canberra with the Presidents of ALGA
and the state and Northern Territory local government associations to discuss the recommendations
of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public
Administration inquiry into Local Government and Cost Shifting, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for
Responsible Local Government (the Hawker Report).
During 2005–06 the Council met once in August 2005 (see ‘Outcomes from the Local Government
and Planning Ministers’ Council in 2005–06’ for a report on the issues the Council considered during
the year).
A special meeting of the Council involving only the local government ministers and the President of
ALGA was held on 12 April 2006 to consider a draft inter-governmental agreement to guide relations
between local government, the Australian Government and the states and territories. This was one
of the recommendations of the Hawker Report. At this meeting the Inter-Governmental Agreement
Establishing Principles to Guide Inter-Governmental Relations on Local Government Matters, was
agreed to and signed.
The Council endorsed the objectives of the inter-governmental agreement that include providing for
greater financial transparency between the three spheres of government in relation to local government
services and functions. In addition, the agreement aims to improve the relationship by increasing
consultation between governments on local government matters.
The agreement contains an in-principle agreement from governments that when a responsibility is
devolved to local government, local government is consulted and the financial and other impacts on
local government are taken into account. Further details on the inter-governmental agreement are
included in Chapter 6.
OUTCOMES FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PLANNING MINISTERS’ COUNCIL 2005
The Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council met in August 2005 in Melbourne.
Prior to its meeting, it met jointly with the Housing Ministers’ Conference to discuss developing
cross sectoral approaches for improving housing affordability. The key issues on the Council’s
agenda were:
© considering the Australian Government response to the Hawker Report recommendations
and developing an inter-governmental agreement to guide relations between the states
and territories, the Australian Government and local government
© supporting communities affected by rapid population growth (including sea change)
© developing strategies that might be adopted to address the impact of the Commonwealth’s
regulation of airport master planning under the Airports Act 1996
© reviewing a draft leading practice model for development assessment prepared by the
Development Assessment Forum
© considering urban infrastructure and related issues raised at the National Summit on the
Future of Australian Cities and Towns and providing direction for a forward work program
over the next five years for the Planning Officials Group.
10
In its 2001 review of ministerial councils, COAG agreed that the ALGA be represented on ministerial
councils where there is a clear local government interest. Other than where membership is explicitly set
out by statute or agreement, it is up to individual ministerial councils to decide whether ALGA should be
a member or attend proceedings.
Within the Transport and Regional Services portfolio, in addition to being a member of the Local
Government and Planning Ministers’ Council, ALGA is also a member of the Regional Development
Council and an observer on the Australian Transport Council.
Other ministerial councils
National representation of local government
Australian Local Government Association
ALGA is a federation of local governing body associations from each of Australia’s six states and the
Northern Territory. The Australian Capital Territory Government is also a member.
The Association aims to add value, at the national level, to the work of state and territory associations
and their member councils. ALGA represents the interests of local government through its participation
in the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and membership of a number of ministerial councils.
Local Government Managers Australia
Local Government Managers Australia is a professional association of local government managers
throughout Australia and the Asia–Pacific. Local Government Managers Australia is committed to
developing and improving local government management, maintaining high professional and ethical
standards and ensuring that its members are at the forefront of change and innovation.
Local Government Managers Australia has state divisions in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland,
Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania with a national office in Melbourne, Victoria.
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia
The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia is a professional organisation providing member
services and advocacy for those involved in and delivering public works and engineering services to
the community.
Previously known as the Institute of Municipal Engineering Australia, the organisation has expanded
its traditional local government engineering focus to public works and thereby covers all levels of
government and private practice.
The Institute has Divisions in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South
Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, with a national office in Sydney, New South Wales.
11
Local government finances
Share of taxation revenue by sphere of government
In 2005–06, local government directly raised $8920 million in taxation revenue – that is 3.0 per cent
of all taxes raised across all spheres of government in Australia. Local government’s taxation revenue
is raised through a tax on property (see Table 1.4) that is exclusively raised through land rates. Local
government taxation revenue increased 7.4 per cent from $8306 million in 2004–05 to $8920 million
in 2005–06.
Compared with local government, the states and territories raised almost twice as much in taxes
on property at $16 043 million. This includes taxes on financial and capital transactions of almost
$12 460 million as well as land taxes of almost $3583 million.
Table 1.4: Share of taxation revenue by sphere of government and source of revenue, 2005–06
Revenue source
Federal (%)
Taxes on income
State (%)
Local (%)
Total (%)
59.14
0
0
59.14
Employers payroll taxes
0.12
4.39
0
4.38
Taxes on property
0.01
5.68
2.99
8.68
Taxes on provision of goods and services
Taxes on use of goods and performance of activities
Total
22.76
2.72
0
25.51
0.27
2.03
0
2.30
82.31
14.85
2.99
100
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Taxation Revenue, Table 1, cat. no. 5506.0.
Local government revenue
There is wide disparity in the ability of individual councils to raise revenue due largely to differences
between urban, rural and remote councils, in population size, rating base and the ability or willingness
of councils to levy user charges.
The national averages for proportions of revenue from particular sources do, however, disguise
the circumstances of individual councils that vary considerably. While a general indication of these
variations can be obtained from Figure 1.1 and Table 1.5, significant variation in revenue raised
between councils within the states and the Northern Territory remains.
Table 1.6 shows the variation of revenue per capita across states for the various revenue sources.
It shows, for example, that while South Australian councils collect the lowest total revenue per capita,
they levy the highest rates per capita but raise the lowest revenue per capita for most other revenue
sources.
12
100%
90%
Other
80%
Interest Income
Sale of Goods & Services
70%
60%
Grants and Subsidies
50%
Figure 1.1: Local government revenue by source, by jurisdiction, 2005–06
40%
30%
20%
Taxation Revenue
10%
0%
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
Aust
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no. 5512.0.
Rates
The only tax available to local government is rates on property. In 2005–06, 39 per cent of local
government revenue came from rates nationally. The proportion of revenue from rates varied
appreciably between jurisdictions, from a high of 60 per cent for South Australia to a low of 24 per cent
for the Northern Territory.
Table 1.6 shows that, on a per capita basis, rates revenue was the lowest for the Northern Territory at
$297; and for the states, rates revenue per capita varied from $385 for New South Wales to $503 for
South Australia.
13
Table 1.5: Local government revenue sources by jurisdiction, 2005–06
Revenue source
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Totala
2 613
2 519
1 807
928
785
207
62
8 920
Taxation revenue
$m
%
36.6
51.9
27.1
41.5
60.2
32.6
23.8
38.6
Sale of goods
and services
$m
2 447
943
2 597
478
217
258
60
7 000
%
34.3
19.4
39.0
21.4
16.6
40.6
23.1
30.3
Interest
$m
319
69
134
74
21
20
7
644
%
4.5
1.4
2.0
3.3
1.6
3.1
2.7
2.8
Current grants
and subsidies
$m
635
547
464
190
154
69
56
2 117
8.9
11.3
7.0
8.5
11.8
10.9
21.5
9.2
Other revenue
$m
1 124
779
1 656
564
128
81
76
4 407
%
15.7
16.0
24.9
25.2
9.8
12.8
29.2
19.1
Total
%
$m
7 138
4 856
6 659
2 234
1 305
635
260
23 088
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Notes: a The sums of all individual state jurisdictions may not agree with total state figures due to transfers between
jurisdictions.
Table 1.6: Local government revenue by source by jurisdiction, $ per capita, 2005–06
Revenue source
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Average
Taxation revenue
384.78
495.04
446.21
455.30
503.35
423.69
296.97
441.06
Sale of goods
and services
360.34
185.32
641.29
234.52
139.14
528.08
287.39
346.12
Interest
46.98
13.56
33.09
36.31
13.47
40.94
33.53
31.84
Current grants and
subsidies
93.51
107.50
114.58
93.22
98.75
141.23
268.23
104.68
Other revenue
Total
165.52
153.09
408.92
276.71
82.07
165.79
364.02
217.91
1 051.13
954.32
1 644.34
1 096.06
836.77
1 299.74
1 245.34
1 141.61
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no. 5512.0 and Australian Bureau of Statistics
unpublished data.
14
Rates in each state and the Northern Territory are based on a valuation of the land upon which they
are charged.
However, methods for assessing land value differ significantly between states (see Comparison of
land value assessments used to calculate rates charges). New South Wales and Queensland have
a statewide requirement that rates be based on the unimproved value of the land. Victoria, however,
operates on a differential system where different valuation assessments are used depending on the
type or the primary use of the land. In the Northern Territory a variety of systems may be used for rate
assessments and the way they are applied is at the discretion of the individual council.
Figure 1.2 shows the changes in rate revenue per capita, net of inflation, from 1998–99 to 2005–06.
Nationally rates increased in real terms by 12.8 per cent per capita during this period, although there
was significant variation between jurisdictions. Victoria had the greatest increase in real rates per
capita at 38.8 per cent, while in New South Wales, where rate increases are capped, rates fell in real
terms by 3.4 per cent.
Figure 1.2: Local government rate revenue per capita from 1998–99 to 2005–06, expressed in
1998–99 $, by jurisdiction
400
SA
Vic
380
360
$ per capita
340
Qld
320
WA
Aust
Tas
ACT
NSW
300
280
260
NT
240
220
200
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
2001–02 2002–03
Year
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Taxation Revenue, cat. no. 5506.0 and Australian Bureau of Statistics unpublished data.
15
COMPARISON OF LAND VALUE ASSESSMENTS USED TO CALCULATE RATES CHARGES
Property taxes, or rates, account for 39 per cent of the total revenue of local government
across Australia and are the only direct source of taxation revenue available to this sphere of
government. The methods by which rates are charged vary significantly between jurisdictions.
Exemptions are provided to Crown land, including defence land and national parks in all
jurisdictions. Charges for water and sewerage services for those jurisdictions where local
government provide these services are excluded from the comparison.
New South Wales rates are based on the unimproved value of the land. The structure of a rate
may also include a base amount or be subject to a minimum amount. The amount of income
that councils can raise through certain rates and charges is limited by the state government’s
rate-pegging legislation. Each year the government determines a percentage by which councils
can increase their income from the previous year. This limit does not apply to individual
rate assessments. Mandatory concessions are also provided for eligible pensioners. The
structure, rate-pegging and concessions are all designed to ameliorate the impact of increased
land values.
Councils in Victoria can choose between three valuation systems – capital improved value,
net annual value or site value. Differential rates, where different rates in the dollar are struck
for separate property classes, can be applied. Councils using net annual value or site value
to determine rates are limited to applying three differential rates. However, councils using
capital improved value can strike a wide range of differential rates, so long as the maximum
differential rate is no more than four times the level of the lowest differential. In addition,
councils must justify all differentials when they use the capital improved valuation system.
Generally, all rural land is assessed on a capital improved value basis and differentials may
be applied.
Queensland follows a similar approach to New South Wales for rates using the unimproved
value of the land as the basis for the rates. However, Queensland does not impose limits on
rate increases councils can apply.
Western Australia uses gross rental value of the land, that is, the amount that could
potentially be charged should it be made available for rent, as the basis for non-rural rates
charges. Rural land is predominantly assessed on the unimproved value of the land. However,
this can change depending on the extent of improvements or the primary use of the land.
Councils in South Australia, like Victorian councils, can use capital (improved) value, site
(unimproved) value or annual (gross rental) value of the property. There is no differentiation for
rural property, however, and 85 per cent of the state is unincorporated (that is, not included in
a council area).
16
The Northern Territory allows individual councils to determine the method and extent of rate
charges in the council area, although the calculation of rates is still based on the unimproved
capital value, the improved capital value or the annual rental value of the land. Rates can be
charged on a flat parcel rate, where all land is charged at the same rate regardless of use or
value. Alternatively, a differential rate similar to that used in Victoria, or a uniform rate can
also be used.
In Tasmania rates are also based on one of the three criteria used in South Australia and
Victoria. However, recent agreements in Tasmania between the state government and councils
means councils are now able to charge rates on selected state government-owned land. This will
increase the amount of revenue local governments can realise from rates.
The Australian Capital Territory uses the unimproved land value of the property, averaged
over the three previous years, to calculate rates. The calculation of rates for residential and
commercial properties differs to that for rural properties. For residential and commercial
properties, rates are determined as a fixed charge levied on all properties plus a rate charged
on the amount that the average unimproved land value exceeds a rate-free threshold. For rural
properties, a fixed charge is not applied. A differential rate applies for residential, commercial
and rural properties but the same rate-free threshold applies across the three property types.
Other revenue sources for local governing bodies
Local government received 30 per cent of its revenue in 2005–06 from the sale of goods and services.
Councils in Tasmania and Queensland received around 40 per cent of their revenue in 2005–06 from
these sources. This difference is likely to be because, in those states, local government is responsible
for providing water and sewerage services.
In 2005–06, $2 117 million in local government revenue came from grants, which represented
9.2 per cent of local government revenue.
Nationally, local government raised 90.8 per cent of its revenue from its own sources. Councils in the
Northern Territory are more reliant on government grants and subsidies than are councils in other
jurisdictions as they only raised 78.5 per cent of their own revenue. For the remaining states, the
proportion of revenue raised from own sources varied from 88.2 per cent for South Australian councils
to 93 per cent for Queensland councils.
17
Local government expenditure
Local government expenditure is dominated by housing and community amenities (23.8%) followed by
transport and communications (22.2%) and general public services (17.8%) (see Table 1.7).
Table 1.7: Local government expenditure by purpose, by jurisdiction, 2005–06
Expenditure
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Total
$m
1 307
556
1 258
187
174
90
82
3 655
%
20.7
12.2
22.9
9.8
13.7
15.1
24.2
17.8
$m
310
98
81
63
19
6
3
579
%
4.9
2.1
1.5
3.3
1.5
1.0
0.9
2.8
Education
$m
19
45
3
8
0
0
2
77
%
0.3
1.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.4
Health
$m
74
61
40
35
28
12
7
257
%
1.2
1.3
0.7
1.8
2.2
2.0
2.1
1.3
Social security and welfare
$m
308
733
58
87
65
22
10
1 283
4.9
16.1
1.1
4.6
4.1
3.7
2.9
6.3
Housing and community
amenities
$m
1 430
883
1 700
301
256
219
87
4 875
%
22.6
19.3
30.9
15.8
20.1
36.7
25.7
23.8
Recreation and culture
$m
950
813
559
427
230
64
29
3 073
%
15.0
17.8
10.2
22.4
18.1
10.7
8.6
15.0
1
0
3
0
10
0
1
15
0.0
0
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.3
0.1
3
2
26
3
14
0
2
51
%
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.2
1.1
0.0
0.6
0.2
Mining, manufacturing and
construction
$m
141
0
86
32
21
0
1
281
%
2.2
0.0
1.6
1.7
1.6
0.0
0.3
1.4
Transport and communication
$m
1 215
925
1 334
629
284
132
37
4 555
%
19.2
20.3
24.2
33.0
22.3
22.1
10.9
22.2
Other economic affairs
$m
247
206
127
37
63
16
77
774
%
3.9
4.5
2.3
1.9
4.9
2.7
22.7
3.8
Public debt transactions
$m
106
41
171
18
28
12
0
375
%
1.7
0.9
3.1
0.9
2.2
2.0
0.0
1.8
Other
$m
212
200
59
78
82
23
0
654
%
3.4
4.4
1.1
4.1
6.4
3.9
0.0
3.2
General public services
Public order and safety
%
Fuel and energy
$m
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
$m
%
Total
$m
6 324
4 565
5 504
1 905
1 273
596
339
20 505
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
18
Table 1.8 shows that, on a per capita basis, total local government expenditure averages $1014 and
varies from $816 in South Australia to $1624 in the Northern Territory. There are differences between
jurisdictions on expenditure per capita for expenditure categories. For instance:
© for general public services, expenditure in the Northern Territory is $393 per capita which is
considerably higher than the next highest of $311 per capita in Queensland and the national
average of $181 per capita
© Victoria’s expenditure on social security and welfare is $144 per capita which is considerably more
than expenditure in the other jurisdictions – the national average is $63
© Tasmania, Queensland and the Northern Territory record high per capita spending on housing and
community amenities
© councils in Western Australia spend $210 per capita on recreation and culture compared with the
national average of $152
© spending on transport and communication averages $225 per capita nationally with Queensland
the highest spender at $329 per capita, followed by Western Australia at $309 per capita.
State comparison of expenditure by purpose
Table 1.8: Local government expenditure by purpose, by jurisdiction, $ per capita, 2005–06
Expenditure
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Average
192.47
109.27
310.64
91.75
111.57
184.22
392.76
180.73
45.65
19.26
20.00
30.91
12.18
12.28
14.37
28.63
2.80
8.84
0.74
3.93
0.00
0.00
9.58
3.81
Health
10.90
11.99
7.41
17.17
17.95
24.56
33.53
12.71
14.32
42.68
41.68
45.03
47.90
63.44
Education
45.36
144.05
amenities
210.58
173.53
419.79
147.68
164.15
448.26
416.71
241.05
139.89
159.77
138.04
209.50
147.48
131.00
138.90
151.95
Fuel and energy
0.15
0.00
0.74
0.00
6.41
0.00
4.79
0.74
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
0.44
0.39
6.42
1.47
8.98
0.00
9.58
2.52
construction
Transport and communications
20.76
0.00
21.24
15.70
13.47
0.00
4.79
13.89
178.92
181.79
329.41
308.60
182.10
270.18
177.22
225.23
36.37
40.48
31.36
18.15
40.40
32.75
368.81
38.27
15.61
8.06
42.23
8.83
17.95
24.56
0.00
18.54
Other
31.22
39.30
14.57
38.27
52.58
47.08
0.00
32.34
Total
931.26
897.13 1359.13
934.64
816.25 1219.91
1623.73 1013.89
19
Figure 1.3: Local government expenditure by jurisdiction, 2005–06
100%
90%
80%
Mining, manufacturing and construction
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
Fuel and energy
Housing and community amenities
Health
Education
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
Aust
Grant funding
Australian Government
The Australian Government provides considerable financial assistance to local government through
financial assistance grants (see details in Appendix D), specific purpose payments and direct
program funding.
Specific purpose payments
Specific purpose payments to local governments from the Australian Government are either made
direct to local governing bodies (for example, Roads to Recovery funding) or through the states (for
example, local government financial assistance grants). Direct specific purpose payments to local
governments in 2005–06 amounted to $710.6 million (see Table 1.9). This assistance recognises
the work of local government in providing such services as childcare, care for the disabled and local
roads. Of the direct specific purpose payments paid to local governing authorities, $607.6 million
was provided under the Roads to Recovery program, which included supplementary funding of
$307.5 million, including $7.5 million for roads in unincorporated areas.
20
Other Australian Government program funding
In 2005–06, local government was eligible to apply for and receive funding from a wide range of
Australian Government programs, such as the Natural Heritage Trust, the AusLink Black Spot program,
the Australian Water Fund and the Regional Partnerships program. Generally, details of the funding
local governments receive under such programs are not readily accessible but see ‘Local government
funding under Regional Partnerships program’ for information on the number and value of local
government applications approved under this program in 2005–06.
The main specific purpose payments that provide funding through the states to local government
are the financial assistance grants. In 2005–06, the Australian Government provided around
$1618 million in local government financial assistance grants to local governing bodies. These grants
are administered through the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995. More information on
the means of distributing financial assistance grants is provided in Chapter 2.
Information about the range of Australian Government funding programs available to local government
can be found at <www.grantslink.gov.au>.
21
170 510
Roads to Recovery Program
0
Total capital
154 496
0
0
0
154 496
0
3 449
0
130 660
19 794
593
Vic.
148 076
0
0
0
148 076
0
10 844
2 200
125 998
8 361
673
Qld
93 677
0
0
0
93 677
0
637
0
90 228
2 812
0
WA
68 094
15 000
15 000
0
53 094
0
1 886
0
50 000
1 208
0
SA
25 699
108
0
108
25 591
3 225
0
0
20 000
2 366
0
Tas.
15 213
0
0
0
15 213
0
199
0
10 228
4 786
0
NT
11 326
0
0
0
11 326
0
1 326
0
10 000
0
0
ACT
Note: a The Children’s services payment to local governments includes both current and capital expenses. Prior to 2005–06 capital expenses were identified as a separate grant.
Source: Budget Paper No. 3, 2006–07.
194 035
0
South Australian State Aquatic Centre
Total direct payments
0
194 035
Development of sewerage schemes for
Boat Harbour and Sisters Beaches
Direct payments – capital
Total current
0
3 994
Regulation Reduction Incentive Fund
Strengthening Tasmania
0
Weipa Structural Adjustment Package
Children’s
19 340
191
NSW
servicesa
Disability services
Direct payments – current
Payment title
Table 1.9: Specific purpose payments from the Australian Government direct to local government, by jurisdiction, 2005–06 ($’000)
710 616
15 108
15 000
108
695 508
3 225
22 335
2 200
607 624
58 667
1 457
Total
22
Regional Partnerships is an Australian Government grants program that works in partnership
with communities, government and the private sector to foster development of self-reliant
communities and regions. Local government is eligible to apply for funding under the Regional
Partnerships program, which the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS)
administers.
The program targets initiatives under the four priorities of:
© strengthening growth and opportunities by investing in projects that strengthen and
provide greater opportunities for economic and social participation in the community
© improving access to services by investing in projects that, in a cost effective and
sustainable way, support communities to access services – it will give priority to
communities in regional Australia with a population of less than 5000
© supporting planning by investing in projects that help communities identify and explore
opportunities and develop strategies for action
© assisting structural adjustment by investing in projects that help specifically identified
communities and regions adjust to major economic, social or environmental change.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING UNDER REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
In 2005–06, about 43 per cent of the successful applications and 48 per cent of the value of
the grants approved under the Regional Partnerships program came from local government.
Table 1.10 shows the number and value of grants approved for local government by state
in 2005–06.
Table 1.10: Regional Partnership grants approved for local government in 2005–06 by
jurisdiction
Number of local
government grants
approved
Value of local
government grants
approved $m
NSW
40
7.23
Vic.
36
5.69
Qld
21
3.55
WAa
26
4.97
SA
6
0.80
Tas.
5
0.22
NT
2
0.29
136
22.75
State
Total
Note: a Includes approvals for the Indian Ocean Territories.
Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services unpublished data.
Further information on the program is available at <www.regionalpartnerships.gov.au>.
23
State and territory funding
The states and the Northern Territory offer a variety of grants to local government for specific purposes
and services. Table 1.11 details the grants made available to local government by purpose for
2004–05 using Australian Bureau of Statistics’ government finance statistics. This table also includes
Australian Government funding provided to local governing bodies through the states, including more
than $1618 million in Australian Government financial assistance grants provided in that year. The
remaining state grants are directed to a variety of purposes, reflecting the different functions required
of local governing bodies.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics data, the states provided $2132 million to local
government out of their own funds in 2004–05. On a per capita basis, state grants vary considerably
from $60.53 per capita in South Australia to $657.23 per capita in the Northern Territory.
Caution should be exercised when using the figures in Table 1.11 because the increase in states grants
for 2004–05 is around 84 per cent on 2003–04 whereas state grants for 2002–03 had decreased by
around 25 per cent on 2001–02. This degree of year-on-year variation is unexpected.
Table 1.11: Grants from states to local government by purpose, 2004–05 ($m)
Purpose
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Total
15
17
69
8
1
1
38
149
29
1
2
12
1
-
1
46
Education
10
23
1
2
-
-
1
37
Health
11
8
4
5
7
6
7
48
111
308
27
45
17
9
8
525
amenity
86
40
118
9
13
8
71
345
52
72
48
27
17
13
7
236
3
-
1
-
3
-
1
8
-
-
3
1
1
-
-
5
1
-
9
1
-
-
1
12
281
230
232
204
54
36
13
1 050
9
13
28
3
2
1
6
62
Fuel and energy
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting
construction
Other purposes
Total
448
274
177
106
89
27
-
1 121
1 056
986
719
423
205
101
154
3 644
Less Australian Government financial assistance grantsa
General purpose grants
358
263
205
105
82
26
11
1 050
Local road grants
137
98
89
72
26
25
11
458
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
4
561
625
425
246
93
50
132
2 132
83.12
125.18
108.25
123.37
60.53
103.35
657.23
107.23
Supplementary local road
funding
Net state grants
Net state grants per capita
Note: a These grants are included in the grants paid by states to local government although the purpose does not appear to be
reported consistently across states in the table. These are the amounts actually paid as they include the adjustment from the
previous year.
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics unpublished data, Department and Transport and Regional Services.
24
At 30 June 2006 local government in Australia had a net worth of $201 402 million, with assets of
$212 356 million and liabilities of $10 954 million (see Table 1.12). Compared to 30 June 2005, local
government assets grew by 3.46 per cent, while liabilities increased by 6.64 per cent.
At 30 June 2006, local government nationally appeared to be in a strong financial position with total
cash, deposits and lending exceeding gross debt. This continues the trend since 30 June 2000 of a net
surplus position for local governments nationally. As at 30 June 2006 and on a state basis, councils in
Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania had a net debt position while other states had a net surplus
(see Table 1.12).
Assets and liabilities
25
5 795
22
2 206
Net debt
Net financial worth
Note: These figures may not add to totals due to rounding
73 167
–3 333
Government finance statistics net worth
3 589
Other non-equity liabilities
Total
197
639
Other provisions
1 663
225
–662
43 690
1 608
432
84
363
621
10
98
45 297
76 756
158
43 464
477
42 988
1 833
20
423
708
2
680
Vic.
70 961
798
910
Total
Other non-financial assets
70 163
Total
Land and fixed assets
0
619
3 467
1
1 708
Equity
Other non-equity assets
Investments, loans and replacements
Advances paid
Cash and deposits
Unfunded superannuation liability and other employee entitlement
Borrowing
Advances received
Deposits held
Liabilities
Total
Non-financial assets
Financial assets
Assets
NSW
Table 1.12: Local government assets and liabilities, at 30 June 2006 ($m)
–1 218
555
51 958
4 221
742
37
459
2 981
0
3
56 178
53 176
196
52 980
3 002
0
574
340
0
2 088
Qld
590
–773
14 377
684
241
5
119
289
9
21
15 060
13 787
17
13 770
1 273
0
182
715
1
364
WA
–289
141
11 208
460
149
20
85
94
0
112
11 668
11 497
2
11 496
171
20
87
23
0
42
SA
15
–107
5 759
327
65
18
53
185
0
7
6 086
5 744
17
5 727
342
0
44
146
2
151
Tas.
120
–164
1 243
66
45
1
12
7
1
0
1 309
1 123
23
1 100
186
0
15
74
0
97
NT
1 650
–4 342
201 402
10 954
2 313
362
2 001
5 839
42
398
212 356
199 752
1 529
198 223
12 603
40
1 943
5 474
6
5 140
Total
26
Chapter 2
Financial assistance
grants to local
government
27
Chapter 2
Financial assistance grants
to local government
In 2005–06, the Australian Government provided $1618.5 million in financial assistance grants to 701
local governing bodies – an average of around $80 per capita or $2.31 million per local governing body.
Australian Government financial assistance grants to local government comprise a general purpose
grant and an identified local road grant. In 2005–06 the aggregate general purpose grant was
$1121.1 million – the aggregate identified local road grant was $497.5 million.
Both grants are paid through the states and territories on condition that they are passed on to local
government. The grants are untied in the hands of councils who are free to spend them according to
local priorities.
The purpose of the general purpose grant is to improve local governments’ capacity to provide their
communities with an equitable level of services as well as increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of
local governments.
General purpose grants commenced in 1974–75 with allocations in the 1974 and 1975 Budgets
distributed according to Commonwealth Grants Commission recommendations. This was followed, over
the next two decades, by developments in legislative arrangements for providing financial assistance to
local government. General purpose grants are currently provided under the Local Government (Financial
Assistance) Act 1995 (the Act), which replaced the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986
with effect from 1 July 1995.
The 1990 Special Premiers’ Conference determined that road grants for local government would be
provided in addition to general purpose grants from July 1991. These grants are intended to help
councils with the cost of maintaining their local roads but, as they are also untied, councils are not
specifically required to spend them on local roads.
In June 2005, the Australian Government provided its response to the report of the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration into local
government and cost shifting – Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government
(the Hawker Report). During 2005–06, the two Hawker Report recommendations relating to financial
assistance grant arrangements were implemented. These were:
© The formulation of an additional National Principle for allocating general purpose grants so that
councils formed as a result of amalgamation, would have their general purpose grant maintained
at the aggregate level of the general purpose grant which the amalgamating councils would have
received, for a period of four years after the amalgamation occurs. The additional Principle applies
from 1 July 2006 onward.
28
Commissioning the Commonwealth Grants Commission to review the inter-jurisdictional
distribution of the identified local road grant. The Commission provided its final report to the
Australian Government on 30 June 2006.
Current arrangements
In determining the distribution of grants to councils, the current arrangements are:
© Before the start of each financial year, the Australian Government estimates the quantum of
general purpose and local road grants that local government is entitled to nationally. This is
equal to the national grant entitlement for the previous financial year multiplied by the estimated
escalation factor of changes in population and the consumer price index (CPI).
© The states and territories are advised of their estimated quantum of general purpose and local
road grants, calculated in accordance with the Act.
© Local government grants commissions in each state and the Northern Territory recommend to
their local government minister the distribution of general purpose and local road grants among
local governing bodies in their jurisdiction.
© The state and territory local government ministers forward the recommendations of the local
government grants commission in their jurisdiction to the federal local government minister.
© When satisfied that all legislative requirements are met, the federal minister approves payment of
the recommended grants.
© The Australian Government pays the grants in quarterly instalments to the states and territories
that in turn pass them on to local governing bodies as untied grants without undue delay.
© When the actual changes in the CPI and population become available toward the end of the
financial year, an actual escalation factor is calculated and the actual grant entitlement is
determined.
© Any difference between the estimated and actual grant entitlements adjusts the estimated
allocation to local governing bodies in the following financial year.
©
More details on each step are given below.
Determining the quantum of the grant
Section 8 of the Act specifies the formula the Federal Treasurer is to apply each year for calculating
the escalation factor and determining the level of local government financial assistance grants. The
escalation factor compensates for changes in CPI and population, so that the value of the grants is
maintained in real per capita terms.
This formula was incorporated into the Act when the goods and services tax (GST) was introduced
in July 2000. Prior to this the states and territories received financial assistance grants and special
revenue assistance. The escalation factor for local government financial assistance grants was based
on the growth in these former grants to the states and territories in order to maintain the relativity
between state–territory and local government assistance.
The Act provides the Treasurer with discretion to increase or decrease the escalation factor in special
circumstances. In applying this discretion, the Treasurer is required to have regard to the objects of the
Act (see ‘Objects of the Act’) and any other matter the Treasurer thinks relevant. The same escalation
factor is applied to both the general purpose and local road grant.
29
OBJECTS OF THE ACT
Subsection 3(2) of the Act states the objects of the Act:
The Parliament wishes to provide financial assistance to the states for the purposes of
improving:
© the financial capacity of local governing bodies; and
© the capacity of local governing bodies to provide their residents with an equitable level of
services; and
© the certainty of funding for local governing bodies; and
© the efficiency and effectiveness of local governing bodies; and
© the provision by local governing bodies of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities.
Determining entitlements for 2005–06 and 2006–07
Calculation of the 2005–06 actual grant entitlement and 2006–07 estimated grant entitlement
using the final factor and estimated factor are set out in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 respectively. The basis for
calculating the final factor for 2005–06 is explained in ‘Determining the final factor for 2005–06’.
During 2005–06, the Australian Government paid to local government, through the states and
territories, the estimated financial assistance grant entitlement of $1616.8 million. This comprised
$1119.9 million in general purpose grants and $496.9 million in local road grants (see Table 2.1).
The 2005–06 final factor was calculated using the CPI for the year ending March 2006 and revised
population growth figures to December 2004. This resulted in the 2005–06 actual entitlement being
$1618.5 million, comprising $1121.1 million in general purpose grants and $497.5 million in local
road grants.
As the 2005–06 final factor was greater than the 2005–06 estimated factor, the actual entitlement for
2005–06 was $1.7 million more than the 2005–06 estimated entitlement. This difference comprised
$1.2 million in general purpose grants and $0.5 million in local road grants.
The estimated entitlement for 2006–07 is $1684.2 million comprising $1166.6 million in general
purpose grants and $517.7 million in local road grants (see Table 2.2). The actual cash the Australian
Government pays to local government in 2006–07 will be $1686.0 million. This consists of the
2006–07 estimated entitlement of $1684.2 million plus the $1.7 million by which the 2005–06 actual
entitlement exceeded the 2005–06 estimated entitlement (see Table 2.2).
In addition to the 2005–06 grants, the second instalment of supplementary funding to South
Australian councils for local roads over the three years to 2006–07 was also paid (see ‘Supplementary
funding to South Australian councils for local roads’).
30
As an interim response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics,
Finance and Public Administration inquiry, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible
Local Government, the Australian Government announced in March 2004 increased local road
funding for South Australian councils. South Australian councils received additional funding of
$4.25 million in 2004–05, $9 million in 2005–06 and will receive $13 million in 2006–07, to
address the state’s current disadvantage in local road funding.
The money is in addition to Australian Government funding for local roads provided to South
Australian councils through local government financial assistance grants and the Roads to
Recovery program.
The supplementary funding arrangements are outside the legislation governing the local
government financial assistance grants but the allocation and payment arrangements mirror
those under the financial assistance grants for local roads.
SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDING TO SOUTH AUSTRALIAN COUNCILS FOR LOCAL ROADS
31
$73 080 107
$26 266 894
$25 328 267
$11 196 025
$15 325 851
$477 955 558
Tas.
NT
ACT
Total
$89 551 360
Qld
WA
$98 537 149
SA
$138 669 905
NSW
Vic.
Local road
$1 077 132 883
$25 866 216
Tas.
Total
$82 442 403
SA
$10 713 889
$105 930 053
WA
$17 403 006
$207 097 211
Qld
ACT
$266 191 971
NT
$361 488 132
Vic.
$1 555 088 441
$477 955 558
$1 077 132 883
NSW
General purpose
Total
Local road
General purpose
2004–05
actual entitlement
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
=
=
=
1.0408
1.0408
1.0408
1.0408
1.0408
1.0408
1.0408
1.0408
1.0408
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
2005–06 final factor
20 207 319
324 229
200 844
483 813
1 536 333
1 993 926
3 926 210
4 992 667
6 749 297
31 Dec 2004 population
1.0408
1.0408
1.0408
2005–06
final factor
$497 456 145
$15 951 146
$11 652 823
$26 361 660
$27 338 583
$76 061 775
$93 205 055
$102 557 465
$144 327 637
$1 121 079 905
$17 987 869
$11 142 605
$26 841 415
$85 234 071
$110 620 829
$217 821 816
$276 987 692
$374 443 598
$1 618 536 049
$497 456 145
$1 121 079 905
2005–06
actual entitlement
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
$496 930 394
$15 934 287
$11 640 508
$26 333 800
$27 309 689
$75 981 387
$93 106 549
$102 449 074
$144 175 100
$1 119 895 058
$17 953 323
$11 117 168
$26 794 504
$85 148 976
$110 644 427
$217 005 349
$276 955 194
$374 276 117
$1 616 825 452
$496 930 394
$1 119 895 058
2005–06 estimated
entitlement
Table 2.1: Calculation of financial assistance grants actual entitlements and adjustments for 2005–06
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
$525 751
$16 859
$12 315
$27 860
$28 894
$80 388
$98 506
$108 391
$152 537
$1 184 847
$34 546
$25 437
$46 911
$85 095
–$23 598
$816 477
$32 498
$167 481
$1 710 597
$525 751
$1 184 847
2005–06
adjustment
32
$17 987 869
$1 121 079 905
ACT
Total
$144 327 637
$102 557 465
$93 205 055
$76 061 775
$27 338 583
$26 361 660
$11 652 823
$15 951 146
$497 456 145
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
ACT
Total
Local road
$26 841 415
$11 142 605
NT
$85 234 071
SA
Tas.
$217 821 816
$110 620 829
WA
$276 987 692
Vic.
Qld
$374 443 598
$1 618 536 049
$497 456 145
$1 121 079 905
NSW
General purpose
Total
Local road
General purpose
2005–06
actual entitlement
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
=
=
=
1.0406
1.0406
1.0406
1.0406
1.0406
1.0406
1.0406
1.0406
1.0406
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
2006–07 estimated factor
20 449 654
326 671
204 453
487 185
1 546 274
2 028 668
4 001 023
5 052 377
6 803 003
31 Dec 2005 population
1.0406
1.0406
1.0406
2006–07
estimated factor
$517 652 864
$16 598 762
$12 125 927
$27 431 944
$28 448 530
$79 149 883
$96 989 181
$106 721 298
$150 187 339
$1 166 595 749
$18 635 670
$11 663 474
$27 792 546
$88 210 621
$115 729 854
$228 247 208
$288 224 022
$388 092 355
$1 684 248 613
$517 652 864
$1 166 595 749
2006–07 estimated
entitlement
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
2005–06
adjustment
$525 751
$16 859
$12 315
$27 860
$28 894
$80 388
$98 506
$108 391
$152 537
$1 184 847
$34 546
$25 437
$46 911
$85 095
–$23 598
$816 477
$32 498
$167 481
$1 710 597
$525 751
$1 184 847
Table 2.2: Calculation of financial assistance grants estimated entitlements and cash grant paid for 2006–07
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
$518 178 615
$16 615 621
$12 138 242
$27 459 804
$28 477 424
$79 230 272
$97 087 687
$106 829 688
$150 339 876
$1 167 780 595
$18 670 216
$11 688 911
$27 839 457
$88 295 715
$115 706 255
$229 063 685
$288 256 520
$388 259 836
$1 685 959 210
$518 178 615
$1 167 780 595
2006–07
actual grant paid
33
DETERMINING THE FINAL FACTOR FOR 2005–06
Under section 8 of the Act, the final factor for 2005–06 is calculated as:
Final factor =
Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2004
Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2003
X
CPI at March 2006
CPI at March 2005
That is:
20 207 319
Final factor =
151.9
X
19 995 127
=
1.0408
147.5
The increase in the CPI over this period was 2.98 per cent.
VARIATIONS IN REPORTED GRANTS
Each year, the quantum of the grant to local government is estimated before the start of the
financial year, using a formula based on forecasts of the CPI and population increases for
the year. Councils are usually advised in August of their estimated grant entitlement for that
financial year.
At the end of each year the actual (or final) grant for local government is calculated using the
final CPI and population figures.
Inevitably there is a difference between the estimated and actual grant entitlements. This
difference is added to or subtracted from the grant paid in the following year.
Consequently, each council has three different, reported grants: an estimated grant
entitlement, an actual grant entitlement and the cash grant paid.
The Australian Government normally reports on the actual grant entitlement.
Inter-jurisdictional distribution of the grants
The Act specifies that national allocation of the general purpose component of the grant is to be
divided among the jurisdictions on a per capita basis. The allocation is based on the Australian Bureau
of Statistics’ (ABS) estimate of each jurisdiction’s population and the estimated population of all states
and territories as at 31 December of the previous year.
By contrast, each jurisdiction’s share of the local road component of the grant is fixed. The distribution
is based on shares determined from the former, tied grant arrangements (see ‘History of the Interstate
Distribution of Local Road Grants’ in the 2001–02 Local Government National Report, pp. 25–6).
Therefore the local road grant share for each state and territory is obtained by multiplying the previous
year’s funding by the escalation factor determined by the Treasurer.
Table 2.3 shows the allocation of the actual entitlement for 2005–06 among the jurisdictions while
Table 2.4 shows the allocation of the estimated entitlements for 2006–07 among jurisdictions.
Table 2.4 also shows the percentage change in the grants from 2005–06 to 2006–07.
34
1.0
11 142 605
1.6
100.0
33.4
24.7
19.4
9.9
7.6
2.4
17 987 869
1 121 079 905
% of total
$
374 443 598
276 987 692
217 821 826
110 620 829
85 234 071
26 841 415
55.48
55.48
55.48
55.48
55.48
55.48
55.48
55.48
55.48
$ per capita
$
15 951 146
497 456 145
11 652 823
144 327 637
102 557 465
93 205 055
76 061 775
27 338 583
26 361 660
3.2
100.0
2.3
29.0
20.6
18.7
15.3
5.5
5.3
% of total
49.20
24.62
58.02
21.38
20.54
23.74
38.15
17.79
54.49
$ per capita
Local road grant
$
33 939 015
1 618 536 049
22 795 428
518 771 235
379 545 156
311 026 882
186 682 604
112 572 654
53 203 075
2.1
100.0
1.4
32.3
23.5
18.9
11.5
7.0
3.3
% of total
104.68
80.10
113.50
76.86
76.02
79.22
93.63
73.27
109.97
$ per capita
Total grant
3.65
4.06
388 092 355
288 224 022
228 247 208
115 729 854
88 210 621
27 792 546
11 663 474
18 635 670
1 116 595 749
State
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
ACT
Total
57.05
57.05
57.05
57.05
57.05
57.05
57.05
57.05
57.05
$ per capita
$
79 149 883
28 448 530
27 431 944
12 125 927
16 598 762
517 652 864
96 989 181
150 187 339
106 721 298
Note: ABS estimate of jurisdictions’ populations as at 31 December 2005 used.
Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services.
4.62
3.49
3.54
4.67
3.60
4.06
4.79
% change
$
General purpose grant
4.06
4.06
4.06
4.06
4.06
4.06
4.06
4.06
4.06
% change
39.02
18.40
56.31
59.31
50.81
25.31
24.24
22.08
21.12
$ per capita
Local road grant
197 879 737
116 659 151
55 224 490
23 789 401
35 234 432
1 684 248 613
325 236 388
538 279 694
394 945 320
$
4.39
3.63
3.80
4.36
3.82
4.06
4.57
3.76
4.06
% change
96.06
75.45
113.35
116.36
107.86
82.36
81.29
79.12
78.17
$ per capita
Total grant
Table 2.4: 2006–07 allocations of estimated grant entitlement among jurisdictions and percentage change from 2005–06 actual grant allocation
Note: ABS estimate of jurisdictions’ populations as at 31 December 2004 used.
ACT
Total
NT
State
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
General purpose grant
Table 2.3: 2005–06 allocations of general purpose and local road grants among jurisdictions
35
Quantum of financial assistance grants allocations
Table 2.5 shows the aggregate level of financial assistance grants since the Australian Government’s
provision of general purpose grants in 1974–75 and local road grants in 1991–92.
Table 2.5: National financial assistance grant allocation, 1974–75 to 2006–07 ($)
Year
Local road grants
Total grants
56 345 000
1974–75
56 345 000
n/a
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
1 164 725 902
1995–96d
806 748 051
357 977 851
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
2006–07e
Total
36
1 166 595 749
517 652 864
1 684 248 613
21 115 665 488
6 379 819 318
27 495 484 806
Notes:
a Grants to the Northern Territory under the program commenced in 1979–80, with the initial allocation being $1 061 733.
b Prior to 1991–92 local road grants were provided as tied grants under different legislation.
c In 1992–93 part of the road grant entitlement of the Tasmanian and Northern Territory Governments was reallocated to local
government in these jurisdictions.
d Grants to the Australian Capital Territory under the program commenced in 1995–96, with the initial allocation being
$13 572 165 in general purpose grants and $11 478 714 in local road grants.
e For 2006–07 the national grant allocation is the estimated entitlement.
Table 2.6: Financial assistance grant allocation New South Wales and Victoria, 1974–75 to 2006–07 ($)
New South Wales
Victoria
General
Purpose
Local
Roads
Total
General
Purpose
Local
Roads
Total
1974–75
21 359 000
n/a
21 359 000
14 630 000
n/a
14 630 000
1975–76
29 257 000
n/a
29 257 000
20 312 000
n/a
20 312 000
1976–77
51 289 000
n/a
51 289 000
35 468 600
n/a
35 468 600
1977–78
60 340 931
n/a
60 340 931
42 078 134
n/a
42 078 134
1978–79
65 486 695
n/a
65 486 695
45 666 481
n/a
45 666 481
Year
1979–80
80 929 752
n/a
80 929 752
56 435 540
n/a
56 435 540
1980–81
109 779 936
n/a
109 779 936
76 553 922
n/a
76 553 922
1981–82
128 057 666
n/a
128 057 666
89 299 711
n/a
89 299 711
1982–83
154 927 736
n/a
154 927 736
108 037 282
n/a
108 037 282
1983–84
167 646 577
n/a
167 646 577
116 906 845
n/a
116 906 845
1984–85
177 574 178
n/a
177 574 178
123 830 000
n/a
123 830 000
1985–86
195 615 163
n/a
195 615 163
136 410 246
n/a
136 410 246
1986–87
213 494 563
n/a
213 494 563
148 878 143
n/a
148 878 143
1987–88
227 059 137
n/a
227 059 137
164 548 774
n/a
164 548 774
1988–89
229 435 312
n/a
229 435 312
172 725 885
n/a
172 725 885
1989–90
237 124 234
n/a
237 124 234
177 280 482
n/a
177 280 482
1990–91
243 137 531
n/a
243 137 531
182 407 518
n/a
182 407 518
1991–92
247 707 366
93 633 681
341 341 047
186 197 935
66 534 962
252 732 897
1992–93
253 334 827
95 609 352
348 944 179
189 309 696
67 938 844
257 248 540
1993–94
255 411 779
96 536 763
351 948 542
190 179 525
68 597 851
258 777 376
1994–95
261 208 114
99 056 373
360 264 487
193 768 749
70 388 255
264 157 004
1995–96
273 496 587
103 860 607
377 357 194
201 850 238
73 802 085
275 652 323
1996–97
282 395 260
107 329 551
389 724 811
207 462 279
76 267 075
283 729 354
1997–98
282 122 341
107 222 222
389 344 563
207 111 178
76 190 808
283 301 986
1998–99
289 122 909
109 967 111
399 090 020
212 348 975
78 141 293
290 490 268
1999–00
297 893 674
113 365 094
411 258 768
218 827 409
80 555 859
299 383 268
2000–01
310 670 281
118 421 178
429 091 459
228 730 976
84 148 650
312 879 626
2001–02
327 747 092
124 342 237
452 089 329
239 054 282
88 356 082
327 410 364
2002–03
341 069 580
129 751 124
470 820 704
249 588 630
92 199 572
341 788 202
2003–04
350 627 269
133 851 259
484 478 528
257 091 395
95 113 078
352 204 473
2004–05
361 488 132
138 669 905
500 158 037
266 191 972
98 537 149
364 729 121
2005–06
374 443 598
144 327 637
518 771 235
276 987 692
102 557 465
379 545 157
2006–07
388 092 355
150 187 339
538 279 694
288 224 022
106 721 298
394 945 320
7 289 345 575
1 866 131 433
9 155 477 008
5 324 394 516
1 326 050 326
6 650 444 842
Total
Tables 2.6 to 2.9 provide the level of general purpose grants, local road grants and total financial
assistance grants for all jurisdictions over the years from 1974–75 to 2006–07.
Notes: All years are actual entitlement, other than 2006–07, which is estimated entitlement. These figures may not add to
totals due to rounding.
Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services
37
Table 2.7: Financial assistance grant allocation Queensland and Western Australia,
1974–75 to 2006–07 ($)
Year
General
Purpose
Queensland
Local
Roads
Total
General
Purpose
Western Australia
Local
Roads
1974–75
8 954 000
n/a
8 954 000
4 959 000
1975–76
13 808 000
n/a
13 808 000
7 524 000
n/a
7 524 000
1976–77
24 222 000
n/a
24 222 000
13 161 816
n/a
13 161 816
1977–78
27 875 299
n/a
27 875 299
15 523 354
n/a
15 523 354
1978–79
30 252 454
n/a
30 252 454
16 847 933
n/a
16 847 933
1979–80
37 386 580
n/a
37 386 580
20 821 241
n/a
20 821 241
1980–81
50 714 307
n/a
50 714 307
28 242 416
n/a
28 242 416
1981–82
59 157 949
n/a
59 157 949
32 945 034
n/a
32 945 034
1982–83
71 570 937
n/a
71 570 937
39 857 990
n/a
39 857 990
1983–84
77 446 000
n/a
77 446 000
43 130 222
n/a
43 130 222
1984–85
82 032 000
n/a
82 032 000
45 684 607
n/a
45 684 607
1985–86
90 367 037
n/a
90 367 037
50 325 575
n/a
50 325 575
1986–87
98 626 832
n/a
98 626 832
54 925 137
n/a
54 925 137
1987–88
106 030 020
n/a
106 030 020
58 837 140
n/a
58 837 140
1988–89
108 321 525
n/a
108 321 525
59 891 670
n/a
59 891 670
1989–90
114 988 733
n/a
114 988 733
64 821 073
n/a
64 821 073
1990–91
120 398 500
n/a
120 398 500
67 718 037
n/a
67 718 037
1991–92
124 163 651
60 467 508
184 631 159
69 651 273
49 299 429
118 950 702
n/a
Total
4 959 000
1992–93
127 925 415
61 743 372
189 668 787
70 387 416
49 921 719
120 309 135
1993–94
130 943 690
62 342 283
193 285 973
71 131 362
50 875 617
122 006 979
1994–95
136 832 627
63 969 417
200 802 044
73 171 707
52 203 471
125 375 178
1995–96
145 471 393
67 071 934
212 543 327
77 140 038
54 735 339
131 875 377
1996–97
152 162 257
69 312 136
221 474 393
80 151 892
56 563 500
136 715 392
1997–98
152 536 153
69 242 824
221 778 977
80 589 237
56 506 936
137 096 173
1998–99
157 152 792
71 015 440
228 168 232
83 128 999
57 953 514
141 082 513
1999–00
162 692 473
73 209 818
235 902 291
86 223 641
59 744 277
145 967 918
2000–01
170 764 708
76 474 975
247 239 683
90 349 594
62 408 872
152 758 466
2001–02
179 769 293
80 298 724
260 068 017
94 473 299
65 529 316
160 002 615
2002–03
189 108 056
83 791 719
272 899 775
98 770 852
68 379 841
167 150 693
172 478 358
2003–04
197 578 336
86 439 537
284 017 873
101 937 714
70 540 644
2004–05
207 097 211
89 551 360
296 648 571
105 930 054
73 080 107
179 010 161
2005–06
217 821 826
93 205 055
311 026 881
110 620 829
76 061 775
186 682 604
2006–07
Total
228 247 207
96 989 181
325 236 388
115 729 854
79 149 883
194 879 737
3 802 419 261
1 205 125 283
5 007 544 544
2 034 604 006
982 954 240
3 017 558 246
Notes: All years are actual entitlement, other than 2006–07, which is estimated entitlement. These figures may not add
to totals due to rounding.
38
Year
1974–75
General
Purpose
South Australia
Local
Roads
4 774 000
n/a
Total
General
Purpose
Tasmania
Local
Roads
Total
4 774 000
1 669 000
n/a
1 669 000
1975–76
6 785 000
n/a
6 785 000
2 292 000
n/a
2 292 000
1976–77
11 925 000
n/a
11 925 000
4 003 715
n/a
4 003 715
5 290 026
1977–78
14 219 864
n/a
14 219 864
5 290 026
n/a
1978–79
15 432 508
n/a
15 432 508
5 740 799
n/a
5 740 799
1979–80
19 071 685
n/a
19 071 685
7 094 660
n/a
7 094 660
1980–81
25 871 095
n/a
25 871 095
9 624 447
n/a
9 624 447
1981–82
30 177 901
n/a
30 177 901
11 226 299
n/a
11 226 299
1982–83
36 510 067
n/a
36 510 067
13 581 791
n/a
13 581 791
1983–84
39 505 443
n/a
39 505 443
14 697 123
n/a
14 697 123
1984–85
41 847 000
n/a
41 847 000
15 567 670
n/a
15 567 670
1985–86
46 098 412
n/a
46 098 412
17 149 296
n/a
17 149 296
1986–87
50 311 534
n/a
50 311 534
18 716 562
n/a
18 716 562
1987–88
55 109 160
n/a
55 109 160
19 132 720
n/a
19 132 720
1988–89
57 348 225
n/a
57 348 225
18 529 695
n/a
18 529 695
1989–90
58 496 405
n/a
58 496 405
18 564 650
n/a
18 564 650
1990–91
60 044 007
n/a
60 044 007
19 022 141
n/a
19 022 141
1991–92
61 179 809
17 736 120
78 915 929
19 377 443
11 943 174
31 320 617
1992–93
62 001 234
18 110 352
80 111 586
20 007 535
17 463 193
37 470 728
1993–94
62 270 167
18 286 022
80 556 189
20 097 662
17 632 586
37 730 248
1994–95
63 595 866
18 763 287
82 359 153
20 473 191
18 092 796
38 565 987
1995–96
66 201 393
19 673 306
85 874 699
21 273 030
18 970 297
40 243 327
1996–97
67 713 844
20 330 395
88 044 239
21 710 494
19 603 905
41 314 399
1997–98
66 758 105
20 310 064
87 068 169
21 438 387
19 584 301
41 022 688
1998–99
68 005 311
20 830 002
88 835 313
21 683 676
20 085 659
41 769 335
1999–00
69 591 120
21 473 649
91 064 769
22 002 166
20 706 306
42 708 472
2000–01
72 250 229
22 431 374
94 681 603
22 731 964
21 629 807
44 361 771
2001–02
75 398 572
23 552 943
98 951 515
23 564 215
22 711 297
46 275 512
2002–03
78 225 421
24 577 496
102 802 917
24 365 180
23 699 239
48 064 419
2003–04
80 126 728
25 354 144
105 480 872
24 962 320
24 448 134
49 410 454
2004–05
82 442 403
26 266 894
108 709 297
25 866 216
25 328 267
51 194 483
2005–06
85 234 071
27 338 583
112 572 654
26 841 415
26 361 660
53 203 075
2006–07
88 210 621
28 448 530
116 659 151
27 792 546
27 431 944
55 224 490
1 722 732 200
353 483 161
2 076 215 361
566 090 034
335 692 565
901 782 599
Total
Table 2.8: Financial assistance grant allocation South Australia and Tasmania,
1974–75 to 2006–07 ($)
Notes: All years are actual entitlement, other than 2006–07, which is estimated entitlement. These figures may not add
to totals due to rounding.
39
Table 2.9: Financial assistance grant allocation Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory,
1974–75 to 2006–07 ($)
Year
Northern Territory
Australian Capital Territory
General
Purpose
Local Roads
General
Purpose
Local Roads
Total
1974–75
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1975–76
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1976–77
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1977–78
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1978–79
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1979–80
1 061 733
n/a
1 061 733
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total
1980–81
1 440 224
n/a
1 440 224
n/a
n/a
n/a
1981–82
1 680 013
n/a
1 680 013
n/a
n/a
n/a
1982–83
2 032 527
n/a
2 032 527
n/a
n/a
n/a
1983–84
2 198 970
n/a
2 198 970
n/a
n/a
n/a
1984–85
2 295 910
n/a
2 295 910
n/a
n/a
n/a
1985–86
2 566 313
n/a
2 566 313
n/a
n/a
n/a
1986–87
5 475 037
n/a
5 475 037
n/a
n/a
n/a
1987–88
6 000 426
n/a
6 000 426
n/a
n/a
n/a
1988–89
6 247 688
n/a
6 247 688
n/a
n/a
n/a
1989–90
6 464 283
n/a
6 464 283
n/a
n/a
n/a
1990–91
6 564 254
n/a
6 564 254
n/a
n/a
n/a
1991–92
6 692 011
3 559 860
10 251 871
n/a
n/a
n/a
1992–93
7 155 926
7 719 373
14 875 299
n/a
n/a
n/a
1993–94
7 169 311
7 794 251
14 963 562
n/a
n/a
n/a
1994–95
7 395 765
7 997 681
15 393 446
n/a
n/a
n/a
1995–96
7 743 207
8 385 569
16 128 776
13 572 165
11 478 714
25 050 879
1996–97
8 106 153
8 665 647
16 771 800
13 991 255
11 862 103
25 853 358
1997–98
8 356 940
8 656 981
17 013 921
13 947 401
11 850 241
25 797 642
1998–99
8 636 642
8 878 600
17 515 242
14 101 647
12 153 607
26 255 254
1999–00
8 938 475
9 152 948
18 091 423
14 406 184
12 529 153
26 935 337
28 056 603
2000–01
9 382 393
9 561 170
18 943 563
14 968 649
13 087 954
2001–02
9 903 259
10 039 228
19 942 487
15 931 221
13 742 351
29 673 572
2002–03
10 198 709
10 475 935
20 674 644
16 528 900
14 340 144
30 869 044
2003–04
10 424 540
10 806 974
21 231 514
16 955 252
14 793 292
31 748 544
2004–05
10 713 889
11 196 025
21 909 914
17 403 006
15 325 851
32 728 857
2005–06
11 142 605
11 652 823
22 795 428
17 987 869
15 951 146
33 939 015
2006–07
11 663 474
12 125 927
23 789 401
18 635 670
16 598 762
35 234 432
187 650 677
146 668 992
334 319 669
188 429 219
167 713 318
352 142 537
Total
Notes: All years are actual entitlement, other than 2006–07, which is estimated entitlement. These figures may not add to
totals due to rounding.
40
The Act requires the federal minister to formulate National Principles in consultation with state and
territory ministers and a body or bodies representative of local government. The National Principles
provide guidance for the states and the Northern Territory in allocating the financial assistance grants
to councils within their jurisdiction. The National Principles are set out in full in Appendix A.
The National Principles came into effect from 1996–97. In 2005–06 the federal minister formulated an
additional National Principle to take effect from 1 July 2006, with respect to councils formed as a result
of amalgamation.
The National Principles applying to the general purpose component provide additional criteria to the
objectives of full horizontal equalisation and the minimum grant which are established in the Act (see
‘What is horizontal equalisation?’ and ‘What is the Minimum Grant?’). These principles are the:
Principles for determining the distribution of grants within
jurisdictions
1. Horizontal Equalisation principle, which seeks to ensure that councils in a jurisdiction are, by
reasonable effort, able to provide the average range, level and quality of services, while taking
account of differences in councils’ capacities to raise revenue and their expenditure needed to
provide average services. The effect of distributing general purpose grants between jurisdictions
on a per capita basis means councils in different jurisdictions may be brought up to different
fiscal levels.
2. Effort Neutrality principle, which requires that a council’s grant be independent of its policies. This
means the grant to a particular council is not influenced by that council’s actual rates charged,
its actual expenditure on particular functions or the extent of its reserves or debt. This process
allows a council to decide its own spending priorities and revenue-raising policies knowing that the
decisions it takes will not affect its grant entitlement.
3. Minimum Grant principle, which ensures that each council receives at least a minimum level
of general purpose assistance as required by the Act. This minimum is set at 30 per cent of a
council’s per capita share of general purpose grants.
4. Other Grant Support principle, which requires other grants provided to a council by another
sphere of government for provision of services to be regarded like any other source of revenue
and taken into account when assessing the overall financial capacity of each council. In assessing
each council’s financial capacity, local road grants provided under this Act should be included as
well as any other grants that relate to provision of local government services that are within the
scope of services covered by the grant allocation process.
5. Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders principle, which seeks to address the specific
needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in provision of council services. The
principle requires that the level of grants councils receive should reflect the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander population within council boundaries. This means that calculation of the grant for
councils should reflect differences in the demand for services by Indigenous people, the cost of
providing services to them and the capacity to raise revenue from them.
6. Amalgamation principle, which seeks to ensure that councils formed as a result of amalgamation
will receive at least the quantum of the aggregate general purpose grant that the former
amalgamating councils would have received, for a period of four years after amalgamation occurs.
This principle applies to the allocation of general purpose grants from 2006–07 onward.
41
WHAT IS HORIZONTAL EQUALISATION?
Horizontal equalisation would be achieved if every council in a state, by means of reasonable
revenue-raising effort, were able to afford to provide a similar range and quality of services.
The Australian Government pursues a policy of horizontal equalisation when it distributes GST
revenue to state and territory governments.
More formally, section 6(3) of the Act defines horizontal equalisation as being an allocation of
funds that:
a) ensures each local governing body in a state is able to function, by reasonable effort, at a
standard not lower than the average standard of other local governing bodies in the state;
and
b) takes account of differences in the expenditure required to be incurred by local governing
bodies in the performance of their functions and in their capacity to raise revenue.
Distribution of grants on the basis of horizontal equalisation is determined by estimating the cost
each council would incur in providing a normal range and standard of services, and estimating
the revenue each council could obtain through the normal range and standard of rates and
charges. The grant is then allocated to compensate for variations in expenditure and revenue to
(ideally) bring all councils up to the same level of financial capacity.
This means councils that would incur higher relative costs in providing normal services, for
example, in remote areas (where transport costs are higher), or areas with a higher proportion
of elderly or pre-school aged people (where there will be more demand for specific services) will
receive relatively more grant monies. Similarly, councils with a strong rate base (highly valued
residential properties, high proportion of industrial and/or commercial property) will tend to
receive relatively less grant monies.
WHAT IS THE MINIMUM GRANT?
Section 6(2)(b) of the Act requires the minister to ensure that:
No local governing body in a State will be allocated an amount under section 9 (the general
purpose component of the grant) in a year that is less than the amount that would be allocated to
the body if 30 per cent of the amount to which the State is entitled under that section in respect
of the year were allocated among local governing bodies in the State on a per capita basis.
There is one National Principle applying to the Identified Road Component. It requires distribution
of this component on the basis of road expenditure needs, including consideration of factors such as
length, type and use of roads.
42
Under sections 11 and 14 of the Act financial assistance grants can only be paid to jurisdictions (other
than the Australian Capital Territory) which have established local government grants commissions
(see ‘Local government grants commissions’). In the Australian Capital Territory, local government
is integrated with the Territory Government and there is no role for a commission. The grants
commissions make recommendations, in accordance with the National Principles, on the quantum of
financial assistance grants allocated to individual councils.
The states and the Northern Territory determine the membership of and provide resources for their
respective local government grants commissions.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSIONS
Determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions
Section 6 of the Act specifies the eligibility criteria a body must satisfy to be recognised as a
local government grants commission. These criteria are:
© the body is established by a law of a state or the Northern Territory
© the principal function of the body is to make recommendations to the state or territory
government about provision of financial assistance to local governing bodies in the state
or territory
© the federal minister is satisfied that the body includes at least two people who are or have
been associated with local government in the state or territory, whether as members of a
local governing body or otherwise.
Sections 11 and 14 of the Act require local government grants commissions to:
© hold public hearings in connection with their recommended grant allocations
© permit local governing bodies to make submissions to the commission in relation to the
recommendations
© make their recommendations in accordance with the National Principles.
The legislation establishing grants commissions in each state and the Northern Territory is:
New South Wales
Part 11 of Chapter 15 of the Local Government Act 1993
Victoria
Victoria Grants Commission Act 1976
Queensland
Part 3 of Chapter 3 of the Local Government Act 1993
Western Australia
Local Government Grants Act 1978
South Australia
South Australian Local Government Grants Commission Act 1992
Tasmania
State Grants Commission Act 1976
Northern Territory
Local Government Grants Commission Act 1995
43
Once each local government grants commission determines the recommended allocation of grants
to councils in its jurisdiction, the relevant state or territory minister recommends the allocation to the
federal minister for approval. The Act requires that the federal minister is satisfied that the state or
territory has adopted the recommendations of its local government grants commission.
Section 15 of the Act requires that, as a condition for paying the grants to the states and the Northern
Territory, that the states and the Northern Territory must pay the grants to local government without
undue delay and without conditions, thus giving councils discretion to use the funds for local priorities.
Further, the state and Northern Territory treasurers must give the federal minister, as soon as
practicable after 30 June each year, a statement detailing payments made to councils during the
previous financial year as well as the date the payments were made. The respective Auditor-General
from each jurisdiction must certify the statement.
The grants are paid to the states and the Northern Territory in equal instalments in the middle of each
quarter. The first payment for a financial year is paid as soon as statutory conditions are met. One of
the requirements of the Act is that the first payment cannot be made before 15 August.
Bodies eligible to receive financial assistance grants
Only local governing bodies are entitled to receive financial assistance grants. All councils constituted
under state and territory local government Acts are automatically local governing bodies. In addition,
section 4(2) of the Act provides for ‘a body declared by the minister, on the advice of the relevant state
minister, by notice published in the Gazette, to be a local governing body for the purposes of this Act’.
In total, 701 local governing bodies received grants in 2005–06. Included in this figure were 37
declared local governing bodies, made eligible under this provision. Table 2.10 shows the distribution of
declared bodies by state.
Table 2.10: Distribution of local governing bodies by type by state at June 2006
Type
Councils established by legislationa
Declared
Total
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NTb
Total
152
79
157
142
68
29
36
663
3
1
0
0
6
0
27
37
155
80
157
142
74
29
63
700
Notes: a These are local governing bodies, eligible under section 4(2)(a) of the Act, as they are constituted under state local
government Acts. b Includes the Northern Territory Road Trust Account.
The Shires of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands are part of Australia’s Indian Ocean
Territories. They are not entitled to receive funding under the Act but receive the equivalent of financial
assistance grant payments. For an explanation of the arrangements for these councils see ‘Funding of
councils in Australia’s Indian Ocean Territories’.
44
Under an arrangement between the Australian and Western Australian governments, the
Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission provides an annual assessment
of the general purpose and local road grants for the Shires of Christmas Island and Cocos
(Keeling) Islands. The commission determines the grant allocation as if these councils were
a council in Western Australia. This is done on the basis that funding from the Australian
Government for these territories should allow them to provide services that align with similar
communities in Western Australia.
On the basis of these assessments, the Australian Government funds these councils from a
separate Budget appropriation to that provided under the Act.
The amounts provided in 2005–06 were:
© Christmas Island Shire Council – $1 925 720 in general purpose grants and $245 840 in
local road grants
© Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council – $1 146 293 in general purpose grants and
$73 321 in local road grants.
FUNDING OF COUNCILS IN AUSTRALIA’S INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORIES
Local government grants commissions’ methods
The respective local government grants commissions recommended allocation of the 2005–06 grants
to councils in their jurisdiction in accordance with the National Principles while taking into account local
circumstances.
In recommending allocation of general purpose grants to councils in their jurisdictions, grants
commissions assess the amount each council would need to be able to provide a standard range and
quality of services, while raising revenue from a standard range of rates and other income sources.
The commissions then develop recommendations for grant distribution by allocating the available
grant to councils taking account of their assessed grant need, and the minimum grant requirement.
The recommended allocation of the local road component is based on commissions’ assessments of
councils’ road expenditure need.
These are difficult tasks, requiring considerable experience and judgement. Grants commissions need
to accurately and quantitatively assess the unique circumstances of a large number of councils in their
jurisdiction in terms of providing a variety of services and raising a number of revenues.
Local government grants commissions meet annually at a national conference to share insights and
discuss common issues. The 2005 conference was held at Fremantle, Western Australia, in October.
The conference included presentations on the Australian Government’s response to the Hawker Report
and local government sustainability.
The Australian Government sponsors annual workshops for the executive officers of the local
government grants commissions to enable them to share technical knowledge on methodology. These
workshops arose out of a recommendation of the 1994 review of the then 1986 Act that an annual
technical workshop was desirable. The report stated, ‘the more that the few personnel with technical
knowledge pool this experience, the greater the potential for improvements in methodology’ (Morton
1994 p. 15).
45
The 13th meeting of executive officers was held in Canberra in April 2006. The workshop discussed
work on a national local road database and treatment of depreciation and capital costs.
A detailed description of each grants commission’s methodology is in Appendix B. In addition to the
summaries in the appendix, the grants commissions publish information about their methods in their
annual reports and occasional publications. Copies of these are usually available on the Internet (see
‘Internet addresses for local government grants commissions’).
A comparison of the methodologies the commissions used in 2005–06 is 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_CommissionTribunalIndex.asp?
areaindex=GC&index=21
Victoria
www.dvc.vic.gov.au/web20/dvclgv.nsf/allDocs/RWPDA3475ECD8376216
CA25712E0016D1A8?OpenDocument
Queensland
www.qlggc.qld.gov.au/
Western Australia
www.dlgrd.wa.gov.au/LocalGovt/LGGC/Default.asp
South Australia
www.localgovt.sa.gov.au/about_us/south_australian_local_government_
grants_commission
Tasmania
www.treasury.tas.gov.au/sgc
Northern Territory
www.grantscommission.nt.gov.au
Allocation of grants to councils in 2005–06
The federal minister approved allocation of financial assistance grants to councils for 2005–06, as
recommended by grants commissions through state and territory ministers. Appendix D contains the
final grant entitlements for all councils in 2005–06 and the estimated entitlements for 2006–07.
Table 2.11 sets out the average general purpose grant per capita to councils by jurisdiction and the
Australian Classification of Local Government (ACLG – a description of the ACLG is in Appendix F), while
Table 2.13 provides the average local road grant per kilometre by jurisdiction and ACLG. The ACLG has
been developed to aid comparison of councils with like councils, and is used here to indicate trends
and allow comparison of grants to individual councils with the average for their category.
The results in Table 2.11 and Table 2.12 suggest there are some differences in outcomes between
jurisdictions. Notwithstanding the capacity of the ACLG system to group like councils, it should be noted
that there remains considerable scope for divergence within these categories, and for this reason the
figures should only be taken as a starting point for enquiring into grant outcomes. This divergence can
occur because of factors including isolation, population distribution, local economic performance, daily
or seasonal population changes, age of population and geographic differences. Divergence can also
occur because of variations between jurisdictions of the relative ranking within the jurisdiction on the
basis of need of the different ACLG categories.
46
16.69
18.83
20.38
27.59
Urban Developed Small (UDS)
Urban Developed Medium (UDM)
Urban Developed Large (UDL)
Urban Developed Very Large (UDV)
60.10
Urban Regional Very Large (URV)
219.43
147.75
381.67
Rural Agricultural Very Large (RAV)
Rural Remote Extra Small (RTX)
376.66
55.63
Rural Remote Large (RTL)
Average
Note: a Excludes Northern Territory Trust Fund.
756.77
Rural Remote Medium (RTM)
n/a
303.99
Rural Agricultural Medium (RAM)
Rural Agricultural Large (RAL)
Rural Remote Small (RTS)
n/a
55.71
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
140.21
259.76
n/a
64.86
n/a
48.91
494.06
34.97
Urban Fringe Very Large (UFV)
61.41
45.02
Rural Agricultural Small (RAS)
72.15
Urban Fringe Large (UFL)
97.23
63.05
83.59
109.36
114.38
31.35
27.49
26.24
16.71
16.71
Vic.
Rural Significant Growth (RSG)
39.20
Urban Fringe Medium (UFM)
n/a
71.37
Urban Regional Large (URL)
Urban Fringe Small (UFS)
78.01
Urban Regional Medium (URM)
100.24
20.01
Urban Capital City (UCC)
Urban Regional Small (URS)
NSW
Classification
56.14
470.29
1 206.40
2 678.45
4 404.43
79.20
188.34
449.92
1 241.82
n/a
n/a
25.22
30.33
111.66
18.30
23.24
25.38
137.49
16.84
17.94
18.28
n/a
16.84
Qld
55.81
317.15
631.41
868.44
3 328.62
100.92
180.77
145.68
450.09
54.43
16.74
16.74
35.64
16.74
n/a
n/a
25.94
85.33
16.74
16.74
16.74
16.74
16.74
WA
State
55.55
191.02
373.91
n/a
380.52
116.84
147.92
217.31
432.40
n/a
38.94
104.59
16.67
25.20
n/a
n/a
n/a
86.98
65.48
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
SA
Table 2.11: Average general purpose grant per capita to councils by state and ACLG category, 2005–06 ($)
55.68
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
81.55
118.50
172.56
376.43
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
68.24
n/a
n/a
22.94
49.11
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
16.70
Tas.
58.09
n/a
148.90
151.77
153.13
47.41
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
34.88
n/a
n/a
n/a
51.82
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
17.43
NTa
55.79
340.75
661.76
635.37
1 035.12
112.48
196.06
297.09
533.83
56.16
37.42
37.62
40.56
80.23
33.88
62.65
70.64
95.67
28.08
24.64
18.84
16.73
17.22
Average
47
1 003.79
793.97
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
723.07
478.21
n/a
n/a
912.09
631.80
n/a
418.38
411.56
395.54
409.81
509.07
462.63
423.89
407.82
n/a
n/a
884.74
806.90
525.13
1 459.93
1 271.90
1 112.51
791.13
1 897.49
1 751.46
2 293.44
n/a
1 932.68
Qld
Note: a Averages for all classifications in these states include special roads grants received by councils.
Average
n/a
680.72
Northern Territory Trust fund
663.49
n/a
801.68
750.13
n/a
718.38
n/a
677.56
1 676.71
1 110.55
1 391.69
1 315.96
1 115.97
941.03
1 115.57
927.36
836.50
751.27
1 230.13
1 187.63
1 302.62
1 589.29
2 456.56
Vic.
1 418.37
n/a
1 667.16
1 236.11
1 552.34
2 014.75
2 007.87
Urban Developed Large (UDL)
1 021.57
2 125.35
Urban Developed Medium (UDM)
1 904.15
Urban Developed Very Large (UDV)
2 580.33
Urban Developed Small (UDS)
NSW
Classification
626.62
n/a
544.59
434.37
405.47
356.09
635.28
591.39
600.19
448.38
992.60
1 582.22
1 349.94
1 225.52
1 316.53
n/a
n/a
1 048.19
941.57
1 581.11
1 644.84
1 627.33
1 674.17
3 557.50
WAa
State
363.01
n/a
n/a
130.59
n/a
452.67
269.11
188.47
233.08
199.85
n/a
1 180.70
1 075.70
473.57
449.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
595.43
n/a
1 555.21
1 953.54
1 609.05
1 146.48
SAa
Table 2.12: Average local road grant per kilometre to councils by state and ACLG category, 2005–06 ($)
1 872.41
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1 720.40
1 786.08
1 399.48
1 163.80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1 645.28
n/a
n/a
2 613.89
2 087.19
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4 259.40
Tas.
825.97
360.76
n/a
589.24
612.49
528.35
2 246.46
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2 792.18
n/a
n/a
n/a
2 825.72
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3 013.05
NT
744.25
360.76
523.97
442.54
449.58
402.08
667.04
582.55
506.11
419.24
979.99
1 494.37
1 191.88
1 011.25
645.04
1 453.56
1 148.87
1 085.08
901.95
1 595.04
1 511.45
1 929.24
1 691.88
2 151.19
Average
48
Councils receiving the minimum grant entitlement generally fall within the classification of capital
city, urban developed or urban fringe as described in the ACLG. Councils on the minimum grant are
identified with a hash (#) in Appendix D.
The per capita grant of these councils in 2005–06 was about $16.70, with slight differences between
jurisdictions. The differences arise from variations in data for population used by the Australian
Government to calculate jurisdictions’ share of general purpose grants and those used by local
government grants commissions for allocations to individual councils.
Table 2.13 provides the number of councils on the minimum grant, by jurisdiction from 1996–97 to
2006–07. It shows an upward trend nationally in the number of minimum grant councils, the proportion
of the population covered by minimum grant councils and the share of the general purpose grant
received by minimum grant councils.
Councils on the minimum grant
Despite the proportion of the general purpose grant received by minimum grant councils increasing,
nationally there has been an increase in the per capita grant to non-minimum grant councils relative
to that of minimum grant councils. This trend is consistent with the Act’s objective of horizontal
equalisation.
In some jurisdictions, notably Western Australia and South Australia, continuation of this trend will be
increasingly constrained as the number of urban councils on the minimum grant reaches a limit so
that there is less scope for non-minimum grant councils to receive further increases in their share of
general purpose grants.
Table 2.13: Minimum grant council statistics by jurisdiction, 1996–97 to 2006–07
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Total
1996–97
No. of councils
21
5
0
14
4
0
0
44
% of population
22
10
0
43
10
0
0
15
7
3
0
13
3
0
0
5
3.99
3.60
n/a
5.09
3.59
n/a
n/a
3.75
No. of councils
22
6
2
17
4
2
0
53
% of population
24
15
6
53
10
19
0
20
7
4
2
16
3
6
0
6
4.07
3.74
3.49
5.93
3.59
3.90
n/a
3.91
% of general purpose grant received by
minimum grant councils
Ratio of average per capita general
purpose grant for non minimum grant
councils to minimum grant councils
1997–98
49
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Total
No. of councils
22
6
4
22
4
2
0
60
% of population
24
13
19
58
10
19
0
22
7
4
6
17
3
6
0
7
4.08
3.70
3.89
6.50
3.59
3.89
n/a
4.00
1998–99
1999–2000
No. of councils
22
7
7
24
5
2
0
67
% of population
24
15
52
61
10
19
0
29
7
4
16
18
3
6
0
9
4.08
3.74
5.85
7.04
3.59
3.89
n/a
4.29
No. of councils
22
8
9
24
5
2
0
70
% of population
24
17
57
61
10
19
0
31
7
5
17
18
3
6
0
9
4.09
3.82
6.43
7.05
3.60
3.89
n/a
4.38
No. of councils
21
8
10
23
7
2
0
71
% of population
24
18
59
57
14
19
0
31
7
5
18
17
4
6
0
9
4.09
3.83
6.76
6.47
3.70
3.88
n/a
4.40
No. of councils
21
6
11
26
14
2
0
80
% of population
25
12
62
67
37
19
0
33
7
3
18
20
11
6
0
10
4.09
3.64
7.23
8.13
4.86
3.88
n/a
4.52
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
50
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Total
No. of councils
22
7
8
28
17
2
0
84
% of population
26
14
57
70
44
19
0
34
8
4
17
21
13
6
0
10
4.30
3.70
6.39
8.66
5.03
3.90
n/a
4.58
2003–04
2004–05
No. of councils
20
8
7
28
22
1
0
86
% of population
24
14
55
70
56
10
0
34
7
4
16
21
17
3
0
10
4.09
3.70
6.17
8.73
6.24
3.28
n/a
4.53
No. of councils
20
9
3
30
22
1
1
86
% of population
24
16
41
74
55
10
36
33
7
5
12
22
17
3
11
10
4.09
3.77
4.97
10.08
6.24
3.59
4.67
4.47
No. of councils
21
10
2
30
22
1
1
87
% of population
25
18
37
75
55
10
36
33
8
6
11
22
17
3
11
10
4.12
3.86
4.69
10.16
6.22
3.59
4.64
4.47
NSW
2005–06
2006–07a
Note: a 2006–07 figures are based on estimated grant entitlement.
Table 2.13 also shows a wide variation between jurisdictions in the proportion of the population
covered by councils receiving the minimum grant. In 2005–06, the proportion ranged from 10 per cent
in Tasmania to 74 per cent in Western Australia. This generally reflects the degree of concentration of a
jurisdiction’s population in their capital city, but can also arise because of the geographic structuring of
local government and differences in the methodologies used by local government grants commissions.
51
In 2005–06, the proportion of the general purpose grant that went to councils on the minimum grant
was just over 10 per cent nationally. It varied from 3 per cent in Tasmania to around 22 per cent in
Western Australia. It is expected that, over time, there would be more consistency between jurisdictions
in the ratio of the average per capita general purpose grant for non-minimum grant councils to that of
minimum grant councils, if jurisdictions achieved similar horizontal equalisation outcomes.
According to the commissions’ methodologies, councils on the minimum grant are able to afford above
average standards of service and/or below standard revenue-raising efforts. This reflects the fact that
minimum grant councils are relatively affluent compared to the non-minimum grant councils in their
jurisdiction.
Reviews of grants commission methods
Local government grants commissions have programs for monitoring grant outcomes and refining
aspects of their allocation methodologies. However, from time to time it is appropriate for grants
commissions to undertake a thorough review of their allocation methodologies.
Since the Act commenced in July 1995, most grants commissions have undertaken major reviews of
their methodologies, are currently undertaking such examinations, or have such activities planned.
The need to review methodologies was reinforced by the 2001 Commonwealth Grants Commission
review of the operations of the Act. The review identified the need to revise methodologies to achieve
consistency with the Relative Need, Other Grant Support and Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait
Islander Principles (Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001, p. xii).
Table 2.14 gives the status of local government grants commissions’ reviews of methods as at
30 June 2006.
Table 2.14: Status of major methodology reviews undertaken since July 1995, by state,
as at 30 June 2006
State
Local road grants
NSW
None planned
None planned
Vic.
Completed in May 2001 and implemented from 2002–03. Review
of revenue component completed in 2004 and to be implemented
in 2005–06
Completed in July 1999 and implemented
from 2001–02
Qld
Completed in December 2002 and implemented from 2004–05
Completed in December 2002 and
implemented from 2004–05
WA
Completed in 2002–03
None planned
SA
Completed in 1997–98 and implemented in 1998–99
None planned
Tas.
Completed in 2004–05 and implemented from 2005–06
Completed in 1999–2000 and
implemented from 2000–01
NT
Review of methodology completed in 2004–05 and implemented
in 2005–06
None planned
Consistent with the requirements of the Act, such reviews should be undertaken in consultation with
local governing bodies.
52
Year-to-year variations in the data grants commissions use to calculate allocation of grants can
lead to significant fluctuations in grants for individual councils. Changes in grants commission
methodologies for improving allocation of grants most likely to achieve horizontal equalisation can also
lead to fluctuations. As unexpected changes in grants can impede councils’ efficient planning, grants
commissions have adopted policies to ensure changes are not unacceptably large.
Many commissions average the data of several years to reduce fluctuations. Nevertheless, they have
found that policies to limit changes, by capping increases or decreases are needed to limit year-toyear variations. For example, capping may constrain the maximum year-to-year increase in grants
to 15 per cent and the maximum decrease to 6 per cent. Under this regime, a council that would
otherwise have received a 7.5 per cent reduction in its grant compared to the previous year would have
its reduction limited to 6 per cent.
No council receives less than the minimum grant, so councils on the minimum grant are exempt from
capping. In some circumstances, a grants commission may decide a council’s grant should not be
capped. Usually, this is to allow a larger grant increase than would otherwise be possible.
Impact of grants commission capping policies
Commissions estimate the unconstrained grants in conformity with the National Principles for
allocating grants. For this reason, capping changes the allocation from those consistent with the
National Principles, although usually the extent of the divergence is relatively small.
The Australian Government has accepted that phase-in arrangements, like capping to ensure
reasonable stability of funding, play a useful role when allocating grants to councils. However, capping
should allow phase-in of even large changes to grants within a reasonably short period of time. Unless
the new level of grants is achieved within a maximum of five years, capping could be seen as impeding
achievement of the National Principle objectives.
Acquittal of the grants
Since the Australian Government pays the grants to the states and territories as tied grants for
passing on to councils as untied grants, the Act requires that states and territories provide an audited
statement confirming that the grant was paid to councils in accordance with the approved distribution
and without undue delay. State and territory treasurers are required to provide this statement as soon
as practicable after 30 June.
In every jurisdiction, payment of financial assistance grants for 2005–06 was made in accordance with
the recommendations of the state and territory ministers and approved by the federal minister.
53
54
Chapter 3
Local government
efficiency and
performance
55
Chapter 3
Local government efficiency
and performance
The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (the Act) requires an annual report on the
operations of the Act to Parliament and for this report to include an assessment, using comparable
national data, of the performance of local government including its efficiency. However, commenting on
the role of the Australian Government in assessing local government performance, the Hawker Report
(2003) Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share of Responsible Local Government, stated that:
The Federal government is not in a position to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of
local government’s financial management; this is the role of the States. State Departments of
Local Government monitor the financial management of local government and report on the
performance of councils (p. 82).
As outlined in previous National Reports, the lack of available comparable data at the national level
on which to base an assessment has seen the need to rely on state and territory reports and to use
secondary indicators of local government performance and efficiency.
In previous years the National Report has assessed local government performance and efficiency
according to the methodology recommended by the Industry Commission in 1997.
The Industry Commission advised that the requirement to report on local government performance
could be met by providing information on and analysis of:
© the application of the National Competition Policy to local government
© progress by the states in improving the use of performance indicators
© developments in areas such as competitive tendering and contracting, increased use of
service charters and measures of customer satisfaction, and changes in the structure of
local government.
National Competition Policy and local government
The National Competition Policy arrangements, entered into by the Australian, state and territory
governments in 1995, have brought substantial benefit to the Australian community, including
regional Australia.
Although local government was not formally a party to the National Competition Policy agreements,
local government activities were specifically referred to in the Policy agreements. Under the Policy, the
Australian Government has made payments to the states for successfully carrying out agreed reforms,
as assessed by the National Competition Council. The 2005–06 National Competition Policy Payments
are the final payments under current Policy arrangements. Suspensions of $43.2 million relating to the
2005–06 Policy payments may be increased or reduced subject to a satisfactory assessment of reform
progress in 2007.
56
Jurisdiction
NSW
2004–05
2005–06
233.5
291.8
Vic.
201.9
187.7
Qld
143.2
178.8
WA
53.6
66.9
SA
50.4
51.3
Tas.
19.8
19.1
ACT
13.6
12.8
NT
Total
8.5
8.0
724.54
816.45
Table 3.1: National Competition Policy payments, 2004–05 and 2005–06 ($m)
Source: The Commonwealth Treasury, November 2006.
A new National Reform Agenda
The 1995 National Competition Policy arrangement was a 10-year agreement that ended in 2005.
At its February 2006 meeting COAG, on which local government is represented, agreed to deliver a
substantial new National Reform Agenda, embracing human capital, competition and regulatory reform
streams. The competition stream will boost competition, productivity and the efficient functioning
of markets by focusing on further reform and initiatives in the areas of energy, transport, and
infrastructure regulation and planning.
Various initiatives under the competition stream will have local government implications, including:
© agreement that all jurisdictions will recommit to the principles contained in the Competition
Principles Agreement
© agreement that state and territory governments will publish a new statement, prepared in
consultation with local government, specifying application of the principles contained in the
Competition Principles Agreement to particular local government activities and functions
© a commitment to enhance the application of competitive neutrality principles to government
business enterprises engaged in significant business activities with the private sector.
The regulatory reform stream of the National Reform Agenda focuses on reducing the regulatory burden
imposed by all spheres of government. This includes agreeing to a range of measures to ensure bestpractice regulation making and review, and action to address specific regulation ‘hotspots’ where crossjurisdictional overlap is impeding economic activity.
Actions relating to hotspots of particular relevance to local government included asking the Local
Government and Planning Ministers’ Council to:
© recommend and implement strategies to encourage each jurisdiction to systematically review its
local government development assessment legislation, policies and objectives
© report back on the content and timetable for implementing further building regulation reforms
including a nationally consistent building code.
57
The Australian Government will provide funding to the states and territories and, where appropriate, to
local government, on a case-by-case basis once specific implementation plans have been developed if
funding is needed to ensure a fair sharing of the costs and benefits of reform.
Payments are to be linked to achieving agreed actions or progress measures and to demonstrable
economic benefits, and will take into account the relative costs and proportional financial benefits to
the commonwealth, states, territories and local government of specific reform proposals.
Local government performance and efficiency
State and territory reporting
The level of benchmarking of the local government sector varies across states and territories. New
South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania appear to provide the most comprehensive series of
data, enabling some comparison between their local governments. Appendix G contains the full state
and territory reports.
Some progress has been made in resource sharing models and arrangements among local councils
to cut costs and increase efficiency particularly in New South Wales and Queensland. In New South
Wales, the state government now has a formal policy to encourage resource-sharing arrangements.
Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council Agreement on Nationally
Consistent Frameworks
A series of state-based inquiries into local government financial sustainability sponsored by local
government associations indicate that a significant number of local governments, particularly small
rural and remote local governments, may not be financially viable in the short to medium term. The
issue of the financial sustainability of local government has been raised at the Local Government and
Planning Ministers’ Council. The Council has agreed to implement frameworks to help assess financial
sustainability, asset management and financial reporting of local government.
The Council has prepared three nationally consistent frameworks. They are:
© Criteria for Assessing Financial Sustainability
© Asset Planning and Management
© Financial Planning and Reporting.
The Australian Government believes that, depending on the extent of their adoption in the various
jurisdictions, these frameworks have the potential to provide information to assess local government
performance and reporting in future years.
State reports on local government financial sustainability
Recent inquiries and studies sponsored by the local government associations in New South Wales,
Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia have raised concerns that as many as 163 of Australia’s
700 councils may be financially unviable – 38 in New South Wales, 16 in Victoria, 83 in Western
Australia, and 26 in South Australia. This is almost one-quarter of Australia’s local governments. Up
to another half of the councils in these states may be financially vulnerable. The major themes arising
from these inquiries are that many councils:
58
©
©
©
are facing rising community expectations, increasing responsibilities and compliance requirements
but have modest revenue growth
are constrained in their revenue-raising capacity
do not take a sufficiently strategic approach to expenditure decisions or adopt long-term asset and
financial management plans, leading to operating deficits and significant infrastructure renewal
and replacement backlogs
do not focus sufficiently on the need for continuous improvement in the provision of services.
Some councils have undertaken major reforms in their financial management to address these issues
(see ‘Salisbury City Council – Financial governance model’).
Local government financial position
Overall local government in Australia is in a strong financial position. It is a net lender; it has no debt,
see Table 1.12. Local government also owns and maintains infrastructure worth more than $110 billion
(net of depreciation), including local roads worth $75 billion.
©
The positions of individual councils vary and this strong financial position is not necessarily true for
each council.
Summary
The reports from the states and territories indicate that local government is performing its role
satisfactorily and with reasonable efficiency. Other indicators that show local government is in a
strong financial position with a sound foundation upon which to carry out its functions support this
assessment. There are concerns about the long-term financial viability of some councils. The states
and territories are aware of these concerns and have a responsibility to address them.
Concerns about long-term sustainability have also raised the issue of the structure of local
governments. The issue is currently under consideration in Western Australia. Queensland and the
Northern Territory have announced major structural reforms of local government to take effect in 2008.
59
SALISBURY CITY COUNCIL – FINANCIAL GOVERNANCE MODEL
The Salisbury City Council in South Australia was plagued by financial ills common to many
regional councils. But the council has significantly improved its fiscal health by successfully
implementing long-term financial management strategies providing a useful model for other
councils facing financial sustainability issues. The key elements of the council’s long-term
financial strategy are:
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
60
Sustainability: To achieve an operating surplus, before capital revenues (including
depreciation) by 2010–11.
Financial health: To achieve a debt-servicing ratio of debt to rate revenue of 10 to
12 per cent by 2013, a goal which was achieved by 2006.
Acceptable taxation: To ensure that the average residential rate remains within the lower
half of that charged by metropolitan Adelaide councils.
Reducing debt: Councils’ debt servicing costs as a percentage of rate revenue peaked at
23 per cent in the late 1990s, but has been steadily reduced to a manageable 12 per cent
by 2006.
Sale of non-performing assets: Assessment of land and buildings that are serving few
people while costing a substantial amount in maintenance costs.
Capital works program based on long-term timeframe: Adoption of a four year rolling
budget cycle, wherein forward commitments are made for years two to four and revised if
necessary each financial year.
Efficiency and effectiveness: Implementing a program of reviews, benchmarking and
application of quality management through the business excellence framework. Council’s
financial strategy requires that significant new services be matched with rate increases to
pay for them.
Chapter 4
Local government
infrastructure
61
Chapter 4
Local government
infrastructure
This chapter provides information on local government infrastructure. It focuses on providing data on
the extent, value and funding of local roads and buildings.
Infrastructure comprises the assets needed to provide people with access to economic and social
facilities and services. In general, infrastructure facilities are fixed in place, are costly and time
consuming to plan and build, are durable and have low operating costs, and are often networks. They
require routine maintenance and periodic upgrading to prolong their lives. Such assets often have
environmental or social benefits that cannot be fully recovered by user charges.
Asset management aims to maintain assets to deliver services in the most cost effective manner for
present and future consumers. Sound asset management will prolong the life of assets and minimise
their whole-of-life costs. The proper management of local government assets has implications for the
financial sustainability of many local governments.
Local government infrastructure responsibilities
Local government plans, develops and maintains key infrastructure for its communities. This
infrastructure includes local roads, bridges, footpaths, water and sewerage (in Queensland, regional
New South Wales and Tasmania), stormwater drainage, waste disposal, public buildings, parks,
regional aerodromes and recreational and cultural facilities. Local government also has planning
responsibilities that affect provision of infrastructure, whether by government or by business. These
responsibilities include town planning, land rezoning, subdivision approval, development assessment
and building regulation.
Local government is asset rich, with about $182 billion in land and fixed assets in 2004–05 (ABS,
Government Finance Statistics, cat. no. 5512.0, Table 30). According to the Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS), $50.4 billion of this was land and $14.8 billion was buildings. Other construction
infrastructure, including local roads, was worth $104.8 billion, net of depreciation (ABS, personal
communication, 2006). ABS data do not itemise the value of local roads and bridges but, from state
sources, it is possible to estimate they are worth nearly $82 billion, calculated (mainly) in current
replacement terms (see Table 4.1).
62
State
Estimated replacement value
of local roads and bridges ($b)
Estimated written
down value ($b)
Estimated written down value/
replacement cost (%) c
NSWa
30.94
19.10
61
Vic.b
16.04
na
63
Qlda
11.72
na
73
WAb
12.92
8.37
65
SAb
5.41
3.33
63
Tas.b
3.38
1.97
60
NTa
0.27
na
na
ACTa
1.23
na
na
Total
81.91
na
62
Table 4.1: Estimated value of local roads and bridges
Sources: a 2004–05 Local Government National Report, p. 80 (there is no new information since that report).
b State Local Government Grants Commissions
c Australian Local Government Association National Local Roads Database at www.jr.net.au
Local government is responsible for constructing and maintaining local roads within their own
boundaries. Transport and communications account for about 23.5 per cent of local government
expenditure (ABS, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no. 5512.0).
Local roads are important to national transport safety, efficiency and overall economic performance.
They provide basic access from farms, factories and homes to schools, hospitals, work and shopping,
and to families and friends. The mining, grain, horticulture and plantation industries are particularly
reliant on local roads. Deterioration of local roads affects the cost and timeliness of transport in the
immediate locality and throughout Australia.
All spheres of government are concerned that local government is not devoting sufficient resources to
preserving its assets, particularly its local road network. According to Main Roads Western Australia, a
well-managed road network should have a written down value of about 75 per cent of its replacement
cost. Table 4.1 shows that in several states the written down value of local roads is about 60 per cent
of replacement cost.
Local government’s other major asset – buildings – is also subject to depreciation. The value of local
government buildings in each state, net of depreciation, is shown in Table 4.2.
63
Table 4.2: Value of local government buildings, net of depreciation $m, 2004–05
State
$m
NSW
4 349
Vic.
4 543
Qld
2 271
WA
1 724
SA
1 301
Tas.
436
NT
222
Subtotal
14 846
ACT
2 522
Total
17 368
Note: ACT includes territory and local government buildings.
Source: ABS personal communication 2007.
Extent of council-managed local road network
Australia has about 810 000 kilometres of public roads. About 649 000 kilometres (80%) of these
are local roads for which local government is responsible. About one-third of this network is sealed
and two-thirds is unsealed (unformed, formed or gravel roads). Despite vast differences in population
and area, the length of sealed roads per 1000 people is remarkably consistent among the states and
territories, averaging about 11 kilometres per 1000 people. Table 4.3 provides comparative data on
local roads for each state.
Table 4.3: Local road statistics based on council data at June 2006
State
Total local
road length
(kms)
Sealed (%)
Share
of Local
Government
Area (%)
NSWa
144 268
62 665
81 603
43.4
12.9
6.774
9.25
12.05
Vic.
127 828
54 179
73 649
42.4
4.1
5.022
10.79
14.67
Qld
149 044
42
381b
663b
28.4a
31.9
3.962
10.70b
26.92b
WA
123 058
33 826
89 232
27.5
45.3
2.010
16.83
44.39
SA
75 431
16 629
58 802
22.0
2.8
1.542
10.78
38.13
Tas.
14 121
6 971
7 150
49.4
1.3
0.485
14.37
14.73
NT
14 131
2 049
12 082
14.5
1.7
0.193
10.61
62.59
1 837
1 825
12
99.3
0.1
0.324
5.63
0.04
649 718
220 525
429 193
33.9
100.1
20.31
11.03
21.47
ACTc
Total sealed
Total
local road
unsealed
length
local road
(kms) length (kms)
106
Length of
Length of
sealed road unsealed road
Population
per 1000
per 1000
(m) people (kms) people (kms)
Notes: a New South Wales road length excludes 18 500 kilometres of ‘regional roads’ and 2900 kilometres of regional and
local roads in unincorporated areas.
b DOTARS Estimate for Queensland: See 2004–05 Local Government National Report p. 79 for methodology.
c ACT data are from June 2005.
Totals do not add to 100 due to rounding.
Source: State local government grants commissions and Roads ACT – unpublished data.
64
Local governments are responsible for local roads within their council area. States are responsible for
local roads in unincorporated areas (areas where no local government is established). The Australian
Government contributes to local road funding through the Roads to Recovery program, through local
government financial assistance grants identified for local roads, through the Strategic Regional
program, and through the Black Spot program (see Table 4.5). State governments in Queensland and
Western Australia also contribute significant funds towards council-managed local roads.
Data for 2004–05 are not yet available. It is estimated that in 2003–04 local governments spent
$4322 million on local roads (see Table 4.4). About one-third of local road spending is on new capital
works and about two-thirds is on road maintenance and renewal.
Road funding by each sphere of government
Table 4.4: Estimated spending on council-managed local roads, 2001–02 to 2003–04
2001–02 ($m)
2002–03 ($m)
2003–04 ($m)
Urban
2 645
2 621
2 493
Rural
1 726
1 684
1 865
Total local road expenditure
4 371
4 305
4 358
Less spending on local roads in unincorporated areas
na
40
36
Estimated spending on council-managed local roads
na
4 265
4 322
Source: National Transport Commission Annual Reports 2005–06, pp. 23–24; 2003–04, p. 31; and 2002–03, p. 31.
Of the estimated $4322 million spent in 2003–04 on council-managed local roads, the Australian
Government contributed $779 million (see Table 4.5) and state governments contributed about
$245 million. This means local government provided the balance – about $3298 million (76%)
– from its own sources (including private sector developer contributions, predominantly on new
housing estates).
A significant amount of the $245 million in state government funding in 2003–04 came from
Queensland’s Transport and Infrastructure Development Scheme ($43 million) and Western Australia’s
State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement ($62 million).
Budget papers for Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania for 2006–07
report on state funding for local government. The South Australian budget provides a one-page
summary of all state funding for local government specifically identifying the funding available for local
roads (SA State Budget Inter-governmental Finances, Table 4.6, p. 4.17).
Australian Government funding for local roads
The Australian Government has introduced a national land transport plan called AusLink. The
objectives of AusLink include improving logistics, boosting trade, enhancing health, safety and security
and sustaining the environment. AusLink also aims to promote regional economic growth, development
and connectivity. The Roads to Recovery program, the Black Spot program and the Strategic Regional
program are all components of AusLink.
65
In 2006–07, the Australian Government will contribute $1108 million towards council-managed
local roads through programs such as the local government financial assistance grants, the Roads
to Recovery program, Strategic Regional program and the Black Spot program. Total Australian
Government local road funding will grow from $746 million in 2001–02 to $1108 million in 2006–07
(see Table 4.5 and Figure 4.1).
Table 4.5: Australian Government funding for council-managed local roads, 2001–02 to 2006–07
Local road financial assistance grants
2002–03
($m)
2003–04
($m)
2004–05
($m)
429
447
461
478
497
518
0
0
0
4
9
13
300
200
300
250
300
300
0
0
0
0
300*
0
17
25
18
20
27
27
0
0
0
0
8
250
746
672
779
752
1 141
1 108
Supplementary local road funds for
South Australia
AusLink Roads to Recovery program –
formula component
Supplementary AusLink Roads to
Recovery program – formula component
Black Spot program – local roads
Strategic Regional program – local roads
Total
2006–07
2005–06 (estimated)
($m)
($m)
2001–02
($m)
Note: An additional $7.5 million was provided to the states and the Northern Territory for local roads in unincorporated areas.
Figure 4.1: Australian Government local roads funding
Local roads financial assistance grants
600
AusLink Roads to Recovery program
– formula component
$ million
500
400
Supplementary AusLink Roads to Recovery
program – formula component
300
Black Spot program – local roads
200
Strategic Regional program
– local roads estimated
100
Supplementary local road funds
for South Australia
0
2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07
($m)
($m)
($m)
($m)
($m) estimated
($m)
Financial year
66
The Australian Government renewed the AusLink Roads to Recovery program for a further four years
from 2005–06 to 2008–09 at a cost of $1230 million. Of this, $1200 million ($300 million a year)
will be provided by direct formula allocation to local government (see Table 4.6) and $30 million
($7.5 million a year) will be distributed, on a formula basis, to states and territories for roads in
unincorporated areas. In 2005–06, the Australian Government provided a supplementary Roads to
Recovery grant of $307.5 million.
Table 4.6: AusLink Roads to Recovery program – planned expenditure
2005–06 ($m)
2006–07 ($m)
2007–08 ($m)
2008–09 ($m)
Council grants based on formula
300
300
300
300
Grants for unincorporated areas
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
307.5
0
0
0
Supplementary Roads to Recovery
Roads to Recovery program
Strategic Regional Program
The Australian Government also allocated $220 million over the period 2004–05 to 2008–09 for
land transport infrastructure projects of strategic regional importance (see Table 4.7). The Australian
Government recently announced 86 successful projects to be funded from the $127 million
competitive component of the Strategic Regional Program, 84 of which are projects submitted by
local councils.
Table 4.7: Strategic Regional Program – planned estimated expenditure
2005–06 ($m)
2006–07 ($m)
2007–08 ($m)
2008–09 ($m)
7.624
249.741
62.332
74.342
Strategic regional program funding
In the context of the 2007 Budget, the Australian Government announced an additional $250 million
under the program for 2006–07. Almost $240 million of this was allocated to local governments for
99 projects while the balance went to projects in the unincorporated areas of South Australia.
Australian Government additional funds for local roads in South Australia
The Australian Government is providing an additional $26.25 million over the three years ending
in 2006–07 to address the state’s current disadvantage in local road funding (see Table 4.8).
Providing these additional funds more closely aligns the state’s share in local government financial
assistance grants to its 8.3 per cent share under the Roads to Recovery program. The decision was
an interim response to the findings of the Hawker inquiry into local government finances by the House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration (Rates
and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government, November 2003). The government will
distribute 85 per cent of the funds to South Australian councils on a formula basis and 15 per cent as
special local road grants. In May 2007, the Australian Government decided to extend the program for a
further four years at a cost of $57 million.
67
Table 4.8: Australian Government additional funds for local roads in South Australia, 2004–05 to
2010–11
2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11
($m)
($m)
($m)
($m)
($m)
($m)
($m)
Funds for South Australian local roads
4.25
9.00
13.00
13.48
14.01
14.54
15.10
GEORGE TOWN COUNCIL RESTORES COMMUNITY FACILITIES USING FUNDS FROM
THE SALE OF UNDER-UTILISED BUILDINGS
George Town Council in Tasmania won the small council award for asset management in the
2006 National Awards for Local Government. The council’s project was straightforward and
took a whole-of-life view of asset utilisation and costs. Over five years, the council developed
an inventory of all of its assets including roads, bridges, footpaths, buildings, kerb and channel,
parks, sporting facilities, sewer and water assets. It identified the current and future costs of
maintaining, rehabilitating and renewing all of its assets.
The council now has accurate condition and valuation data for all its assets. It has identified
the current and future risks of asset failure and put in place strategies to deal with them. The
council has developed manuals for all maintenance standards and activities. Information is
accessible on all maintenance and renewal activities for each individual asset. As a result all
essential assets are kept in good condition and maintained or renewed at the ‘right’ time.
The council has disposed of assets that are surplus to community requirements. Seven
buildings were demolished, another was gifted to the Navy Cadets and three country halls
were closed. One hall was transferred to the Fire Service. The savings achieved permitted the
community to upgrade higher-use facilities such as the Memorial Hall. The council intends to
apply its new approach to other asset classes such as roads and parks. This award-winning
project illustrates the benefits of reviewing and disposing of assets that are surplus to
community needs, redeveloping under-utilised assets and engaging in consultation with the
local community about service level standards.
State government funding
New South Wales
In 2006–07, the state government will provide $153 million in road funding to councils. Most of the
funds are grants ‘to assist councils to manage their secondary arterial road network’ and most will be
spent on 18 500 kilometres of regional roads, where there is a blurring of responsibility between state
and local governments. Regional roads are council owned and managed, but because of their regional
significance they qualify for state government assistance.
68
In 2006–07, the state government will provide an additional $32 million in operating expenditure for
councils to employ road safety officers, erect traffic signs, meet street lighting costs on major traffic
routes, check vehicle loadings, fix road safety black spots, improve pedestrian safety and provide new
bicycle paths. Additional funds are available to restore regional and local roads damaged in natural
disasters (at a cost of $36 million in 2005–06).
State government funding has three components (see Table 4.9): $119.1 million is a block grant, which
is allocated in metropolitan areas on a formula basis according to road length, traffic usage and heavy
vehicle usage and, in the country, on the length of timber bridges. The second component is repair
program grants of $24.1 million, which provide assistance to councils for larger works of rehabilitation
and development on regional roads to minimise long-term maintenance costs. Councils match these
grants dollar-for-dollar and regionally-based consultative committees of councils prioritise projects. The
remaining $9.8 million – the third component of state government funding – is for ‘high merit projects’.
Table 4.9: New South Wales – state government funding for council-managed local roads
Block grant for local government
Repair program grant for local government
High merit projects
Total – council local roads
2002–03
($m)
2003–04
($m)
2004–05
($m)
2005–06
($m)
2006–07
($m)
108.3
111.2
113.7
116.6
119.1
21.6
22.4
22.9
23.5
24.1
na
na
na
11.9
9.8
129.9
133.6
136.6
152.0
153.0
Source: Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales, Local Government Liaison Committee, information paper to councils:
Regional Road Funding Assistance to Local Government 2006–07, p. 2.
Victoria
In 2004–05, Victoria’s councils spent $912 million on local roads and bridges (an increase of
11.9 per cent from 2003–04) including operational expenditure of $633 million and capital
expenditure of $272 million. This continues a trend of significantly rising expenditure on local roads
by councils over recent years. By contrast, state funding is slowly declining. State government funding
is provided primarily for accident prevention. The main contribution is provided through the Better
Roads Victoria program. In 2006–07, $7.75 million is available under the program for reconstructing
and upgrading local roads where the nature and volume of traffic has been, or is predicted to be,
significantly affected by state government initiatives, such as changes in grain transport routes or
timber cartage from Crown lands (see Table 4.10).
Table 4.10: Victoria – state government funding for local roads
2004–05 ($m)
2005–06 ($m)
Better Roads Victoria program
8.93
8.34
7.75
Natural disaster funds
2.00
0.00
0.00
Local road crossings over the Murray River
0.56
0.30
0.70
Unincorporated areas
Total – council local roads and bridges
2006–07 ($m)
0.24
0.143
0.109
11.73
8.783
8.559
Source: Victorian Local Government Grants Commission.
69
Queensland
Queensland (along with Western Australia) makes a significant financial contribution towards funding
council-managed local roads. The Queensland Roads Management and Investment Alliance is a formal
agreement between the state and local government to jointly manage Queensland’s local roads of
regional significance.
In 2006–07, the Queensland Government allocated $67 million in grants to local governing bodies
for council-managed roads and bikeways under its Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme
(see Table 4.11). Funding has almost doubled since 2002–03 when $34 million was available under
the scheme. Some of the money is spent on upgrading local roads of regional significance under the
Roads Alliance. Funds for local roads of regional significance and other council-managed roads are
generally available on a 50:50 funding basis with local councils, while for access roads to Indigenous
communities the state provides 100 per cent of the funds. This allocation will rise to $76 million
in 2007–08, reflecting an additional $10 million per year to be provided for Roads Alliance safety
improvement initiatives and $1 million per year for capability training.
In addition, $25 million per year is allocated for roads and drainage grants. These grants, administered
by the Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation, are designed to encourage
capital works expenditure by local governments on road and urban stormwater drainage infrastructure.
Table 4.11: Queensland – state government funding for council-managed local roads, Transport
Infrastructure Development Scheme
2005–06 ($m)
2006–07 ($m)
2007–08 ($m)
Base allocation
36
38
38
Roads Alliance
14
14
25
Special allocation for high priority local road projects
19
15
13
Total – Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme
69
67
76
Source: Queensland Local Government Grants Commission and Local Government Association of Queensland.
Western Australia
Western Australia has a five-year State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement (from 2005–06
to 2009–10) that is funded by hypothecation of 27 per cent of vehicle licence fees, enabling local
government to better plan its local road network.
The Western Australian Local Government Association publishes an annual Report on Local
Government Road Assets and Expenditure that provides the most comprehensive data on local road
funding in any state in Australia.
The State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement will deliver $94 million for local roads in
2006–07 (see Table 4.12). Under the agreement, 10 regional road groups, drawing membership from
elected local government representatives, identify, prioritise and propose funding for key regional
roads. The groups use multi-criteria analysis, incorporating transport, social, economic, financial, road
safety and environmental factors to rank road projects. They make recommendations to the State
Road Funds to Local Government Advisory Committee. This committee, comprising representatives of
Main Roads WA and the Western Australian Local Government Association, makes recommendations
70
Table 4.12: Western Australia – State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement
2005–06 ($m)
State roads funding agreement
2006–07 ($m)
2007–08 ($m)
2008–09 ($m)
2009–10 ($m)
94
91.456a
96.533a
98.740a
87
Note: a Forecast.
Source: Western Australian State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement, 23 November 2005.
The Report on Local Government Road Assets and Expenditure 2004–05 shows that in 2004–05
total council local road expenditure rose by $20.1 million to $391 million. This comprised
$148.4 million on maintenance, $118.0 million on renewal of existing roads, $99.3 million on
upgrading and $25.3 million on capital expansion. The $118.0 million that councils spent on asset
renewal in 2004–05 represented 0.9 per cent of the current replacement value of the state’s local
road infrastructure. This is less than half the 2 per cent that wears out each year. Council spending
on maintenance and renewal was $86.3 million less than the $351.2 million the Association
believes is needed to keep local roads in their current condition. The funding shortfall has increased
from $50.3 million in 2001–02 mainly due to state road funding cuts in 2001–02 to 2004–05
(see Table 4.13).
to the State Minister for Planning and Infrastructure on the distribution of Local Government State
Road Funds.
Table 4.13: Western Australian local road expenditure by source of funds, 2000–01 to 2004–05
2000–01
($m)
2001–02
($m)
2002–03
($m)
2003–04
($m)
2004–05
($m)
% change
from
2000–01
79.8
111.5
101.9
116.5
110.3
38.2
State government
92.4
84.8
79.1
61.5
77.4
–16.2
Local government
177.1
199.8
196.7
188.5
197.1
11.3
5.6
5.1
6.6
4.4
6.2
10.7
354.9
401.2
384.3
370.9
391.0
10.2
74.5
50.3
74.3
83.6
86.3
15.8
Source
Private
Total
Local road deficit
Source: Western Australian Local Government Association, Report on Local Government Road Assets and Expenditure
2004–05, pp. 4, 15 and 23.
South Australia
South Australia’s State–Local Government Relations Agreement does not identify local road funding.
However, the state budget publishes a statement of all specific purpose budgetary assistance to local
government, which is unique among state budgets. In 2006–07, the state will contribute $6 million in
grants to local government for council-managed local roads (see Table 4.14). The state will also spend
$12.6 million on local roads in unincorporated areas (which are a state government responsibility).
71
Table 4.14: South Australia – state government funding for council-managed local roads, 2003–04
to 2006–07
2003–04 ($m)
2004–05 ($m)
2005–06 ($m)
2006–07 ($m)
Total – state grants for council local roads
2.562
2.264
2.942
6.003
Total – state spending – local roads and ferries
3.230
3.946
3.661
4.771
Source: South Australian Local Government Grants Commission.
South Australian council expenditure on local roads is gradually rising. In 2004–05, the councils spent
$228 million on local roads and road-related infrastructure (see Table 4.15).
Table 4.15: South Australia – council expenditure on local roads
Total – council expenditure on local roads
2002–03 ($m)
2003–04 ($m)
2004–05 ($m)
201
216
228
Source: South Australian Local Government Grants Commission.
In November 2005, the South Australian Government amended the Local Government Act 1999 to
require councils to develop and adopt 10-year infrastructure and asset management plans. The Local
Government Association of South Australia has a program to assist all councils in the state in adopting
the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia Infrastructure Management Manual as the basis for
their asset management plans.
Tasmania
The Tasmanian Government does not provide grants to councils for council-managed roads, but it
does make some direct expenditure on local roads (see Table 4.16). Local government also receives
about $1.5 million per annum in heavy vehicle licence fees to help compensate for damage to local
roads. This arrangement appears to be unique to Tasmania. In 2004–05, local government spent
$89.9 million on its local roads, an increase of almost $5 million from 2003–04 (see Table 4.17).
Table 4.16: Tasmania – state government direct spending on council-managed local roads,
2004–05 and 2005–06
2004–05 ($m)
2005–06 ($m)
Assistance to councils for strategic links to state roads
0.716
0.210
Line marking and signs on local roads
0.370
0.370
Signal maintenance/operation on local roads
0.227
0.234
Total
1.313
0.814
Source: Tasmanian Local Government Grants Commission.
72
Total – council expenditure on local roads
2002–03 ($m)
2003–04 ($m)
2004–05 ($m)
80.0
84.7
89.9
Source: Tasmanian Local Government Grants Commission.
Northern Territory
There is no new data on local road spending in the Northern Territory, but as data is otherwise difficult
to obtain, this paragraph restates data from last year’s report. Sixty-three local governments in the
Northern Territory maintain a local road asset register. In 2003–04, local governing bodies spent
$12.7 million on their local roads, but they need to spend about $38 million to $40 million a year to
maintain them in a fit-for-purpose condition. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure and the
Local Government Association of the Northern Territory have signed a Local Road Management Alliance
Agreement to work together to improve road access in the territory.
Table 4.17: Tasmania – council expenditure on local roads
The current written down replacement value of ACT roads is about $2800 million, with ‘municipal
roads’ that provide property access valued at $1227 million and arterial roads valued at $1157 million.
In 2005–06, $32.2 million was spent on local road assets and about 5 per cent of the municipal road
network was resealed. The long-term benchmark is to resurface about 7 per cent to 10 per cent of the
municipal network annually.
73
74
Chapter 5
Local government
service provision to
Indigenous communities
75
Chapter 5
Local government service
provision to Indigenous
communities
Since 1 July 2004, mainstream agencies, under a whole-of-government approach, have administered
delivery of Australian Government services to Indigenous Australians. This approach relies on
cooperation between the Australian Government, the states and territories and local government, and
the Indigenous communities themselves, for effective service delivery to Indigenous Australians.
To assist in establishing a whole-of-government approach to service delivery for Indigenous
communities, 30 Indigenous Coordination Centres were set up across Australia in metropolitan,
regional and rural areas; they operate as multi-agency offices. The Department of Employment and
Workplace Relations has appointed portfolio experts, known as ‘solution brokers’, to each Centre to
promote and implement innovative employment, training and enterprise opportunities for Indigenous
people within each region. The brokers work with Centre managers to help negotiate partnerships
between government agencies, including local governments in the region, and other organisations,
including the private sector.
The new approach relies on the conviction that successful implementation of services must be based
on shared responsibility between Indigenous communities and government. Through these agreements
the Australian Government invests in the priority needs of those entering into the agreement (usually
a community group or a family) in return for implementing solutions that promote outcomes such as
good health, family stability, community safety and education. By 2005 over 100 Shared Responsibility
Agreements had been made in over 80 communities across Australia. The new arrangements also
include Regional Partnership Agreements, which operate across a whole region.
In support of these new arrangements there is a range of funding programs aimed at delivering
services that Indigenous Australians need. Such services include education and vocational training,
improved capacity of health workers and improved access to health care services in Indigenous
communities, improved sustainability of community stores, and reduced substance abuse, in particular
petrol sniffing. Some of the funding programs are:
© Community Housing and Infrastructure program
© Indigenous Higher Education Partnerships projects
© Indigenous Broadcasting program
© Family Violence Prevention Legal Services
© Fixing Houses for Better Health
76
Home Ownership on Indigenous Land program
Natural Heritage Trust Indigenous Protected Areas program
Scaffolding Literacy
Indigenous Youth Leadership program.
In 2005–06 total Australian Government funding for Indigenous programs reached $3.144 billion.
Further information on these and other programs is available from the Australian Government’s
Indigenous portal at <www.indigenous.gov.au>.
Reporting requirements
The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 requires an assessment, based on
comparable national data, of the delivery of local government services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander communities.
Measures to assess councils’ performance in providing services to Indigenous people have not been
developed; however, all states, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory provide
reports on progress in this area.
©
©
©
©
Full progress reports for 2005–06 from state agencies and some local government associations on
provision of local government services to Indigenous communities are at Appendix H. A summary is
provided below. These reports identify a range of priorities, strategies and actions, and a variety of
differing approaches.
New South Wales
In New South Wales the Department of Local Government continues to participate in the annual Local
Government Aboriginal Network Conference.
Since 2000 the Department of Local Government has conducted surveys to collect data on specific
Aboriginal and disability initiatives being undertaken by New South Wales councils. The data
councils provided in these surveys about their Aboriginal initiatives for 2004 and 2005 are currently
being analysed.
Under the Local Government Act 1993 all councils in New South Wales are required to develop a
social/community plan at least every five years. A social/community plan examines the needs of
the local community and formulates strategies that council and/or other agencies could facilitate or
implement to address these identified needs. The social plan identifies specific policies and action
plans for seven mandatory target groups, one of which is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Social and community planning provides an effective mechanism for councils to plan for the current
and future needs of their diverse local communities. The Department of Local Government has started
a review of council social plans, which will also involve a review of management plans and annual
reports, to assess the inclusion of recommended actions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities.
The New South Wales Government has developed a 10-year plan of action, Two Ways Together,
Partnerships: a new way of doing business with Aboriginal people 2003–2012, to improve service
delivery by both state and local government to Aboriginal people. As part of the Two Ways Together
plan, the department has identified the key action of developing a resource kit to help councils work
77
more effectively with local Aboriginal communities. The kit is being developed in consultation with
councils and key Aboriginal agencies and will be finalised during 2007.
Victoria
The Municipal Association of Victoria Local Government Indigenous Network, comprising councillors
and council officers interested in Indigenous issues within local government, is a continuing program.
In 2004–05 the Victorian Government enacted the new framework for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
preservation through the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. Local government participated in development
of this framework by responding to a discussion paper prepared by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.
Councils continue to use Toomnangi, an initiative of the Municipal Association of Victoria’s Indigenous
Interagency Coordination Committee, as a useful resource for the sector to share its ideas and
initiatives in Victorian local governments’ involvement in Indigenous affairs.
Queensland
The Queensland Government developed the Community Governance Improvement Strategy to support
Aboriginal shires and Island councils in their endeavours to improve their operations and thus deliver
effective local government services to their communities and improve compliance with relevant
legislation. Implementation of the strategy commenced during 2004–05.
A range of strategies has been developed under the Community Governance Improvement Strategy,
including strategies for skills development, business system improvement and stakeholder
engagement.
The Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation has continued to work with the
Aboriginal shires and the Island councils on various projects and staff have made 250 visits to the
councils over the past 12 months. The department is developing a White Paper reviewing community
governance in the 17 Torres Strait Island communities. The objective of the review is to develop a new
legislative model to improve community governance.
The Queensland State Library is implementing a series of Indigenous Library Services initiatives
comprising Indigenous Knowledge Centres, information and communications technology in Indigenous
Knowledge Centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Training and Employment Strategy 2005–10,
reconciliation strategy, and protocols for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander collections.
The State Library has been supporting development of partnerships between Indigenous Knowledge
Centres and other government departments and community organisations to improve service delivery
to communities and to enhance the sustainability of Indigenous Knowledge Centres.
After-school and homework programs for children and young people have become an important
component of daily activities at many Indigenous Knowledge Centres. Some centres have started
weekly movie sessions to entice new community members to the centres.
The State Library undertook an independent audit during 2006 to ascertain the information and
communications technology capacity at each Indigenous Knowledge Centre. Recommendations
contained in the audit report are now being discussed with councils.
The State Library continues to provide regular training opportunities to enhance the knowledge and
skills of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders working in Indigenous Knowledge Centres.
78
During 2005–06 the Australian Attorney-General’s Department continued to fund the LGAQ to act as
the group representative for a number of regional groups of councils negotiating Native Title outcomes.
The model’s aim is to provide efficiencies sought by the Attorney-General while ensuring local
government continues to have access to the level of representation it needs.
Under a contract with the Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation the LGAQ
operates the Indigenous Councils Councillor Training Program. This program provides Indigenous
councillors with the opportunity to earn the Certificate IV in Local Government (Administration). There
has been strong response to this initiative. To date the department has delivered this program to 16
out of 32 councils.
Western Australia
During 2005–06 the Department of Local Government and Regional Development facilitated a range
of initiatives to strengthen the relationship between local government and Indigenous communities to
improve service delivery.
The Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) Executive reports a continuing increase
in Indigenous council membership of the Association. During 2005–06 the LGAQ conducted regular
dialogue with the Aboriginal Local Government Association and the Island Coordinating Council. In all,
15 community councils are members of the LGAQ.
The department is committed to working with local governments to develop Indigenous councillors’
capacity to strengthen local government systems.
In August 2005, the Human Services Director Generals Group, through the Wiluna Development
Project, mandated the department as lead state agency to address the levels of disadvantage suffered
by Indigenous communities. The project focuses on the department supporting the shire in developing
a partnership approach between government, industry and the community to improve the townsite
of Wiluna.
In addition, the department has formed a partnership with the Fire and Emergency Services Authority
of Western Australia to provide greater support to local governments who are coordinating emergency
management plans with discrete communities.
Across Western Australia, the department has improved Indigenous service delivery by facilitating
ways of increasing the capacity of local governments and their Indigenous communities to enter into
service agreements.
To improve Indigenous representation in local government, the department delivered a comprehensive
Indigenous local government election strategy. The strategy ensured broad Indigenous community
exposure to the role of local government through departmental field visits, radio advertising and
development and dissemination of written material designed for an Indigenous audience. The strategy
also included developing an ongoing partnership with the Australian Electoral Commission and the
Western Australian Electoral Commission to increase enrolments and voter turnout.
The Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission continues to recognise the social and
economic implications of having Indigenous communities within councils in Western Australia. The
Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission’s methodology provides comprehensive
recognition of Indigenous factors and allowances.
Other programs the department operates include Young Indigenous Local Government Scholarships
and the Indigenous Leadership Fund.
79
South Australia
South Australia continues the approach characterised by collaboration between the spheres of
government in program design and implementation.
For several years the Australian Local Government Association, the Local Government Association of
South Australia and the South Australian Government have encouraged councils to consider developing
agreements with Indigenous bodies located within their areas. Agreement making supports the role
of councils in coordinated forward planning strategies, sets out areas of mutual interest for the overall
benefit of the local council area, and provides a structured framework to promote effective working
relationships and offer community capacity-building opportunities. Three significant agreements are
now in place in South Australia. They are the Land Use Agreement between Yorke Peninsula and
Narungga Nations Aboriginal Corporation; the reconciliation agreement between the cities of Holdfast
Bay, Marion and Onkaparinga, the District Council of Yankalilla and Southern Kaurna; and the alliance
agreement between Coorong District Council and the Raukkan Community Council.
South Australia is continuing to progress agreements over Native Title claims and promotion and
education projects to increase knowledge of and participation in local government elections.
Five Aboriginal local governing authorities are located in out-of-Local-Government-Act areas of
South Australia. They are Anangu Pitjantjatjara, Gerard Community Council, Nepabunna Community
Council, Yalata Community Council, and Maralinga Tjarutja. A South Australian Local Government
Grants Commission review of funding of these authorities commenced in September 2004 and
considered current sources of funding for local government type services, data collection and reporting
arrangements and other state and territory funding models.
To identify each community’s funding needs, the commission undertook additional investigations
during 2005–06 into the extent (that is, range and depth) of funding the communities received.
Tasmania
The Tasmanian Government continues a major program of negotiating Partnership Agreements with
individual councils and regional groupings of local governments across the state. As part of negotiating
some agreements, the Tasmanian Government is seeking to promote links between local government
and the Aboriginal community. The aim is to identify key issues that affect Aboriginal people in the local
government area and develop strategies to address them.
The Tasmanian Government maintains a cooperative and collaborative working relationship with the
Australian Government to progress Tasmania’s COAG trial that focuses on Aboriginal family violence.
The Tasmanian Government recently returned Cape Barren and Clarke Islands to the Tasmanian
Aboriginal people. With the agreement of Flinders Council, the Cape Barren Islanders Aboriginal
Association will take responsibility for maintaining the road network on Cape Barren Island. Additionally,
Flinders Council has indicated a willingness to negotiate a service agreement with the Cape Barren
Island Aboriginal Association to maintain the rubbish tip and cemetery on the island. The Cape Barren
Island Aboriginal Association provides municipal services on Cape Barren Island. It is responsible for
power, water and sewerage infrastructure and services, and is funded by the Australian Government to
provide these services.
The Tasmanian Government has recognised the unique situation presented by the return of Cape
Barren Island to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people by negotiating the Cape Barren Island Road
Maintenance Contract and the Cape Barren Island Renewable Energy Project, and by providing
education for Years 7 to 10 on Cape Barren Island.
80
In 2005–06, the Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs between the Commonwealth of
Australia and the Northern Territory of Australia has been the primary vehicle for progressing
microeconomic reforms to local government and measures to improve Indigenous service delivery. The
Prime Minister and the Northern Territory Chief Minister signed the agreement in April 2005.
The agreement sets out the collaborative approach the Northern Territory and Australian governments
will take when working with Indigenous communities to improve government service delivery and key
social and economic outcomes for Indigenous Territorians.
The standard of governance and leadership in remote and regional communities still needs
improvement. Without strong governance, the best efforts to lift the standard of service delivery will
continue to face enormous hurdles.
The Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport recently entered into a Joint Venture
Agreement with Reconciliation Australia to develop an Indigenous governance program. This program
will provide an accessible, entry-level approach to Indigenous governance development that will cater
for elected members on large councils as well as governing bodies of smaller Indigenous organisations.
The program will allow for immediate access to resources to enable Indigenous representatives to
solve common governance problems, such as reaching quorums, avoiding conflicts of interest and
separating administrative and elected member functions. It will also provide avenues for Indigenous
elected members to participate in established accredited training that registered training organisations
are providing.
Northern Territory
Since 2003, the Northern Territory has encouraged a process of voluntary regionalisation of local
government under the Stronger Regions – Stronger Futures strategy; however, the pace of voluntary
change through this initiative has been disappointing. Accordingly, the Northern Territory Cabinet is
considering proposals for a more directed approach to local government reform.
During 2005–06 the ACT Chief Minister’s Department worked with other ACT government agencies to
develop a draft framework to guide whole-of-government policy and actions in addressing the social,
economic and cultural needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the ACT.
The draft framework identifies a range of critical outcome indicators that, to a large extent, mirror the
headline and strategic indicators within the COAG-endorsed Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage
Framework. The draft framework also accords with the Canberra Social Plan and its goals and targets.
The department’s activities toward achieving priority areas of the framework include establishing a
representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, continuing to support the ACT
COAG trial ‘Strong Safe Cohesive Communities’, building capacity within the local Ngunnawal Aboriginal
community, and providing education and training opportunities designed to assist Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children achieve positive educational outcomes.
81
Australian Government expenditure and progress
Financial assistance grants to Indigenous councils under the Local Government
(Financial Assistance) Act 1995
In 2005–06, 91 Indigenous councils received financial assistance grants. Indigenous councils can
be established in one of three ways to be eligible for financial assistance grants. Councils can be
established under mainstream local government legislation in the state, such as the Shires of Aurukun
and Mornington in Queensland and Ngaanyatjarraku in Western Australia; or under separate state
legislation such as the Deed of Grant in Trust councils in Queensland; or as bodies that the Australian
Government minister, on advice from the state minister, has ‘declared’ to be local governing bodies that
can receive financial assistance grants.
Indigenous councils eligible to receive financial assistance grants are established in Queensland,
Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. Table 5.1 shows the distribution
of Indigenous councils by state and the way in which they have become eligible for financial
assistance grants.
Table 5.1: Distribution of Indigenous councils by eligibility type and by state, June 2006
State
Qld
Established
under state local
government
legislation
Established under
separate state
legislation
Declared local
governing bodies
Total Indigenous
councils
2
32
0
34
WA
1
0
0
1
SA
0
2
3
5
NT
26
1
24
51
Total
29
35
27
91
Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services, unpublished data.
In 2005–06, $28.48 million in financial assistance grants was provided to these 91 councils. Of this,
$20.92 million was in general purpose grants and $7.56 million in local roads grants. The 2005–06
financial assistance grants entitlements for these councils are provided in Table H.1.
Allocation of general purpose payments to mainstream councils in relation to
their Indigenous population
Mainstream councils that have Indigenous people within their boundaries received some of the
$1617 million in 2005–06 financial assistance grants funding in respect of their Indigenous
populations. While the special needs of Indigenous communities are recognised when assessing
a council’s cost of providing services and hence the impact on the level of general purpose grant it
receives, it remains a decision for each council how the grant will be spent and what services will be
provided for its Indigenous residents.
In assessing grant need, local government grants commissions must comply with agreed distribution
guidelines, called National Principles (see Appendix A), when they allocate financial assistance grants
to councils. For the general purpose grants, local government grants commissions apply cost adjusters
where it has been determined that the cost of providing a local government service is affected by a
recognisable factor, such as demographic profile, remoteness, or climate.
82
5. Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders
Financial assistance shall be allocated to councils in a way, which recognises the needs of
Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders within their boundaries.
In complying with this National Principle, some grants commissions apply cost adjusters for the
Indigenous population in assessing the cost of providing certain services. This may be the result of
Indigenous people having a different average level of demand for certain services or there may be
higher costs associated with delivering the service to Indigenous people, perhaps for language and/or
cultural reasons, or distance factors. Grants commissions also recognise that councils are often unable
to charge rates for the land on which some Indigenous communities reside. This reduces the revenue
these councils are able to raise.
In this way grants commissions should take into account the impact of Indigenous people on a council’s
finances, both in terms of reduced revenue received and higher expenditure requirements, when
determining the financial assistance grant to be allocated to the council.
Grants commissions stipulate the additional level of financial assistance grant that individual
mainstream councils receive in respect of Indigenous people. However, there are conceptual difficulties
in using these estimates as a measure of the financial assistance grants that mainstream councils
receive to provide local government services to Indigenous people. This is because the financial
assistance grant funding is untied and is being provided to give local governing bodies the capacity to
provide a standard range and average quality of local government services. Whether that funding is
used to achieve a particular outcome, for example to provide services for its Indigenous residents, is
left to the local governing bodies to determine.
In addition to a National Principle requiring grants commissions to allocate the general purpose grant
on the basis of relative needs, Principle 5 relates specifically to Indigenous people:
Funding for roads servicing Aboriginal communities in Western Australia
The Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission allocates 7 per cent of its local road
grants received through the financial assistance grants for Special Road Works. Although these funds
are untied, councils have accepted arrangements that appear to involve a degree of tying the funds.
One-third of the Special Road Works funding is directed to councils for roads servicing Aboriginal
communities. In 2005–06 this amounted to $1 773 246.
The Aboriginal Roads Committee, comprising representatives from the Western Australian Local
Government Association, Main Roads WA, the Department of Indigenous Affairs, the Office of
Indigenous Policy Coordination and the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission,
advises on the allocation of funds according to the needs of the Aboriginal communities.
The Committee has established funding criteria based on factors including the number of Aboriginal
people served by a road, the distance of a community from a sealed road, the condition of the road, the
proportion of traffic servicing Aboriginal communities and the availability of alternative access.
The 2006 National Awards for Local Government included the category ‘Strengthening Indigenous
Communities’, which was sponsored by the Australian Government Department of Families, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs. The award aims to highlight local government and community council
initiatives that demonstrate innovation and/or excellence in their approach to increasing opportunities
83
for Indigenous people to engage and participate in the affairs of the local community. It also aims to
highlight improved community governance and service delivery arrangements for Indigenous people.
There were 10 entries in this category. Projects entered included a diverse range of activities such as:
© a reconciliation garden incorporating Aboriginal designs and interpretative plaques
© a golf program
© a driver’s licence and road safety program
© establishment of Aboriginal advisory groups/committees to councils
© council participation in reconciliation and National Aboriginal and Islander Observance Committee
(NAIDOC) week events
© establishment of Indigenous land use agreements involving various parties, including local and
state governments and business/industry organisations
© programs for Indigenous people in education and training
© rural skills training for young Indigenous people
© a small grants program for Indigenous projects
© an eco-tourism venture.
Full details of all the projects are available at <dynamic.dotars.gov.au/nolg/nalg/index.aspx>.
The City of Playford in South Australia won the category with its project Marni Waeindi – Indigenous
Transition Pathways Centre; and the Carpentaria Shire Council in Queensland won the category award
for a council with a ratepayer base under 15 000 for the Normanton Youth Rural Training Program. Both
projects also won National Awards (see Appendix I).
The Marni Waeindi project is a learning node, connected to a network of other agencies and local
industry, that provides a comprehensive range of education, training and other support services
to engage Indigenous young people in seamless, aspirational action-based learning with a strong
emphasis on employment, social inclusion and cultural participation.
The Normanton Youth Rural Training Program provided skills training for over 100 young Aboriginal
people with assistance from the Murr Murr Corporation, the leaders of the Gkuthaarn and Kuktj
peoples and the Yargin and Bynoe Aboriginal Corporations, Delta Downs cattle station and local police.
Port Stephens Council in New South Wales and Kwinana Town Council in Western Australia were each
awarded commendations in the Strengthening Indigenous Communities category.
Port Stephens Council established the Aboriginal Project Fund to satisfy the needs and wishes
of the Port Stephens Indigenous community and in response to a recommendation from a review
conducted in conjunction with the council’s Indigenous Strategic Committee. The fund offers grants for
community-based programs, projects and initiatives of the local Indigenous community, that focus on
youth issues such as work skills, parenting, participation in sport and staying in school.
Kwinana Town Council helped establish the Spectacles Cultural Tours, a unique eco-cultural tourism
venture offering a rich Indigenous experience in a bushland setting at the Spectacles Wetland area in
Kwinana. The tours provide an infrastructure for local Indigenous people to share knowledge, language
and history while preserving and promoting a vibrant traditional and contemporary Indigenous culture.
84
Chapter 6
response to Rates and Taxes:
A Fair Share for Responsible
Local Government
85
Chapter 6
Australian Government response
to Rates and Taxes: A Fair
Share for Responsible Local
Government
In 2002 the Australian Government asked the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Economics, Finance and Public Administration to conduct an inquiry into the financial position of local
government and its roles and responsibilities.
The Hon. David Hawker MP chaired the Committee and the Committee’s report, Rates and Taxes: A Fair
Share for Responsible Local Government, became known as the Hawker Report. The report, tabled in
Parliament on 24 November 2003, made 18 recommendations aimed at improving the relationship
between local government and the other two spheres of government in Australia. The report is available
at <www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/efpa/localgovt/report.htm>.
The government consulted widely on the recommendations and also discussed the report with the
states and territories and the Australian Local Government Association through the Local Government
and Planning Ministers’ Council.
The Australian Government’s response to the Hawker Report was tabled in Parliament on 22 June
2005. It was reproduced in full in the 2004–05 Local Government National Report.
The government has been working to implement the initiatives it agreed to adopt in its June
2005 response to recommendations made in the Hawker report (see <www.dotars.gov.au/local/
publications/index.aspx>). This chapter provides an update on progress with these initiatives.
A tri-partite inter-governmental agreement
Recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 6 of the Hawker Report sought the development of a tri-partite intergovernmental agreement. The government agreed to pursue an agreement on local government
aimed at improving outcomes for local communities. It liaised with the Australian Local Government
Association and the state and territory governments. On 12 April 2006, The Inter-governmental
Agreement Establishing Principles for Guiding Inter-Governmental Relations on Local Government
Matters was endorsed and signed at a special meeting of Local Government Ministers.1 All local
1
86
The Western Australian Minister for Local Government and the Tasmanian Minister for Local Government were not able to
attend this meeting. They signed the Inter-governmental Agreement after the meeting on 21 and 24 April 2006 respectively.
The Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council agreed to consider regular reports on progress
in implementing the Inter-governmental Agreement. Officials will develop a reporting framework for
consideration by ministers in 2007.
A Parliamentary resolution on local government
Recommendation 3 of the Hawker Report proposed that a resolution be put to the House of
Representatives recognising local government as an integral part of governance in Australia.
The Australian Government agreed to propose a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and this
took place on 6 September 2006 in the House of Representatives and 7 September 2006 in the
Senate (see ‘Parliamentary resolution on local government’). The motion was passed in the Senate on
7 September 2006 and in the House of Representatives on 17 October 2006.
PARLIAMENTARY RESOLUTION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
That the House/Senate:
1. recognises that local government is part of the governance of Australia, serving
communities through locally elected councils
2. values the rich diversity of councils around Australia, reflecting the varied communities
they serve
3. acknowledges the role of local government in governance, advocacy, the provision of
infrastructure, service delivery, planning, community development and regulation
4. acknowledges the importance of cooperating with and consulting with local government on
the priorities of their local communities
5. acknowledges the significant Australian Government funding that is provided to local
government to spend on locally determined priorities, such as roads and other local
government services
6. commends local government elected officials who give their time to serve their
communities.
Chapter 6 Australian Government response to Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government
governments and local government stakeholders throughout Australia received a copy of the Intergovernmental Agreement. It is available at <www.lgpmcouncil.gov.au/publications/charter.aspx>.
Consultations on impediments to prudent borrowing
Recommendation 9 of the Hawker Report proposed that local governments be required to audit the
state of their infrastructure and provide status reports to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and
that this data be used to adjust financial assistance grants to councils that were considered negligent
in managing their infrastructure.
87
While the Australian Government did not support this recommendation, it agreed that the Minister for
Local Government, Territories and Roads would facilitate consultation between stakeholders, including
state and territory governments and local government, on impediments to prudent borrowings to
finance infrastructure.
On 23 September 2005, the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, the Hon Jim Lloyd
MP, wrote to state and Northern Territory ministers, the ALGA, and state and Northern Territory local
government associations to seek advice on any impediments to borrowings to fund infrastructure
needs. The state and Northern Territory responses and the local government associations’ responses
were collated separately and presented by the Australian Government at the 4 August 2006 meeting of
the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council.
The general conclusions from the consultation can be summarised as follows:
© Although the legislative and institutional context for local government varies between states,
there do not appear to be significant regulatory impediments to prudent borrowing by local
government. In most states (Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, Northern
Territory) local governments can access low-cost debt financing through centralised public sector
financing authorities.
© Although regulatory impediments to borrowings by local government do not appear significant,
there are prudential concerns. Councils have a debt-averse culture and the capacity of some
councils to access and manage borrowings for infrastructure is low.
Enhancement of the National Awards for Local Government
Recommendation 11 of the Hawker Report sought the establishment of a body to promote local
government capacity building and recommended that this body oversee a federal and state
governments’ best practice awards system.
The Australian Government agreed to refer this issue to the Local Government and Planning Ministers’
Council and to seek enhancement of the National Awards for Local Government through the Council.
The Council noted the enhancement proposals at its meeting of August 2005. The Council further
considered the matter out of session and agreed that the most appropriate means of enhancing the
awards and promoting capacity building was for each state or territory to consider having a greater
involvement with coordinating or resourcing selected Leading Practice Seminars (see Appendix I) to
disseminate local government best practice in its jurisdiction.
Council amalgamations
Recommendation 13 of the Hawker Report proposed that the Commonwealth Grants Commission and
the state and territory local government grants commissions assess the efficiencies of amalgamations
of local governments. It recommended that councils not be financially penalised through a net loss of
financial assistance grants for four years if they amalgamated.
While the Australian Government did not support an assessment by grants commissions, it agreed
that financial assistance grants should not financially penalise or be an impediment to councils wishing
to amalgamate. The Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads agreed to propose a new
National Principle under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 to cover this scenario.
88
6. Council amalgamation
Where two or more local governing bodies are amalgamated into a single body, the general
purpose grant provided to the new body for each of the four years following amalgamation
should be the total of the amounts that would have been provided to the former bodies in
each of those years if they had remained separate entities.
A description of the process for implementing this National Principle is included in Appendix A.
Review of the financial assistance grants
Recommendation 16 of the Hawker Report proposed significant changes to the distribution of financial
assistance grants.
While the Australian Government did not support widespread changes, it acknowledged the apparent
disadvantage to South Australia in the current interstate distribution of the identified roads component
of the financial assistance grants. An interim solution to this problem was agreed, with the granting of
an additional $26.25 million to South Australia over the three years to 2006–07.
The government agreed to a Commonwealth Grants Commission review of the interstate distribution of
the identified roads component of the financial assistance grants. The commission presented its report
to the government on 30 June 2006.
The government considered the commission’s report and announced in the 2007–08 Budget that
it would not be changing the distribution of the identified local roads component of the grants. The
government noted the commission’s findings that there is a lack of consistent and reliable data on:
© the length of local roads in each state
© the number and deck area of bridges on local roads in each state
© local road use in each state
© the maintenance expenditure by local councils on local roads and bridges in each state.
Chapter 6 Australian Government response to Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government
The new National Principle came into effect on 1 July 2006. It becomes the sixth National Principle and
the text is as follows:
The government concluded that without reliable information, it could not be confident that any systemic
change to the existing interstate distribution of local road grants would be equitable.
The government decided to retain the existing distribution and continue the supplementary funding for
South Australian councils.
The future financial governance of local government
Recommendation 17 of the Hawker Report proposed a wide range of reviews and processes to help
local government better determine and control its own financial governance.
While the government did not support most of these proposals, it agreed on the importance of local
government bodies having the capacity to raise revenue from their own sources. The government
agreed to ask the Productivity Commission to examine this issue.
89
The Productivity Commission received the following terms of reference on 4 April 2007.
ASSESSING LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE-RAISING CAPACITY
Productivity Commission Act 1998
The Productivity Commission is requested to undertake a research study assessing local
government revenue.
In undertaking the study the Commission is to examine the capacity of local government to
raise revenue including:
© the capacity of different types of councils (e.g. capital city, metropolitan, regional, rural,
remote and Indigenous) to raise revenue and the factors contributing to capacity and
variability in capacity over time
© the impacts on individuals, organisations and businesses of the various taxes, user
charges and other revenue sources available to local government
© the impact of any state regulatory limits on the revenue-raising capacity of councils.
In undertaking the study the Commission is not to investigate the scope for local governments
to borrow.
The Commission is required to provide both a draft and a final report, with the final report due
within twelve months of receipt of this reference.
The report is to be published.
90
Appendixes
91
Appendix A
National principles for
allocating general purpose
and local road grants
According to section 3 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (the Act), the Federal
Parliament provides financial assistance grants to the states and self-governing territories for the
purposes of improving:
© the financial capacity of local governing bodies
© the capacity of local governing bodies to provide their residents with an equitable level of services
© the certainty of funding for local governing bodies
© the efficiency and effectiveness of local governing bodies
© the provision, by local governing bodies, of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities.
The grants are provided to jurisdictions in the form of general purpose and local road grants. The
intra-jurisdictional allocation of these grants to local governing bodies is made in accordance with
recommendations of local government grants commissions with prior approval of the Australian
Government minister. In determining grant allocations, the commissions are required to make their
recommendations in line with National Principles. The current National Principles are set out in
Figure A.1.
The main objective of having National Principles is to establish a nationally consistent basis for
distributing financial assistance grants to local government under the Act. The Act includes a
requirement, under subsection 6(1), for the Australian Government minister responsible for local
government to formulate National Principles after consulting with jurisdictions and local government.
The formulated National Principles are a disallowable instrument. As such, any amendments, including
establishment of new principles, must be tabled in both Houses of Federal Parliament before they can
come into effect. Members and Senators then have 15 sitting days in which to lodge a disallowance
motion. If such a motion is lodged, the respective House has 15 sitting days in which to put and
defeat the disallowance motion. If the disallowance motion is defeated, the amendment stands. If the
disallowance motion is passed, the amendment will be deemed to be disallowed.
In response to Recommendation 13 of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee
on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local
Government (the Hawker Report), the Australian Government agreed to propose an additional National
Principle (see Chapter 6 of the 2004–05 Local Government National Report). The additional National
92
Appendix A
Principle specifies that financial assistance grants for councils formed as a result of amalgamation will
be maintained at the level the former amalgamating councils would have received, for four years after
amalgamation occurs. The principle was formulated so that grants would not act as a disincentive to
the amalgamation of councils.
The additional National Principle was tabled in the House of Representatives on 27 February 2006
and in the Senate on 28 February 2006. No disallowance motions were lodged, so it took effect from
1 July 2006. It is listed in Figure A.1 as the sixth National Principle, council amalgamation.
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
93
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) amongst local
governing bodies is as follows:
1. Identified road component
The identified road component of the financial assistance grants should be allocated to
local governing bodies as far as practicable on the basis of the relative needs of each
local governing body for roads expenditure and to preserve its road assets. In assessing
road needs, relevant considerations include length, type and usage of roads in each local
governing area.
1 Principles A1 and A3 reiterate principles that exist within the current legislation. Their inclusion in the National Principles
contributes to the balance and completeness of the National Principles and allows for clarification of their definitions. The
effect of Principle A3 is to provide each local governing body with a guaranteed minimum grant.
2 This Principle requires recognition and application of certain relevant grants from other sources against council expenditure
needs. The issue here is to account for revenue from other sources provided for the purpose of delivering certain local
government services.
3 This Principle addresses the specific need for provision of equitable council services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities and indicates that the level of grants received by councils reflects the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
population within council boundaries.
94
Appendix B
Appendix B
State methods for
distributing financial
assistance grants 2005–06
This appendix provides the methods each local government grants commission used for allocating
grants to councils in 2005–06.
Descriptions of methods are based on information supplied by local government grants commissions.
New South Wales
The New South Wales Grants Commission methodology has not changed significantly since last year.
The two components of the grants are distributed on the basis of principles developed in consultation
with local government and consistent with the National Principles of the Local Government (Financial
Assistance) Act 1995.
General purpose component
The general purpose component of the grant attempts to equalise the financial capacity of councils.
The commission uses the direct assessment method. The approach taken considers cost disabilities
in the provision of services on the one hand (expenditure allowances) and an assessment of councils’
relative capacity to raise revenue on the other (revenue allowances).
Expenditure allowances are calculated for each council for a selected range of council services. The
allowances attempt to compensate councils for expected above average costs resulting from issues
that are beyond their control. Council policy decisions concerning the level of service provided, or if
there is a service provided at all, are not considered (effort neutrality).
Expenditure allowances are calculated for 21 council services or areas of expenditure. These services
are general administration and governance, aerodromes, services for aged and disabled, building
control, public cemeteries, services for children, general community services, cultural amenities,
control of dogs and other animals, fire control and emergency services, general health services,
library services, noxious plants and pest control, town planning control, recreational services,
stormwater drainage and national report flood mitigation, street and gutter cleaning, street lighting, and
maintenance of urban local roads, sealed rural local roads, and unsealed rural local roads.
An additional allowance is calculated for councils outside the Sydney statistical district that recognises
their isolation.
95
The general formula for calculating expenditure allowances is:
No. of units × standard cost × disability factor
where:
© the number of units is the measure of use for the services of the council. For most services the
number of units is the population, for others it may be the number of properties or the length
of roads
© the standard cost represents the state average cost for each of the 21 selected council services.
The calculation is based on a state average of each council’s unit cost, excluding extreme values,
using selected items from Special Schedule 1 of councils’ 2003–04 Financial Reports
© the disability factor is the extent to which it is estimated to cost the council more than the
standard to provide the service.
A disability factor is the commission’s estimate of the additional cost, expressed as a percentage, of
providing a standard service due to inherent characteristics that are beyond a council’s control. If, for
example, the commission estimated that it would cost a council 10 per cent more than the standard
for town planning, because of population growth in the area, the disability factor would be 10 per cent.
Consistent with the effort neutrality principle, the commission does not compensate councils for cost
differences arising from council policy decisions, management performance or accounting differences.
For each service the commission has identified a number of variables that it considers to be the most
significant in influencing a council’s expenditure on that particular service. These variables are termed
‘disabilities’. A council may have a disability due to inherent factors such as topography, climate, traffic
or duplication of services. In addition to disabilities identified by the commission, ‘other’ disabilities
relating to individual councils may be determined from council visits or submissions.
The general approach to calculating a disability factor is to take each disability relating to a service and
apply the following formula:
Disability factor = (council measure ÷ standard measure – 1)
× 100 × weighting
where:
© the council measure is the individual council’s measure for the disability being assessed (for
example, population growth)
© the standard measure is the state standard (generally the average) measure for the disability
being assessed
© the weighting is meant to reflect the significance of the measure in terms of the expected
additional cost. The weightings have generally been determined by establishing a factor for the
maximum disability based on a sample of councils or through discussion with appropriate peak
organisations.
Negative scores are not generally calculated. That is, if the council score is less than the standard, a
factor of zero is substituted. The factors calculated for each disability are then added together to give a
total disability factor for the service.
The commission uses the inclusion approach in the treatment of specific purpose grants for library
services and local roads. This means the disability allowance is discounted by the specific purpose
grant as a proportion of the standardised expenditure.
96
Appendix B
The deduction approach is used for services where the level of specific purpose payment assistance
is related to council effort. This method deducts specific purpose grant amounts from all councils’
expenditure before standard costs are calculated. The commission considers the deduction approach
to be more consistent with the effort neutrality requirement specified in the National Principles.
As indicated previously, the commission also calculates an allowance for additional costs associated
with isolation. The isolation allowance is determined using a regression analysis model based on the
additional costs of isolation and distances from Sydney and major regional centres. Only councils
outside the Sydney statistical division are included. Details of the formula are shown later in this
section. The isolation allowance also includes a component that specifically recognises the additional
industrial relations obligations of councils in western New South Wales.
A pensioner rebate allowance is calculated that recognises that a council’s share of pensioner rebates
is an additional cost. Councils with high proportions of ratepayers who qualify for eligible pensioner
rebates are considered to be more disadvantaged than those with lower proportions. Details of the
formula used are shown later in this section.
Revenue allowances attempt to compensate councils for their relative lack of revenue-raising capacity.
Property values are the basis for assessing revenue-raising capacity because rates, based on property
values, are the principal source of councils’ income and property values, and to some extent, are an
indicator of the relative economic wealth of local areas.
The commission’s methodology compares land values per property for the council to a state standard
value and multiplies the result by a state standard rate in the dollar. To reduce the effects of seasonal
and market fluctuations in the property market, the valuations are averaged over three years. In
the revenue allowance calculation, councils with low values per property are assessed as being
disadvantaged and are brought up to the average (positive allowances), while councils with high
values per property are assessed as being advantaged and are brought down to the average (negative
allowances). That is, the theoretical revenue-raising capacity of each council is equalised against the
state standard. The commission’s approach excludes the rating policies of individual councils (effort
neutrality).
Separate calculations are made for urban and non-urban properties. Non-rateable properties are
excluded from the commission’s calculations because the calculations deal with relativities between
councils, based on the theoretical revenue-raising capacity of each rateable property.
In developing the methodology, the commission was concerned that use of natural weighting would
exaggerate the redistributive effect of the average revenue standards. That is, the revenue allowances
are substantially more significant than the expenditure allowances. This issue was discussed with
the Australian Government and the approved principles provide that ‘revenue allowances may be
discounted to achieve equilibrium with the expenditure allowances’. As a result, both allowances are
given equal weight.
The discounting helps overcome the distortion caused to the revenue calculations by the relatively high
property values in the Sydney metropolitan area.
The objective approach to discounting revenue allowances reduces the extreme positives and
negatives calculated, yet maintains the relativities between councils established in the initial
calculation.
97
The commission does not specifically consider rate pegging, which applies in New South Wales.
The calculations are essentially dealing with relativities between councils, and rate pegging affects
all councils.
Generally movements in the grants are caused by annual variations in property valuations, standard
costs, road and bridge length, disability measures and population.
The commission, because of the practical and theoretical problems involved, does not consider the
requirements of councils for capital expenditure. In order to assess capital expenditure requirements,
the commission would have to undertake a survey of the infrastructure needs of each council and then
assess the individual projects for which capital assistance is sought. This would undermine council
autonomy because the commission, rather than the council, would determine which projects were
worthwhile. Further, councils that failed to adequately maintain their assets could be rewarded at the
expense of those that did maintain them.
The issue of funding for local water and sewerage undertakings was examined during the process
of consultation between the commission, the Local Government and Shires Associations, and local
government generally. The consultation process preceded development of the distribution principles
required under the Commonwealth Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986.
The Local Government and Shires Associations and local government recommended to the commission
that water and sewerage services should not be included in the financial assistance grants distribution
principles. The main reasons given were:
© water and sewerage services are not services performed by all general purpose councils in New
South Wales
© if water and sewerage services were to be considered, the level of funds available for other council
services would be significantly diminished
© including water and sewerage services would result in a reduced and imbalanced distribution of
funds to general purpose councils
© other sources of funds and subsidies for water and sewerage schemes are available to councils
through the state government.
The commission agreed with the submissions of the associations and local government. Accordingly,
water and sewerage services are excluded from the distribution formula.
The commission views income from council business activities as a policy decision and, therefore, does
not consider it in the grant calculations (effort neutrality). Similarly, losses are also not considered.
Debt servicing is related to council policy and is therefore excluded from the commission’s calculations.
In the same way, the consequences of poor council decisions of the past are not considered.
Generally the level of a council’s expenditure on a particular service does not affect the grants. Use
of a council’s expenditure is generally limited to determining a state standard cost for each selected
service. The standard costs for these services are then applied to all councils in calculating their
grants. What an individual council may actually spend on a service has very little bearing on the
standard cost or its grant.
Efficient councils are rewarded by the effort neutral approach of the calculations. To illustrate this,
two councils with similar populations, road networks, property values and disability measures would
receive similar grants. The efficient council can use its grant funds to provide better facilities for its
ratepayers. The inefficient council needs to use its grant funds to support an inefficient operation and
98
Council categories have no bearing on the grants. Categories simply provide a convenient method of
grouping councils for analysis.
Appendix B
cannot provide additional services to its ratepayers. Therefore, the efficient council will benefit from its
efficiency.
The commission has in place an amalgamation principle, which states that:
In the event of council amalgamations, the new council will receive grants for two years as if
the councils had remained separate entities and any subsequent change may be phased in at
the discretion of the commission.
Following the significant structural reform of local government in 2004, in 2005–06 it was not possible
to determine the general purpose component of the grant on the basis of the former separate entities.
The complex nature of many boundary changes created significant data limitations that made it
impossible to make meaningful estimates. Accordingly, the commission decided to apply the state’s
escalation factor of 3.5 per cent to the grants for the councils affected. The grants for the new councils
were then apportioned based on the revised population figures.
Local road component
The method of allocating the local road component is based on a simple formula developed by the
New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority. The formula uses councils’ proportion of the state’s
population, local road length and bridge length. See under ‘Principles’ in this section for details.
Formulae
The formulae used in calculating expenditure and revenue allowances of the general purpose
component are as follows:
Expenditure allowances
General
Allowances for the majority of services are calculated on the following general formula:
Ac = Nc × Es × Dc
where:
Ac = allowance for the council for the expenditure service
Nc = number of units to be serviced by council
Es = standard expenditure per unit for the service
Dc = disability for the council for service in percentage terms
Road length allowances
In addition to the disability allowances, length allowances are calculated for each road type based on
the following formula:
Ac = Nc × Es ×
(
Lc
Nc
–
Ls
Ns
)
99
where:
Ac = allowance for road length expenditure
Nc = number of relevant properties for the council
Es = standard cost per kilometre
Lc = council’s relevant length of road per relevant property
Nc
Ls = standard relevant length of road per relevant property
Ns
Isolation allowances
Isolation allowances are calculated for all non-metropolitan councils based on the formula:
Ac = Pc × ([Dsc × K1] + [Dnc × K2] + Ic)
where:
Ac = the isolation allowance for each council
Pc = the adjusted population for each council
Dsc = the distance from each council’s administrative centre to Sydney
Dnc = the distance from each council’s administrative centre to the nearest major regional
centre (a population centre of more than 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 = the number of units to be serviced by the council
Es = the standard expenditure per unit for the service
Ac = the allowance for the council for the expenditure service
100
Appendix B
Revenue allowances
General
The general formula for calculating revenue allowances is:
Ac = Nc × ts × (Ts – Tc)
where:
Ac = the revenue allowance for the council
Nc = the number of properties (assessments)
ts = the standard tax rate (rate in the dollar)
Ts = the standard value per property
Tc = the council’s value per property
The standard value per property (Ts) is calculated as follows:
Ts =
Sum of rateable values for all councils
Sum of number of properties for all councils
The standard tax rate (ts) is calculated as follows:
ts =
Sum of net rates levied for all councils
Sum of rateable values for all councils
Pensioner rebates allowance
The general formula for the allowance to recognise the differential impact of compulsory pensioner
rates rebates is:
Ac = Rc × Nc × (Pc – Ps)
where:
Ac = the allowance for the council
Rc = the standardised rebate per property for the council
Nc = the number of residential properties
Pc = the proportion of eligible pensioner assessments for the council
Ps = the proportion of eligible pensioner assessments for all councils
The standardised rebate per property for the council (Rc) is:
Rc = 0.25 × Tc × ts
where:
Tc = the average value per residential property in the council
ts = the standard tax rate (rate in the dollar) for residential properties
The maximum value for Rc is set at $125. Tc and ts are calculated as for the revenue allowances
except only residential properties are used.
101
Principles
General purpose (equalisation) component
The following principles, which are consistent with the National Principles of the Local Government
(Financial Assistance) Act 1995, are based on an extensive program of consultation with local
government before the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986 was implemented.
The agreed principles are:
1. General purpose grants to local governing bodies will be allocated as far as practicable on a full
equalisation basis as defined in the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995; that is a
basis which attempts to compensate local governing bodies for differences in expenditure required
in the performance of their functions and in their capacity to raise revenue.
2. The assessment of revenue and expenditure allowances of local governing bodies will, as far as is
practicable, be independent of the policy or practices of those bodies in raising revenue and the
provision of services.
3. Revenue-raising capacity will primarily be determined on the basis of property values; positive and
negative allowances relative to average standards may be calculated.
4. Revenue allowances may be discounted to achieve equilibrium with expenditure allowances.
5. Generally for each expenditure function an allowance will be determined using recurrent cost; both
positive and negative allowances relative to average standards may be calculated.
6. Expenditure allowances will be discounted to take account of specific purpose grants.
7. Additional costs associated with non-resident use of services and facilities will be recognised in
determining expenditure allowances.
8. In the event of council amalgamations, the new council will receive grants for two years as if the
councils had remained separate entities and any subsequent change may be phased in at the
discretion of the commission.
Financial assistance, which is made available as an identified local road component of local government
financial assistance, shall be allocated so as to provide Aboriginal communities equitable treatment in
regard to their access and internal local road needs. The agreed principles for distribution are:
1. Initial distribution
Funds will be allocated:
(a) 27.54 per cent to local roads in urban areas
(b) 72.46 per cent to local roads in rural areas
‘Urban area’ means an area designated as an ‘urban area’, which is:
(i) the Sydney Statistical Division
(ii) the Newcastle Statistical District
(iii) the Wollongong Statistical District
‘Rural area’ means an area not designated as an ‘urban area’
102
Appendix B
2. Local road grant in urban areas
(a) 5 per cent to individual councils on the basis of bridge length
(b) 95 per cent to councils as follows:
(i) 60 per cent on the basis of length of roads
(ii) 40 per cent on the basis of population
3. Local road grant in rural areas
(a) 7 per cent to individual councils on the basis of bridge length
(b) 93 per cent to councils as follows:
(i) 80 per cent on the basis of length of roads
(ii) 20 per cent on the basis of population
4. Data
©
©
©
©
Population must be based on the most up-to-date Estimated Resident Population figures available
from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
Road length must be based on the most up-to-date data available to the Local Government Grants
Commission of New South Wales for formed roads, which are councils’ financial responsibility.
Bridge length must be based on the most up-to-date data available to the Local Government
Grants Commission of New South Wales for major bridges and culverts six metres and over
in length, measured along the centre line of the carriageway, which are councils’ financial
responsibility.
The method of application of the statistics must be agreed to between representatives of the
Local Government Grants Commission of New South Wales and the Local Government and Shires
Associations of New South Wales.
Victoria
The Victoria Grants Commission allocates general purpose and local roads grants according to the
six National Principles formulated under the Commonwealth Local Government (Financial Assistance)
Act 1995.
Methodology for general purpose grants
For each council, a raw grant figure is calculated by subtracting the council’s standardised revenue
from its standardised expenditure.
The available general purpose grants pool is then allocated in proportion to each council’s raw
grant, taking into account the minimum grant provision of the National Principles. As outlined below,
decreases in general purpose grant outcomes have been capped, which also affects the relationship
between raw grants and actual grants.
103
Specific grants are made to a small number of councils each year in the form of natural disaster
assistance. These grants are funded from the general purpose grants pool and so reduce the amount
allocated on a formula basis. Details of natural disaster assistance grants allocated for 2005–06 are
provided at the end of this section.
Standardised expenditure
Under the commission’s general purpose grants methodology, standardised expenditure has
been calculated for each council on the basis of nine expenditure functions. Between them, these
expenditure functions include all council recurrent expenditure, with the exception of works undertaken
on behalf of, and funded by, VicRoads.
The structure of the model ensures that the gross standardised expenditure for each function equals
the aggregate actual expenditure by councils, thus ensuring that the relative importance of each
expenditure function in the commission’s model matches the pattern of actual council expenditure.
Aggregate recurrent expenditure by Victorian councils in 2003–04 equalled $3.829 billion. Total gross
standardised expenditure in the commission’s allocation model for 2005–06 therefore also equalled
$3.829 billion, with each expenditure function assuming the same share of both actual expenditure
and standardised expenditure.
For each function, with the exception of local roads and bridges, gross standardised expenditure is
obtained by multiplying the relevant unit of need (such as population) by:
©
©
the average Victorian council expenditure on that function, per unit of need
a composite cost adjustor that takes account of factors that make service provision cost more or
less for individual councils than the state average.
Major cost drivers (‘units of need’)
The major cost drivers and average expenditures per unit for each expenditure function, with the
exception of local roads and bridges, are shown in Table B.1.
Table B.1: Cost drivers and average expenditure per unit – Victoria
Expenditure function
Major cost driver
Governance
Population (adjusted)
$32.26
Family and community services
Population
Aged services
Population >60 years
$450.06
Population
$162.25
$92.75
$173.15
Waste management
Number of dwellings
Traffic and street management
Population
$77.38
Other infrastructure services
$57.77
Business and economic services
$82.48
Source: Victoria Grants Commission
104
Average expenditure per unit
Appendix B
Several different major cost drivers are used. Each is seen by the commission to be the most
significant determinant of a council’s expenditure need on a particular function. For three functions, the
major cost driver is the council’s population. For a fourth (aged services) it is the population aged over
60 years, and for a fifth (waste management) it is the number of dwellings in the municipality.
For three expenditure functions, an adjusted population is used as the major cost driver to recognise
the fixed costs associated with certain functional areas. For the expenditure functions of other
infrastructure services and business and economic services:
© councils with an actual population of less than 7500 are deemed to have a population twice their
actual population
© councils with an actual population of between 7500 and 15 000 are deemed to have a population
of 15 000
© the actual population is used for councils with a population of more than 15 000.
The major cost driver used in assessing relative expenditure needs for the governance function has
been adjusted to take account of high rates of vacant dwellings, particularly in tourist areas, at the time
the census is taken. Councils with a vacancy rate above the state average are now assumed to have a
population higher than the census-based estimate, for the governance function. As in previous years,
councils with an actual population of less than 20 000 are deemed to have a population of 20 000.
Cost adjustors
A number of cost adjustors are used in various combinations against each function. These allow the
commission to take account of individual councils’ particular characteristics that have an impact on the
cost of service provision on a comparable basis. Each cost adjustor has been based around a stateweighted average of 1.00 with a ratio of 1:2 between the minimum and maximum values, to ensure the
relative importance of each expenditure function in the model is maintained.
The cost adjustors used in calculating the 2005–06 general purpose grants were:
© aged pensioners
© population less than 6 years
© English proficiency
© regional significance
© Indigenous population
© remoteness
© kerbed roads
© scale
© population density
© socioeconomic
© population dispersion
© tourism
© population growth
© environmental risk.
105
Different weightings were used for the cost adjustors applied to each expenditure function because
some factors, represented by cost adjustors, have more of an impact on costs than do others.
In response to submissions about the impact on council expenditure of providing services to residents
with a low level of proficiency in English, the commission increased the relative importance of its
English proficiency cost adjustor in determining the 2005–06 general purpose grant allocations.
Previously, the English proficiency cost adjustor has only been taken into account in calculating
standardised expenditure for the family and community services expenditure function. In the 2005–06
allocations, use of this cost adjustor was extended to the governance and aged services expenditure
functions. Some consequent adjustments to weightings of the other cost adjustors used for those
functions were also made to accommodate this change.
Net standardised expenditure
The commission obtained net standardised expenditure for each function by subtracting standardised
grant support (calculated on an average per unit basis) from gross standardised expenditure. This
ensures that other grant support is treated on an ‘inclusion’ basis.
Average grant revenue on a per unit basis (based on actual grants received by local government in
2003–04) is shown in Table B.2.
Table B.2: Average grant revenue per unit – Victoria
Major cost driver
Governance
Population
Average grant revenue per unit
$0.32
$28.51
Aged services
Population >60 years
Population
$193.61
$5.88
Waste management
Number of dwellings
$1.68
Population
$1.61
$1.50
$3.96
Mathematically, calculation of net standardised expenditure for each expenditure function is as follows:
net standardised expenditure = gross standardised
expenditure – standardised grant revenue
where:
gross standardised expenditure = unit of need × average state-wide expenditure per unit × cost
adjustors
standardised grant revenue = unit of need × average state-wide grant revenue per unit
106
Appendix B
Standardised expenditure for the local roads and bridges expenditure function within the general
purpose grants model is based on the grant outcomes for each council under the commission’s local
roads grants model. This model incorporates a number of cost modifiers (similar to cost adjustors)
to take account of differences between councils. Net standardised expenditure for this function is
calculated by subtracting other grant support (based on actual identified local roads grants and Roads
to Recovery grants) from gross standardised expenditure.
The total standardised expenditure for each council is the sum of the standardised expenditure
calculated for each of the nine expenditure functions.
Standardised revenue
A council’s standardised revenue is intended to reflect its capacity to raise revenue from its community.
In past years, standardised revenue has been calculated for each council by multiplying its valuation
base (on a net annual value basis) by the average rate across all Victorian councils. The payments in
lieu of rates received by some councils for major facilities such as power stations and airports have
been added to their standardised revenue to ensure all councils are treated equitably.
In 2003, the commission, in close consultation with councils, began reviewing the way standardised
revenue is assessed. The results of that review were provided to councils in 2004 and, in determining
the general purpose grant allocations for 2005–06, a number of changes were made to the way
standardised revenue is calculated.
In assessing relative capacity to raise rate revenue, capital improved valuations are now used in place
of net annual valuations. A two-year average of valuation data is still employed, and payments in lieu of
rates continue to be added to the standardised rate revenue determined for each council by multiplying
its valuation base by the statewide average rate.
In the 2005–06 allocations, the commission again constrained increases in each council’s assessed
revenue capacity to improve stability in grant outcomes. The constraint for each council has been
set at the statewide average increase in standardised revenue adjusted by the council’s own rate of
population growth to reflect growth in the property base.
In addition to assessing each council’s relative capacity to generate rate revenue, the commission now
makes a separate assessment of the relative capacity to generate revenue from user fees and charges.
The commission multiplies each council’s functional areas, the relevant driver (such as population), by
the state median revenue from user fees and charges. For some functions, the resulting figure is then
modified by a series of ‘revenue adjustors’ to take account of differences between municipalities in
their capacity to generate fees and charges, due to their characteristics.
The standard fees and charges used for each function (based on median actual revenues generated by
local government in 2003–04) are set out in Table B.3, along with the revenue adjustors applied.
107
Table B.3: Standardised fees and charges per unit – Victoria
Major driver (units)
Governance
Population
Aged services
Standard fees and
charges per unit
Revenue adjustors
$6.45
Nil
Population
$8.87
Socioeconomic
Population >60
$75.73
Household income
Population
$12.00
Valuations (% commercial)
Waste management
No. of dwellings
$13.04
Nil
Local roads and bridges
Population
$0.26
Nil
Population
$3.04
Valuations (% commercial)
Population
$2.42
Nil
Population
$15.99
Tourism + value of
development
The assessed capacity for each council to generate user fees and charges is added to its standardised
rate revenue to produce total standardised revenue.
Minimum grants
The available general purpose grants pool for Victorian councils for 2005–06 represented, on average,
$55.70 per head of population. The minimum grant National Principle requires that no council may
receive a general purpose grant that is less than 30 per cent of the per capita average (or $16.71 for
2005–06).
Without the application of this principle, general purpose grants for 2005–06 for eight councils –
Bayside, Boroondara, Glen Eira, Melbourne, Manningham, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Yarra, together
with the Docklands Authority – would have been below the $16.71 per capita level. The minimum grant
principle resulted in the general purpose grants to these councils being increased to that level.
Capping
The commission is conscious that large movements in general purpose grants can have a significant
impact on a council’s financial position. In past years, the commission has applied a cap of 6 per cent
to decreases in grant outcomes.
With the changes to the assessment of relative revenue-raising capacity, grant outcomes for a
number of councils will decrease over time. For 2005–06, the commission again limited decreases
to 6 per cent. However, where such a decrease would exceed 0.5 per cent of a council’s combined
revenue from rates and financial assistance grants (untied revenue), any decrease for 2005–06 was
limited to 0.5 per cent of their untied revenue.
Grant decreases for nine councils – Hobson’s Bay, Kingston, Maribyrnong, Monash, Moonee
Valley, Mornington Peninsula, Nillumbik, Queenscliffe and Whitehorse – were limited to 6 per cent,
while decreases for a further four – Banyule, Darebin, Maroondah and Moreland – were limited to
0.5 per cent of their untied revenue.
108
As a result, six councils – Brimbank, Casey, Greater Geelong, Surf Coast, Warrnambool and Whittlesea
– received an unchanged general purpose grant in 2005–06. The grants to those councils would have
been less than the 2004–05 estimated entitlements had the full cost of capping been applied to them.
Grants to a further two councils – Frankston and Yarra Ranges – which have decreasing grants in
2005–06, were not further reduced through the capping arrangements.
Appendix B
The commission also acted to ensure this capping was only subsidised by those councils with
increasing grants.
Estimated entitlements 2005–06
With the introduction of significant changes to the allocation methodology in 2005–06, grant outcomes
were generally less stable than has been the case in recent years, although the instability was
somewhat reduced by the capping arrangements.
A summary of the changes in estimated general purpose grant entitlements from 2004–05 to
2005–06 is shown in Table B.4.
Table B.4: Changes in general purpose grant entitlements from 2004–05 to 2005–06 – Victoria
Number of councilsa
Change in general purpose grant
Increase of >10.0%
18
Increase of 5.0% to 10.0%
27
Increase of <5.0%
13
No change
6
Decrease of <6.0%
6
Decrease of 6.0% (capped)
9
Total
79
Note: a Analysis does not include the Docklands Authority.
Natural disaster assistance
The commission provides funds from the general purpose grants pool to councils that have incurred
expenditure resulting from natural disasters. Grants of up to $35 000 per council for each eligible
event are provided to assist with repairs and restoration work.
Four grants, totalling $125 280, were allocated to councils in 2005–06 (see Table B.5).
Table B.5: 2005–06 natural disaster assistance from general purpose grant funding – Victoria
Council
Event
Amount
Baw Baw Shire Council
Storm damage
$30 298
Darebin City Council
Flood damage
$35 000
East Gippsland Shire Council
Flood and storm damage
$35 000
Wellington Shire Council
Flood damage
$24 982
109
Methodology for local roads funding
The commission instituted a new funding formula for the 2001–02 allocations based on each council’s
road length (for all surface types) and traffic volumes, using average annual preservation costs for
given traffic volume ranges. The methodology also includes a series of cost modifiers for freight
loading, climate, materials, sub-grade conditions and strategic routes and takes account of the deck
area of bridges on local roads.
The new formula was designed to reflect the relative needs of Victorian councils in relation to local
roads funding in accordance with the National Principle relating to allocation of local roads funding.
Grant levels fully based on the new ‘network cost’ methodology were phased in over a three-year period
to 2003–04.
Traffic volume data
Allocation of local roads grants for 2005–06 was based on traffic volume data that all councils
collected during the 12 months to June 2004. Councils were asked to categorise their local
road networks according to nine broad traffic volume ranges – four for kerbed roads and five for
unkerbed roads.
Victorian councils reported a total of 128 786 kilometres of local roads as at 30 June 2004, an
increase of 74 kilometres or 0.06 per cent over the length reported 12 months earlier. Variations are
outlined in Table B.6.
Table B.6: Changes in local road length from 2004–05 to 2005–06 – Victoria
Change in length of local roads
Number of councilsa
Increase of more than 5.0%
4
16
Increase of up to 1.0%
25
No change
21
Decrease of up to 1.0%
5
Decrease of 1.0% to 5.0%
6
Decrease of more than 5.0%
2
Total
79
Asset preservation costs
Average annual preservation costs for each traffic volume range are used in the allocation model to
reflect the cost of local road maintenance and renewal. ARRB Transport Research developed the initial
average annual preservation costs to allocate local roads grants for 2001–02 and 2002–03; they were
published in Table 7.1 of the Review of Distribution Arrangements for Local Roads Funding in Victoria:
Final Report, released in July 1999.
The commission has previously indicated that the data on which the local roads methodology is
based will be reviewed periodically to maintain its relevance. Consequently, in 2002 the commission
110
Appendix B
reviewed the underlying asset preservation costs used in the local roads grant allocation model and
the recommendations of that review were adopted for the 2003–04 allocations. These remained
unchanged for the 2005–06 allocations (see Table B.7).
Table B.7: Average annual costs used in allocating local road grants for 2005–06 – Victoria
Road type
Kerbed
Unkerbed
Bridges
Daily traffic volume range
Average annual cost
(base case) $/km
<500
2 700
500 – <1000
4 000
1000 – <5000
5 500
5000+
9 000
Natural surface
300
<100
2 000
100 – <500
4 000
500 – <1000
4 900
1000+
5 400
Concrete deck
$40 per sq metre
Timber deck
$80 per sq metre
Cost modifiers
The allocation model uses a series of cost modifiers to reflect differences in circumstances between
councils in:
© volume of freight generated by each council
© climate
© availability of road-making materials
© sub-grade conditions
© strategic routes.
Cost modifiers are applied to the average annual preservation costs for each traffic volume range for
each council to reflect the level of need of the council compared to others.
Relatively high cost modifiers add to the network cost calculated for each council, and so increase its
local roads grant outcome.
The cost modifiers used in allocating local roads grants were not reviewed in 2005–06.
Grant calculation
The commission calculates a total network cost for each council’s local road network. This represents
the relative annual costs the council incurred to maintain its local road and bridge networks, based on
average annual preservation costs and taking account of local conditions, using cost modifiers.
111
The network cost is calculated using traffic volume data for each council, standard asset preservation
costs for each traffic volume range and cost modifiers for freight generation, climate, materials
availability, sub-grade conditions and strategic routes. The deck area of bridges on local roads is
included in the network cost at a rate of $40 per square metre for concrete bridges and $80 per
square metre for timber bridges.
Mathematically, calculation of the network cost for a single traffic volume range for a council can be
expressed as:
length of local roads in category ×
average annual asset preservation cost for category ×
overall cost factor **
**Overall cost factor is calculated by multiplying the individual cost factors for freight
loading, climate, materials availability, reactive sub-grades and strategic routes.
The actual local roads grant is then determined by applying the available funds in proportion to each
council’s calculated network cost.
Estimated entitlements 2005–06
As expected, local roads grant outcomes for most councils have now stabilised following the phased
introduction of the network cost allocation formula. In general, where a significant change occurred in
a council’s local roads grant for 2005–06, this was due to changed road length and traffic volume data
the council supplied to the commission.
A summary of the changes in local roads grants from 2004–05 to 2005–06 is shown in Table B.8.
Table B.8: Changes in local road grant entitlement from 2004–05 to 2005–06 – Victoria
Change in local roads grant
Number of councilsa
Increase of more than 10.0%
6
19
Increase of <5.0%
53
Decrease
1
Total
79
Queensland
Identified road grant
This component of the financial assistance grant is ‘to be allocated as far as practicable on the basis of
relative need of each local governing body for roads expenditure and to preserve its road assets’.
In the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission’s judgement, a formula based on road length
and population best meets this National Principle in Queensland at the current time. This formula is:
112
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.
For 2005–06 the amount per kilometre of road is $396.69 and per capita is $8.92.
Appendix B
©
©
The commission complies with National Principles when developing and refining the methodology it
uses to recommend the distribution of this component of the financial assistance grant.
Every local governing body in the state is entitled to a minimum grant under the National Principles.
This minimum grant is equivalent to 30 per cent of the general purpose pool distributed on a per capita
basis. In 2005–06 this amount was $16.78. The remaining 70 per cent of the general purpose pool is
distributed according to relative need, applying the National Principle of Horizontal Equalisation.
To determine relative need, the commission develops averages for revenue raising and expenditure on
services to be applied to all local governments within the state.
The commission allocates the grant to councils in such a way that the assessed revenue plus the grant
equals the same percentage of assessed expenditure.
After averages for revenue and expenditure are applied to each local government, the commission
alters the assessment for factors outside a council’s control that can affect its ability to rate at capacity
or spend at average, in line with the effort neutrality principle. These factors are termed cost adjustors.
Assessing revenue
The commission has determined that the normal revenue functions of a council are:
© rates
© garbage charges
© fees and charges
© other grants.
The new rating assessment formula the commission adopted in April 2004 was used again in
allocating the 2005–06 financial assistance grant. The new formula was the result of a nine-month
research project to which the commission committed itself in the final report released in January 2003.
The rating formula is:
© 30 per cent weighting – a minimum rate ($397 for 2005–06) applied to all rateable properties in a
council area
© 70 per cent weighting – an average cent in the dollar for a council’s unimproved capital value for
rateable properties across residential, commercial/industrial and rural land use categories.
The result for these two components is adjusted by a council’s Index of Economic Resources, one of the
Socio Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For 2005–06
a maximum cap of 12 per cent increase in the rating assessment from the previous year was applied.
Fees and charges are apportioned on a per capita basis. Garbage revenue is assigned per occupied
urban property.
113
In accordance with the National Principle for other grant support, grants relevant to the expenditure
categories considered by the commission are included as revenue according to the actual amounts
councils received rather than a state average. The commission included six grants, as follows:
© identified road grant (100 per cent)
© library grant (100 per cent)
© road and drainage grant (50 per cent)
© Roads to Recovery grant (50 per cent)
© Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island operating grants (50 per cent)
© minimum general purpose grant (100 per cent).
Assessing expenditure
In assessing council expenditure, the commission includes eight (non-roads) service categories.
They are:
© administration
© public order and safety
© education, health, welfare and housing
© garbage, septic and recycling
© street lighting
© community amenities, recreation, culture and libraries
© building control and town planning
© business and industry development.
Prior to 2005–06, the commission included an assessment of each council’s urban stormwater
expenditure. However, under the new consolidated data collection the commission uses to collect
financial and functional data from councils, urban stormwater expenditures are coded under the
wastewater management local government purpose classification. Most expenditure councils recorded
in this category for 2003–04 (the year used for 2005–06 grant allocations) would have been on
sewerage systems. Excluding urban stormwater from the grant allocation process had a negligible
effect on grant outcomes given the small state expenditure on this function relative to more significant
categories such as roads and administration.
Services
The commission considers which cost adjustors are relevant to which service categories. Table B.9
outlines the expenditure categories, the units of measure and the cost adjustors used in assessing
services expenditure.
114
$23.24 per capita
$40.62 per capita
$62.05 per urban capita
$20.83 per urban capita
$20 908 location +
$92.06 per capita
$121.44 per residential property
$34.33 per capita
Education, health
welfare and housing
Garbage/septic/
recycling
Street lighting
Community amenities,
recreation, culture and
libraries
Building control and
town planning
Business and industry
development
Source: Queensland Local Government Grants Commission
$313 615 location + $179.10 per
property + $176.49 per capita
2005–06 unit of measure
Administration
Services expenditure
category
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Location
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Scale
Services cost adjustors
Non-resident
Demography Demography
service
Dispersion
– age
– Indigenous expenditure
Table B.9: Outline of expenditure assessment for 2005–06 – Queensland
X
X
X
Tourism
X
X
X
Growth
X
X
X
Urban
density
Appendix B
115
Actual expenditure
The commission also considers each local governing body’s actual expenditure or effort positive
expenditure in the categories of environmental protection and other transport. The commission does
not believe there is a current cost driver relevant to these categories from which an average can be
determined.
Roads
The roads assessment model is based on an engineering assessment of the cost to maintain a
council’s road network, including bridges and hydraulics, in average condition.
Tables B.10 and B.11 provide the standards used in the roads assessment model and the cost
adjustors applied. For example, a road with a volume of 150–250 vehicles per day is assumed to be a
sealed 4/8 road regardless of what is actually on the ground.
The following allowances are given for heavy vehicles and for provision and barging of plant and
material to islands:
© light to medium trucks, 2 axles = 1 vehicle
© heavy rigid tandem and/or twin steer = 2 vehicles
© semitrailers = 3 vehicles
© B doubles = 4 vehicles
© road trains = 5 vehicles.
116
Unformed
40–150
1 000–3 000
>3 000
7/10
8/12
8 400
6 350
4 000
3 000
2 300
500
250
Base cost
($/km)
–7.5
–7.5
–7.5
–10
–
–
–
Favourable
(Th. –50)
+10
5 040
9 360
16 800
27 600
43 200
<500
500–1000
1000–5000
5000–10 000
>10 000
+10
+10
+10
+10
Favourable (Th.
–50)
Base cost
($/km)
Traffic volume
range (adjusted
vehicles/day)
+10
+10
+10
+5
+5
Adverse (Th.
+100)
Climate (%)
+2.5
+2.5
+2.5
+2.5
+2.5
+2.5
+2.5
+2.5
+2.5
+5
+5
+5
+2.5
+2.5
+2.5
+2.5
+2.5
<1.0 person per
sq. km
–
–
–
–
–
<0.1 person per
sq km
+2.5
+2.5
+2.5
+5
+10
+10
+10
<0.1 person
per sq km
Locality on-cost (%)
<1.0 person
per sq km
Locality on-cost (%)
+10
+10
+10
+10
+10
–
–
MR reactive
Soil subgrade (%)
MR reactive
Soil sub-grade
(%)
+10
+10
+10
+15
+15
+20
+25
Adverse
(Th. +100)
Table B.11: Urban roads standards and cost adjustors – Queensland
250–1 000
150–250
6/8
Sealed 4/8
Paved
<40
Unformed
Standard
Formed
Traffic volume
ange (adjusted
vehicles/day)
Climate (%)
Table B.10: Rural roads standards and cost adjustors – Queensland
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
Undulating
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
Undulating
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
Hilly
Terrain (%)
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
Hilly
Terrain (%)
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
Mountains
+10
+10
+10
+10
–
–
–
Mountains
Appendix B
117
Cost adjustors
Cost adjustors are indices applied to expenditure or revenue categories to account for factors outside
a council’s control, that have an impact on its ability to provide services. The cost adjustors the
commission used this year were:
© climate
© demography
© dispersion
© growth
© locality
© location
© non-resident service expenditure
© scale
© sub-grade
© tourism
© terrain
© urban density.
Table B.9 identifies which of these cost adjustors are applied to the service categories.
Averaging
In response to concerns about data limitations in the calculation methods for roads and rates, the
commission introduced averaging steps to increase confidence in the results obtained from the new
methodology.
Regression
The first averaging step applies regression analysis to the results the base methodology produces.
Regression is a statistical tool for developing averages based on more than one variable. The
commission has decided to average the outcomes of the methodology against population and
road length.
The result of the regression analysis is averaged with the outcomes from the methodology thus
reducing the impact of very wide variations occurring between councils in Queensland and introducing
some comparability between councils based on population and road length.
Old methodology
The result of averaging with the regression is further averaged with the methodology previously used.
The reason for this averaging is to reduce the anomalies caused by data limitations in the rating and
road calculations. As data quality improves, this step will be phased out.
Commission judgments
When the commission makes a recommendation on the grant, it first considers the distribution
calculated by the model to see if the results fit all councils. As can be expected with any mathematical
model, it fits well for 90 per cent of councils, but 10 per cent of councils produce anomalous results.
It is for this 10 per cent of councils that adjustments may be made based on commission judgment.
118
Rural regional centre adjustment
Appendix B
Adjustments for 2005–06
In the commission’s judgment, more consistent and likely general purpose grants for Dalby, compared
to other similar rural regional councils, would be:
Dalby $76 per capita (pop 10 199)
In 2005–06 no other regional centre adjustments were made.
Minimum adjustment
In Queensland there appears to be three distinct population ranges for high population centres.
They are:
© First population range
Brisbane and Gold Coast
© Second population range
Councils with populations 100 000 to 175 000
© Third population range
Councils with populations 79 000 to 100 000
It is the commission’s judgement that those cities with a population above 150 000 should be entitled
to the minimum grant only, along with Brisbane City Council and Gold Coast City Council that are
assessed as being minimum grant councils.
In 2005–06, only Logan City met this criterion. Cities with populations of less than 150 000 will receive
slightly higher than the minimum per capita grant, as determined by the methodology.
Aboriginal and island councils (including Aurukun and Mornington Councils)
Given the general level of increased grants to Aboriginal and island councils compared to the previous
methodology, the commission has included an adjustment such that the general purpose component
for each council does not fall below the grant received in 2005–06.
The same adjustment was made to Torres Shire Council as it has similar location, demographic and
road length characteristics.
Broadsound, Clifton and Rosalie Shire councils
The commission limited reduction of grants to the councils of Broadsound, Clifton and Rosalie as they
would have the greatest relative reduction in grants. The commission considered the reductions to be
too high for the councils to reasonably absorb in one year.
Phasing in
The phase-in agreed between the Australian and Queensland governments in August 2003 was a
four-year straight-line phase-in period to all councils except Aboriginal Shire and Torres Strait Island
councils, and minimum grant councils, which will receive their unphased grant entitlement.
The commission is also phasing out, over the five years until 2007–08, that part of the methodology
termed Step 3 in the Methodology Review Final Report. This was foreshadowed in the January
2003 report.
For 2005–06 this meant the phased-in grant entitlement for each council was 67 per cent outcomes
from the new methodology and 33 per cent outcomes from the old methodology.
119
Western Australia
In 2005–06, the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission used the balanced budget
method for allocating the general purpose component and an asset preservation model for allocating
the identified local road component of financial assistance grants.
General purpose grant funding
The balanced budget approach to horizontal equalisation was based on the formula:
assessed equalisation requirement =
assessed expenditure need – assessed revenue capacity
for all 142 local governments in Western Australia, calculated simultaneously.
Calculation of assessed revenue capacity, based on standardised mathematical formulae, involved
assessing the revenue-raising capacity of each local government in the categories of:
© residential and commercial/industrial rates
© agricultural rates
© pastoral rates
© mining rates
© other revenue (formerly extraordinary revenue).
Determining the assessed expenditure need, also based on standardised mathematical formulae,
involved assessing each local government’s operating expenditures in the provision of core services
and facilities under the standard categories of:
© governance
© law, order and public safety
© education, health and welfare
© community amenities
© recreation and culture
© building control
© transport.
‘Assessed equalisation requirement’ is the result of subtracting assessed expenditure need from
assessed revenue capacity. The 2005–06 grants are based on a four-year average of a preliminary
equalisation requirement of local governments. In using a four-year average, the commission took the
equalisation requirement for 2005–06 and three of the previous five years (the three years were those
remaining once the years with the highest and lowest equalisation requirement were removed from the
calculation).
This is different to the average the commission previously used where it took the equalisation
requirement for the previous six years but removed the years with the highest and lowest equalisation
requirement out of the average. Using this method, there was no guarantee that the most recent year
would be included in the average.
The commission has changed the averaging method in response to submissions made by a number of
local governments. It also considered that including the most recent year in the averaging calculation
provides more currency to the current year grant allocation.
120
Appendix B
The derived 2005–06 final outcome was then subjected to the minimum grant principle (30 per cent
of the total general purpose grant component) before the balance was factored back in order that local
governments received grants proportional to their calculated allocation within the state’s share of the
federal per capita funding pool.
In the 2005–06 grant determinations, 30 local governments received the minimum grant entitlement
(compared to 28 in 2004–05).
Methodology refinements for 2005–06
Refinements made to the methods, as a result of the commission’s ongoing research programs,
public hearings, visit programs, and consideration of local government submission claims, are briefly
described below.
Units of measurement
The major influence in calculating expenditure standards was population. The commission used the
latest (30 June 2004) Australian Bureau of Statistics’ estimated residential population data (cat. no.
3234.5). Other key drivers used in the balanced budget approach were a range of disability factors,
given relative weightings to calculate local governments’ allowances for additional costs in the provision
of services.
Maximum reduction
In reviewing the grant allocations, maximum reductions were limited to 15 per cent. The effect of
applying this limit was to reduce the impact that would be experienced by one local government – the
Shire of Augusta–Margaret River.
Revenue standards
The commission adopted revenue standards for residential and commercial/industrial rates,
agricultural rates, pastoral rates, mining rates and other revenue, as well as building control charges
and recreation and culture charges, consistent with previous years.
Expenditure standards
There were no major changes in the methods of calculating expenditure standards compared to
2004–05 and previous years; however, there were some minor changes to the expenditure categories
of law, order and public safety; and transport.
Law, order and public safety
The commission has continued with four categories of assessing this expenditure category. This is due
to the (historically) different arrangements for fire fighting; however, the law and order component of the
assessment is now calculated as a single standard for all councils, rather than within each category, as
was the previous practice. This is considered an improvement to the equalisation methodology.
Transport
As in previous years, transport needs were calculated for each local government by adding non-road
expenditure items (footpaths, street lighting, laneways and aerodromes) to road preservation needs
obtained from the asset preservation model.
121
The transport assessments overall have reduced by 4.3 per cent as a result of including Roads to
Recovery grants in the assessment. The change in assessments for individual councils is greater or
lesser than this figure, depending on the change in asset preservation needs, and the amount of asset
preservation grants. The commission has also changed its method of including aerodromes; councils
with aerodromes have generally benefitted from the increased assessment.
Special purpose grants
One of the National Principles recognises that some local governments’ expenditure needs are met by
special purpose grants. For the 2005–06 allocations, the total assessed expenditure was discounted
by the state average percentage representing special purpose grants over total expenditure, which was
consistent with the treatment in 2004–05.
Disability factors
Once again, a broad range of disability factors has been applied. A number of factors have been
updated to reflect more current information (for example, heritage, drainage, jetties and boat ramps).
Some minor amendments were made to the extraordinary planning, medical facilities and population
dispersion factors. In general, these amendments affected only a small number of councils.
The commission retained the Indigenous factor adopted in 2004–05, but has moved its application
from the education, health and welfare standards to the governance standard. This resulted in
increased allowances for relevant councils.
A new allowance was introduced for those local governments that have a large number of public toilets,
primarily to recognise the impact tourists have on an area. Information was sourced from the Australian
Government Department of Health and Ageing that produces a national public toilet map covering
approximately 1700 public toilets in Western Australia. This information was analysed to establish
those councils with a large number of facilities to maintain. The commission has provided an allowance
of $2000 per public toilet (above the expected number to service the resident population).
The commission includes, in the communities’ amenities assessment, an environmental allowance
based on a number of indicators, including the State of the Environment Report, land salinity, and
the number of council-managed reserves with declared species. The commission has increased
the allowances for coastal councils by $10 000 to recognise the environmental management costs
they incur.
The commission has adopted a new factor, to recognise the additional expenditure needs (and revenue
capacity) regional centres incur. The commission has recognised two types of regional centre; the first
– Albany, Bunbury, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie–Boulder, Narrogin and Northam – receive a factor of 1.10,
and the second (10 centres) receive a factor of 1.03.
This decision came about after the commission received many submissions, and conducted research
and discussions on the issue. In applying this new factor, these councils will no longer receive the
benefit of adjusted population, which is used as the key driver of a number of expenditure categories,
as this would be a doubling up of the recognition of regional centres. All local governments, except the
City of Geraldton for which adjusted population was retained, are expected to benefit from this change,
The location factor was also updated. The proposed changes generally bring factors down and there
are large downward movements in standards for some councils. These reduced standards appear to
be a reflection of the reduced difference in relativities in award rates of pay and may be a result of the
122
Appendix B
increase in workplace, enterprise and employee bargaining agreements. The building index numbers
have also contributed to the decline, with two or three minor increases and the majority of figures set to
the same level, with around 30 or so councils being reduced.
Equations used in calculating standards
See Table B.12 for definitions of terms used in the following formulae.
Revenue standards
Agricultural rates
Standard = (0.002262 x TVal345) + (1.599 x VGarea) + (387.27 x AgAssmts)
Building control charges
Standard = 4.15 x VTBld345
Investment earnings
Standard = 0.0396 x INVBAS06
Mining rates
Standard = [($129.85 x Tlease/Assmts345) + (0.09053 x Minval345)] x 0.9647
Other revenue
Standard = individual assessments
Pastoral rates
Standard = 0.074417 x Pastoral Valuations
Recreation and culture charges
Standard = 43.68 x AdjPop05
Residential and commercial/industrial rates
Standard = ($145.06 x RCIAssmt) + (6.2780c x RCIValuations)
Expenditure standards
Building control
Standard = 1.14 x [($48.01 x Size05) + ($3.25 x VTBld345)]
Community amenities
Standard = $14.68 x AdjPop05 x SPG Factor 0.946
Education, health and welfare
Standard = $41.88 x Pop05 x SPG Factor 0.479
Governance
Standard = [($40.53 x RateAssmt) + ($41.08 x AdjPop05)] + $149 003
Standard = Category 1: ($21.57 x Pop05) – (0.04 x Dwell05)
Category 2: City of Perth Actual Expenditure
Category 3: ($21.57 x Pop05) + ($171.18 x Dwellings outside WAFRS*)
Category 4: ($21.57 x Pop05) + ($127.77 x Dwellings outside WAFRS*)
* WAFRS = Western Australian Fire and Rescue Service
Standard = ($74.23 x AdjPop05) + ($189.68 x Dwells05) + $84 153
123
Transport
Standard = factored back asset preservation model needs + aerodrome allowance – total preservation
grants
Table B.12: Definition of terms used in formulae – Western Australia
Sources of information
Code
Explanation
Source
AdjPop05
Estimated service population derived from formula
(population + net additional employment) based on ABS
statistics, employment derived from business register
ABS Business Register
as at September 1998
AgAssmt
Total average number of rate assessments on agricultural Information returns to WALGGC
properties, including special rural, rates on unimproved
values provided for the period 2002–03 to 2004–05
BAILs01
Estimated number of business and industrial locations
in WA in 2001 (employing and non-employing single local
business entities)
ABS Business Register
as at June 2001
Dwell 2005
Estimated stock of dwellings in Western Australia as at
June 2001 census, increased by dwelling approvals in
2002–03, 2003–04, 2004–05
ABS Cat. No. 8705.5
Dwell outside WAFRS
Number of dwellings outside protection of the Western
Australian Fire and Rescue Service; dwellings protected
by bush fire brigades
Information returns to WALGGC
InvBas06
Rate revenue + charges revenue + other revenue + 20%
of general purpose grants + 20% of Main Roads WA
direct grants
Western Australia Local
Government Grants Commission
MinVal345
Total unimproved mining valuations for the period
2002–03 to 2004–05
Valuer-General’s Office
Pop04, Pop05
Estimated resident population in statistical local areas in
Western Australia, 30 June 2004 and 30 June 2005
ABS Cat. No. 3234.5
PstValuations
Total average pastoral valuations for the period 2002–03
to 2004–05
RateAssmt
Average total number of rates assessments for the period Information returns to WALGGC
2002–03 to 2004–05
RCIAssmt
Average number of rateable assessments provided for
the period 2002–03 to 2004–05
RCIValuations
Average total equalised gross rental values of residential
and commercial/industrial property in the period
2002–03 to 2004–05
Size05
Formula assessment = [(10.1 x BAILs01) + Dwell 2005]/2 ABS Business Register and Census
Tlease/Mining Assmt345
Total number of mining leases and licenses registered, or
assessments for the period 2002–03 to 2004–05
TVal345
Total average agricultural valuations for the period
2002–03 to 2004–05
VGArea
Total average agricultural land area in hectares
for agricultural valuations for the period 2002–03
to 2004–05
VTBld345
Estimated total value of building activity for the period
2002–03 to 2004–05
ABS Cat. No. 8731.55
Note: WAFRS = Western Australian Fire and Rescue Service; WALGGC = Western Australian Local Government Grants
Commission
Source: Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission
124
Under the current principles 7 per cent of federal funds are allocated for special projects with onethird of this amount being for roads servicing Aboriginal communities and the remaining two-thirds for
bridges. The remaining 93 per cent is distributed according to an asset preservation model.
Appendix B
2005–06 local road grant funding
Table B.13: Local road grant funding 2005–06 – Western Australia
Purpose
Access roads servicing Aboriginal communities
Bridge works
Grant
$1 773 246
$3 546 492
Balance of 93 per cent for distribution
$70 661 649
Total local road funding
$75 981 387
Source: Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission
Access roads servicing Aboriginal communities
The commission is advised by the Aboriginal Roads Committee, which comprises representatives
from the Western Australian Local Government Association, Main Roads WA, the Western Australia
Department of Indigenous Affairs, the Australian Government’s Office of Indigenous Policy
Coordination, and the commission.
The aim of the Committee is to ensure funds are allocated in accordance with the needs of the
Aboriginal communities.
The Committee has established funding criteria based on factors including the number of Aboriginal
people served by a road, the distance of a community from a sealed road, the condition of the road, the
proportion of traffic servicing Aboriginal communities and the availability of alternative access. These
criteria have provided a rational method of assessing priorities in developing a five-year program.
Bridge works
Special project funds for bridges are allocated to only preservation-type projects.
A Bridge Committee advises the commission on priorities for allocating funds for bridges. Membership
of the Committee is made up of representatives from the commission, the Western Australian Local
Government Association, and Main Roads WA.
The Committee receives recommendations from Main Roads WA on the priorities of projects under
consideration. These recommendations are the outcome of an ongoing program of inspecting and
evaluating the condition of local government bridges.
Distribution of the balance of 93 per cent
The remaining funds were distributed in accordance with road preservation needs determined by the
commission’s asset preservation model. The model assesses the average annual costs of maintaining
each local government’s road network and has the facility to equalise road standards through
application of minimum standards. These standards help local governments that have not been able to
develop their roads to the same standard as more affluent local governments.
New asset preservation needs have been determined using updated road statistics provided by Main
Roads WA. Road costs have been adjusted for inflation.
125
Councils received an average increase of 4.2 per cent. However, changes for individual councils vary
considerably because of changes in road statistics and allowances for heavy traffic. Fourteen councils
received increases of 6 per cent or more while five councils received decreases.
South Australia
Methods – general purpose grant
The methodology used to assess the allocation of the general purpose component of financial
assistance grants is intended to achieve an allocation to local governing bodies in the state consistent
with the National Principles. The overriding principle is one of horizontal fiscal equalisation, which is
constrained by a requirement that each local governing body must receive a minimum entitlement per
head of population as prescribed in Commonwealth legislation.
The South Australian Local Government Grants Commission uses a direct assessment approach
to the calculations. This involves the separate estimation of a component revenue grant and a
component expenditure grant for each council, which are aggregated to determine each council’s
overall equalisation need. Available funds are distributed in accordance with the relativities established
through this process and adjustments are made as necessary to ensure the per capita minimum
entitlement is met for each council. For local governing bodies outside the incorporated areas (the
Outback Areas Community Development Trust and the five Aboriginal communities) allocations are
made on a per capita basis.
A standard formula is used as the basis for both the revenue and expenditure component grants.
Formulae
The formula for calculating the raw revenue grants can be expressed as:
G = Pc x S x
[(
Us
x RRIs
Ps
)(
–
Us
x RRIc
Pc
)]
Similarly, the formula for calculating the raw expenditure grants can be expressed as:
G = Pc x S x
[(
Uc
x CRIc
Pc
)(
–
Us
x CRIc
Ps
)]
where:
subscripts of s or c refer to the state or a particular council
G = a council’s calculated relative need assessment
P = population
U = unit of measure – some units of measure are multiplied by a weight
S = standard, be it cost or revenue = expenditure or income
U
RRI = Revenue Relativity Index
CRI = Cost Relativity Index (previously known as the disability factor).
126
In the revenue calculations for both residential and rural assessments, the commission has calculated
a revenue relativity index based on the Index of Economic Resources, one of the Socio Economic Index
for Areas (SEIFA) produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Where no revenue relativity index
exists the RRIc is 1.0.
Appendix B
RRIs and CRIs are centred around 1.0. If more than one CRI exists for any function, they are multiplied
together to give an overall CRI for that function.
Currently in all expenditure calculations, except roads and stormwater, no disability factors are applied;
consequently CRIc equals 1.0.
The raw grants, calculated for all functions using the above formulae, both on the revenue and
expenditure sides, are then totalled to give each council’s total raw grant figure. Any council whose raw
calculation per head is less than the per capita figure ($16.65 for 2005–06) then has the per capita
figure applied. The balance of the allocated amount is then apportioned to the remaining councils
based on their calculated proportion of the raw grant. Commission determined limits are then applied
to minimise the impact on council’s budgetary processes. In calculating the 2005–06 grants, the
commission allowed changes to councils’ grants to range from minus 9 per cent to plus 19 per cent. An
iterative process is then undertaken until the full allocation is determined.
Component revenue grants
Component revenue grants compensate or penalise councils according to whether their capacity to
raise revenue from rates is less than or greater than the state average. Councils with below average
capacity to raise revenue receive positive component revenue grants and councils with above average
capacity receive negative assessments.
The commission estimates each council’s component revenue grant by applying the state average rate
in the dollar to the difference between the council’s improved capital values per capita multiplied by the
RRIc and those for the state as a whole, and multiplying this back by the council’s population. The state
average rate in the dollar is the ratio of total rate revenue to total improved capital values of rateable
property. The result shows how much less (or more) rate revenue a council would be able to raise than
the average for the state as a whole if it applied the state average rate in the dollar to the capital values
of its rateable properties. This calculation is repeated for each land use category, namely:
© residential
© commercial
© industrial
© rural
© other.
To overcome fluctuations in the base data, valuations, rate revenue and population are averaged over
three years. Revenue Relativity Indices (RRIc) are only applied to the residential and rural valuations.
Subsidies
Subsidies that are of the type that most councils receive and are not dependent upon their own special
effort (that is, they are effort neutral), are treated by the inclusion approach. That is, subsidies such as
those for public bus and library services, and roads are included as a revenue function.
127
Component expenditure grants
Component expenditure grants compensate or penalise councils according to whether the costs of
providing a standard range of local government services can be expected to be greater than or less
than the average cost for the state as a whole due to factors outside the control of councils. The
commission assesses expenditure needs and a component expenditure grant for each of a range of
functions and these are aggregated to give a total component expenditure grant for each council.
The methodology compares each council per capita against the state average. This enables the
comparison to be consistent and to compare like with like.
Each function is identified by a main driver or unit of measure. This unit of measure is divided into the
total expenditure on the function for the state as a whole to determine the average or standard cost for
the particular function. For example, for the expenditure function of built-up sealed roads, ‘kilometres
of built-up sealed roads’ is the unit of measure.
Using this example, the length of built-up sealed roads per capita for each council is compared with the
state’s length of built-up sealed road per capita. The difference, be it positive, negative or zero, is then
multiplied by the average cost per kilometre for construction and maintenance of built-up sealed roads
for the state as a whole (standard cost). This, in turn, is multiplied back by the council’s population to
give the component expenditure grant for the function. As already indicated this grant can be positive,
negative or zero.
In addition, the commission recognises that there may be other factors beyond a council’s control
that require it to spend more (or less) per unit of measure than the state average; in this example it
would be to reconstruct or maintain a kilometre of road. Accordingly, the methodology allows for a
cost relativity index (CRI), to be determined for each expenditure function for each council. Indices are
centred around 1.0, and are used to inflate or deflate the component grant for each council. In the
case of roads, CRIs measure relative costs of factors such as material haulage, soil type, rainfall and
drainage.
To overcome fluctuations in the base data, inputs into the expenditure assessments (with the exception
of the newly revised road lengths) are averaged over three years.
Table B.14 details the approach taken to expenditure functions included in the methodology and
Table B.15 shows the expenditure functions, standard cost, units of measure and aggregate units of
measure.
Table B.14: Expenditure functions, standard cost and units of measure – South Australia
128
Standard cost
Units of measure
Subsidised services – public buses
Set at 1.00
Derived from the level of state subsidy received by each
councila
Subsidised services – animal and
plant control
Set at 1.00
Derived from the level of council contributions to Animal
and Plant Control Boardsb
Waste management
Reported expendituresc
Number of residential properties
expendituresc
Aged care services
Reported
Services to families and children
Population aged 65+ per ABS census and estimated
resident population
Population aged 0–4 yrs per ABS census and estimated
resident population
Standard cost
expendituresc
Units of measure
Health inspection
Reported
Subsidised services – libraries
Set at 1.00
Derived from the level of state grant received by
each councild
Sport, recreation and culture –
active
Population aged 5–24 years per ABS census and
estimated resident population
Sealed roads – built-uph
Kilometres of built-up sealed road as reported in general
information return (GIR)
Sealed roads – non-built-uph
Kilometres of non-built-up sealed road as reported in GIR
Unsealed roads –
built-uph
Unsealed roads –
non-built-uph
Establishments to inspect
Reported
expendituresc
Kilometres of built-up unsealed road as reported in GIR
Reported
expendituresc
Kilometres of non-built-up unsealed road as reported
in GIR
Unformed roadsh
Kilometres of unformed road as reported in GIR
Stormwater constructione,f
Number of urban propertiesg
maintenancee,f
expendituresc
Number of urban propertiesg
Stormwater
Reported
Emergency services
Total number of properties
Planning and building control
Number of new developments and additions
Set at 1.00
Based on commission-determined relative expenditure
needs in a number of areasi
Other needs
assessmentj
Appendix B
Notes:
a The unit of measure or standardised expense is derived as the product of the council subsidy for each council and the
average ratio of council expenditures (net of revenue) to state subsidies, for all councils having subsidised bus services.
b The unit of measure or standardised expense is taken as each council’s contribution to the operation of animal and plant
control boards.
c Councils’ expenditures reported on the commission’s supplementary returns.
d The unit of measure or standardised expense is derived as the product of the council grant for each council and the average
ratio of council expenditures (net of revenue) to state grants, for all councils.
e Includes both construction and maintenance activities.
f The commission has also decided, for these functions, to use CRIs based on the results of a previous consultancy by BC
Tonkin and Associates.
g Urban properties equal the sum of residential properties, commercial properties, industrial properties, exempt residential
properties, exempt commercial properties, and exempt industrial properties.
h The commission has, for these functions, used CRIs based on the results of a consultancy led by Emcorp and Associates, in
association with PPK Environment and Infrastructure. Tonkin Consulting has since refined the results.
i Comprises commission-determined relative expenditure needs with respect to:
© non-resident use/tourism/regional centre – assessed to be high, medium or low
© duplication of facilities – identified by the number of urban centres and localities (as determined by the Australian Bureau
of Statistics)
© isolation – measured as distance from the GPO to the main service centre for the council (as determined by the Royal
Automobile Association)
© additional recognition of needs of councils with respect to Aboriginal people – identified by the proportion of the population
identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
© unemployment – identified by the proportion of the population unemployed
© capital city status – gives recognition to such things as the ability of the council to raise revenue from sources other than
rates (that is, car parking and from the Wingfield dump), and their extraordinary expenditure need (that is, due to the
requirement that they maintain the entire road network within the city given the daily influx of non-resident population).
j This final factor (also known as Function 50) originates from an awareness by the commission that there are many nonquantifiable factors, which may influence a council’s expenditure, and that it is not always possible to determine objectively
the extent to which a council’s expenditure is affected by these inherent or special factors. Therefore, in determining units of
measure and cost relativity indices, the commission must exercise its judgement based on experience, the evidence submitted
to the commission, and the knowledge gained by the commission during visits to council areas and as a result of discussions
with elected members and staff.
Source: South Australia Local Government Grants Commission
129
Table B.15: Expenditure functions, standard cost, units of measure and aggregate units of measure
– South Australiaa
Standard
in dollars
Unit of measure
per capita
Total units of
measure
Subsidised services –
public buses
1.00
1.00365
1 524 778
Standardised expense
Subsidised services – animal
and plant control
1.00
1.81554
2 758 228
Expenditure from Animal and
Plant Control Board
Garbage
96.02
0.40357
613 118
Number of residential properties
Aged care services
45.87
0.14915
226 596
Population aged more than 65
Services to families and
children
83.33
0.05868
89 153
Population aged 0 to 4 years
256.85
0.01565
23 771
Establishments to inspect
Function
Unit of measure
Expenditure functions
Health inspection
Subsidised services – libraries
Sport, recreation and culture
1.00
26.11859
39 680 265
228.19
0.26290
399 407
11 529.13
0.00648
9 850
Kilometres of sealed built-up
road
4 932.50
0.00431
6 551
Kilometres of sealed non-builtup road
835
Kilometres of formed and
surfaced and natural surfaced
formed built-up road
Sealed roads – built-up
Sealed roads – non-built-up
Unsealed roads – built-up
1 167.04
0.00055
Unsealed roads – non-built-up
Population aged 5 to 24 years
800.75
0.03163
48 047
Kilometres of formed and
surfaced and natural surfaced
formed non-built-up road
126.72
0.00594
9 032
Kilometres of natural surfaced
unformed road
Roads – unformed
Stormwater drainage –
construction
28.38
0.43669
663 435
Number of urban, industrial and
commercial properties including
exempt
Number of urban, industrial and
commercial properties including
exempt
Stormwater drainage –
maintenance
Emergency services
Standardised expense
13.90
0.43669
663 435
2.82
0.55301
840 146
Planning and building control
Total number of properties
Number of new developments
and additions
532.78
0.03480
52 868
Rates – residential
0.0033
85 547
127 816 193 402
Rates – commercial
0.0066
9 843
14 956 915 746
Valuation of commercial
Rates – industrial
0.0089
1 641
2 493 120 642
Valuation of commercial
Rates – rural
0.0033
13 640
21 545 666 344
Rates – other
0.0027
4 942
7 510 105 738
Valuation of other
1.00
22.26168
33 820 723
Total of subsidies
Revenue functions
Subsidies
Note: a Total population = 1 534 250.
Source: South Australia Local Government Grants Commission
130
Valuation of residential
Valuation of rural
The commission uses Table B.15 to enable it to calculate a council’s raw grant for each given function.
Each individual council’s unit of measure per capita is calculated and compared with the similar
figure from the table, with the difference multiplied by the standard from the table and the council’s
population. If CRIs are applicable they must be included as a multiplier against the council’s unit of
measure per capita.
Appendix B
Calculated standards by function
This process only allows calculation of the raw grant for the individual function, not the estimated grant.
Calculation of the estimated grant is not possible as per capita minimums need to be applied and the
total allocation apportioned to the remaining councils.
Aggregated revenue and expenditure grants
Component grants for all revenue categories and expenditure functions, calculated for each council
using the method outlined above, are aggregated to give each council’s total raw grant figure. Where
the raw grant calculation per head of population for a council is less than the per capita minimum
established as set out in the Act ($16.65 for 2005–06), the grant is adjusted to bring it up to the per
capita minimum entitlement. The balance of the allocated amount, less allocations to local governing
bodies outside the incorporated areas, is then apportioned to the remaining councils based on their
calculated proportion of the raw grant. Commission-determined limits may then be applied to minimise
the impact on council’s budgetary processes. In calculating the 2005–06 grants, the commission
permitted changes to range from minus 9 per cent to plus 19 per cent. An iterative process was then
undertaken until the full allocation was determined.
Identified local road grant
In South Australia, the identified local road grants pool is divided into formula grants – 85 per cent –
and special local road grants – 15 per cent.
The formula component is divided between metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils on the basis of
an equal weighting of road length and population.
In metropolitan areas, an equal weighting of population and road length determines allocations
to individual councils. In non-metropolitan areas, allocations are made on an equal weighting of
population, road length, and area of council.
Distribution of the special local road grants is based on recommendations from the Local Government
Transport Advisory Panel. This panel is responsible for assessing submissions from regional
associations on local road projects of regional significance.
Outback Areas Community Development Trust
The Outback Areas Community Development Trust is prescribed as a local governing body for the
purposes of the commission’s recommendations.
The trust was established in May 1978 under legislation of the South Australian Parliament. It has a
broad responsibility for community development activities in the outback areas of the state and with
particular emphasis on those functions that are at present normally undertaken by local councils
elsewhere in the state.
131
Due to the lack of comparable data, the commission is not able to calculate the grant to the trust
in the same manner as grants to other local governing bodies. Rather, a per capita grant has been
established. The 2005–06 the per capita grant was $190.83.
Aboriginal communities
Since 1994–95 the commission has allocated grants to five Aboriginal communities recognised
as local governing authorities for the purposes of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act
1995. The communities are Anangu Pitjantjatjara, Gerard Community Council Inc., Maralinga Tjarutja,
Nepabunna Community Council Inc., and Yalata Community Council Inc.
Again due to unavailability of data, grants for these communities are not calculated in the same
manner as grants to other local governing bodies. The commission used the services of Alan Morton,
of Morton Consulting Services, to undertake a study on the expenditure needs of the communities and
their revenue-raising capacities (Morton 1994). Comparisons were made with communities in other
states and per capita grants were established. For 2005–06 the per capita grant varied from $292.79
for Nepabunna to $505.33 for Maralinga Tjarutja.
The commission initiated a study in 2004–05, into the level of funding the communities receive, with
a view to better understanding their funding needs and the potential funding gaps. Unfortunately the
study did not provide the commission with the level of understanding it anticipated and more work
needs to be undertaken. Discussions will be held with the communities about the level of funding they
receive, the purpose of the funding and the accountability requirements when the commission meets
with the communities, as part of the triennial visiting program.
Tasmania
The Tasmanian Grants Commission introduced a revised equalisation model for assessing 2005–06
general-purpose grants. Introduction of the revised model distribution is to be phased-in over four years
against the most recent distribution determined by the previous model, which was in 2004–05. For
2005–06, the general-purpose distribution was determined on the basis of a 75 per cent weighting of
the 2004–05 distribution, plus a 25 per cent weighting of the revised distribution.
Revision of the commission’s equalisation model followed the Commonwealth Grants Commission
review of the operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995, the report from
which was released in July 2001. Particular recommendations from that report formed the basis for key
revisions to the equalisation model, including:
© increased scope of revenue assessment
© inclusion of depreciation in expenditure assessments
© introduction of cost adjustors centred on 1.0
© introduction of a budget result term.
These revisions were introduced following a three-year consultation process with councils, and the
revisions were generally supported as a result of that process.
The commission’s equalisation model is based on the balanced budget approach. That is, each
council’s grant entitlement is derived from the difference between the council’s expenditure
132
Each council’s expenditure requirement is calculated as follows:
© the expenditure required to provide a common range of services, given that council’s unique cost
conditions (standardised expenditure), plus
© any allowances made in respect of the cost of providing services which are not adequately
captured as standardised expenditure, plus
© the Budget Result Term, which is a per capita allocation of the difference between all statewide
sources of revenue, including the grant pool, and all statewide revenue requirements. The
inclusion of the Budget Result Term enables a balanced budget at the state level.
Appendix B
‘requirement’ necessary to provide services to a common standard with all other councils, and the
council’s revenue ‘capacity’ based on the statewide average rate per dollar.
Each council’s revenue capacity is calculated as follows:
© the revenue the council could raise by applying a standard or average rate per dollar of assessed
annual values to all rateable property in its area (standardised revenue), plus
© Specific Purpose Payments that have not been deducted from expenditures in the process of
calculating standardised expenditure.
Specific Purpose Payments are treated by either the ‘inclusion’ or ‘deduction’ approach. The inclusion
approach recognises funds councils receive as contributing to normal expenditure for the purpose
of calculating expenditure standards. They are treated as a source of revenue and are applied to
reduce a municipal area’s standardised deficit. Using the deduction approach, funds are excluded
from expenditure and revenue data prior to determination of expenditure standards. The deduction
approach is employed where:
© a council is effectively acting as an agent of the state or Australian governments and the Specific
Purpose Payment is a reimbursement of costs incurred, or
© grants for a particular service are received by only a relatively small number of councils to provide
a service that is beyond the scope of ordinary local government activity, and the service is
generally provided only where grants are received.
Equalisation therefore occurs on the basis of ‘net’ expenditures where this particular approach to the
treatment of Specific Purpose Payments is adopted.
No matter how sophisticated the commission’s methodology might become, there is always the need
for the commission to exercise broad judgement as it considers the issues that confront it each year as
it assesses grants.
A full explanation of the operation of the model follows.
Calculation of standardised revenue
A council’s standardised revenue is determined by multiplying the rateable assessed annual value
(AAV) of properties in the municipal area by the average rate in the dollar charged across the state.
The commission uses AAV data and adjustment factors supplied by the Valuer-General’s Office, and
rate revenue information (including exempt AAV information) obtained from the consolidated data
collection undertaken by the Local Government Division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. An
adjustment is made to account for the value of properties that are partially exempt from rates, that is,
liable for service charges only.
133
The rateable AAV for each council is determined and then adjusted using the Valuer-General’s
adjustment factors so that all figures are expressed in terms of a common valuation year. Additional
adjustment factors are applied to adjust valuations made under the revised definition of AAV in section
3 of the Valuation of Land Act 2001, to include the taxation component now excluded from land values.
The Valuer-General has undertaken to provide such ‘grossing’ adjustment factors to the commission
each year until all councils have been revalued according to the new definition.
Total rate revenue raised by all councils is divided by the adjusted rateable AAV for all councils to
yield a state average rate in the dollar. Standardised revenue for each council is then the product of
its adjusted rateable AAV and the state average rate levied per dollar of AAV. The final standardised
revenue for each council used in the base grant assessments is the relevant three-year averaged
standardised revenue.
Calculation of standardised expenditure
In general, the cost of providing council services varies depending upon the number of residents.
Therefore, to determine the standard expenditure needed to provide a service, the commission
multiplies the state average expenditure per person by the number of residents in each municipal area.
Many councils face a range of unavoidable cost and demand pressures in providing services. This
means they cannot provide a service at the standard level of expenditure. The commission recognises
this disability by applying council-specific cost adjustors, which represent these unavoidable cost
pressures, to standard expenditure to determine the standardised expenditure for each council. This
method of estimating standardised expenditure is applied to all expenditure categories except the
road category.
An explanation of the types of expenditure that comprise each non-road expenditure function is set out
in Table B.16.
Table B.16: Description of non-road expenditure functions – Tasmania
Explanation of expenditure function
General administration
Legislative, executive, financial and fiscal affairs relating to general purposes only, that is,
not solely related to any one of the purposes listed below
Health, housing and welfare
Services for the aged, community health services, health inspections; family and child
welfare; housing services
Waste management and the
environment
Household and other garbage services, urban stormwater drainage, street cleaning, flood
mitigation and other protection of the environment
Planning and community
amenities
Planning and building services, street lighting, public conveniences, shopping malls,
cemeteries and crematoria
Public halls and civic centres, swimming pools, parks and playing grounds, sports
assistance and promotion; libraries and other cultural services
Water
Provision of water services
Sewerage
Provision of sewerage services
Fire protection, support of the State Emergency Service, animal control and other public
order and control
Other
Expenditure on items not elsewhere classified; includes saleyards and markets, tourism
and area promotion, aerodrome operations, communications, and natural disaster relief
Source: Tasmanian State Grants Commission
134
Cost adjustors are used to reflect unavoidable relative cost disadvantages councils face in providing
services. A range of adjustors have been developed to account for differences between councils in the
demand for a service as well as variations in the unit cost of supplying that service.
Appendix B
Application of council-specific cost adjustors
An adjustor is calculated for each municipal area by comparing its demand or supply disadvantage
with the state average. Councils that demonstrate the average level of advantage or disadvantage for
each expenditure category are assigned a cost adjustor of 1.0. All other councils are compared to the
average councils to determine their relative cost adjustors, which are always less than 1.0 if the council
is assessed as enjoying a cost advantage, and greater than 1.0 if the council is assessed as suffering a
cost disadvantage.
The commission recognises 13 cost adjustors and has adopted a method to quantify them. The cost
adjustors are absentee population, climate, day-tripper tourism, dispersion, equivalent tenements
(water), equivalent tenements (sewerage), isolation, population decline, regional responsibility, scale
(administration), scale (other), unemployment, and worker influx. Application of cost adjustors to each
expenditure standard is shown in the Table B.17.
Table B.17: Application of cost adjustors to expenditure standards – Tasmania
Expenditure category
Cost adjustors
General administration
Absentee population, isolation
Population decline, scale (administration)
Education, health housing
and welfare
Population decline
Unemployment
Waste management and
the environment
Absentee population, climate, dispersion
Population decline, scale (other), day-tripper
tourism, worker influx
Planning and community
amenities
Absentee population climate,
dispersion, isolation
Population decline scale (other), day-tripper
tourism, worker influx
Absentee population, climate,
dispersion, isolation
Population decline, regional responsibility,
scale (other), day-tripper tourism, worker influx
Water
Absentee population, climate, dispersion,
equivalent tenements (water)
Isolation, population decline, scale (other)
Sewerage
Absentee population, climate, dispersion,
equivalent tenements (sewerage)
Isolation, population decline, scale (other)
Law order and public safety
Dispersion, population decline
Day-tripper tourism, unemployment
Other
No cost adjustors applied to other expenditure
Source: Tasmanian State Grants Commission
An outline of the approach the commission has developed to quantify each cost adjustor follows.
Absentee population
The commission makes allowance for the additional population not captured in census statistics but
which nevertheless must be serviced. Specific reference is made here to those municipal areas that
have a significant number of holiday residences.
135
Calculation of this cost adjustor is based on the proportion of unoccupied dwellings in each municipal
area at the time of the 2001 Census.
The commission has continued to make an adjustment to raw data determining the absentee
population cost adjustor. For example, in the 2005–06 assessments, to recognise the situation the
West Coast Council faces, where mine workers live outside the municipal area between shifts, it was
accepted that existing unoccupied dwelling statistics do not adequately reflect this phenomenon.
Climate
This cost adjustor is aimed at recognising additional costs arising from climate, such as excessive
downtime of outdoor work due to rain, as well as increased maintenance costs on council infrastructure
as a result of adverse weather. Calculation of the climate cost adjustor is based on the total annual
rainfall in each municipal area’s administrative centre, as indicated by Bureau of Meteorology data.
Dispersion
The dispersion cost adjustor relates to the additional costs incurred in servicing a widely scattered
population within a municipal area. The commission recognises that associated costs arise from the
need to both duplicate services and incur greater travelling and communication costs than would
otherwise be the case.
The cost adjustor is determined by a weighted average of the number of population centres in each
municipal area, the population-weighted distance between those centres and the municipal area’s
administrative centre, and the dwelling-weighted distance between those centres and the municipal
area’s administrative centre.
Equivalent tenements
The use of population to estimate standard water and sewerage expenditure does not recognise
expenditures incurred in providing water and sewerage services to non-residential establishments.
The commission, therefore, developed the equivalent tenements cost adjustor to recognise the cost
of providing these services to commercial properties. This has been done by dividing the total value
of serviced commercial properties by the modal residential assessed annual value in each water and
sewerage district to determine the number of residential equivalent tenements.
Isolation
This cost adjustor recognises the increased costs that arise from geographical isolation. Such costs are
associated with attracting staff to remote areas, communicating with relevant bodies, travelling, and
supply of necessary construction and maintenance materials.
The isolation cost adjustor is calculated according to a weighted sum of distances between each
municipal area’s main centre and the relevant regional centre (Burnie, Launceston or Hobart, as
the case may be) and Hobart, being the main focus for administrative and political activities within
the state.
Population decline
The commission recognises that a local governing body faces certain disadvantages as a result of
fluctuations in population levels. Managing such fluctuations typically requires planning horizons of
several years or more. As a consequence, councils are often faced with excess capacity in certain
136
The commission determines cost adjustors for population decline by comparing the average annual
rate of population decline for a particular municipal area over a five-year period, against the average
rate of population decline for all councils experiencing a decline over that five-year period.
Appendix B
service areas when faced with rapid population decline. This is believed to confront councils with
added expenditure burdens.
Regional responsibility
The commission applies a cost adjustor to the relevant expenditures of those municipal areas that
provide particular services for the residents of surrounding municipal areas. This cost adjustor applies
where it is estimated that there is no counterbalancing use of services in surrounding municipal areas
by residents of the regional centre, or any offsetting cash contribution for the use of those facilities.
The commission recognises that certain towns and cities throughout the state act as regional focal
points for provision of some services. The expenditure categories to which this disability is applied are
general administration, planning and community amenities and recreation and culture.
The scarcity of local government level data relating to consumption of council services by non-residents
requires the commission to exercise broad judgement in its assessment of regional responsibility.
Scale
The scale cost adjustor accounts for the diseconomies of small scale that councils face in providing
some services. Diseconomies occur where the cost per person of a certain activity is greater for
councils with a small population than for those with larger ones. For example, each council requires
a general manager whether the municipal population is 1000 or 100 000. The cost per person of the
general manager is therefore much greater for smaller councils than for larger ones.
Different expenditure categories show varying degrees of diseconomy, so two scale cost adjustors have
been developed – scale administration, which relates only to general administration expenditure, and
scale other, which is applied to some non-general administration expenditure.
Day-tripper tourism
The commission recognises that councils generally incur additional costs as a result of tourist influx
through increased use of council resources and infrastructure. In particular, significant numbers of
day-trippers who make use of council facilities are recognised as increasing council costs. Data on the
number of day-trippers visiting each municipal area are sourced from Tourism Research Australia, and
form the basis for the calculation of this cost adjustor.
Unemployment
The commission, using data on unemployment rates and labour force numbers from the Department
of Employment and Workplace Relations, has calculated a cost adjustor reflecting the level of
unemployment within a municipal area. This cost adjustor has been calculated to capture the costs to
councils of having a higher than average proportion of unemployed working-age residents. For example,
additional expenditure might be incurred in providing recreation/leisure facilities or welfare programs
as a result of the need to cater for unemployed residents.
137
Worker influx
This cost adjustor reflects the additional costs imposed on those municipal areas that have significant
daily net influxes of non-resident workers. The commission believes this effect is likely to have an
impact that is in excess of the more general effect of regional responsibility.
Consideration is given for potential worker influx for the major population centres in the state.
Municipal areas outside these main centres are unlikely to have sufficient commercial or industrial
development relative to their surrounding regions to cause any net influx of non-resident workers that
impose a significant cost on the municipal area.
Determination of this cost adjustor involves estimating, from 2001 Census data, both the number
of residents working outside the municipal area and the number of non-residents working within
the municipal area. The difference, or the net worker inflow, is then used to derive a cost adjustor in
relation to actual total population.
Calculation of standardised road expenditure
The commission uses a modified version of the Mulholland asset preservation model to assess
standardised road expenditure, based on each council’s road assets. No adjustments were made to
the model for the purpose of the 2005–06 assessments.
The fundamental basis of the Mulholland asset preservation model is that, in statistical terms, a
kilometre of road has an expected life, assuming it is appropriately constructed and maintained.
At the end of this period, it will require reconstruction followed by a new cycle of maintenance and
rehabilitation in order to preserve it at an acceptable standard. The expected life, or durability, of a
kilometre of road maintenance work will clearly differ depending upon both the type of maintenance
activity (sealing, regrading) and the type of road (urban sealed, urban unsealed, rural sealed,
rural unsealed) involved. Similar arguments hold with respect to both road rehabilitation and road
reconstruction work.
Performance standards specify, for each road type, the length of road requiring reconstruction,
regrading or re-sealing each year in order to preserve the existing road asset. For example, if the
seal on a nine kilometre stretch of road has an expected life of 30 years, then, on average, 300
metres will need to be sealed each year to maintain the road at the current standard. In this case, the
performance standard is approximately 0.03, or 3 per cent. Average costs per kilometre for each road
type and activity combination have been derived from published unit price estimates for the same
undertakings. For any given council, specific cost relativities may increase or decrease the average cost
of undertaking a given activity.
The model recognises climate, drainage, material, soil, terrain, and traffic cost adjustors in road
rehabilitation and reconstruction; and climate, material, terrain and traffic cost adjustors in road
maintenance. The need for different sub-base depths (reconstruction only) is incorporated within the
workings of the model.
The model also recognises a remoteness cost adjustor and an urbanisation factor for all activities. This
latter allowance recognises the additional costs councils required to undertake road works in heavily
urbanised environments incur and is incorporated in the model by augmenting the length of urban
sealed roads used in the calculations.
The model also makes an allowance for additional bridge-related maintenance, by converting bridge
areas to equivalent road lengths (which involves multiplication by 10 to recognise the greater cost per
138
Appendix B
equivalent area) and adding these lengths to the road lengths used in the model. The commission
undertook a comprehensive audit of all councils’ bridge deck area estimates for 2004–05 to ensure
these estimates fully comply with the definition of bridges the commission issued for this purpose.
In assessing road expenditure needs for a given council, performance standards are applied to each
category of road (urban sealed, urban unsealed, rural sealed, rural unsealed) to determine the length
of road to be maintained, rehabilitated and reconstructed in that year in order to preserve the existing
road structure. The relevant cost adjustors and costs per kilometre are then applied to each of these
figures and the whole is summed to yield standardised road expenditure for that council.
To accord with the National Principles and ensure the grant distribution reflects the particular needs of
Tasmanian councils the road grants are distributed as follows:
© Road preservation component: 66.5 per cent of funds based on the relative road expenditure
needs of each council as determined using the Mulholland asset preservation model
© Bridge expenditure component: 28.5 per cent of funds based on relative bridge deck areas
(including all concrete and wooden bridges, and box culverts over three metres total span)
© Special needs component: 5 per cent of funds allocated to councils with an above average
proportion of rural unsealed roads, based on rural unsealed road lengths.
Northern Territory
The Northern Territory Grants Commission’s methodology complies with the requirement for horizontal
equalisation as set out in section 6(3) of the Australian Government’s Local Government (Financial
Assistance) Act 1995.
The commission, in assessing relative need for allocating general purpose funding, uses the balanced
budget approach to horizontal equalisation based on the formula:
assessed equalisation requirement =
assessed expenditure need – assessed revenue capacity
The methodology calculates standards by applying cost adjustors and weightings to assess each local
government’s revenue-raising capacity and expenditure need. The assessment is the commission’s
measure of each local government’s ability to function at the average standard in accordance with the
National Principles.
The methodology needs to take into account increases as well as decreases, where they occur, in
population on an annual basis. In order to allow for the transient nature of Indigenous people, the
commission adopts a three-year average of its calculated core community populations for this purpose.
Changes to the methodology
In 2005, the commission corrected a number of inconsistencies in its methodology that the
Commonwealth Grants Commission had previously identified. These corrections included the manner
in which the cost adjustors were applied, introduction of a budget term and elimination of an economyof-scale factor.
139
As well as the foregoing revisions, an improved data gathering process first introduced in 2004 for
collection of 2002–03 financial data enabled the commission to use real financial information in the
assessments.
Population
The commission has where possible used the latest ABS estimated residential population figures.
Where no such figures are available, the commission uses figures obtained from local government by
annual survey.
Revenue-raising capacity
As the ownership of the land on which many communities are located is vested in Land Trusts
established pursuant to the Commonwealth Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976,
it is not, for all intents and purposes, feasible to use a land valuation system solely as the means for
assessing revenue-raising capacity.
Having actual accurate financial data enabled the commission to dispense with using average annual
incomes, which had been used since 1992, for establishing a Northern Territory average revenue unit.
Instead, a number of revenue categories were introduced including rates where applicable, as well as
domestic waste, poll tax and interest.
In addition, to accord with the National Principles, other grant support to local governing bodies by way
of the Northern Territory operational subsidy, Roads to Recovery, library and local roads grants are
considered in the methodology. In the case of recipients of the Northern Territory operational subsidy
and the Roads to Recovery grants, 50 per cent of the grant is included. Recipients of library grants and
local roads grants have the total amount of the grant included.
The commission considers that given the unique circumstances within the Northern Territory, this
approach provides a reasonable indication of a council’s revenue-raising capacity.
Expenditure needs and disability factors
The assessment of standard expenditure is based on the territory’s average per capita expenditure
within the expenditure categories to which cost adjustors, reflecting the assessed disadvantage of each
local government, is applied.
As a result of the availability of actual accurate financial data, the commission, beginning with
the 2005–06 assessment, was able to use actual expenditure within categories rather than an
hypothetical spread across categories, to establish the total standardised expenditure for each local
governing body.
In assessing allocations the commission took into account six expenditure categories – amenity,
general administration, human services, libraries, recreation and transport.
Cost adjustors
The commission uses cost adjustors to reflect a local governing body’s demographics, geographical
location, its external access and the area over which it is required to provide local government services.
All of these influence the cost of service delivery.
140
Appendix B
As a result of the methodology review, the commission, effective from the 2005–06 assessments,
changed the manner in which the cost adjustors were applied. Expenditure assessments have as an
outcome total standardised expenditure equal to total actual expenditure, or natural weighting.
Natural weighting is achieved in the commission’s methodology by rescaling cost adjustors around 1.0
to ensure that total calculated standardised expenditure does not exceed the total actual expenditure.
Averaging of equalisation requirement
Commencing with the 2005–06 allocations the commission adopted an averaging approach in order to
finalise the yearly assessed equalisation requirement of local governing bodies. This approach requires
that grants be based on a three-year average of the preliminary assessed equalisation requirement.
To arrive at the average, the assessments of need for the year under consideration plus the
assessments for each of the preceding four years are used. The highest and the lowest of the five
assessments are then dropped out of the average.
Minimum grants
For most local governing bodies, the assessed expenditure needs exceed the assessed revenue
capacity meaning there is an assessed need. In one particular case, assessed revenue capacity is
greater than assessed expenditure need meaning there is no assessed need. However, as the Local
Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 requires that local governing bodies cannot receive less
than 30 per cent of what they would have been allocated had the funding been distributed solely on the
basis of population, this local governing body receives the minimum grant.
The changes to the methodology (mentioned above) mean the largest of the municipal councils and
around 18 of the very small councils will potentially be minimum grant councils in the future.
Formulae
Revenue component
For all councils:
assessed revenue-raising capacity = total identified local government revenue
total local government revenue = assessed Northern Territory average revenue + other grant
support + budget term
where:
Revenue category = domestic waste, garbage, general rates, poll tax, general rates other,
special rates parking, special rates other, fines and interest
Domestic waste = per capita
Garbage other = actual
General rates = average rate
Poll tax = per capita
Interest = actual
State income by revenue category 2004–05 = actual state local government gross income
141
Actual state local government gross income 2004–05 = $78 688 767
Other grant support = Northern Territory operational subsidy 2005–06 50 per cent, Roads to
Recovery grant 2005–06 50 per cent, library grant 2005–06 + roads grant 2005–06
Budget term = population x per capita amount
$135 704 465 = total local government revenue 2005–06
Expenditure components
Total local government expenditure of $135 704 465 is apportioned over each expenditure component.
General public services ($53 537 550)
Community population/Territory population x NT general public services expenditure x (isolation
administration + dispersion + Aboriginality)
Public order and safety ($1 908 079)
Community population/Territory population x public order and safety expenditure x (isolation works +
dispersion + Aboriginality + growth)
Economic affairs ($16 572 154)
Community population/Territory population x economic affairs expenditure x (isolation works +
dispersion + growth)
Environmental protection ($9 640 012)
Community population/Territory population x environmental protection expenditure x (isolation works +
dispersion + growth)
Housing and community amenities ($22 471 945)
Community population/Territory population x housing and community amenities expenditure x (isolation
works + dispersion + Aboriginality + growth)
Health ($6 522 667)
Community population/Territory population x health expenditure x (isolation administration +
Aboriginality + growth)
Recreation, culture and religion ($19 760 320)
Community population/Territory population x recreation, culture and religion expenditure x (isolation
administration + isolation works + growth)
Education ($913 568)
Community population/Territory population x education expenditure x (isolation administration +
Social protection ($4 378 170)
Community population/Territory population x social protection expenditure x (isolation administration +
142
To determine the local road grant the commission applies a weighting to each council by road length
and surface type. These weightings are:
© kerbed and sealed road
10
© sealed road
8
© gravel road
4
© formed road
1
© unformed road
0.4
© cycle paths
2
Appendix B
The Australian Capital Territory requires no distribution of grants because the Territory Government
directly exercises local government functions.
143
Appendix C
Comparison of local government
grants commission distribution
models
Local government grants commissions use distribution models to determine the grant allocations to
councils. There is one model for allocating the local road component among councils and a separate
model for allocating the general purpose component. This appendix provides a comparison of the
approaches the commissions used in 2005–06.
The National Principles (see Appendix A) require commissions to allocate local road grants so that, as
far as practicable, the grants are allocated to councils:
on the basis of the relative needs of each council for roads expenditure and to preserve its
road assets. In assessing road needs, relevant considerations include length, type and usage
of roads in each council area.
For the local road needs assessment, grants commissions use two main approaches. The commissions
in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory use relatively simple
models to allocate the local road grant, using such factors as population of the council and the road
length it maintains. These approaches appear to have been based on arrangements that were in place
before 1991–92 when grants were paid to councils as tied grants.
The commissions in Victoria and Western Australia use asset preservation models to allocate local
road grants. The asset preservation model attempts to measure the annual cost of maintaining
a council’s road network. It takes into account recurrent maintenance costs, and the cost of
reconstruction at the end of the road’s useful life. It can also take other factors into account such as:
© the costs associated with different types of roads (sealed, gravel and formed roads)
© the impact of weather, soil types and materials availability on costs
© the impact of traffic volume on the cost of maintaining these roads.
The Tasmanian Commission uses a combination of these approaches. It allocates 66.5 per cent on the
basis of an asset preservation model, 28.5 per cent based on bridge deck area and 5 per cent based
on the length of unsealed roads.
144
Appendix C
The Western Australian and South Australian commissions allocate a proportion – 7 per cent and
15 per cent, respectively – of the local road grants between councils with the aim of funding priority
local road projects in their state. Expert committees advise the commissions on the projects to
be funded.
Table C.1 summarises the main features of the models the commissions used for allocating local road
grants in 2005–06.
Table C.1: Features of local government grants commission models for assessing local road need,
2005–06
State
Features of the distribution model
NSW
Councils in the Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong metropolitan areas receive 27.54% of the road grant pool
with 38% of this portion allocated on the basis of population, 57% on the basis of road length and 5% on the
basis of bridge length.
The remaining 72.46% is allocated to councils outside the above metropolitan areas, with 18.6% of the
remaining portion allocated on the basis of population, 74.4% on the basis of road length and 7% on the
basis of bridge length.
Vic.
Allocation is based on an asset preservation model.
Qld
Allocation of 62.85% of the road grant pool is made on the basis of road length and 37.15% on the basis of
population.
WA
Allocation of 93% of the road grant pool is based on an asset preservation model.
The remaining 7% is allocated for special projects – with two-thirds of this portion for bridges and one-third
for access roads serving remote Indigenous communities.
SA
Allocation of 85% of the road grant pool is split between metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils based
on population and road length.
Allocations for metropolitan councils are based on an equal weighting of population and road length while
allocations for non-metropolitan councils are based on an equal weighting of population, road length and
council area.
The remaining 15% of the pool is set aside for special projects.
Tas.
Allocation of 66.5% of the road grant pool is based on an asset preservation model, with 28.5% of the pool
allocated on the basis of bridge deck area and 5% to councils with an above average proportion of unsealed
rural roads based on rural unsealed road length.
NT
Allocation is based on cost weights applied to road lengths for road types.
The minimum allocation for a council is $10 000.
Source: Information provided by local government grants commissions
In allocating the general purpose component between councils in a jurisdiction, the commissions are
to comply with the National Principles. These Principles require commissions to satisfy two principal
objectives. These objectives are:
© to allocate the general purpose grant pool between councils on a horizontal equalisation basis
© to ensure that, when allocating the general purpose grant pool between councils, all councils
receive at least the minimum grant.
145
With the funds provided, both objectives cannot be achieved simultaneously in most jurisdictions. In
practice commissions determine an allocation that ensures all councils receive at least the minimum
grant with the remaining grants allocated, as far as practicable, on a horizontal equalisation basis.
This method usually results in commissions adopting a three-step procedure to determine general
purpose grant allocations.
Step 1
Commissions determine an allocation of the general purpose grant between councils
on a horizontal equalisation basis.
Step 2
All councils receive at least the minimum grant. In most jurisdictions, in order for all
councils to receive at least the minimum grant, grants to some councils have to be
increased relative to their horizontal equalisation grant.
Step 3
If grants to some councils are increased in Step 2, grants to other councils must
decrease relative to their horizontal equalisation grant. This is achieved by a process
called ‘factoring back’.
Steps 2 and 3 of this procedure are repeated until all councils receive at least the minimum grant and
the general purpose grant pool for the jurisdiction has been completely allocated. The approaches
commissions use for Steps 1 and 3 are outlined below.
Allocating on a horizontal equalisation basis
The horizontal equalisation National Principle for allocating the general purpose grant is:
General purpose grants will be allocated to local governing bodies, as far as practicable, on a
full horizontal equalisation basis as defined by the Act. This is a basis that ensures each local
governing body in the State or Territory is able to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard
not lower than the average standard of other local governing bodies in the State or Territory.
It takes account of differences in the expenditure required by those local governing bodies
in the performance of their functions and in the capacity of those local governing bodies to
raise revenue.
The average standard is a financial standard. It is based on the expenditure undertaken and revenue
obtained by all councils in the jurisdiction.
If a council were operating at the average standard then, under a horizontal equalisation approach, it
would receive a per capita share of general purpose grants. If a council is disadvantaged, it means it
needs more assistance per capita than a council operating at the average standard. Conversely, if a
council is advantaged, it needs less per capita than a council operating at the average standard.
When determining grant allocations on a horizontal equalisation basis, commissions use one of two
distribution models:
© Balanced budget – based on the approach of assessing the overall level of disadvantage for a
council using a notional budget for the council.
© Direct assessment – based on the approach of assessing the level of disadvantage for a council
in each area of expenditure and revenue.
Table C.2 shows the differences in the distribution models commissions use.
146
State
Model used
NSW
Direct assessment model
Vic.
Balanced budget model
Appendix C
Table C.2: Differences in the distribution models grants commissions use for the general purpose
component for 2005–06 allocations
Assistance for natural disaster relief taken out of the pool
Separate assessment for Docklands Authority
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Separate assessment for the Outback Areas Community Development Trust and five Indigenous communities
Source: Table 11–1 in Commonwealth Grants Commission Working Papers updated for subsequent changes with information
provided by local government grants commissions
The commissions in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory use
the balanced budget approach. Their models are based on making an assessment of each council’s
costs of providing services and its capacity to raise revenue, including its capacity to obtain other grant
assistance.
Horizontal equalisation, as defined in the Act, is about identifying advantaged and disadvantaged
councils and bringing all the disadvantaged councils up to the financial position of a council
operating at the average standard. This means the task of the commissions is to calculate, for each
disadvantaged council, the level of general purpose grants it requires to balance its assessed costs
and assessed revenues.
This type of distribution model can be specified as:
general purpose grant
equals
plus
less
less
assessed costs of providing services
assessed average operating surplus/deficit
assessed revenue
actual receipt of other grant assistance
The commissions in New South Wales and South Australia use the direct assessment approach. Their
models are based on making an assessment of the level of advantage or disadvantage in each area of
expenditure and revenue and summing these assessments over all areas of expenditure and revenue
for all councils.
In each area of expenditure or revenue, an individual council’s assessment is compared to the average
council. The direct assessment model calculates an individual council’s level of disadvantage or
advantage for each area of expenditure and revenue, including for other grant assistance.
147
Horizontal equalisation, as defined in the Act, is about identifying advantaged and disadvantaged
councils and bringing all the disadvantaged councils up to the financial position of a council operating
at the average standard. Thus, the task is to calculate the level of general purpose grants that would
balance a disadvantaged council’s assessed expenditures and assessed revenues.
This type of distribution model can be specified as:
equals
plus
plus
plus
an equal per capita share of general purpose grants
expenditure needs
revenue needs
other grant assistance needs
The balanced budget and direct assessment models will produce identical assessments of financial
capacity for each council if the assessed average operating surplus or deficit is included in the
balanced budget model.
Scope of equalisation
The scope of equalisation is about the sources of revenue raised and the types of expenditure activities
a commission includes when determining an allocation of the general purpose grants on a horizontal
equalisation basis. Table C.3 shows the differences in the scope of equalisation of the commissions.
Table C.3: The scope of equalisation of grants commission general purpose models
Function
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Expenditure
Administration
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
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
– local roads
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
– airports
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Transport:
148
– public transport
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
– other transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Building control
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Garbage
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Sewerage
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Electricity
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Capital
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Depreciation
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Debt servicing
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Entrepreneurial activity
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Agency arrangements
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Appendix C
Function
Revenue
Rate revenue
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Operation subsidies
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Garbage charges
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Water charges
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Sewerage charges
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Airport charges
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Parking fees and fines
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Other user charges
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Note: Functions for which a ‘yes’ is provided above are not necessarily separately assessed by the relevant commission but
may be included as part of another (assessed) function. For example, depreciation might be included as a cost under the
category for which the relevant asset is provided. Similarly revenue functions might be included as reductions in the associated
expenditure function.
Source: Table 11-2 in the Commonwealth Grants Commission Working Papers and updated for subsequent changes with
information provided by local government grants commissions
Assessing local road expenditure needs for the general purpose model
As part of the expenditure needs assessment for determining general purpose grants, commissions
also assess each council’s local road needs. Some commissions use the same methodology for the
two assessments while others use different methodologies.
The main features of the models commissions used for assessing local road needs when allocating
general purpose grants in 2005–06 are discussed below.
New South Wales uses a different model for assessing roads needs in the general purpose component
of the model. New South Wales uses the categories of local roads, urban local roads, sealed rural
local roads, and unsealed rural local roads. Disability factors for topography, climate, soils, materials,
drainage, heavy traffic, travel, and development increase expenditure allowances for each council.
It also assesses needs with reference to the length of each type of road per urban or rural property,
as applicable, and with provision for bridge and culvert needs per kilometre of roads. The average
spending on maintaining urban roads per kilometre is more than double rural sealed roads, which, in
turn, is more than double the average spending on rural unsealed roads.
Victoria uses a similar method for the expenditure assessment for local roads for the general purpose
component. Under this method, standard costs are derived for each of three expenditure categories:
sealed roads, formed and surfaced roads, and natural surfaced roads. These standard costs are
applied to the length of local roads in each municipality and then multiplied by a series of cost
adjusters to reflect location (metropolitan, regional centres, rural agricultural, etc.), soil, traffic loading,
climate, drainage, materials, terrain and wet days. The data for all factors (apart from location) were
based on councils’ own estimates.
149
Queensland uses a different model for assessing roads needs in the general purpose model. The asset
preservation model Queensland uses takes into account costs to maintain a council’s road network,
including bridges and hydraulics, in average condition. It takes into account traffic volume (including
heavy vehicles), type of construction, and cost adjusters such as climate, soil, terrain and location.
Western Australia uses the same asset preservation model for roads in distributing the general
purpose component. The asset preservation model takes into account annual and recurrent
maintenance costs and the costs of reconstruction at the end of the road’s useful life. Roads are
divided into two categories, urban and rural, because the former requires greater spending due to
more traffic, more intersections and more kerbing and longitudinal drainage. The model takes the road
surface into account (sealed, gravel, formed and unformed) and the contribution that bridges make
to the cost of local roads. However, other expenditure needs that are transport-related, such as street
lighting and aerodromes, are also taken into account.
For the general purpose component, South Australia divides roads into five categories:
© sealed roads – built-up
© sealed roads – non-built-up
© unsealed roads – built-up
© unsealed roads – non-built-up
© unformed roads.
Road lengths are the units of measure. Cost relativity indices have been developed for each road
category, to determine why it costs one council more than another to reconstruct or maintain a
kilometre of road. Factors such as soil, terrain, drainage and materials haulage are components of the
index. Further work is to be undertaken on the cost relativity indices to reflect traffic volumes.
Tasmania distributes the general purpose component according to the same Mulholland asset
preservation model used to allocate part of the local road components. Performance standards define
for each type of road the annual length needing reconstruction, rehabilitation or maintenance. Average
costs per kilometre derived from cost data supplied by city and rural councils are used to introduce
values into the estimates. Disability factors like climate, drainage, materials, soil, terrain and traffic may
increase or decrease the average costs for each council. Roads expenditure assesses urban sealed,
urban unsealed, rural sealed and rural unsealed roads as separate expenditure categories. The model
also takes into account bridge maintenance, by converting the bridge length into an equivalent road
length and multiplying by 10.
For the general purpose component, the Northern Territory assesses road needs by weighted road
lengths by surface type using the same weights as for the local road component. The weights used are:
© sealed, kerbed and guttered – 10.0
© sealed – 8.0
© gravel – 4.0
© cycle path – 2.0
© formed – 1.0
© unformed – 0.4
150
Sources of revenue for local government are rates, user charges and grants from the Australian and
state and territory governments. The other grant support National Principle guides commissions, when
they determine grant allocations, on the way they should treat grants that councils receive.
Appendix C
Revenue assessments
In the revenue assessment, New South Wales distinguishes between urban and non-urban land and
applies statewide average rates in the dollar to unimproved capital values, averaged over three years,
to estimate the relative revenue-raising capacity of each council. It then discounts the differences by
about 64 per cent in recognition of the impact of the Sydney property values and to achieve some
parity with expenditure assessments.
For the assessment of rates revenue, Victoria in 2005–06 applied an average statewide rate in the
dollar to capital improved values, averaged over two years, rather than the previous assessment of
net annual values, averaged over three years. A new assessment of the relative capacity of councils to
generate revenue from user fees and changes was also applied.
Own-source revenue for family services, heritage, culture and recreation, and traffic management is
taken into account indirectly in the assessment. These are included on the expenditure side of the
method and are treated as negative expenditure functions.
For rates, Queensland uses a two-part formula for determining rate revenue: 70 per cent based on an
average rate in the dollar for residential, commercial/industrial and rural land use general categories;
and 30 per cent on a minimum rate per rateable property ($397 for 2005–06). The result of these
two parts is adjusted for a council’s Index of Economic Resources, one of the Socio Economic Index
for Areas (SEIFA) produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For 2005–06 a maximum cap of
12 per cent increase in the rating assessment from the previous year was applied.
Aboriginal and Islander councils are assessed as having zero rating capacity as the land in their areas
is not rateable. Fifty per cent of the Queensland Government Financial Aid Grant for Aboriginal and
Islander councils is included as revenue as a surrogate for rate income.
Fees and charges are apportioned on a per capita basis and garbage revenue is assigned per occupied
urban property.
Grants relevant to the expenditure categories are included as revenue according to the actual amounts
each council received rather than a state average.
For assessing rate revenue, Western Australia distinguishes urban properties, agricultural properties,
pastoral properties and mining property and assesses capacity by different methods for each.
The capacity of urban properties is estimated as the sum of two components:
© the product of gross rental values, averaged over three years, and a constant more or less like an
average rate in the dollar
© the number of rateable assessments and a corresponding constant value per assessment.
The agricultural rate capacity for each council is based on its improved capital value of agricultural land
(averaged over three years), number of agricultural properties and area of agricultural land. Pastoral
rate capacity is based on unimproved capital values averaged over three years. Mining rate capacity is
estimated with reference to mining unimproved capital value and a per assessment component.
Western Australia makes an assessment of revenue capacity for recreation and culture, and building
control fees and charges. For revenues in other categories, revenues are netted out from expenditure.
151
South Australia estimates a statewide average rate in the dollar and applies it to the difference
between each council’s improved capital value per capita and the state’s improved capital value per
capita for the five land use categories of residential, commercial, industrial, rural and other.
All data are averaged over three years to reduce fluctuation.
Tasmania applies a statewide average rate in the dollar to each council’s value of rateable properties,
averaged over three years. Its rate includes provision for water and sewerage. It makes a corresponding
assessment of gross expenditure on water and sewerage.
Much of the Northern Territory is unincorporated, with local government largely confined to the areas
settled by Aboriginal communities, or a relatively few more densely settled municipalities. Land trusts
own the land in the majority of Aboriginal communities and no possibility exists of determining distinct
properties and values for the assessment of rate revenue-raising capacity. For this reason, statistics
of personal income are used in estimating the revenue-raising capacity of some councils, while
assessments of rate revenue are used where applicable. Councils that receive the Northern Territory
operational subsidy have 50 per cent of their subsidy counted as revenue.
In 2005–06 revenue categories of domestic waste and interest income were introduced in the
Northern Territory.
Expenditure assessments
In addition to expenditure on roads, already outlined, local governments’ main expenditures are on
general public services (including organisation and general and financial administration of councils),
recreation facilities, and sanitation and protection of the environment (including disposal of sewerage,
stormwater drainage and garbage).
New South Wales assesses 21 categories of expenditure including three classes of road maintenance.
It assesses more than 40 disability factors among the categories. It defines a standard expenditure
based on average expenditures, excluding extreme values. Differential expenditure needs are equal
to the standard per service unit (mostly population) multiplied by the average number of service units
and the disability factors for the category. The disability factors estimate the extent to which the
unavoidable cost per unit exceeds the state average (positive disabilities) or falls short of it (negative
disabilities). In most cases, if the differential expenditure need per unit is assessed to be negative, zero
is substituted, so generally no reductions are made to the standard assessments.
Victoria assesses nine categories of expenditure. Expenditure includes all recurrent expenditure except
for some business undertakings and work undertaken on behalf of and funded by VicRoads. With the
exception of local roads and bridges, standardised expenditure in each category is calculated using
the population served, the average cost across all Victorian councils of providing the service as well
as local factors beyond the control of the councils that influence their costs (cost adjustors). For three
expenditure categories, an adjusted population is used for some low population councils to recognise
the fixed costs of providing certain functions such as governance.
Queensland assesses eight categories of expenditure in addition to road needs. These do not include
water and sewerage services. Expenditure in the categories of environmental protection and other
transport are treated as effort positive, meaning that each council’s actual expenditure is adopted as
its assessed expenditure need because of the difficulty of determining reliable models for estimating
152
Western Australia assesses seven expenditure categories and 18 disabilities. It defines standard
expenditure as a minimum amount specific to each category, and sometimes to a class within each
category, and amounts per unit of service (usually population). Needs are defined as the product of the
standard, the units of service, disabilities and discounts for needs met by special purpose grants.
Appendix C
these expenditure needs. In addition, nine cost adjusters (disability factors) are applied, including for
Indigenous descent where an additional 50 per cent per person in each category is allowed.
South Australia assesses 13 expenditure categories in addition to road needs. Under the direct
assessment method the available grant is initially allocated to councils in proportion to their population
and positive or negative adjustments are calculated for each category. These adjustments are for
factors outside the control of the council. For example, if the council has a higher number of residential
properties per population than the state average, it will receive a positive adjustment for garbage
collection expenditure. The methodology provides for further adjustment through application of cost
relativity indices. In the case of roads, the cost relativity indices measure relative costs of factors such
as material haulage, soil type, rainfall and drainage.
Tasmania assesses 10 non-road expenditure categories and 13 disabilities. It defines standard
expenditure as the state average. Needs are defined as the product of the standard, the population
and the cumulative disability allowance (one plus the sum of the amount by which each disability
exceeds one).
The Northern Territory assesses six categories, including one for roads, and five disabilities. Needs
are defined as the product of the population, average expenditure per person, and the compounded
disabilities, less grants received. A flag fall of $70 000 is allowed for general administration.
Other grant support National Principle
The fourth National Principle for general purpose grants is:
Other relevant grant support provided to local governing bodies to meet any of the
expenditure needs assessed should be taken into account using an inclusion approach.
This National Principle requires commissions, when determining the allocation of grants on a horizontal
equalisation basis, to include all grants that are provided to councils from the Australian Government
and the state and territory governments as part of the revenue that is available to councils to finance
their expenditure needs. Only those grants that are available to councils to finance the expenditure
of a function that is assessed by commissions should be included. Both the grants received and the
expenditure it funds should be included in the allocation process.
Table C.4 provides details on the grants included by grants commissions in allocating the general
purpose grants in 2005–06.
153
Table C.4: Grants treated by inclusion in general purpose grant allocations for 2005–06, 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% of
Roads to Recovery funding.
Qld
Minimum general purpose grant, local road grant, library grant, 50% of Roads to Recovery grant, 50% of State
Road and Drainage Grant, 50% of the State Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils’ operating grant.
WA
93% of the local road grant, 63% of the Roads to Recovery grant, as well as other relevant operating grants
provided by the Australian and state governments for community amenities, recreation and culture, and
education health and welfare.
SA
85 per cent of the local road grants, library grants, bus 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
(known as ‘NRTC funds’), and all other Australian and state government current and capital grants, except
where councils act as an agent for the Australian and state governments in providing services only because of
the grant received.
NT
Local road grant, 50% of the Roads to Recovery grant and 50% of the Northern Territory Operational Grant.
Source: Based on information provided by local government grants commissions
Needs of Indigenous communities
The fifth National Principle for distribution of general purpose grants states:
Financial assistance shall be allocated to councils in a way which recognises the needs of
Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders within their boundaries.
All commissions allocate funding to councils taking into account the population of the council.
Therefore, councils with Indigenous people as part of their community will receive financial assistance
funding for them. However, the Commonwealth Grants Commission (2001) stated that this National
Principle goes further. It said:
[A]ssessments [by commissions] should reflect differences in the demand for services by
Indigenous people, the cost of providing services to them and the capacity to raise revenue
from them – regardless of whether they live in a discrete community or in a mainstream
community (p. 27).
Councils in New South Wales with an above-the-state-average proportion of Indigenous people receive
recognition for the additional costs of providing services to Indigenous people in the expenditure
assessments for general administration and general community services.
Victoria incorporates the proportion of each council’s population that is Indigenous as a cost adjustor
in its family and community services expenditure assessment.
154
Appendix C
In Queensland, most of the larger geographically discrete Indigenous communities are located within
the 32 Indigenous councils or the Shires of Aurukun and Mornington. Indigenous councils are assessed
as having zero rating capacity as the land in their areas is not rateable. In 2005–06, 50 per cent of the
state government Financial Aid Grant for Aboriginal and Islander councils was included as revenue as a
surrogate for rate income.
In both Indigenous and mainstream councils, a cost adjuster (disability factor) is applied for Indigenous
descent whereby the assessed expenditure per person is increased by 50 per cent in relevant
expenditure categories.
The phase-in arrangements for the new methodology provided for Indigenous councils to receive their
new entitlements without delay. In 2003–04 these councils received a minimum increase in their
general purpose grant of 5 per cent – in 2005–06 no decrease was permitted.
Western Australia includes two disability factors – socioeconomic disadvantage and population
dispersion – in their expenditure assessments. In addition, 16 councils receive an allowance that
recognises the additional costs of providing environmental health services (that is, the inspection of
food premises, water supply, waste disposal and dog control) to remote Indigenous communities.
Western Australia also sets aside 2.3 per cent of the local road component as special project funds for
improvements to access roads to remote Indigenous communities.
In South Australia, there are recognised Indigenous communities both within mainstream councils and
outside mainstream councils.
The needs of Indigenous communities within mainstream councils are recognised both through their
inclusion within the population of the council and through special recognition of the proportion of
Indigenous people within the council. The commission allocates a dollar amount per capita in addition
to their recognition within the existing council general purpose grant calculation. On top of this, the
commission gives special consideration to councils that have a high non-resident use of their facilities,
that is, those councils that have high seasonal influxes of Indigenous people.
Five Indigenous communities outside of traditional local government areas receive financial assistance
grants. Due to the unavailability of data, grants for these communities cannot be calculated in the
same way as grants to other councils. In 1994–95 the commission undertook a study to determine
the appropriate level of funding for these communities, which determined a per capita funding level
for each community. These per capita amounts were established after comparisons were made with
communities in other jurisdictions. For example, in 2005–06 the allocation to Maralinga Tjarutja was
$505.33 per capita. The commission is reviewing the appropriateness of this level of funding.
Tasmania makes no special allowance for Indigenous people as there are very few separately
identifiable Indigenous communities in that state and there are no targeted services provided by
councils for these communities that are not also provided to other residents.
Aboriginal councils make up 85 per cent of the local governing bodies in the Northern Territory. The
additional cost of providing services to Aboriginal people is incorporated through inclusion of the
proportion of the population that is Aboriginal for each council in the expenditure assessments.
155
Factoring back and satisfying the minimum grant principle
Once the revenue capacity and expenditure need of each council has been determined its raw grant
can be calculated by subtracting its revenue capacity from its expenditure need.
There are two situations that require commissions to apply a factoring back process to obtain the
assessed grants from the raw grants. The first is when the total raw grant does not equal the available
grant for the jurisdiction. This can occur when the commission has not:
© assessed all revenue and expenditure categories for councils in the jurisdiction, or
© ensured that the total assessed revenue and expenditure across all councils in the jurisdiction
equals the total actual revenue and expenditure for all councils in the jurisdiction, or
© used a budget result term for each council when applying the balanced budget approach.
This situation would not arise if commissions adopted the approach the Commonwealth Grants
Commission uses for allocating grants.
The second situation occurs when the raw grant allocation for some councils does not comply with the
minimum grant National Principle. This Principle requires:
The minimum general purpose grant allocation for a local governing body in a year will be not
less than the amount to which the local governing body would be entitled if 30 per cent of
the total amount of general purpose grants to which the State or Territory is entitled under
section 9 of the Act in respect of the year were allocated among local governing bodies in the
State or Territory on a per capita basis.
Grants to councils with raw grant allocations below the minimum grant (including negative grants) are
increased to comply with the minimum grant National Principle. This requires grants to other councils in
the jurisdiction to be reduced through a factoring back process.
Should the grant to one or more councils, following the initial factoring back process, reduce their grant
below their minimum grant, the factoring back process would be repeated. This process would have to
be repeated until both the minimum grant and available grant constraints are simultaneously met.
Commissions use two approaches for factoring back the raw grant, they are the:
© proportional method – each council’s raw grant is reduced by the same proportion so the total of
the grants equals the available grant
© equalisation ratio method – each council’s grant is reduced such that all councils can afford to
fund the same proportion of their expenditure need with their total income (assessed revenue
capacity plus other grant support and general purpose grant).
In 2005–06 all grants commissions, except Queensland, used the proportional method. Queensland
used a combination of 75 per cent equalisation ratio and 25 per cent proportional method.
156
Appendix D
Appendix D
Distribution of financial
assistance grants to local
governing bodies in 2005–06
Table D.1 shows the distribution of local government financial assistance grants and some basic
information, such as population, area (in square kilometres) and road length (in kilometres) for each
local governing body in Australia.
For the financial assistance grants, Table D.1 shows the actual total grant entitlement for 2005–06
and the estimated total grant entitlement for 2006–07. For each of these years, the components of the
financial assistance grants (the general purpose grant and the local road grant) are also given.
This year the councils are listed alphabetically by state and territory. In previous years they were
listed under their category according to the Australian Classification of Local Governments (ACLG), then
sorted by the size of their population, starting with the smallest, within each category. An explanation
of the ACLG is provided in Appendix F. The ACLG category for each council is now listed in the second
column of Table D.1.
To facilitate comparison, the general purpose grant per capita and the local road grant per kilometre
are provided for 2005–06. Additional comparative information on grants received is provided in this
report as follows:
© Table 2.9 provides the average general purpose grant per capita for councils, grouped by ACLG
and by state.
© Table 2.10 provides the average local road grant per kilometre for councils, grouped by ACLG and
by state.
© Appendix E gives the ranking of all councils for a state for both general purpose grant per capita
and local road grant per kilometre.
Councils receiving the minimum per capita grant in 2005–06 are indicated with a hash (#) beside their
entry in the ‘GP grant per capita’ column. The per capita grant of these councils differs slightly between
states because of different data sources for population used by the Australian Government to calculate
the state share of general purpose grants and those used by the local government grants commissions
for allocations for individual councils. For further information on the minimum grant entitlement, see
‘What is the minimum grant?’ and ‘Councils on the minimum grant’ in Chapter 2.
The source of the data is the relevant state or territory local government grants commission.
Key to symbols in Table D.1
C
=
City
S
=
Shire
DC
=
District Council
CG
=
Community Government
M
=
Municipal
T
B
RC
R
Bd
=
=
=
=
=
Town
Borough
Regional City
Regional
Board
157
RAM
RAL
Blayney Shire
Bourke Shire
RAL
Bland Shire
UDM
UDV
Blacktown City
Botany Bay City
RAL
Berrigan Shire
RAM
RAV
Bellingen Shire
RAM
URM
Bega Valley Shire
Bombala
UFV
Boorowa
URM
Bathurst Regional
Baulkham Hills Shire
UFL
36 630
UDV
Bankstown City
RAM
175 428
RAM
Bogan Shire
39 546
URM
Ballina Shire
Balranald Shire
Blue Mountains City
62 797
UDM
Auburn
24 596
3 924
37 192
2 476
2 545
3 122
77 011
6 688
6 552
278 532
8 188
12 720
31 955
157 854
2 737
40 258
URS
UDM
Ashfield Municipal
46 520
Population
Armidale Dumaresq
URM
Albury City
New South Wales
Council name
ACLG
category
41 679
22
1 891
89
629
639
2 579
1 411
716
686
2 925
1 098
1 249
481
1 149
811
1 154
547
1 313
554
192
92
928
463
Total road
length
(km)
3 944
14 611
1 432
1 525
8 560
240
2 067
1 602
6 280
401
3 815
77
21 699
484
32
8
4 235
333
Council
area
(sq km)
$1 849 013
$747 382
$554 019
$743 279
$1 283 449
$5 556 299
$1 082 011
$2 431 566
$12 290 812
$1 940 148
$1 770 943
$3 703 112
$2 634 549
$2 947 424
$3 656 868
$1 185 163
$2 144 881
$1 574 717
$883 742
$2 201 112
$3 757 960
General
purpose
grant
$1 286 711
$201 675
$456 862
$482 025
$982 678
$996 450
$556 592
$1 971 638
$2 040 346
$907 419
$574 305
$1 285 459
$1 313 832
$1 263 486
$1 106 813
$875 468
$847 405
$389 098
$216 567
$942 586
$878 034
Roads grant
$3 135 724
$949 057
$1 010 881
$1 225 304
$2 266 127
$6 552 749
$1 638 603
$4 403 204
$14 331 158
$2 847 567
$2 345 248
$4 988 571
$3 948 381
$4 210 910
$4 763 681
$2 060 631
$2 992 286
$1 963 815
$1 100 309
$3 143 698
$4 635 994
Total grant
$471.21
$20.10
$223.76
$292.05
$411.10
$72.15
$161.78
$371.12
$44.13
$236.95
$139.23
$115.89
$16.69
$80.46
$20.85
$433.02
$54.24
$25.08
$21.95
$89.49
$80.78
GP grant
per capita
2005–06 actual entitlement
#
$680.44
$2 266.01
$714.96
$766.34
$696.44
$1 391.69
$811.36
$674.06
$1 858.24
$726.52
$1 193.98
$1 118.76
$1 620.01
$1 094.88
$2 023.42
$666.77
$1 529.61
$2 026.55
$2 353.99
$1 015.72
$1 896.40
Roads
per km
General
purpose
grant
$1 824 671
$781 377
$580 413
$778 282
$1 282 328
$5 761 586
$1 143 050
$2 461 517
$12 897 967
$2 059 616
$1 874 551
$3 862 860
$2 768 505
$3 167 165
$3 774 055
$1 197 775
$2 108 139
$1 692 118
$932 343
$2 365 213
$1 334 742
$208 221
$474 163
$499 953
$1 019 335
$1 029 106
$578 683
$2 045 246
$2 150 716
$942 440
$600 389
$1 344 294
$1 374 107
$1 324 245
$1 146 001
$912 847
$883 977
$418 304
$222 210
$978 318
$924 008
Roads grant
$3 159 413
$989 598
$1 054 576
$1 278 235
$2 301 663
$6 790 692
$1 721 733
$4 506 763
$15 048 683
$3 002 056
$2 474 940
$5 207 154
$4 142 612
$4 491 410
$4 920 056
$2 110 622
$2 992 116
$2 110 422
$1 154 553
$3 343 531
$4 962 137
Total grant
2006–07 estimated entitlement
$4 038 129
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population, 2005–06 and 2006–07
158
RAS
RAM
RAL
RAM
Conargo Shire
Coolamon Shire
Cooma–Monaro
Coonamble Shire
URS
URM
Coffs Harbour City
Deniliquin
RTL
Cobar Shire
RAV
URM
Clarence Valley
Cowra Shire
URM
Cessnock City
RAL
RTM
Central Darling Shire
RAV
RAM
Carrathool Shire
Corowa Shire
UDV
Canterbury City
Cootamundra Shire
UFV
UFM
Camden
UDM
RAV
Cabonne Shire
Canada Bay City
URM
Byron Shire
Campbelltown City
URS
UDM
Brewarrina Shire
Burwood Municipal
RAM
Council name
Broken Hill City
ACLG
category
8 214
13 147
10 964
7 596
4 728
9 773
4 111
1 791
66 529
5 020
49 422
48 143
2 418
3 308
135 048
66 148
149 961
50 302
12 626
30 724
31 085
20 440
2 143
Population
130
2 810
2 403
141
1 220
1 283
542
1 388
9 926
1 524
933
1 275
1 284
703
1 675
2 086
876
1 602
2 272
313
186
598
325
1 819
516
82
211
1 264
Total road
length
(km)
5 229
2 433
8 751
1 118
45 606
10 661
1 966
53 511
18 940
34
20
312
201
6 026
567
7
170
19 188
Council
area
(sq km)
$1 383 661
$1 920 788
$2 066 603
$1 269 612
$1 405 313
$1 672 842
$1 342 400
$906 313
$4 221 074
$1 890 843
$6 106 697
$4 021 495
$1 829 378
$1 672 442
$3 297 037
$1 103 997
$7 132 010
$1 425 666
$1 735 383
$1 450 880
$518 803
$3 051 698
$1 174 903
General
purpose
grant
$185 676
$983 117
$972 309
$478 367
$979 962
$759 498
$867 934
$862 652
$1 319 294
$1 140 206
$2 216 924
$1 162 120
$1 062 907
$1 523 115
$763 935
$396 747
$1 150 414
$545 002
$1 400 662
$798 454
$177 659
$367 681
$865 572
Roads grant
$1 569 337
$2 903 905
$3 038 912
$1 747 979
$2 385 275
$2 432 340
$2 210 334
$1 768 965
$5 540 368
$3 031 049
$8 323 621
$5 183 615
$2 892 285
$3 195 557
$4 060 972
$1 500 744
$8 282 424
$1 970 668
$3 136 045
$2 249 334
$696 462
$3 419 379
$2 040 475
Total grant
$168.45
$146.10
$188.49
$167.14
$297.23
$171.17
$326.54
$506.04
$63.45
$376.66
$123.56
$83.53
$756.57
$505.57
$24.41
$16.69
$47.56
$28.34
$137.45
$47.22
$16.69
$149.30
$548.25
GP grant
per capita
#
#
$1 316.85
$805.83
$757.84
$882.60
$706.02
$814.04
$680.73
$671.85
$1 876.66
$680.72
$1 062.76
$1 326.62
$663.49
$670.39
$2 440.69
$2 133.05
$1 923.77
$1 676.93
$770.02
$1 547.39
$2 166.57
$1 742.56
$684.79
Roads
per km
$1 474 276
$2 043 546
$2 152 567
$1 347 614
$1 431 415
$1 797 558
$1 371 744
$913 686
$4 392 168
$1 907 879
$6 561 973
$4 232 525
$1 815 832
$1 642 131
$3 436 033
$1 156 111
$7 360 234
$1 399 828
$1 794 447
$1 424 585
$535 558
$3 279 213
$1 153 781
General
purpose
grant
$191 062
$1 022 817
$1 010 218
$499 489
$1 019 788
$787 829
$900 566
$894 933
$1 381 321
$1 182 772
$2 284 914
$1 201 564
$1 102 643
$1 589 871
$787 363
$413 843
$1 198 162
$573 403
$1 453 282
$829 121
$183 980
$377 651
$898 354
Roads grant
$1 665 338
$3 066 363
$3 162 785
$1 847 103
$2 451 203
$2 585 387
$2 272 310
$1 808 619
$5 773 489
$3 090 651
$8 846 887
$5 434 089
$2 918 475
$3 232 002
$4 223 396
$1 569 954
$8 558 396
$1 973 231
$3 247 729
$2 253 706
$719 538
$3 656 864
$2 052 135
Total grant
Appendix D
159
24 909
RAL
RAM
UFV
URS
URM
RAV
URM
Glen Innes Severn
Gloucester Shire
Gosford City
Goulburn Mulwaree
Great Lakes
Greater Hume Shire
Greater Taree City
UFM
RAM
UDL
UFV
Hawkesbury City
Hay Shire
Holroyd City
Hornsby Shire
RAM
URM
Hastings
RAL
Gwydir Shire
Harden Shire
RAV
RAM
Gunnedah Shire
Guyra Shire
URS
RAM
Gilgandra Shire
RAM
RAL
Forbes Shire
Griffith City
46 474
UDV
Fairfield City
Gundagai Shire
4 902
162 841
URM
Eurobodalla Shire
156 929
91 211
3 549
63 598
69 737
3 771
5 581
4 441
12 164
3 763
10 652
34 186
27 003
8 765
4 682
9 974
187 683
35 902
8 379
RAL
39 077
URM
Population
Dungog Shire
ACLG
category
Dubbo City
Council name
462
40
11 328
2 776
3 687
1 869
9 122
4 395
4 787
2 458
1 640
3 730
5 929
3 376
3 220
940
2 952
5 740
4 836
4 720
102
3 422
2 251
3 428
Council
area
(sq km)
612
315
753
887
1 169
899
1 872
864
1 339
684
1 166
1 564
1 772
911
1 056
1 045
633
1 069
1 231
1 800
601
906
594
1 168
Total road
length
(km)
$647 905
$2 984 770
$2 619 111
$2 079 157
$1 138 580
$1 104 761
$626 174
$529 986
$1 228 266
$1 763 365
$1 120 037
$4 484 478
$1 334 941
$640 858
$1 049 690
$547 653
$1 039 820
$1 748 650
$1 342 703
$1 076 539
$1 063 777
$1 643 462
$600 681
$910 286
$886 988
$1 336 498
$1 211 498
$1 077 777
$601 782
$1 230 403
Roads grant
$3 723 872
$2 705 331
$1 668 566
$4 213 036
$6 247 843
$1 767 942
$2 881 083
$1 601 804
$2 822 648
$1 259 927
$2 750 634
$5 291 052
$3 450 615
$5 259 592
$3 532 910
$7 865 800
$1 417 021
$2 603 395
$2 070 753
$3 647 080
$8 648 200
$5 351 564
$1 638 971
$4 852 648
Total grant
$16.69
$22.80
$320.82
$46.93
$64.31
$297.01
$277.04
$216.38
$145.75
$189.28
$68.68
$76.22
$197.89
$122.36
$91.44
$38.21
$166.53
$193.17
$252.83
$231.66
$39.62
$119.04
$123.78
$92.70
GP grant
per capita
$1 546 142
$960 946
$1 772 958
$712 274
$1 710 814
$3 542 402
$2 107 912
$4 183 053
$2 469 133
$6 222 338
$816 340
$1 693 109
$1 183 765
$2 310 582
$7 436 702
$4 273 787
$1 037 189
$3 622 245
General
purpose
grant
#
$1 805.17
$1 987.85
$703.83
$1 384.74
$1 508.44
$720.70
$713.11
$741.73
$783.94
$800.66
$891.78
$1 118.06
$757.73
$1 181.71
$1 007.36
$1 572.69
$948.94
$851.53
$720.54
$742.50
$2 015.80
$1 189.60
$1 013.10
$1 053.43
Roads
per km
$2 702 089
$2 133 054
$1 182 373
$2 951 389
$4 631 042
$1 157 883
$1 546 142
$1 001 325
$1 876 569
$758 112
$1 838 361
$3 717 375
$2 265 064
$4 318 005
$2 568 046
$6 421 453
$851 006
$1 764 980
$1 209 751
$2 394 801
$7 772 113
$4 268 346
$1 060 788
$3 892 296
General
purpose
grant
$1 150 795
$649 996
$565 549
$1 273 455
$1 843 605
$673 972
$1 349 522
$665 663
$1 086 879
$569 473
$1 082 321
$1 819 513
$1 391 091
$1 161 238
$1 109 712
$1 701 441
$631 435
$939 428
$919 905
$1 386 330
$1 258 690
$1 123 157
$625 470
$1 278 156
Roads grant
$3 852 884
$2 783 050
$1 747 922
$4 224 844
$6 474 647
$1 831 855
$2 895 664
$1 666 988
$2 963 448
$1 327 585
$2 920 682
$5 536 888
$3 656 155
$5 479 243
$3 677 758
$8 122 894
$1 482 441
$2 704 408
$2 129 656
$3 781 131
$9 030 803
$5 391 503
$1 686 258
$5 170 452
Total grant
160
URM
UDM
UDL
Manly
Marrickville
RTX
Lord Howe Island Board
Maitland City
RAL
RAM
UFV
Lockhart Shire
20 831
URS
Lithgow City
Liverpool City
Liverpool Plains Shire
43 229
URM
Lismore City
75 870
38 987
59 949
344
3 528
7 910
167 880
51 430
12 028
RAV
UDM
32 341
Leichhardt Municipal
UDM
Lane Cove Municipal
189 196
7 431
9 628
108 830
55 012
20 176
28 114
5 887
1 883
15 729
75 640
13 911
Population
Leeton Shire
RAL
URV
RAL
Kyogle
Lake Macquarie City
UDL
Ku–ring–gai
Lachlan Shire
UDM
Kogarah Municipal
RAL
Junee Shire
URS
RAS
Jerilderie Shire
URS
RAV
Inverell Shire
Kiama Municipal
UDL
Hurstville City
Kempsey Shire
UDS
Hunters Hill Municipal
Council name
ACLG
category
17
15
392
16
2 895
5 122
305
4 562
1 290
11
1 167
11
644
14 973
3 589
86
16
258
3 380
2 031
3 375
8 606
23
6
Council
area
(sq km)
190
103
566
0
1 483
1 199
739
771
1 072
136
871
95
1 216
3 245
1 096
441
169
195
1 021
820
998
1 780
210
61
Total road
length
(km)
$2 725 700
$650 685
$4 035 933
$130 705
$1 408 611
$1 351 889
$5 660 003
$2 429 352
$3 698 430
$1 040 431
$1 709 095
$539 765
$10 630 638
$2 911 337
$1 625 297
$1 816 349
$918 139
$839 021
$2 960 444
$1 269 428
$795 838
$2 477 226
$1 262 416
$232 173
General
purpose
grant
$419 907
$221 176
$824 907
$0
$1 071 247
$925 853
$1 323 733
$758 591
$1 328 076
$295 124
$698 791
$193 093
$1 895 611
$2 202 773
$1 133 430
$786 600
$335 906
$298 832
$1 209 805
$604 165
$681 832
$1 394 265
$444 609
$106 795
Roads grant
$3 145 607
$871 861
$4 860 840
$130 705
$2 479 858
$2 277 742
$6 983 736
$3 187 943
$5 026 506
$1 335 555
$2 407 886
$732 858
$12 526 249
$5 114 110
$2 758 727
$2 602 949
$1 254 045
$1 137 853
$4 170 249
$1 873 593
$1 477 670
$3 871 491
$1 707 025
$338 968
Total grant
$35.93
$16.69
$67.32
$379.96
$399.27
$170.91
$33.71
$116.62
$85.55
$20.23
$142.09
$16.69
$56.19
$391.78
$168.81
$16.69
$16.69
$41.59
$105.30
$215.63
$422.64
$157.49
$16.69
$16.69
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
#
#
#
$2 210.04
$2 147.34
$1 457.43
n/a
$722.35
$772.19
$1 791.25
$983.91
$1 238.88
$2 170.03
$802.29
$2 032.56
$1 558.89
$678.82
$1 034.15
$1 783.67
$1 987.61
$1 532.47
$1 184.92
$736.79
$683.20
$783.29
$2 117.19
$1 750.74
Roads
per km
$2 676 301
$668 390
$4 336 826
$136 116
$1 426 952
$1 422 108
$5 841 123
$2 579 549
$3 923 076
$1 021 575
$1 836 510
$555 634
$10 811 492
$2 926 229
$1 732 843
$1 868 330
$959 115
$823 815
$3 110 718
$1 316 295
$797 925
$2 592 006
$1 306 939
$239 401
General
purpose
grant
$431 945
$228 443
$870 715
$0
$1 111 362
$960 328
$1 383 766
$786 729
$1 380 560
$310 925
$725 753
$199 665
$1 974 698
$2 284 476
$1 175 932
$3 108 246
$896 833
$5 207 541
$136 116
$2 538 314
$2 382 436
$7 224 889
$3 366 278
$5 303 636
$1 332 500
$2 562 263
$755 299
$12 786 190
$5 210 705
$2 908 775
$2 681 502
$1 308 990
$349 875
$813 172
$1 133 549
$4 374 132
$1 949 791
$1 505 195
$4 027 281
$1 761 537
$349 913
Total grant
$309 734
$1 263 414
$633 496
$707 270
$1 435 275
$454 598
$110 512
Roads grant
Appendix D
161
11 325
15 034
RAL
URM
RAV
Oberon
Orange City
Palerang
177 554
56 954
UFV
UDM
URM
URM
UDV
URS
UDL
Penrith City
Pittwater
Port Stephens
Queanbeyan
Randwick City
Richmond Valley
Rockdale City
95 036
20 838
126 431
36 331
62 448
151 076
RAV
UDV
Parkes Shire
Parramatta City
37 546
5 396
60 789
145 633
URV
7 020
UDM
RAL
Narromine Shire
6 594
14 239
North Sydney
RAL
Narrandera Shire
18 525
15 195
2 636
6 604
28 420
16 027
22 137
Population
Newcastle City
RAV
Narrabri Shire
RAM
Murrumbidgee Shire
RAV
RAL
Murray Shire
RAV
UDS
Mosman Municipal
Muswellbrook Shire
RAV
Nambucca Shire
URS
Mid–Western Regional
ACLG
category
Moree Plains Shire
Council name
28
2 889
36
172
858
91
405
61
5 958
6 947
285
3 660
11
183
5 264
4 117
13 031
1 491
3 406
3 505
4 345
9
17 928
8 692
Council
area
(sq km)
$950 550
262
1 001
271
212
$1 586 130
$2 603 907
$2 110 106
$1 950 844
$3 481 993
233
570
$7 577 648
$4 150 840
$2 474 958
$1 343 059
$2 563 004
$971 502
$1 071 683
$9 689 885
$1 758 841
$1 755 553
$2 466 701
$1 921 392
$1 731 769
$670 067
$1 324 429
$474 324
$2 199 133
$2 697 760
General
purpose
grant
947
488
1 776
1 036
385
909
143
735
1 336
1 476
2 105
650
577
590
1 354
85
2 638
1 839
Total road
length
(km)
$562 104
$1 025 995
$655 737
$554 376
$790 651
$424 360
$1 555 193
$1 051 906
$1 327 471
$870 173
$695 676
$683 861
$327 147
$1 272 753
$946 865
$1 043 465
$1 557 482
$795 001
$605 128
$411 188
$1 015 303
$171 211
$1 959 775
$1 549 522
Roads grant
$2 148 234
$3 629 902
$2 765 843
$2 505 220
$4 272 644
$1 374 910
$9 132 841
$5 202 746
$3 802 429
$2 213 232
$3 258 680
$1 655 363
$1 398 830
$10 962 638
$2 705 706
$2 799 018
$4 024 183
$2 716 393
$2 336 897
$1 081 255
$2 339 732
$645 535
$4 158 908
$4 247 282
Total grant
$16.69
$124.96
$16.69
$53.70
$55.76
$16.69
$42.68
$27.48
$164.62
$118.59
$68.26
$180.04
$17.63
$66.54
$250.55
$266.23
$173.24
$103.72
$113.97
$254.20
$200.55
$16.69
$137.21
$121.87
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
#
$2 145.44
$1 024.97
$2 419.69
$2 614.98
$1 387.11
$1 821.29
$1 642.23
$2 155.55
$747.45
$839.94
$1 806.95
$752.32
$2 287.74
$1 731.64
$708.73
$706.95
$739.90
$1 223.08
$1 048.75
$696.93
$749.85
$2 014.25
$742.90
$842.59
Roads
per km
$1 638 762
$2 689 898
$2 166 326
$2 003 185
$3 509 476
$985 825
$7 956 257
$4 460 300
$2 624 440
$1 343 059
$2 754 085
$1 024 090
$1 047 532
$9 914 892
$1 819 837
$1 805 982
$2 562 678
$2 011 266
$1 857 612
$697 896
$1 423 170
$487 516
$2 201 386
$2 824 923
General
purpose
grant
$582 355
$1 065 949
$676 990
$610 214
$841 087
$444 356
$1 625 475
$1 090 677
$1 376 637
$895 957
$730 901
$709 944
$338 847
$1 323 873
$982 949
$1 082 261
$1 640 558
$824 706
$627 280
$426 336
$1 056 025
$176 901
$2 031 693
$1 644 370
Roads grant
$2 221 117
$3 755 847
$2 843 316
$2 613 399
$4 350 563
$1 430 181
$9 581 732
$5 550 977
$4 001 077
$2 239 016
$3 484 986
$1 734 034
$1 386 379
$11 238 765
$2 802 786
$2 888 243
$4 203 236
$2 835 972
$2 484 892
$1 124 232
$2 479 195
$664 417
$4 233 079
$4 469 293
Total grant
162
RAM
RAM
RAL
Walcha
Walgett Shire
RAL
Upper Lachlan
Wakool Shire
RAV
Upper Hunter
URM
URL
Tweed Shire
Wagga Wagga City
3 230
6 040
RAV
Tumut
RAL
RAM
Tumbarumba Shire
RAS
RTX
Tibooburra Village
Uralla Shire
RAL
Urana Shire
7 089
7 316
RAL
Tenterfield Shire
8 096
3 261
4 837
57 557
1 395
13 376
79 910
11 382
3 623
128
6 814
6 295
27
22 336
6 267
7 520
4 824
3 357
8 060
1 309
4 553
4 555
0
7 279
2 802
9 458
Temora Shire
54 312
146 297
UCC
URM
335
14
6 030
4 896
0
4 568
Tamworth Regional
214 784
31 129
57
91 765
147
41
Council
area
(sq km)
Sydney City
UDV
Sutherland Shire
7 322
RAL
UDM
Snowy River Shire
RTX
URS
Silverton Village
Singleton Shire
Strathfield Municipal
21 913
URL
Shoalhaven City
99 662
62 338
UDL
URM
Shellharbour City
Population
Ryde City
Council name
ACLG
category
1 950
766
1 273
1 995
881
817
1 628
1 575
1 020
595
472
0
1 503
1 134
2 859
294
773
86
731
724
0
1 479
318
313
Total road
length
(km)
$2 176 699
$669 315
$1 367 210
$4 756 866
$802 238
$965 826
$1 401 831
$1 880 232
$5 525 633
$1 602 493
$868 878
$49 261
$1 673 746
$1 294 615
$5 253 381
$2 927 996
$3 584 698
$519 537
$1 443 673
$1 626 804
$21 937
$7 219 406
$2 972 877
$1 663 338
General
purpose
grant
$1 416 266
$589 794
$982 072
$2 106 306
$598 652
$647 945
$1 217 512
$1 294 101
$1 758 812
$566 257
$394 905
$0
$1 151 620
$826 063
$2 720 297
$758 618
$1 445 610
$184 807
$588 473
$805 996
$0
$2 120 478
$550 306
$636 232
Roads grant
$3 592 965
$1 259 109
$2 349 282
$6 863 172
$1 400 890
$1 613 771
$2 619 343
$3 174 333
$7 284 445
$2 168 750
$1 263 783
$49 261
$2 825 366
$2 120 678
$7 973 678
$3 686 614
$5 030 308
$704 344
$2 032 146
$2 432 800
$21 937
$9 339 884
$3 523 183
$2 299 570
Total grant
$268.86
$205.25
$282.66
$82.65
$575.08
$159.90
$191.61
$140.57
$69.15
$140.79
$239.82
$384.85
$245.63
$205.66
$96.73
$20.01
$16.69
$16.69
$197.17
$74.24
$384.86
$78.67
$47.69
$16.69
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
$726.29
$769.97
$771.46
$1 055.79
$679.51
$793.08
$747.86
$821.65
$1 724.33
$951.69
$836.66
n/a
$766.21
$728.45
$951.49
$2 580.33
$1 870.13
$2 148.92
$805.02
$1 113.25
n/a
$1 433.72
$1 730.52
$2 032.69
Roads
per km
$2 275 763
$701 161
$1 409 499
$5 111 507
$814 025
$1 015 684
$1 401 831
$1 945 273
$5 667 500
$1 721 964
$922 143
$51 200
$1 798 530
$1 356 495
$5 567 882
$3 146 288
$3 696 421
$543 567
$1 533 636
$1 737 532
$22 800
$7 088 564
$3 091 478
$1 711 108
General
purpose
grant
$1 468 446
$612 138
$1 018 875
$2 191 819
$621 521
$672 472
$1 269 339
$1 342 784
$1 854 016
$564 182
$410 175
$0
$1 192 606
$857 330
$2 859 322
$3 744 209
$1 313 299
$2 428 374
$7 303 326
$1 435 546
$1 688 156
$2 671 170
$3 288 057
$7 521 516
$2 286 146
$1 332 318
$51 200
$2 991 136
$2 213 825
$8 427 204
$3 937 433
$5 194 536
$1 498 115
$791 145
$736 264
$2 144 226
$2 580 286
$22 800
$9 308 426
$3 674 967
$2 368 851
Total grant
$192 697
$610 590
$842 754
$0
$2 219 862
$583 489
$657 743
Roads grant
Appendix D
163
3 282
RAV
RAV
Yass Valley
Young Shire
UFS
URM
UDL
RAV
Bass Coast Shire
Baw Baw Shire
Bayside City
Benalla
URL
UDL
Banyule City
URS
Ararat Rural City
Ballarat City
RAV
Alpine Shire
Victoria
UFV
UFM
Wollondilly Shire
Wyong Shire
URM
URV
UDM
Willoughby City
Wingecarribee Shire
UDM
RAL
Wentworth Shire
Woollahra Municipal
63 905
RAL
Wellington
Wollongong City
7 236
RAM
Weddin Shire
10 550
14 067
89 232
37 935
28 512
117 323
87 148
11 539
13 168
11 957
12 854
141 764
53 095
191 558
40 661
44 311
8 668
3 823
62 096
RAV
138 646
UDM
UDV
Waverley
RAM
Warren Shire
Warringah
Population
Warrumbungle
ACLG
category
Council name
2 354
37
4 032
864
62
740
4 210
4 832
2 694
3 985
745
12
684
2 557
2 689
23
26 269
4 113
3 410
9
12 466
150
10 760
Council
area
(sq km)
1 452
353
1 758
1 044
552
1 259
2 387
781
1 058
1 067
992
132
886
688
985
202
1 940
1 245
968
113
2 276
472
956
Total road
length
(km)
$1 685 218
$1 491 225
$3 868 713
$2 772 340
$3 669 370
$6 499 710
$2 163 370
$1 817 123
$1 606 043
$1 473 510
$7 139 095
$886 144
$11 314 336
$1 648 723
$2 443 310
$1 066 561
$2 142 354
$1 710 134
$1 061 127
$1 521 869
$2 750 218
$2 313 972
$886 618
General
purpose
grant
$1 043 713
$364 917
$1 955 479
$982 438
$709 020
$1 388 248
$1 599 923
$808 818
$855 350
$877 302
$1 539 631
$292 886
$1 561 360
$921 631
$1 179 552
$406 212
$1 353 833
$929 712
$678 461
$300 890
$1 654 156
$917 474
$690 482
Roads grant
$2 728 931
$1 856 142
$5 824 192
$3 754 778
$4 378 390
$7 887 958
$3 763 293
$2 625 941
$2 461 393
$2 350 812
$8 678 726
$1 179 030
$12 875 696
$2 570 354
$3 622 862
$1 472 773
$3 496 187
$2 639 846
$1 739 588
$1 822 759
$4 404 374
$3 231 446
$1 577 100
Total grant
$119.80
$16.71
$101.98
$97.23
$31.28
$74.58
$187.48
$138.00
$134.32
$114.63
$50.36
$16.69
$59.06
$40.55
$55.14
$16.69
$296.07
$197.29
$277.56
$24.51
$260.68
$16.69
$270.15
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
#
$718.81
$1 033.76
$1 112.33
$941.03
$1 284.46
$1 102.66
$670.27
$1 035.62
$808.46
$822.21
$1 552.05
$2 218.83
$1 762.26
$1 339.58
$1 197.51
$2 010.95
$697.85
$746.76
$700.89
$2 662.74
$726.78
$1 943.80
$722.26
Roads
per km
$1 833 002
$1 536 937
$4 151 436
$3 037 230
$3 412 114
$7 037 247
$2 294 451
$1 921 282
$1 699 303
$1 473 510
$7 279 641
$906 638
$11 524 643
$1 618 842
$2 399 028
$1 099 355
$2 159 510
$1 777 512
$1 108 918
$1 635 330
$2 807 317
$2 399 951
$892 618
General
purpose
grant
$1 083 914
$364 226
$1 992 147
$1 030 694
$736 330
$1 441 720
$1 662 936
$835 589
$892 513
$910 635
$1 600 172
$301 842
$1 617 714
$956 649
$1 227 807
$420 328
$1 405 169
$962 642
$704 445
$309 699
$1 716 012
$952 034
$716 227
Roads grant
$2 916 916
$1 901 163
$6 143 583
$4 067 924
$4 148 444
$8 478 967
$3 957 387
$2 756 871
$2 591 816
$2 384 145
$8 879 813
$1 208 480
$13 142 357
$2 575 491
$3 626 835
$1 519 683
$3 564 679
$2 740 154
$1 813 363
$1 945 029
$4 523 329
$3 351 985
$1 608 845
Total grant
164
UDV
URV
URM
RAV
RAL
UDL
Greater Dandenong City
Greater Geelong City
Greater Shepparton City
Hepburn Shire
Hindmarsh Shire
Hobsons Bay City
16 319
RAV
URL
Golden Plains Shire
Greater Bendigo City
20 220
URS
Glenelg Shire
11 837
130
83 199
6 407
14 828
60 025
64
7 550
1 470
2 422
1 247
127 230
202 615
2 999
2 704
6 210
39
3 732
130
20 931
3
53
4 404
3 433
1 534
410
1 280
4 519
8 004
123
60
Council
area
(sq km)
94 614
122 901
RAV
UDV
118 951
Glen Eira City
UDL
Frankston City
40 826
3 000
127 521
17 327
21 495
12 964
37 193
7 058
Gannawarra Shire
UDS
URM
East Gippsland Shire
Darebin City
Docklands Authority
RAV
UDV
Corangamite Shire
URS
Colac–Otway Shire
210 389
UFV
RAV
UFM
Cardinia Shire
Casey City
URM
Campaspe City
Central Goldfields Shire
54 543
RAL
Buloke Shire
174 426
158 290
UDV
UDV
Population
Boroondara City
Council name
Brimbank City
ACLG
category
425
3 254
1 296
2 444
1 991
594
2 903
1 811
2 665
426
2 460
651
3 299
7
499
2 662
1 668
1 321
1 205
1 421
4491
5 168
807
572
Total road
length
(km)
$2 694 413
$1 702 680
$1 913 613
$5 357 443
$12 773 913
$6 360 243
$8 278 592
$2 101 624
$2 731 299
$2 053 894
$1 990 392
$6 155 376
$6 800 740
$50 136
$4 736 114
$2 486 102
$2 445 970
$1 786 975
$10 514 455
$4 287 733
$4 673 856
$2 032 307
$8 563 766
$2 645 306
General
purpose
grant
$494 162
$1 157 967
$969 486
$2 076 519
$2 221 096
$951 316
$2 111 536
$1 421 558
$2 327 087
$416 654
$1 315 761
$809 242
$3 737 142
$11 125
$648 360
$2 280 949
$1 773 164
$891 778
$1 410 334
$1 593 064
$2 915 331
$1 512 947
$1 074 799
$608 934
Roads grant
$3 188 575
$2 860 647
$2 883 099
$7 433 962
$14 995 009
$7 311 559
$10 390 128
$3 523 182
$5 058 386
$2 470 548
$3 306 153
$6 964 618
$10 537 882
$61 261
$5 384 474
$4 767 051
$4 219 134
$2 678 753
$11 924 789
$5 880 797
$7 589 187
$3 545 254
$9 638 565
$3 254 240
Total grant
$32.39
$265.75
$129.05
$89.25
$63.05
$49.99
$87.50
$128.78
$135.08
$16.71
$168.15
$51.75
$166.58
$16.71
$37.14
$143.48
$113.79
$137.84
$49.98
$78.61
$125.66
$287.94
$49.10
$16.71
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
$1 162.73
$355.86
$748.06
$849.64
$1 115.57
$1 601.54
$727.36
$784.96
$873.20
$978.06
$534.86
$1 243.08
$1 132.81
$1 589.29
$1 299.32
$856.86
$1 063.05
$675.08
$1 170.40
$1 121.09
$649.15
$292.75
$1 331.85
$1 064.57
Roads
per km
$2 505 511
$1 820 298
$2 025 975
$5 699 304
$13 279 665
$6 675 077
$8 877 011
$2 276 689
$2 849 783
$2 113 313
$2 190 838
$6 154 654
$7 273 712
$69 217
$4 371 519
$2 593 591
$2 555 335
$1 836 304
$10 987 517
$4 567 893
$4 987 730
$2 173 859
$8 983 063
$2 720 560
General
purpose
grant
$513 197
$1 202 569
$1 026 683
$2 159 281
$2 307 224
$1 010 408
$2 217 668
$1 480 654
$2 398 537
$432 702
$1 469 935
$852 420
$3 883 806
$8 916
$682 528
$2 368 805
$1 843 201
$855 540
$1 502 105
$1 682 246
$3 013 940
$1 571 222
$1 126 207
$631 700
Roads grant
$3 018 708
$3 022 867
$3 052 658
$7 858 585
$15 586 889
$7 685 485
$11 094 679
$3 757 343
$5 248 320
$2 546 015
$3 660 773
$7 007 074
$11 157 518
$78 133
$5 054 047
$4 962 396
$4 398 536
$2 691 844
$12 489 622
$6 250 139
$8 001 670
$3 745 081
$10 109 270
$3 352 260
Total grant
Appendix D
165
71 350
UDL
RAL
UDM
UDL
UCC
Manningham City
Mansfield
Maribyrnong City
Maroondah City
Melbourne City
UDL
URS
UDV
UFL
RAV
RAV
Moorabool Shire
Moreland City
Mornington Peninsula
Shire
Mount Alexander Shire
Moyne Shire
UDV
Monash City
Moonee Valley City
URS
URS
Mitchell Shire
Moira Shire
UFM
URM
Macedon Ranges Shire
URM
RAL
Loddon Shire
Melton Shire
58 670
URL
Latrobe City
Mildura Rural City
40 004
113 920
UDV
Knox City
15 091
15 851
17 242
138 773
135 843
26 138
109 165
161 544
27 464
31 574
51 263
100 943
62 054
6 997
8 407
70 315
150 044
136 684
RAV
UDV
Indigo Shire
Kingston City
UFV
18 901
148 195
URS
Population
Horsham Rural City
ACLG
category
Hume City
Council name
422
51
5 478
1 529
723
3 471
1 290
1 664
516
1 432
44
2 110
717
3 511
1 328
5 061
707
188
483
271
807
588
1 467
4 733
1 429
723
609
1 838
917
2 894
Total road
length
(km)
82
4 045
2 862
22 082
527
33
61
31
3 892
114
1 747
6 694
1 426
114
91
2 044
504
4 249
Council
area
(sq km)
$2 387 613
$1 866 798
$4 297 199
$5 229 772
$2 611 470
$2 445 209
$3 447 655
$3 721 134
$3 163 297
$5 721 926
$5 150 464
$980 480
$3 659 982
$2 293 211
$1 271 686
$1 903 805
$3 223 429
$2 685 441
$6 292 389
$5 694 758
$2 451 936
$1 852 650
$6 183 034
$2 303 632
General
purpose
grant
$2 730 726
$1 041 232
$1 711 497
$633 469
$1 309 769
$583 776
$787 550
$2 351 632
$1 188 480
$2 558 215
$806 526
$461 833
$561 570
$335 194
$714 330
$582 156
$1 404 953
$2 379 059
$1 685 078
$923 657
$807 461
$1 151 829
$1 220 578
$1 429 081
Roads grant
$5 118 339
$2 908 030
$6 008 696
$5 863 241
$3 921 239
$3 028 985
$4 235 205
$6 072 766
$4 351 777
$8 280 141
$5 956 990
$1 442 313
$4 221 552
$2 628 405
$1 986 016
$2 485 961
$4 628 382
$5 064 500
$7 977 467
$6 618 415
$3 259 397
$3 004 479
$7 403 612
$3 732 713
Total grant
$150.63
$108.27
$30.97
$38.50
$99.91
$22.40
$21.34
$135.49
$100.19
$111.62
$72.19
$16.71
$36.26
$36.96
$181.75
$16.71
$80.58
$319.43
$89.49
$37.95
$17.94
$122.77
$41.72
$121.88
GP grant
per capita
#
#
$786.73
$807.16
$1 028.54
$1 227.65
$914.64
$1 383.36
$1 098.40
$669.79
$894.94
$505.48
$1 140.77
$2 456.56
$1 162.67
$1 236.88
$885.17
$990.06
$957.70
$502.65
$1 179.20
$1 277.53
$1 325.88
$626.68
$1 331.06
$493.81
Roads
per km
$2 482 037
$1 969 956
$3 995 927
$4 863 117
$2 845 185
$2 273 778
$3 205 943
$3 964 726
$3 500 562
$6 319 832
$5 758 269
$1 049 941
$3 403 385
$2 132 437
$1 361 306
$1 957 282
$3 426 998
$2 854 058
$6 763 319
$5 694 090
$2 354 865
$1 987 895
$6 811 894
$2 499 182
General
purpose
grant
$2 836 489
$1 076 026
$1 794 834
$657 868
$1 363 477
$514 408
$820 914
$2 442 211
$1 307 841
$2 656 751
$860 250
$479 621
$585 515
$348 105
$720 356
$605 321
$1 459 068
$2 456 431
$1 739 475
$818 942
$858 624
$1 208 799
$1 281 980
$1 532 925
Roads grant
$5 318 526
$3 045 982
$5 790 761
$5 520 985
$4 208 662
$2 788 186
$4 026 857
$6 406 937
$4 808 403
$8 976 583
$6 618 519
$1 529 562
$3 988 900
$2 480 542
$2 081 662
$2 562 603
$4 886 066
$5 310 489
$8 502 794
$6 513 032
$3 213 489
$3 196 694
$8 093 874
$4 032 107
Total grant
166
URS
RAV
UDL
RAL
RSG
URS
RAL
URS
URS
URM
South Gippsland Shire
Southern Grampians Shire
Stonnington City
Strathbogie Shire
Surf Coast Shire
Swan Hill Rural City
Towong Shire
Wangaratta Rural City
Warrnambool City
Wellington Shire
UFL
URM
UFL
UDM
UFV
RAL
Whittlesea City
Wodonga Rural City
Wyndham City
Yarra City
Yarra Ranges Shire
Yarriambiack Shire
RAL
90 903
URS
Queenscliffe Borough
UDV
16 902
RAL
Whitehorse City
82 857
UDL
Port Phillip City
Pyrenees Shire
West Wimmera Shire
12 749
RAV
Northern Grampians Shire
8 014
143 228
69 749
107 868
34 831
126 297
144 935
4 741
41 450
30 708
26 641
6 204
21 461
22 471
9 616
26 888
3 212
6 532
60 623
13 908
RAV
UFM
Murrindindi Shire
Population
Nillumbik Shire
Council name
ACLG
category
751
7 310
2 470
20
542
4 797
1 770
215
799
430
490
433
601
2 730
3 332
277
2 038
1 258
3 143
1 011
2 152
257
3 166
2 079
44
2 026
211
3 412
790
1 190
Total road
length
(km)
64
9 107
10 989
121
3 639
6 673
6 116
1 553
3 302
26
6 652
3 295
9
3 433
21
5 728
433
3 876
Council
area
(sq km)
$1 930 907
$7 846 010
$1 165 630
$6 369 626
$2 804 899
$6 122 800
$3 935 631
$1 829 550
$5 116 484
$2 185 240
$2 842 750
$1 537 058
$2 761 160
$1 457 415
$1 817 625
$1 519 150
$2 750 276
$3 376 197
$145 952
$1 811 367
$1 384 687
$2 495 569
$2 016 083
$1 822 645
General
purpose
grant
$1 433 802
$2 490 794
$297 879
$903 359
$603 922
$954 457
$607 312
$1 689 228
$3 387 340
$452 869
$1 554 335
$1 023 085
$1 235 880
$922 128
$1 459 632
$292 063
$2 207 670
$2 366 537
$40 590
$1 505 693
$284 728
$1 818 083
$856 803
$1 226 758
Roads grant
$3 364 709
$10 336 804
$1 463 509
$7 272 985
$3 408 821
$7 077 257
$4 542 943
$3 518 778
$8 503 824
$2 638 109
$4 397 085
$2 560 143
$3 997 040
$2 379 543
$3 277 257
$1 811 213
$4 957 946
$5 742 734
$186 542
$3 317 060
$1 669 415
$4 313 652
$2 872 886
$3 049 403
Total grant
$240.94
$54.78
$16.71
$59.05
$80.53
$48.48
$27.15
$385.90
$123.44
$71.16
$106.71
$247.75
$128.66
$64.86
$189.02
$16.71
$162.72
$125.57
$45.44
$277.31
$16.71
$195.75
$33.26
$131.05
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
$298.90
$1 407.23
$1 385.48
$1 130.61
$1 404.47
$1 270.91
$1 010.50
$618.76
$1 016.61
$1 634.91
$762.68
$813.26
$393.22
$912.09
$678.27
$1 136.43
$697.31
$1 138.31
$922.50
$743.19
$1 349.42
$532.85
$1 084.56
$1 030.89
Roads
per km
$2 067 295
$7 879 049
$1 198 964
$7 175 777
$2 950 046
$6 248 180
$3 659 708
$1 950 805
$5 290 853
$2 291 722
$3 048 295
$1 645 273
$3 071 947
$1 509 649
$1 892 530
$1 554 827
$2 836 693
$3 632 690
$135 720
$1 931 110
$1 431 976
$2 702 691
$1 909 737
$1 920 384
General
purpose
grant
$1 489 809
$2 678 713
$306 136
$996 786
$635 077
$970 270
$630 704
$1 769 707
$3 408 124
$472 146
$1 635 005
$1 081 225
$1 449 522
$957 631
$1 471 412
$299 340
$2 243 726
$2 457 690
$42 154
$1 563 689
$295 695
$1 888 111
$905 886
$1 257 459
Roads grant
$3 557 104
$10 557 762
$1 505 100
$8 172 563
$3 585 123
$7 218 450
$4 290 412
$3 720 512
$8 698 977
$2 763 868
$4 683 300
$2 726 498
$4 521 469
$2 467 280
$3 363 942
$1 854 167
$5 080 419
$6 090 380
$177 874
$3 494 799
$1 727 671
$4 590 802
$2 815 623
$3 177 843
Total grant
Appendix D
167
464
2 240
RTS
RAM
UFM
RAV
RAS
RAS
RTM
UFS
RAL
RAS
RTS
RAV
UCC
RAL
RTS
Barcoo
Bauhinia
Beaudesert
Belyando
Bendemere
Biggenden
Blackall
Boigu Island
Boonah
Booringa
Boulia
Bowen
Brisbane City
Broadsound
Bulloo
474
6 489
957 010
12 566
553
1 861
8 567
295
1 659
1 537
994
10 524
59 393
1 692
14 266
RAV
RTM
Barcaldine
937
5 587
786
1 166
10 994
712
Population
Banana
RAL
UFS
Badu Island
Bamaga
URS
Aurukun
Balonne
RAV
UFS
Atherton
RTS
ACLG
category
Aramac
Queensland
Council name
73 805
18 546
1 327
21 177
61 093
27 826
1 922
67
16 384
1 316
3 928
30 281
2 854
23 641
61 974
8 443
15 755
67
31 144
10
7 383
623
23 361
Council
area
(sq km)
5 562
2 421
1 122
$1 798 524
$1 652 682
$16 118 526
$1 054 276
$1 659 434
1 255
$2 464 100
2 116
$863 031
$337 151
$1 633 878
$1 043 061
$1 458 546
$2 620 021
$1 496 070
$1 687 559
$1 283 673
$1 663 207
$2 879 149
$510 162
$2 104 433
$489 957
$693 495
$478 861
$1 518 439
General
purpose
grant
1 322
867
53
1 111
492
713
1 687
1 675
1 477
1 696
607
3 324
58
2 274
53
183
416
1 171
Total road
length
(km)
$998 694
$494 054
$10 749 548
$613 198
$514 611
$854 678
$420 688
$23 679
$455 555
$210 300
$290 798
$785 711
$1 153 774
$605 453
$663 033
$375 043
$1 439 647
$31 394
$951 777
$28 061
$83 076
$267 718
$466 879
Roads grant
$2 797 218
$2 146 736
$26 868 074
$1 667 474
$2 174 045
$3 318 778
$1 283 719
$360 830
$2 089 433
$1 253 361
$1 749 344
$3 405 732
$2 649 844
$2 293 012
$1 946 706
$2 038 250
$4 318 796
$541 556
$3 056 210
$518 018
$776 571
$746 579
$1 985 318
Total grant
$3 794.35
$254.69
$16.84
$83.90
$3 000.78
$1 324.07
$100.74
$1 142.88
$984.86
$678.63
$1 467.35
$248.96
$25.19
$753.37
$2 766.54
$982.98
$201.82
$544.46
$376.67
$623.35
$594.76
$43.56
$2 132.64
GP grant
per capita
#
$412.51
$440.33
$1 932.68
$488.60
$389.27
$403.91
$485.22
$446.77
$410.04
$427.44
$407.85
$465.74
$688.82
$409.92
$390.94
$617.86
$433.11
$541.28
$418.55
$529.45
$453.97
$643.55
$398.70
Roads
per km
$2 001 667
$1 500 090
$16 795 877
$1 233 202
$1 646 403
$2 608 352
$844 038
$336 193
$1 638 207
$983 611
$1 365 704
$2 538 419
$1 803 015
$1 750 464
$1 452 517
$1 698 456
$3 076 065
$508 627
$2 112 579
$488 772
$790 419
$606 268
$1 608 637
General
purpose
grant
$1 008 676
$518 168
$11 147 648
$648 966
$542 527
$884 244
$442 735
$24 359
$470 524
$216 530
$301 155
$796 620
$1 199 073
$631 621
$653 686
$348 939
$1 492 269
$32 243
$1 010 707
$28 825
$85 468
$289 534
$485 380
Roads grant
$3 010 343
$2 018 258
$27 943 525
$1 882 168
$2 188 930
$3 492 596
$1 286 773
$360 552
$2 108 731
$1 200 141
$1 666 859
$3 335 039
$3 002 088
$2 382 085
$2 106 203
$2 047 395
$4 568 334
$540 870
$3 123 286
$517 597
$875 887
$895 802
$2 094 017
Total grant
168
487
URS
Dauan Island
10 199
URS
RAM
RTX
Croydon
Dalby
RAV
Crow’s Nest
Dalrymple
286
UFM
Cooloola
120
3 485
11 677
35 624
4 081
3 836
2 492
RAM
RAM
Clifton
1 250
6 133
RAM
RAL
Chinchilla
Cloncurry
URS
Cherbourg
8 832
2 420
Cook
URS
Charters Towers
11 230
RAV
RTM
5 554
RAL
Cambooya
Cardwell
86 468
URL
Caloundra
Carpentaria
16 210
RAV
Calliope
126 729
125 132
URV
URV
Caboolture
25 891
Cairns
RTS
UFS
Burke
Burnett
18 636
RAV
Burdekin
1 959
RAS
45 801
URM
Bungil
Population
Bundaberg
Council name
ACLG
category
4
68 346
48
29 581
1 631
2 967
117 084
48 112
867
8 701
31
42
68 335
3 062
631
1 094
6 547
1 850
1 225
2 004
41 990
5 053
13 338
96
Council
area
(sq km)
5
4 269
167
843
951
1 321
2 399
1 733
599
2 829
70
162
1 661
552
413
967
1 181
1 166
1 555
1 140
933
1 161
1 684
361
Total road
length
(km)
$322 671
$2 909 749
$777 487
$1 340 663
$3 056
$1 607 466
$153 009
$365 794
$477 105
$843 653
$1 629 313
$831 757
$1 015 985
$724 968
$264 570
$1 100 958
$38 953
$143 182
$678 093
$317 415
$213 621
$1 159 968
$612 746
$1 576 187
$1 720 912
$697 338
$363 428
$623 634
$690 773
$556 379
Roads grant
$2 917 941
$1 353 367
$1 039 684
$2 173 557
$79 377
$1 113 715
$2 074 657
$541 248
$654 218
$1 696 165
$1 311 490
$2 352 978
$2 311 729
$1 017 450
$1 442 763
$880 448
$2 093 098
$1 360 167
General
purpose
grant
$325 727
$4 517 215
$930 496
$1 706 457
$1 308 862
$2 472 966
$3 933 926
$2 078 335
$1 304 254
$3 274 515
$118 330
$1 256 897
$2 752 750
$858 663
$867 839
$2 856 133
$1 924 236
$3 929 165
$4 032 641
$1 714 788
$1 806 191
$1 504 082
$2 783 871
$1 916 546
Total grant
$2 688.93
$834.94
$76.23
$4 687.63
$71.23
$45.74
$715.01
$352.81
$417.21
$354.40
$63.50
$126.10
$857.30
$48.20
$117.79
$19.62
$80.91
$18.80
$18.24
$39.30
$2 962.55
$47.24
$1 068.45
$29.70
GP grant
per capita
$611.20
$376.54
$916.22
$433.92
$501.69
$638.65
$423.50
$418.33
$441.69
$389.17
$556.47
$883.84
$408.24
$575.03
$517.24
$1 199.55
$518.84
$1 351.79
$1 106.70
$611.70
$389.53
$537.15
$410.20
$1 541.22
Roads
per km
$326 404
$3 120 859
$768 571
$1 291 800
$860 065
$1 661 973
$3 332 029
$1 664 627
$1 034 648
$2 327 440
$79 096
$1 150 664
$2 163 634
$614 746
$689 107
$1 868 600
$1 396 711
$2 483 612
$2 644 403
$1 160 186
$1 464 244
$1 048 173
$1 964 427
$1 324 312
General
purpose
grant
$3 136
$1 734 458
$161 635
$358 028
$499 059
$876 215
$1 045 411
$746 912
$270 358
$1 191 097
$39 998
$146 771
$687 220
$328 613
$233 565
$1 255 528
$636 131
$1 645 142
$1 834 620
$716 989
$381 699
$646 384
$710 292
$574 221
Roads grant
$329 540
$4 855 317
$930 206
$1 649 828
$1 359 124
$2 538 188
$4 377 440
$2 411 539
$1 305 006
$3 518 537
$119 094
$1 297 435
$2 850 854
$943 359
$922 672
$3 124 128
$2 032 842
$4 128 754
$4 479 023
$1 877 175
$1 845 943
$1 694 557
$2 674 719
$1 898 533
Total grant
Appendix D
169
RAL
UFM
RAV
UFS
URS
RTX
Hervey Bay
Hinchinbrook
Hopevale
Iama Island
Ilfracombe
UFS
Hammond Island
Herberton
URV
URS
Goondiwindi
URS
Gold Coast
RAM
Gladstone
RTM
Etheridge
Gayndah
RAV
Esk
RAV
URS
Erub Island
Gatton
RAV
Emerald
RAV
RAS
Eidsvold
RTM
RAL
Eacham
Flinders
RAL
Duaringa
Fitzroy
320
15 206
RAV
Douglas
306
367
363
914
12 207
49 371
5 508
208
5 023
469 214
28 503
2 939
16 288
2 033
10 280
1 007
13 502
936
6 405
6 689
11 275
1 236
RTX
UFS
Doomadgee
Population
Diamantina
ACLG
category
Council name
6 576
1
1 100
2 811
2 357
9 604
17
15
1 407
163
2 709
1 579
41 538
5 905
39 309
3 934
6
10 365
4 809
1 127
18 143
2 456
1 510
94 832
Council
area
(sq km)
709
339
4
185
$891 574
$344 089
$363 571
$851 793
$1 661 052
$1 834 302
904
722
$318 527
$639 798
$7 902 775
$965 172
$1 028 951
$664 583
$1 660 484
$1 353 743
$1 836 084
$903 992
$355 917
$644 838
$1 245 903
$944 841
$1 073 156
$466 901
$411 625
$2 181 047
General
purpose
grant
6
67
2 842
233
664
834
2 268
1 323
1 485
1 287
12
1 248
1 083
435
1 347
367
127
1 158
Total road
length
(km)
$141 616
$4 629
$81 621
$436 953
$721 613
$411 539
$4 238
$70 841
$5 316 077
$350 146
$293 773
$482 239
$869 899
$616 833
$629 131
$644 898
$7 780
$544 271
$444 681
$231 719
$573 630
$246 885
$61 463
$453 713
Roads grant
$1 033 190
$348 718
$445 192
$1 288 746
$2 382 665
$2 245 841
$322 765
$710 639
$13 218 852
$1 315 318
$1 322 724
$1 146 822
$2 530 383
$1 970 576
$2 465 215
$1 548 890
$363 697
$1 189 109
$1 690 584
$1 176 560
$1 646 786
$713 786
$473 088
$2 634 760
Total grant
$2 429.36
$947.90
$397.78
$69.78
$33.64
$333.03
$1 531.38
$127.37
$16.84
$33.86
$350.10
$40.80
$816.77
$131.69
$1 823.32
$59.45
$1 112.24
$47.76
$1 331.09
$147.52
$160.44
$41.41
$333.03
$7 127.60
GP grant
per capita
#
$417.75
$1 157.25
$441.19
$616.29
$999.46
$455.24
$706.33
$1 057.33
$1 870.54
$1 502.77
$442.43
$578.22
$383.55
$466.24
$423.66
$501.09
$648.33
$436.11
$410.60
$532.69
$425.86
$672.71
$483.96
$391.81
Roads
per km
$859 482
$343 654
$362 272
$835 997
$1 556 866
$1 988 613
$318 113
$709 336
$8 340 692
$951 223
$1 094 852
$780 393
$1 941 707
$1 448 496
$1 862 129
$1 002 963
$355 381
$816 495
$1 184 163
$1 009 608
$1 120 479
$510 544
$409 648
$2 614 031
General
purpose
grant
$143 670
$4 732
$83 976
$420 530
$763 876
$420 154
$4 346
$73 365
$5 577 520
$359 362
$302 806
$499 556
$935 967
$637 417
$628 579
$669 301
$7 981
$612 321
$454 911
$237 297
$608 114
$254 365
$63 183
$474 894
Roads grant
$1 003 152
$348 386
$446 248
$1 256 527
$2 320 742
$2 408 767
$322 459
$782 701
$13 918 212
$1 310 585
$1 397 658
$1 279 949
$2 877 674
$2 085 913
$2 490 708
$1 672 264
$363 362
$1 428 816
$1 639 074
$1 246 905
$1 728 593
$764 909
$472 831
$3 088 925
Total grant
170
3 467
RAV
RAV
Johnstone
Jondaryan
UFL
UFS
RAV
Mapoon Aboriginal
Council
Mareeba
Logan
Mackay
4 009
UFS
UDV
Lockhart River
RTL
UFS
Livingstone
URS
RAV
Laidley
Longreach
UFS
Kubin Island
Mabuiag Island
173 331
UFS
Kowanyama
18 659
214
79 824
240
642
28 222
13 351
226
1 054
4 550
12 302
RAV
RAM
Kolan
3 283
19 523
1 101
301
Kingaroy
RAM
RTM
Jericho
RAM
13 864
RTX
Kilcoy
6 141
RAL
Isis
Isisford
Kilkivan
135 579
URV
Ipswich
446
UFS
2 637
RAM
Injinoo (Cowal Creek)
Population
Inglewood
Council name
ACLG
category
53 645
1 840
2 897
6
23 561
251
3 597
11 775
701
152
2 520
2 650
2 422
3 264
1 445
1 910
1 639
21 873
10 501
1 701
1 204
795
5 879
Council
area
(sq km)
1 986
35
1 480
$1 741 426
$433 396
$2 013 534
$334 962
$2 085 491
1 704
9
$2 919 341
$411 301
$1 416 548
$558 860
$366 987
$418 473
$1 373 644
$1 307 706
$1 134 838
$657 677
$773 336
$1 006 013
$1 425 545
$1 136 297
$750 664
$3 422 999
$373 945
$1 357 530
General
purpose
grant
1 031
221
1 402
625
21
212
727
1 154
744
331
952
636
1 146
883
707
1 471
265
889
Total road
length
(km)
$977 376
$15 809
$1 309 416
$5 716
$691 833
$1 956 310
$93 648
$802 003
$365 988
$10 356
$93 592
$333 637
$567 366
$324 260
$191 215
$516 069
$433 642
$473 040
$359 696
$333 544
$1 773 071
$109 213
$397 441
Roads grant
$2 718 802
$449 205
$3 322 950
$340 678
$2 777 324
$4 875 651
$504 949
$2 218 551
$924 848
$377 343
$512 065
$1 707 281
$1 875 072
$1 459 098
$848 892
$1 289 405
$1 439 655
$1 898 585
$1 495 993
$1 084 208
$5 196 070
$483 158
$1 754 971
Total grant
$93.33
$2 025.21
$25.22
$1 395.68
$520.20
$16.84
$640.66
$50.19
$41.86
$1 623.84
$397.03
$301.90
$106.30
$345.67
$189.70
$55.78
$51.53
$1 294.77
$3 775.07
$122.24
$25.25
$838.44
$514.80
GP grant
per capita
#
$492.13
$451.69
$884.74
$635.11
$406.01
$1 897.49
$423.75
$572.04
$585.58
$493.14
$441.47
$458.92
$491.65
$435.83
$577.69
$542.09
$681.83
$412.77
$407.36
$471.77
$1 205.35
$412.12
$447.07
Roads
per km
$1 725 769
$432 549
$2 193 732
$334 493
$2 418 692
$3 101 129
$409 832
$1 381 970
$671 460
$376 826
$416 978
$1 319 526
$1 303 376
$1 192 378
$637 092
$836 144
$993 893
$1 551 552
$1 179 606
$856 445
$3 381 838
$372 613
$1 413 828
General
purpose
grant
$994 258
$16 261
$1 355 977
$5 864
$729 799
$2 022 873
$96 389
$834 544
$382 516
$10 644
$96 292
$341 384
$587 330
$335 460
$177 824
$525 059
$446 092
$497 922
$367 166
$346 327
$1 879 066
$112 438
$391 803
Roads grant
$2 720 027
$448 810
$3 549 709
$340 357
$3 148 491
$5 124 002
$506 221
$2 216 514
$1 053 976
$387 470
$513 270
$1 660 910
$1 890 706
$1 527 838
$814 916
$1 361 203
$1 439 985
$2 049 474
$1 546 772
$1 202 772
$5 260 904
$485 051
$1 805 631
Total grant
Appendix D
171
141 069
5 113
2 473
1 042
URV
UFS
RTM
URS
RAM
RAL
RAM
RAM
UFS
UFS
Maroochy
Maryborough
McKinlay
Mer Island
Millmerran
Mirani
Miriam Vale
Monto
Mornington
Mount Isa
URS
RTM
RAM
RAS
Palm Island
Paroo
Peak Downs
Perry
UFS
URM
Noosa
RAM
Nebo
New Mapoon
RAL
URS
RTL
Napranum
2 725
RAM
Murilla
Murweh
Nanango
3 722
RAM
Murgon
3 052
Mundubbera
437
3 154
2 170
2 378
47 606
360
2 144
813
8 700
5 019
2 395
RAM
RAM
Mount Morgan
20 663
5 299
3 367
462
1 038
25 595
Population
ACLG
category
Council name
2 359
8 127
47 727
71
869
94
10 035
6
1 735
40 740
6 074
695
4 193
492
43 343
1 231
4 322
3 778
3 280
4 521
7
40 885
1 234
1 163
Council
area
(sq km)
369
891
2 209
41
1 010
16
503
20
943
2 673
1 150
379
651
178
2 020
560
1 107
763
437
1 135
5
1 714
363
1 339
Total road
length
(km)
$9 566
$304 830
$822 852
$1 820 433
$2 187 242
$151 314
$380 803
$932 060
$37 504
$789 633
$317 667
$1 028 074
$218 614
$15 198
$446 358
$1 106 495
$482 267
$181 997
$294 739
$97 033
$886 657
$231 679
$450 880
$362 694
$221 006
$481 975
$6 108
$671 231
$394 778
$1 776 209
Roads grant
$974 166
$2 201 236
$3 119 302
$342 334
$1 817 707
$327 233
$1 211 640
$290 669
$1 959 156
$3 393 348
$2 294 008
$1 217 143
$1 525 218
$1 004 100
$2 583 711
$982 901
$2 007 522
$2 015 849
$888 175
$1 523 312
$346 690
$2 687 398
$1 482 105
$4 238 530
Total grant
$1 882.96
$577.18
$1 007.95
$128.19
$21.60
$882.41
$463.17
$338.83
$173.88
$455.64
$664.86
$278.12
$513.77
$297.20
$82.13
$720.94
$629.45
$323.32
$125.90
$309.28
$737.19
$1 942.36
$42.48
$17.45
GP grant
per capita
$993 026
$275 471
$1 512 798
$2 286 853
$1 811 741
$1 035 146
$1 230 479
$907 067
$1 697 054
$751 222
$1 556 642
$1 653 155
$667 169
$1 041 337
$340 582
$2 016 167
$1 087 327
$2 462 321
General
purpose
grant
$410.07
$427.39
$421.94
$914.73
$781.81
$597.88
$434.62
$759.90
$473.34
$413.95
$419.36
$480.20
$452.75
$545.13
$438.94
$413.71
$407.30
$475.35
$505.73
$424.65
$1 221.60
$391.62
$1 087.54
$1 326.52
Roads
per km
$759 729
$1 862 501
$2 212 646
$303 727
$1 190 392
$317 121
$940 460
$274 858
$1 482 347
$2 599 716
$1 955 718
$1 059 933
$1 398 939
$897 749
$1 627 652
$822 476
$1 553 629
$1 552 472
$792 306
$1 228 067
$340 119
$2 030 840
$1 002 245
$2 686 570
General
purpose
grant
$155 849
$394 904
$938 025
$38 397
$850 750
$9 818
$212 965
$15 574
$437 856
$1 142 511
$497 208
$189 126
$333 122
$100 077
$986 637
$238 529
$473 189
$404 028
$228 205
$497 299
$6 247
$706 307
$390 945
$1 860 939
Roads grant
$915 578
$2 257 405
$3 150 671
$342 124
$2 041 142
$326 939
$1 153 425
$290 432
$1 920 203
$3 742 227
$2 452 926
$1 249 059
$1 732 061
$997 826
$2 614 289
$1 061 005
$2 026 818
$1 956 500
$1 020 511
$1 725 366
$346 366
$2 737 147
$1 393 190
$4 547 509
Total grant
172
1 145
59 662
6 752
8 963
UDM
URV
RTM
URM
URS
Redcliffe City
Redland
Richmond
Rockhampton
Roma
175
RTS
RAM
UFM
RAM
UDL
RTL
URL
Taroom
Thuringowa
Tiaro
Toowoomba
Torres
Townsville
RAV
Stanthorpe
RAM
UFS
Tara
144
URS
Seisia Island
St Paul’s Island
Tambo
9 979
RAL
Sarina
97 923
3 810
94 043
4 941
57 448
2 550
3 958
633
10 575
239
368
RAL
UFS
Rosalie
Saibai Island
127 777
52 303
1 073
URS
631
RTM
Pormpuraaw
4 896
139 228
Quilpie
URS
Pittsworth
Population
Poruma Island
URV
RAM
Pine Rivers
Council name
ACLG
category
1 869
1 857
117
2 187
1 867
18 645
11 680
14 105
2 697
18
2
1 444
104
2 200
78
189
26 602
537
38
67 613
0
4 360
1 090
750
Council
area
(sq km)
904
52
620
692
543
1 933
1 783
960
1 144
17
7
400
7
646
236
504
1 264
957
252
2 525
4
381
661
1 190
Total road
length
(km)
$2 588 178
$1 665 274
$1 687 309
$1 197 278
$1 219 756
$54 691
$1 085 903
$313 969
$719 156
$804 493
$2 226 482
$1 335 692
$741 086
$356 594
$546 844
$8 685
$4 065
$248 522
$6 064
$520 426
$144 461
$739 943
$511 099
$1 507 442
$577 947
$1 010 884
$3 031
$156 730
$295 385
$1 688 527
Roads grant
$3 111 461
$1 197 653
$1 519 565
$344 092
$296 700
$598 382
$375 716
$1 681 157
$903 873
$1 496 603
$1 461 114
$2 217 178
$956 224
$1 811 156
$325 733
$374 409
$534 020
$2 473 948
General
purpose
grant
$3 807 934
$1 719 965
$2 773 212
$1 511 247
$2 054 848
$3 030 975
$3 852 547
$1 554 247
$2 066 409
$352 777
$300 765
$846 904
$381 780
$2 201 583
$1 048 334
$2 236 546
$1 972 213
$3 724 620
$1 534 171
$2 822 040
$328 764
$531 139
$829 405
$4 162 475
Total grant
$26.43
$437.08
$17.94
$242.31
$23.25
$873.13
$786.12
$1 892.03
$143.69
$1 439.72
$2 060.42
$59.96
$1 020.97
$187.57
$133.87
$25.08
$1 276.08
$17.35
$18.28
$1 687.94
$1 861.33
$593.36
$109.07
$17.77
GP grant
per capita
$1 349.29
$1 051.75
$1 751.46
$453.71
$1 324.41
$416.19
$415.64
$371.45
$478.01
$510.88
$580.71
$621.31
$866.29
$805.61
$612.12
$1 468.14
$404.35
$1 575.17
$2 293.44
$400.35
$757.75
$411.36
$446.88
$1 418.93
Roads
per km
$2 643 790
$1 662 781
$1 794 219
$1 306 846
$1 415 720
$2 059 370
$3 273 951
$1 102 576
$1 727 926
$343 533
$296 307
$602 919
$375 211
$1 600 256
$1 047 393
$1 646 971
$1 489 380
$2 382 177
$1 039 880
$2 109 683
$325 341
$373 093
$578 049
$2 741 580
General
purpose
grant
$1 284 018
$55 696
$1 127 213
$328 372
$761 541
$818 873
$766 991
$389 662
$541 067
$8 922
$4 173
$256 310
$6 210
$594 311
$155 715
$758 047
$459 363
$1 580 021
$591 687
$1 045 172
$3 105
$230 683
$312 784
$1 784 745
Roads grant
$3 927 808
$1 718 477
$2 921 432
$1 635 218
$2 177 261
$2 878 243
$4 040 942
$1 492 238
$2 268 993
$352 455
$300 480
$859 229
$381 421
$2 194 567
$1 203 108
$2 405 018
$1 948 743
$3 962 198
$1 631 567
$3 154 855
$328 446
$603 776
$890 833
$4 526 325
Total grant
Appendix D
173
1 063
UFS
URS
UFS
URS
Wujal Wujal
Yarrabah
Yorke Island
RTL
RSG
UDS
UDM
UDM
Augusta–Margaret River
Shire
Bassendean Town
Bayswater City
Belmont City
UFM
Armadale City
Ashburton Shire
URM
Albany City
Western Australia
3 163
RAM
Woocoo
Woorabinda
30 960
56 565
14 078
11 380
5 987
52 478
31 652
336
2 322
379
1 035
4 339
RAM
21 530
Wondai
UFS
Warwick
1 543
RAS
Warroo
239
16 874
URS
Warraber Island
5 292
3 006
RAV
RAL
RTM
RAM
Waggamba
Wambo
57
288
Winton
UFS
Population
Whitsunday
URS
Ugar Island
ACLG
category
Umagico
Council name
40
33
11
2 370
105 647
545
4804
2
156
11
388
2 006
3 578
53 935
2 679
4 423
13 659
1
5 713
13 400
53
0
Council
area
(sq km)
226
344
93
862
2 168
553
1 602
8
50
20
80
553
942
2 560
557
2062
1 380
5
1 541
1 527
20
2
Total road
length
(km)
$518 335
$947 017
$235 695
$238 444
$2 190 887
$1 984 153
$1 647 497
$340 879
$217 078
$91 340
$71 482
$1 099 822
$1 739 740
$2 595 703
$578 752
$2 825 247
$1 784 326
$372 955
$1 439 220
$2 177 450
$303 252
$299 570
General
purpose
grant
$380 374
$558 898
$154 725
$634 904
$971 102
$745 174
$1 256 204
$6 175
$40 578
$11 325
$40 886
$247 709
$413 244
$1 028 341
$369 639
$1 043 417
$553 517
$4 118
$709 168
$631 632
$10 513
$1 302
Roads grant
$898 709
$1 505 915
$390 420
$873 348
$3 161 989
$2 729 327
$2 903 701
$347 054
$257 656
$102 665
$112 368
$1 347 531
$2 152 984
$3 624 044
$948 391
$3 868 664
$2 337 843
$377 073
$2 148 388
$2 809 082
$313 765
$300 872
Total grant
$16.74
$16.74
$16.74
$20.95
$365.94
$37.81
$52.05
$1 014.52
$93.49
$241.00
$69.06
$347.71
$400.95
$1 682.24
$34.30
$131.22
$1 678.58
$1 560.48
$271.96
$724.37
$1 052.96
$5 255.61
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
$1 683.07
$1 624.70
$1 663.71
$736.55
$447.93
$1 347.51
$784.15
$771.88
$811.56
$566.25
$511.08
$447.94
$438.69
$401.70
$663.62
$506.02
$401.10
$823.60
$460.20
$413.64
$525.65
$651.00
Roads
per km
$538 960
$970 297
$242 311
$203 757
$2 390 915
$1 954 765
$1 666 126
$340 400
$215 975
$90 976
$70 390
$1 104 295
$1 807 248
$2 951 479
$699 367
$2 719 675
$1 682 605
$372 492
$1 611 644
$2 400 797
$302 689
$299 240
General
purpose
grant
$385 540
$584 797
$165 086
$642 358
$1 007 062
$770 673
$1 388 474
$6 328
$41 567
$11 627
$42 009
$256 495
$427 202
$1 063 537
$386 172
$1 056 034
$575 302
$4 219
$697 778
$660 698
$10 799
$1 336
Roads grant
$924 500
$1 555 094
$407 397
$846 115
$3 397 977
$2 725 438
$3 054 600
$346 728
$257 542
$102 603
$112 399
$1 360 790
$2 234 450
$4 015 016
$1 085 539
$3 775 709
$2 257 907
$376 711
$2 309 422
$3 061 495
$313 488
$300 576
Total grant
174
RAS
RAS
Coorow Shire
Corrigin Shire
8 938
RAL
UFL
Cockburn City
URS
74 606
UDS
Collie Shire
3 323
RAM
Chittering Shire
Claremont Town
Coolgardie Shire
959
1 184
1 358
3 875
9 142
6 340
710
8 905
79 600
24 656
RAL
UDS
Cambridge Town
31 314
25 950
RAS
RSG
Busselton Shire
Chapman Valley Shire
URM
Bunbury City
507
1 061
Carnarvon Shire
RAS
Bruce Rock Shire
RAS
RAS
Broomehill Shire
14 273
Carnamah Shire
RTL
Broome Shire
1 049
UDL
RAS
Brookton Shire
3 972
RSG
RAM
Bridgetown–Greenbushes
Shire
1 547
Capel Shire
RAS
Boyup Brook Shire
1 375
1 585
Population
Canning City
RAS
RAS
Boddington Shire
Council name
Beverley Shire
ACLG
category
3 095
4 137
30 400
1 685
138
5
1 188
4 007
53 000
2 834
554
65
22
1 454
61
2 772
1 376
56 000
1 626
1 691
2 838
1 932
2 310
Council
area
(sq km)
1 094
868
795
413
631
47
359
922
1 522
641
436
516
173
989
306
1 175
464
836
535
710
1 045
260
685
Total road
length
(km)
$588 439
$527 204
$419 810
$1 297 889
$1 249 061
$153 056
$346 962
$208 002
$2 239 876
$478 961
$589 601
$1 332 671
$412 793
$434 457
$524 262
$788 609
$218 133
$2 066 237
$329 333
$662 098
$255 281
$212 716
$427 184
General
purpose
grant
$495 117
$387 735
$330 212
$363 741
$835 200
$74 698
$381 029
$382 159
$780 589
$282 969
$960 906
$899 192
$280 959
$926 232
$601 865
$587 152
$207 754
$749 374
$238 006
$472 605
$553 536
$135 732
$341 632
Roads grant
$1 083 556
$914 939
$750 022
$1 661 630
$2 084 261
$227 754
$727 991
$590 161
$3 020 465
$761 930
$1 550 507
$2 231 863
$693 752
$1 360 689
$1 126 127
$1 375 761
$425 887
$2 815 611
$567 339
$1 134 703
$808 817
$348 448
$768 816
Total grant
$496.99
$388.22
$108.34
$145.21
$16.74
$16.74
$104.41
$216.89
$353.29
$674.59
$66.21
$16.74
$16.74
$16.74
$16.74
$743.27
$430.24
$144.77
$313.95
$166.69
$165.02
$154.70
$269.52
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
#
#
#
$452.57
$446.70
$415.36
$880.73
$1 323.61
$1 589.32
$1 061.36
$414.49
$512.87
$441.45
$2 203.91
$1 742.62
$1 624.04
$936.53
$1 966.88
$499.70
$447.75
$896.38
$444.87
$665.64
$529.70
$522.05
$498.73
Roads
per km
$619 211
$541 682
$374 798
$1 340 304
$1 323 737
$158 316
$375 055
$213 714
$2 301 386
$492 114
$676 190
$1 380 683
$428 211
$475 778
$550 377
$826 848
$235 971
$2 122 980
$338 377
$679 736
$257 957
$215 099
$469 809
General
purpose
grant
$512 090
$402 587
$340 790
$574 377
$869 522
$77 976
$304 065
$394 438
$802 447
$292 633
$363 895
$919 512
$291 451
$1 054 972
$623 797
$607 550
$289 429
$757 854
$316 684
$593 865
$562 645
$140 516
$353 754
Roads grant
$1 131 301
$944 269
$715 588
$1 914 681
$2 193 259
$236 292
$679 120
$608 152
$3 103 833
$784 747
$1 040 085
$2 300 195
$719 662
$1 530 750
$1 174 174
$1 434 398
$525 400
$2 880 834
$655 061
$1 273 601
$820 602
$355 615
$823 563
Total grant
Appendix D
175
RTS
RAS
Cue Shire
Cunderdin Shire
RAS
UDS
Fremantle City
Gnowangerup Shire
RTM
Exmouth Shire
URS
RAV
Esperance Shire
RAM
RTL
East Pilbara Shire
Gingin Shire
UDS
East Fremantle Town
Geraldton City
2 271
26 266
RTM
Dundas Shire
1 434
4 528
19 051
13 293
5 535
6 885
1 150
679
792
RAS
4 723
RAS
RAM
Donnybrook–Balingup
Shire
8 776
Dumbleyung Shire
RTL
Derby–West Kimberley
Shire
5 128
9 805
2 956
1 592
1 308
367
736
1 057
7 617
Population
Dowerin Shire
RSG
RAM
Dardanup Shire
Denmark Shire
RAS
RAS
Cuballing Shire
RAM
RAS
Cranbrook Shire
Dandaragan Shire
UDS
Cottesloe Town
Dalwallinu Shire
ACLG
category
Council name
5 000
3 325
28
18
5 764
42 450
378 533
3
92 725
2 553
1 867
1 541
102 706
1 842
518
6 934
7 187
1 872
13 716
1 250
3 390
4
Council
area
(sq km)
1 010
790
181
167
318
4 147
3 174
37
624
984
940
658
1 462
629
360
1 187
1 890
801
738
553
1 016
47
Total road
length
(km)
$353 284
$494 804
$1 148 269
$439 748
$928 941
$1 341 521
$2 047 549
$115 269
$665 600
$493 385
$457 640
$653 699
$3 589 352
$536 940
$615 251
$433 605
$739 702
$526 794
$660 566
$393 280
$325 119
$127 525
General
purpose
grant
$445 455
$650 115
$435 745
$289 583
$276 707
$1 944 484
$1 540 975
$54 609
$336 295
$801 089
$393 461
$622 005
$684 086
$335 595
$323 891
$655 961
$821 041
$377 656
$319 803
$249 162
$443 238
$74 343
Roads grant
$798 739
$1 144 919
$1 584 014
$729 331
$1 205 648
$3 286 005
$3 588 524
$169 878
$1 001 895
$1 294 474
$851 101
$1 275 704
$4 273 438
$872 535
$939 142
$1 089 566
$1 560 743
$904 450
$980 369
$642 442
$768 357
$201 868
Total grant
$246.36
$109.28
$60.27
$16.74
$409.04
$100.92
$369.93
$16.74
$578.78
$726.63
$577.83
$138.41
$409.00
$104.71
$62.75
$146.69
$464.64
$402.75
$1 799.91
$534.35
$307.59
$16.74
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
$441.04
$822.93
$2 407.43
$1 734.03
$870.15
$468.89
$485.50
$1 475.92
$538.93
$814.11
$418.58
$945.30
$467.91
$533.54
$899.70
$552.62
$434.41
$471.48
$433.34
$450.56
$436.26
$1 581.77
Roads
per km
$362 986
$525 729
$1 179 803
$453 549
$953 089
$1 378 362
$2 342 798
$117 779
$696 684
$506 935
$475 669
$677 952
$3 834 780
$531 782
$632 147
$433 441
$760 015
$541 260
$650 013
$429 719
$334 048
$131 078
General
purpose
grant
$461 388
$597 483
$439 751
$298 640
$230 248
$2 011 298
$1 664 197
$56 202
$351 850
$431 593
$404 459
$655 685
$810 344
$344 925
$495 011
$679 448
$849 652
$387 631
$297 614
$257 793
$456 878
$76 846
Roads grant
$824 374
$1 123 212
$1 619 554
$752 189
$1 183 337
$3 389 660
$4 006 995
$173 981
$1 048 534
$938 528
$880 128
$1 333 637
$4 645 124
$876 707
$1 127 158
$1 112 889
$1 609 667
$928 891
$947 627
$687 512
$790 926
$207 924
Total grant
176
RAS
RAS
RAS
UFS
Kojonup Shire
Kondinin Shire
Koorda Shire
Kulin Shire
Kwinana Town
RTM
RAM
Kent Shire
Meekatharra Shire
RAS
Kellerberrin Shire
RAV
RAS
Katanning Shire
URM
RAM
Kalgoorlie/Boulder City
Manjimup Shire
URS
Kalamunda Shire
Mandurah City
UFM
Joondalup City
RTM
1 530
UFV
Irwin Shire
Jerramungup Shire
Leonora Shire
22 893
RAS
Harvey Shire
RAS
2 190
RAM
Halls Creek Shire
RTM
577
RTL
RSG
Greenough Shire
Lake Grace Shire
3 040
RSG
Gosnells City
Laverton Shire
18 948
UFL
Goomalling Shire
1 532
9 875
58 587
1 924
1 208
879
473
998
1 153
4 245
29 452
50 202
158 216
1 174
4 274
13 172
90 096
961
RAS
Council name
Population
ACLG
category
99 973
6 894
179
31 743
183 198
9 245
118
4 790
2 662
7 340
2 937
6 552
1 852
1 523
95 229
349
103
6 540
2 223
1 766
142 908
1 748
127
1 845
Council
area
(sq km)
2 527
1 282
482
1 291
1 729
2 194
290
1 439
1 080
1 319
1130
1 307
942
698
1 333
570
974
1 094
415
799
1 251
651
651
590
Total road
length
(km)
$1 241 756
$1 399 211
$980 869
$427 095
$895 919
$471 020
$383 277
$399 945
$717 253
$420 982
$378 924
$250 873
$662 816
$847 334
$1 176 180
$840 487
$2 648 867
$279 544
$320 661
$926 805
$2 399 867
$1 095 568
$1 508 396
$258 069
General
purpose
grant
$812 694
$1 504 446
$647 099
$493 420
$617 141
$878 496
$381 794
$579 733
$473 118
$509 095
$514 643
$479 129
$449 373
$372 763
$1 199 920
$706 492
$1 541 085
$431 776
$213 332
$661 012
$700 125
$436 766
$1 021 656
$416 518
Roads grant
$2 054 450
$2 903 657
$1 627 968
$920 515
$1 513 060
$1 349 516
$765 071
$979 678
$1 190 371
$930 077
$893 567
$730 002
$1 112 189
$1 220 097
$2 376 100
$1 546 979
$4 189 952
$711 320
$533 993
$1 587 817
$3 099 992
$1 532 334
$2 530 052
$674 587
Total grant
$810.55
$141.69
$16.74
$221.98
$741.65
$307.86
$16.74
$455.00
$1 516.39
$421.83
$173.02
$434.79
$574.86
$199.61
$39.94
$16.74
$16.74
$238.11
$105.48
$48.91
$561.50
$83.17
$16.74
$268.54
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
#
#
$321.60
$1 173.51
$1 342.53
$382.20
$356.94
$400.41
$1 316.53
$402.87
$438.07
$385.97
$455.44
$366.59
$477.04
$534.04
$900.17
$1 239.46
$1 582.22
$394.68
$514.05
$827.30
$559.65
$670.92
$1 569.36
$705.96
Roads
per km
$1 339 539
$1 454 890
$1 068 956
$411 662
$906 584
$492 830
$404 289
$411 426
$758 226
$441 225
$389 330
$257 763
$712 521
$870 603
$1 005 079
$886 959
$2 714 005
$301 913
$319 979
$927 988
$2 806 305
$1 131 086
$1 596 205
$265 156
General
purpose
grant
$841 106
$1 238 185
$951 877
$517 346
$700 424
$924 994
$396 539
$599 899
$489 928
$531 935
$510 657
$495 386
$422 234
$378 042
$1 249 328
$728 295
$1 597 154
$446 386
$239 015
$846 078
$774 129
$651 091
$1 019 869
$271 099
Roads grant
$2 180 645
$2 693 075
$2 020 833
$929 008
$1 607 008
$1 417 824
$800 828
$1 011 325
$1 248 154
$973 160
$899 987
$753 149
$1 134 755
$1 248 645
$2 254 407
$1 615 254
$4 311 159
$748 299
$558 994
$1 774 066
$3 580 434
$1 782 177
$2 616 074
$536 255
Total grant
Appendix D
177
RAM
URS
RAM
RAS
Northam Town
Northampton Shire
Nungarin Shire
URS
Narrogin Town
Northam Shire
21 964
RAS
Narrogin Shire
UDS
RAS
Narembeen Shire
RTM
4 482
RAS
Nedlands City
11 831
RSG
Murray Shire
Nannup Shire
Ngaanyatjarraku Shire
162
RTX
Murchison Shire
1 059
272
3 320
6 290
3 669
1 683
746
911
1 213
35 558
RAS
UFM
Mundaring Shire
670
616
906
2 569
558
3 499
360
Mullewa Shire
RAS
Mosman Park Town
Mukinbudin Shire
759
RAS
UDS
Morawa Shire
RTS
RAM
Moora Shire
RAS
RAS
Mingenew Shire
Mount Magnet Shire
RAM
Merredin Shire
Mount Marshall Shire
8 594
RTX
Menzies Shire
97 541
UDL
Melville City
Population
ACLG
category
Council name
140
1 145
13 513
24
1 419
519
1 042
86
619
1 317
21
159 948
67
724
1 413
426
723
1 872
632
1 180
911
1 725
714
43
942
938
461
1 276
1 755
522
Total road
length
(km)
11
1 618
3 821
2 953
1 813
43 800
644
10 707
3 414
10 134
13 877
4
3 528
3 788
1 927
3 372
71 680
53
Council
area
(sq km)
$468 129
$502 378
$816 255
$632 109
$2 008 260
$367 723
$648 007
$345 200
$610 818
$474 123
$1 115 143
$1 208 488
$2 101 934
$237 438
$548 526
$755 535
$832 841
$143 882
$534 671
$405 115
$237 462
$836 243
$800 368
$1 633 041
General
purpose
grant
$219 339
$494 188
$146 521
$418 177
$854 447
$224 028
$119 132
$321 583
$585 938
$414 980
$865 481
$578 397
$699 130
$450 323
$385 172
$668 530
$352 108
$62 912
$406 618
$451 327
$234 819
$582 778
$617 018
$808 147
Roads grant
$687 468
$996 566
$962 776
$1 050 286
$2 862 707
$591 751
$767 139
$666 783
$1 196 756
$889 103
$1 980 624
$1 786 885
$2 801 064
$687 761
$933 698
$1 424 065
$1 184 949
$206 794
$941 289
$856 442
$472 281
$1 419 021
$1 417 386
$2 441 188
Total grant
$1 721.06
$151.32
$129.77
$172.28
$1 193.26
$16.74
$144.58
$462.73
$670.49
$390.87
$94.26
$7 459.80
$59.11
$224.21
$818.70
$1 226.52
$1 097.29
$16.74
$590.14
$157.69
$425.56
$238.99
$2 223.24
$16.74
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
$422.62
$474.27
$1 703.73
$675.57
$648.78
$1 600.20
$1 778.09
$444.18
$414.68
$974.13
$1 197.07
$308.97
$1 106.22
$381.63
$422.80
$387.55
$493.15
$1 463.07
$431.65
$481.16
$509.37
$456.72
$351.58
$1 548.17
Roads
per km
$511 216
$516 174
$838 671
$656 313
$2 173 188
$378 847
$687 758
$354 680
$657 463
$491 598
$1 145 767
$1 342 556
$2 122 250
$243 958
$600 595
$780 437
$875 492
$149 179
$562 313
$423 166
$243 983
$859 208
$879 871
$1 682 203
General
purpose
grant
$221 527
$511 250
$152 256
$422 693
$862 165
$230 844
$123 071
$314 719
$606 874
$442 049
$668 811
$614 564
$724 749
$467 019
$398 867
$688 381
$365 489
$65 872
$419 845
$497 078
$240 409
$599 224
$630 370
$837 752
Roads grant
$732 743
$1 027 424
$990 927
$1 079 006
$3 035 353
$609 691
$810 829
$669 399
$1 264 337
$933 647
$1 814 578
$1 957 120
$2 846 999
$710 977
$999 462
$1 468 818
$1 240 981
$215 051
$982 158
$920 244
$484 392
$1 458 432
$1 510 241
$2 519 955
Total grant
178
RAS
RAM
RAS
RTX
Trayning Shire
Upper Gascoyne Shire
Tammin Shire
Toodyay Shire
RAS
Tambellup Shire
Three Springs Shire
UFL
RAS
Swan Shire
UDV
South Perth City
UDS
UDM
Shark Bay Shire
Subiaco City
RTS
Serpentine–Jarrahdale
Shire
Stirling City
RTX
RSG
Sandstone Shire
UFL
RAS
Ravensthorpe Shire
URS
RAS
Roebourne Shire
URS
Port Hedland Town
Quairading Shire
Rockingham City
RAS
RAM
UCC
Perth City
Plantagenet Shire
RAS
Perenjori Shire
Pingelly Shire
UDS
Peppermint Grove Shire
Council name
ACLG
category
370
364
4 237
745
439
682
91 697
16 399
181 079
38 413
968
12 443
150
15 302
81 847
1 344
1 041
12 487
4 621
1 149
10 469
585
1 679
Population
46 602
1 632
1 683
2 629
1 087
1 437
1 029
7
100
20
25 000
905
28 218
15 196
261
12 872
1 629
11 844
4 792
1 223
9
8 214
2
Council
area
(sq km)
1 869
742
624
695
507
508
1 205
86
1 017
192
602
622
1 118
580
769
1 321
891
553
1 312
566
96
1 435
9
Total road
length
(km)
$1 324 018
$534 734
$548 434
$358 872
$408 982
$360 485
$1 535 200
$274 554
$3 031 642
$643 114
$783 319
$1 104 094
$898 461
$2 233 434
$1 370 290
$512 948
$587 240
$1 318 289
$395 556
$426 271
$175 273
$526 421
$28 110
General
purpose
grant
$661 706
$326 795
$381 110
$299 550
$212 638
$230 257
$1 433 209
$164 082
$1 607 989
$300 756
$295 821
$592 555
$476 013
$571 659
$1 061 448
$486 231
$716 355
$581 738
$610 735
$315 671
$341 520
$542 170
$13 641
Roads grant
$1 985 724
$861 529
$929 544
$658 422
$621 620
$590 742
$2 968 409
$438 636
$4 639 631
$943 870
$1 079 140
$1 696 649
$1 374 474
$2 805 093
$2 431 738
$999 179
$1 303 595
$1 900 027
$1 006 291
$741 942
$516 793
$1 068 591
$41 751
Total grant
$3 578.43
$1 469.05
$129.44
$481.71
$931.62
$528.57
$16.74
$16.74
$16.74
$16.74
$809.21
$88.73
$5 989.74
$145.96
$16.74
$381.66
$564.11
$105.57
$85.60
$370.99
$16.74
$899.86
$16.74
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
$354.04
$440.42
$610.75
$431.01
$419.40
$453.26
$1 189.39
$1 907.93
$1 581.11
$1 566.44
$491.40
$952.66
$425.77
$985.62
$1 380.30
$368.08
$803.99
$1 051.97
$465.50
$557.72
$3 557.50
$377.82
$1 515.67
Roads
per km
$368 728
$1 441 806
$556 044
$563 495
$619 304
$337 809
$400 929
$309 530
$219 405
$235 794
$433 361
$1 619 232
$392 115
$174 692
$1 663 173
$309 099
$302 615
$632 778
$507 053
$1 320 316
$1 107 360
$480 878
$428 810
$564 948
$613 687
$373 013
$349 531
$556 176
$15 627
Roads grant
$1 617 571
$284 800
$3 144 341
$665 167
$813 249
$1 177 331
$952 203
$2 185 744
$1 468 737
$527 035
$606 452
$1 450 561
$406 419
$444 775
$204 174
$556 523
$28 793
General
purpose
grant
$2 061 110
$893 853
$964 424
$678 258
$652 766
$627 909
$3 236 803
$459 492
$4 807 514
$974 266
$1 115 864
$1 810 109
$1 459 256
$3 506 060
$2 576 097
$1 007 913
$1 035 262
$2 015 509
$1 020 106
$817 788
$553 705
$1 112 699
$44 420
Total grant
Appendix D
179
RAS
Wandering Shire
3 323
RAS
RTS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RTL
RTX
RAS
RAM
Williams Shire
Wiluna Shire
Wongan–Ballidu Shire
Woodanilling Shire
Wyalkatchem Shire
Wyndham–East Kimberley
Shire
Yalgoo Shire
Yilgarn Shire
UCC
UFM
RAV
Adelaide City
Adelaide Hills
Alexandrina
South Australia
York Shire
1 692
RAS
Wickepin Shire
19 848
38 987
14 361
328
7 678
665
389
1 500
953
873
694
238
908
RAS
RAS
West Arthur Shire
3 555
100 432
345
1 816
26 632
932
28 632
Population
Westonia Shire
UFL
RAS
Wagin Shire
RAM
UDS
Vincent Town
Waroona Shire
RAS
Wanneroo City
UDS
Victoria Plains Shire
ACLG
category
Victoria Park Town
Council name
1 830
795
15
2 010
30 720
33 258
121 189
1 743
1 126
3 350
184 000
2 295
1 989
3 268
2 850
835
688
1 955
1 950
10
2 563
18
Council
area
(sq km)
1 310
1 087
130
657
2 718
1 193
1 058
722
515
1 297
1 879
491
873
859
858
331
913
355
786
135
804
162
Total road
length
(km)
$330 799
$649 783
$239 350
$445 731
$409 660
$889 905
$2 460 743
$511 951
$274 230
$619 585
$711 249
$67 260
$485 314
$374 566
$211 009
$512 194
$1 681 442
$143 311
$497 571
$445 875
$212 219
$479 360
General
purpose
grant
$560 830
$514 770
$149 043
$603 650
$844 514
$446 836
$772 465
$319 722
$218 614
$718 657
$626 979
$216 145
$379 679
$357 170
$369 040
$267 548
$1 276 393
$158 737
$366 737
$252 221
$334 146
$261 080
Roads grant
$891 629
$1 164 553
$388 393
$1 049 381
$1 254 174
$1 336 741
$3 233 208
$831 673
$492 844
$1 338 242
$1 338 228
$283 405
$864 993
$731 736
$580 049
$779 742
$2 957 835
$302 048
$864 308
$698 096
$546 365
$740 440
Total grant
$16.67
$16.67
$16.67
$134.14
$242.12
$2 713.13
$320.49
$769.85
$704.96
$413.06
$746.33
$77.04
$699.30
$1 573.81
$232.39
$144.08
$16.74
$415.39
$273.99
$16.74
$227.70
$16.74
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
#
#
#
$428.11
$473.57
$1 146.48
$918.80
$310.71
$374.55
$730.12
$442.83
$424.49
$554.09
$333.68
$440.21
$434.91
$415.80
$430.12
$808.30
$1 398.02
$447.15
$466.59
$1 868.30
$415.60
$1 611.60
Roads
per km
$350 201
$669 721
$252 681
$471 454
$410 920
$955 152
$2 537 402
$542 332
$286 122
$637 510
$815 960
$69 107
$520 787
$388 316
$218 573
$528 388
$1 853 593
$141 676
$520 224
$462 013
$218 047
$496 367
General
purpose
grant
$545 478
$532 550
$355 820
$491 117
$871 815
$459 130
$832 744
$331 268
$217 476
$736 983
$616 199
$224 747
$393 329
$895 679
$1 202 271
$608 501
$962 571
$1 282 735
$1 414 282
$3 370 146
$873 600
$503 598
$1 374 493
$1 432 159
$293 854
$914 116
$757 300
$596 652
$378 079
$368 984
$1 254 965
$3 186 344
$340 756
$900 561
$722 455
$563 316
$761 515
Total grant
$726 577
$1 332 751
$199 080
$380 337
$260 442
$345 269
$265 148
Roads grant
180
93
4 167
URS
RAL
RAV
RAS
RAS
RAS
UFS
RTX
RAM
RAL
UDM
RAM
RAS
Coober Pedy District
Coorong District
Copper Coast District
Elliston District
Flinders Ranges
Franklin Harbour District
Gawler Municipal
Gerard
Goyder (RG)
Grant District
Holdfast Bay City
Kangaroo Island
Karoonda–East Murray
District
1 199
4 476
34 073
8 066
19 060
1 314
1 716
1 143
11 419
5 804
2 216
1 909
8 300
103 553
RAL
UDL
Charles Sturt City
3 593
47 167
RAS
RAM
Ceduna District
Cleve District
UDM
Campbelltown City
42 925
11 216
2 605
20 386
2 223
Population
Clare and Gilbert Valleys
RAV
UDM
RAM
Barunga West District
Burnside City
UFS
Barossa
Berri and Barmera
RTM
Anangu Pitjantjatjara
Council name
ACLG
category
4 418
4 443
14
1 928
6 702
0
41
3 283
4 115
6 693
778
8 902
78
4 498
1 890
56
5 445
24
27
508
1 583
893
52
Council
area
(sq km)
1 883
1 357
172
1 594
3 247
10
178
935
1 261
1 147
932
1 884
421
1 395
1 821
555
1 709
252
233
413
1 053
957
787
Total road
length
(km)
$753 109
$1 238 568
$567 882
$794 200
$1 513 946
$32 439
$823 871
$585 030
$710 371
$493 355
$1 124 493
$1 551 108
$696 945
$633 304
$260 220
$1 725 880
$1 360 293
$786 116
$715 415
$1 405 783
$213 616
$339 766
$831 208
General
purpose
grant
$238 577
$277 997
$263 270
$239 149
$473 000
$13 693
$200 204
$179 364
$210 163
$286 586
$204 295
$467 442
$37 662
$250 645
$268 151
$821 280
$312 049
$573 251
$342 615
$161 259
$147 457
$309 751
$102 775
Roads grant
$991 686
$1 516 565
$831 152
$1 033 349
$1 986 946
$46 132
$1 024 075
$764 394
$920 534
$779 941
$1 328 788
$2 018 550
$734 607
$883 949
$528 371
$2 547 160
$1 672 342
$1 359 367
$1 058 030
$1 567 042
$361 073
$649 517
$933 983
Total grant
$628.11
$276.71
$16.67
$98.46
$363.32
$348.81
$43.23
$445.23
$413.97
$431.63
$98.48
$267.25
$314.51
$331.75
$31.35
$16.67
$378.60
$16.67
$16.67
$125.34
$82.00
$16.67
$373.91
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
#
#
$126.70
$204.86
$1 530.64
$150.03
$145.67
$1 369.30
$1 124.74
$191.83
$166.66
$249.86
$219.20
$248.11
$89.46
$179.67
$147.25
$1 479.78
$182.59
$2 274.81
$1 470.45
$390.46
$140.04
$323.67
$130.59
Roads
per km
$753 109
$1 283 223
$588 142
$754 490
$1 563 459
$33 572
$868 135
$610 622
$740 166
$507 144
$1 117 583
$1 551 108
$737 708
$633 304
$248 103
$290 266
$273 287
$249 475
$492 426
$14 246
$208 586
$186 831
$218 405
$298 039
$214 224
$484 773
$37 692
$260 674
$278 655
$856 184
$1 775 254
$260 220
$324 070
$386 827
$354 529
$166 764
$153 286
$324 888
$106 927
Roads grant
$1 416 442
$811 085
$736 850
$1 487 133
$213 616
$356 190
$860 217
General
purpose
grant
$1 001 212
$1 573 489
$861 429
$1 003 965
$2 055 885
$47 818
$1 076 721
$797 453
$958 571
$805 183
$1 331 807
$2 035 881
$775 400
$893 978
$538 875
$2 631 438
$1 740 512
$1 197 912
$1 091 379
$1 653 897
$366 902
$681 078
$967 144
Total grant
Appendix D
181
UFV
RAS
Onkaparinga District
Orroroo/Carrieton District
RTX
Nepabunna
RAM
RAL
UDM
RAV
Murray Bridge District
Naracoorte Lucindale
Norwood Payneham and
St Peters City
RAM
Mount Remarkable
District
Northern Areas
URS
UDM
Mitcham City
URS
RAL
Mount Gambier City
UDL
Marion City
Mid Murray
Mount Barker District
RTX
Maralinga
Lower Eyre Peninsula
District
RAV
RAM
Light RC
RAL
RAV
Le Hunte District
Mallala District
RAS
Kingston District
Loxton Waikerie District
RAS
RAM
Kimba District
ACLG
category
Council name
980
153 496
34 054
4 652
71
8 248
17 654
2 853
23 640
25 591
62 460
8 443
80 512
134
7 740
12 184
4 295
11 711
1 416
2 313
1 182
Population
3 313
520
15
2 980
0
4 540
1 829
3 415
27
594
76
6 266
56
0
934
7 981
4 763
1 276
5 381
3 363
3 975
Council
area
(sq km)
1 628
1 398
157
2 197
10
1 609
965
2 063
188
713
389
3 377
464
147
951
2 315
1 362
1 343
1 706
947
1 137
Total road
length
(km)
$492 590
$5 977 214
$567 566
$756 347
$20 809
$1 280 073
$2 386 300
$973 600
$1 171 454
$514 327
$1 040 998
$1 977 956
$1 341 865
$67 782
$705 808
$1 953 506
$250 138
$195 183
$1 005 863
$398 897
$564 979
General
purpose
grant
$179 317
$1 650 612
$253 201
$284 136
$13 633
$340 508
$310 259
$781 720
$262 966
$337 869
$529 680
$456 848
$1 040 408
$36 771
$171 079
$1 081 025
$1 001 318
$259 750
$292 973
$175 245
$662 334
Roads grant
$671 907
$7 627 826
$820 767
$1 040 483
$34 442
$1 620 581
$2 696 559
$1 755 320
$1 434 420
$852 196
$1 570 678
$2 434 804
$2 382 273
$104 553
$876 887
$3 034 531
$1 251 456
$454 933
$1 298 836
$574 142
$1 227 313
Total grant
$502.64
$38.94
$16.67
$162.59
$293.08
$155.20
$135.17
$341.25
$49.55
$20.10
$16.67
$234.27
$16.67
$505.84
$91.19
$160.33
$58.24
$16.67
$710.36
$172.46
$477.99
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
#
$110.15
$1 180.70
$1 612.75
$129.33
$1 363.30
$211.63
$321.51
$378.92
$1 398.76
$473.87
$1 361.65
$135.28
$2 242.26
$250.14
$179.89
$466.97
$735.18
$193.41
$171.73
$185.05
$582.53
Roads
per km
$519 182
$6 336 932
$584 006
$756 347
$21 535
$1 280 073
$2 384 442
$1 017 643
$1 288 599
$565 760
$1 070 063
$1 977 956
$1 388 398
$70 147
$705 808
$2 055 850
$250 138
$206 195
$1 005 863
$398 897
$592 530
General
purpose
grant
$186 395
$1 795 091
$261 889
$295 754
$14 184
$354 478
$324 825
$266 292
$384 205
$355 909
$549 454
$474 990
$856 763
$38 256
$179 700
$1 090 402
$479 144
$674 248
$292 973
$372 388
$670 906
Roads grant
$705 577
$8 132 023
$845 895
$1 052 101
$35 719
$1 634 551
$2 709 267
$1 283 935
$1 672 804
$921 669
$1 619 517
$2 452 946
$2 245 161
$108 403
$885 508
$3 146 252
$729 282
$880 443
$1 298 836
$771 285
$1 263 436
Total grant
182
RAL
UDS
RAV
UDM
Walkerville Municipal
Wattle Range
West Torrens City
URS
Victor Harbor
Wakefield (RG)
RAM
UDM
Unley City
Tea Tree Gully City
Tumby Bay District
RAL
UDL
Tatiara District
RAM
Streaky Bay District
119 272
UDL
RAM
Salisbury City
Southern Mallee District
3 621
URS
Roxby Downs Municipal
52 680
12 292
7 093
6 554
12 082
36 442
2 657
100 080
7 104
2 018
2 208
1 377
9 728
RAL
RAS
Renmark Paringa District
19 265
17 436
14 399
13 743
103 830
70 602
1 917
4 977
Population
Robe District
RAV
UDS
Prospect City
URS
Port Lincoln City
Port Pirie
UDL
URS
UFL
Playford City
Port Augusta City
RAS
Peterborough District
Port Adelaide Enfield
RTL
Outback Areas Community
Development Trust
Council name
ACLG
category
37
3 952
4
3 468
387
14
2 674
96
6 542
6 250
5 715
158
110
1 101
902
8
1 785
32
1 193
93
345
3 013
0
Council
area
(sq km)
287
2 456
35
2 680
370
164
1 106
582
1 945
1 721
1 329
714
33
435
490
87
1 171
156
408
655
741
1 230
0
Total road
length
(km)
$877 999
$975 577
$118 216
$943 548
$201 366
$607 365
$361 767
$1 667 997
$1 241 884
$824 395
$699 476
$7 810 276
$60 350
$22 950
$1 597 755
$321 083
$3 428 251
$668 711
$2 812 184
$1 730 498
$7 384 194
$858 158
$950 721
General
purpose
grant
$1 000 883
$516 777
$54 342
$352 581
$196 250
$268 262
$184 161
$820 144
$623 750
$320 447
$282 381
$1 048 161
$43 721
$75 923
$162 140
$141 962
$308 438
$163 586
$203 312
$888 975
$797 094
$173 577
$0
Roads grant
$1 878 882
$1 492 354
$172 558
$1 296 129
$397 616
$875 627
$545 928
$2 488 141
$1 865 634
$1 144 842
$981 857
$8 858 437
$104 071
$98 873
$1 759 895
$463 045
$3 736 689
$832 297
$3 015 496
$2 619 473
$8 181 288
$1 031 735
$950 721
Total grant
$16.67
$79.37
$16.67
$143.97
$16.67
$16.67
$136.16
$16.67
$174.81
$408.52
$316.79
$65.48
$16.67
$16.67
$164.24
$16.67
$196.62
$46.44
$204.63
$16.67
$104.59
$447.66
$191.02
GP grant
per capita
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
$3 487.40
$210.41
$1 552.63
$131.56
$530.41
$1 635.74
$166.51
$1 409.18
$320.69
$186.20
$212.48
$1 468.01
$1 324.88
$174.54
$330.90
$1 631.75
$263.40
$1 048.63
$498.31
$1 357.21
$1 075.70
$141.12
n/a
Roads
per km
$902 994
$975 577
$121 441
$943 548
$212 012
$623 440
$361 767
$1 714 953
$1 241 884
$860 067
$699 476
$8 134 724
$61 278
$24 127
$1 645 364
$329 318
$3 587 650
$708 476
$2 918 185
$1 787 729
$7 783 713
$896 623
$983 901
General
purpose
grant
$1 448 192
$806 967
$56 153
$367 423
$174 857
$2 351 186
$1 782 544
$177 594
$1 310 971
$386 869
$553 789
$900 503
$192 022
$2 562 826
$1 776 306
$1 193 600
$993 114
$9 311 841
$105 864
$165 911
$277 063
$847 873
$534 422
$333 533
$293 638
$1 177 117
$44 586
$141 784
$1 813 558
$475 804
$168 194
$3 908 122
$320 472
$879 101
$3 128 321
$2 709 618
$8 615 085
$1 076 540
$983 901
Total grant
$146 486
$170 625
$210 136
$921 889
$831 372
$179 917
$0
Roads grant
Appendix D
183
4 004
RAM
RAV
Yankalilla District
Yorke Peninsula District
48 533
UCC
RAV
RAL
Hobart City
Huon Valley Municipal
Kentish Municipal
5 676
14 347
4 185
6 747
877
44 925
RAS
Flinders Municipal
7 131
24 979
URM
RAL
Dorset Municipal
Glenorchy City
URS
Devonport City
9 327
50 257
RAL
RAL
Derwent Valley Municipal
RAM
URM
Clarence City
8 105
George Town Municipal
RAL
Circular Head Municipal
2 295
Glamorgan–Spring Bay
Municipal
RAM
Central Highlands
Municipal
21 079
19 139
URS
URS
Burnie City
Central Coast Municipal
13 436
RAL
URS
Brighton Municipal
6 036
11 637
Break O’day Municipal
Tasmania
237
RTX
21 547
URS
Whyalla City
Yalata
Population
ACLG
category
Council name
5 620
80
120
2 522
654
1 992
3 556
112
3 939
3 821
381
4 917
8 010
947
618
168
3 196
5 934
761
2
1 034
Council
area
(sq km)
485
757
296
298
345
285
385
739
240
330
437
767
752
664
351
154
543
3 882
537
40
267
Total road
length
(km)
$835 640
$1 140 189
$810 666
$755 098
$548 083
$728 717
$492 395
$910 987
$785 657
$710 835
$1 345 206
$958 758
$620 264
$1 683 282
$973 822
$982 004
$890 058
$862 915
$66 734
$82 550
$4 037 048
General
purpose
grant
$841 587
$1 171 295
$1 260 782
$935 479
$556 604
$485 558
$446 419
$1 318 698
$700 633
$572 103
$906 896
$1 221 963
$944 205
$1 242 757
$817 597
$341 512
$1 146 831
$576 692
$101 948
$29 605
$276 541
Roads grant
$1 677 227
$2 311 484
$2 071 448
$1 690 577
$1 104 687
$1 214 275
$938 814
$2 229 685
$1 486 290
$1 282 938
$2 252 102
$2 180 721
$1 564 469
$2 926 039
$1 791 419
$1 323 516
$2 036 889
$1 439 607
$168 682
$112 155
$4 313 589
Total grant
$147.22
$79.47
$16.70
$16.81
$130.96
$108.01
$561.45
$127.75
$31.45
$76.21
$26.77
$118.29
$270.27
$79.86
$50.88
$73.09
$147.46
$74.15
$16.67
$348.31
$187.36
GP grant
per capita
#
#
$1 735.23
$1 547.29
$4 259.40
$3 139.19
$1 613.34
$1 703.71
$1 159.53
$1 784.44
$2 919.30
$1 733.65
$2 075.28
$1 593.17
$1 255.59
$1 871.62
$2 329.34
$2 217.61
$2 112.03
$148.56
$189.85
$740.13
$1 035.73
Roads
per km
$901 375
$1 336 404
$838 376
$769 815
$485 810
$796 467
$514 132
$1 055 841
$688 438
$803 532
$1 218 499
$1 085 811
$670 925
$1 727 353
$950 883
$1 017 437
$1 075 180
$862 915
$70 425
$120 837
$4 230 458
General
purpose
grant
$851 568
$1 180 271
$1 322 670
$998 390
$587 504
$521 065
$466 832
$1 363 678
$756 163
$582 782
$980 452
$1 283 891
$978 593
$1 316 236
$862 908
$355 698
$1 181 380
$601 573
$107 059
$30 801
$283 125
Roads grant
$1 752 943
$2 516 675
$2 161 046
$1 768 205
$1 073 314
$1 317 532
$980 964
$2 419 519
$1 444 601
$1 386 314
$2 198 951
$2 369 702
$1 649 518
$3 043 589
$1 813 791
$1 373 135
$2 256 560
$1 464 488
$177 484
$151 638
$4 513 583
Total grant
184
RAL
URM
RAV
RAV
RAV
RAL
RAM
RAV
RAL
UFS
Kingborough Municipal
Latrobe Municipal
Launceston City
Meander Valley Municipal
Northern Midlands
Municipal
Sorell Municipal
Southern Midlands
Municipal
Tasman Municipal
Waratah – Wynyard
Municipal
West Coast Municipal
West Tamar Municipal
RTX
RTX
Aputula
Areyonga
223
229
833
321
1 361
RTX
Amoonguna
725
28 328
RTS
RTS
RTM
URS
Alice Springs Town
Alpurrurulam
495
Anmatjere
RTS
Ali Curung
499
21 054
5 087
13 486
2 222
5 760
11 304
12 125
18 611
64 057
8 710
30 961
1 632
Population
Angurugu
RTX
Aherrenge (Arunga)
Northern Territory
RAS
URS
King Island Municipal
Council name
ACLG
category
0
0
3 631
2
0
100
327
0
0
689
9 750
3 553
660
2 561
590
5 130
1 430
992
717
1 099
1 158
Council
area
(sq km)
37
66
206
152
7
33
250
152
42
447
175
527
207
803
335
980
815
721
287
518
436
Total road
length
(km)
$40 269
$38 795
$219 486
$126 172
$31 943
$95 891
$989 959
$68 056
$80 822
$1 436 671
$926 295
$1 190 439
$333 271
$861 594
$727 307
$1 330 771
$1 309 372
$1 552 126
$592 520
$957 317
$452 071
General
purpose
grant
$30 454
$30 425
$110 036
$128 998
$10 998
$40 755
$732 725
$56 854
$27 775
$735 440
$467 715
$968 915
$324 109
$1 376 559
$635 125
$1 650 965
$1 447 144
$1 963 446
$452 735
$919 525
$509 063
Roads grant
$70 723
$69 220
$329 522
$255 170
$42 941
$136 646
$1 722 684
$124 910
$108 597
$2 172 111
$1 394 010
$2 159 354
$657 380
$2 238 153
$1 362 432
$2 981 736
$2 756 516
$3 515 572
$1 045 255
$1 876 842
$961 134
Total grant
$180.58
$169.41
$161.27
$151.47
$99.51
$132.26
$34.95
$137.49
$161.97
$68.24
$182.09
$88.27
$149.99
$149.58
$64.34
$109.75
$70.35
$24.23
$68.03
$30.92
$277.00
GP grant
per capita
$823.08
$460.98
$534.16
$848.67
$1 571.14
$1 235.00
$2 930.90
$374.04
$661.31
$1 645.28
$2 672.66
$1 838.55
$1 565.74
$1 714.27
$1 895.90
$1 684.66
$1 775.64
$2 723.23
$1 577.47
$1 775.14
$1 167.58
Roads
per km
$38 790
$38 800
$237 239
$150 548
$33 658
$107 244
$987 699
$72 320
$86 299
$1 510 256
$958 190
$1 239 602
$359 028
$987 999
$728 233
$1 333 669
$1 396 403
$1 450 015
$589 044
$841 633
$462 196
General
purpose
grant
$43 692
$31 429
$115 163
$135 958
$11 360
$42 100
$763 445
$58 729
$28 691
$780 869
$478 274
$990 420
$325 868
$1 356 928
$639 186
$1 708 047
$1 528 162
$2 057 775
$487 599
$951 698
$537 037
Roads grant
$82 482
$70 229
$352 402
$286 506
$45 018
$149 344
$1 751 144
$131 049
$114 990
$2 291 125
$1 436 464
$2 230 022
$684 896
$2 344 927
$1 367 419
$3 041 716
$2 924 565
$3 507 790
$1 076 643
$1 793 331
$999 233
Total grant
Appendix D
185
1 324
913
16 084
594
URS
RTX
RTX
URS
RTS
RTM
RAV
RTS
RTM
Jabiru Town
Jilkminggan
Kaltukatjara
Katherine Town
Kunbarllanjnja
Lajamanu
Litchfield Shire
Ltyentye Purte
(Santa Teresa)
Maningrida
2 321
9 084
412
277
1 531
197
157
RTX
RTX
1 027
Imanpa
RTS
Gapuwiyak
1 911
524
69 958
711
335
1 643
938
265
249
312
Population
Ikuntji
RTS
RTM
Galiwinku
UCC
Darwin City
Elliott District
RTX
RTS
Daguragu
RTM
Coomalie Community
Government
Cox Peninsula
RTX
RTS
Borroloola
RTX
Binjari
RTX
Belyuen
ACLG
category
Arltarlpilta
Council name
0
1 242
3 100
7 313
530
528
0
6
13
0
0
0
0
3
144
43
6
1 500
13
3
41
12
Council
area
(sq km)
310
118
$292 356
$85 805
$762 486
$132 002
303
756
$233 842
$683 152
$71 858
$36 115
$126 015
$34 527
$34 703
$165 576
$267 942
$72 237
$1 219 197
$102 816
$27 502
$174 366
$123 492
$28 868
$34 049
$43 162
General
purpose
grant
672
185
343
16
28
20
125
368
352
48
468
36
13
167
25
5
84
52
Total road
length
(km)
$197 721
$82 886
$1 698 323
$90 962
$445 191
$487 708
$92 872
$24 398
$74 954
$23 120
$36 470
$145 233
$166 725
$43 421
$1 410 108
$70 696
$43 899
$296 171
$68 025
$13 088
$25 127
$21 034
Roads grant
$490 077
$168 691
$2 460 809
$222 964
$679 033
$1 170 860
$164 730
$60 513
$200 969
$57 647
$71 173
$310 809
$434 667
$115 658
$2 629 305
$173 512
$71 401
$470 537
$191 517
$41 956
$59 176
$64 196
Total grant
$125.96
$144.45
$47.41
$144.58
$176.62
$75.20
$174.41
$130.38
$82.31
$175.26
$221.04
$161.22
$140.21
$137.86
$17.43
$144.61
$82.10
$106.13
$131.65
$108.94
$136.74
$138.34
GP grant
per capita
$637.81
$702.42
$2 246.46
$300.20
$662.49
$2 636.26
$270.76
$1 524.88
$2 676.93
$1 156.00
$291.76
$394.65
$473.65
$904.60
$3 013.05
$1 963.78
$3 376.85
$1 773.48
$2 721.00
$2 617.60
$299.13
$404.50
Roads
per km
$335 939
$89 413
$760 745
$146 537
$244 087
$723 339
$71 848
$33 988
$125 862
$33 085
$32 576
$181 284
$299 858
$77 067
$1 255 475
$110 074
$28 322
$181 143
$136 728
$0
$33 381
$44 787
General
purpose
grant
$205 282
$85 619
$1 714 939
$96 331
$459 873
$517 313
$87 085
$25 203
$82 211
$23 883
$37 672
$148 039
$172 224
$44 853
$1 456 614
$73 028
$39 877
$304 249
$68 285
$0
$25 955
$22 630
Roads grant
$541 221
$175 032
$2 475 684
$242 868
$703 960
$1 240 652
$158 933
$59 191
$208 073
$56 968
$70 248
$329 323
$472 082
$121 920
$2 712 089
$183 102
$68 199
$485 392
$205 013
$0
$59 336
$67 417
Total grant
186
RTX
Peppimenarti
RTX
RTM
ZZZZ
RTS
Trust Account
Umbakumba
Thamarrurr
Tiwi Island
RTM
Tennant Creek Town
Timber Creek
RTX
URS
Tapatjatjaka
RTS
RTX
RTS
UFS
Palmerston Town
Papunya
Ramingining
RTX
Nyirripi
Pine Creek
RTS
RTS
Ntaria
RTS
RTX
Nganmarriyanga
(Palumpa)
Nyirranggulung Mardrulk
RTS
Nauiyu Nambiyu
Numbulwar–Numburindi
RTX
RTX
Milingimbi
Minjilang
RTS
Mataranka
Milyakburra
RTX
RTX
Marngarr
Council name
ACLG
category
477
0
2 561
291
2 619
3 395
325
707
409
241
400
22 445
322
1 285
1 229
643
480
516
288
220
1 222
304
311
Population
0
0
2 115
16
3 450
25
12
0
400
0
0
56
0
28 700
4 500
0
0
43
0
0
0
233
3
Council
area
(sq km)
147
2 145
905
$90 689
$0
$446 613
$48 120
$384 154
286
175
$394 845
$38 531
$113 547
$47 989
$66 456
$57 465
$782 812
$64 586
$236 287
$183 454
$88 178
$71 095
$84 581
$49 530
$37 192
$158 087
$29 016
$32 020
General
purpose
grant
45
56
145
55
120
214
169
431
441
302
305
155
144
73
52
53
15
12
Total road
length
(km)
$117 464
$773 834
$612 612
$201 131
$206 136
$140 079
$21 314
$104 822
$107 099
$146 966
$52 542
$471 878
$102 117
$316 831
$120 574
$73 349
$72 545
$153 284
$69 263
$18 933
$54 995
$26 019
$16 960
Roads grant
$208 153
$773 834
$1 059 225
$249 251
$590 290
$534 924
$59 845
$218 369
$155 088
$213 422
$110 007
$1 254 690
$166 703
$553 118
$304 028
$161 527
$143 640
$237 865
$118 793
$56 125
$213 082
$55 035
$48 980
Total grant
$190.12
$0.00
$174.39
$165.36
$146.68
$116.30
$118.56
$160.60
$117.33
$275.75
$143.66
$34.88
$200.58
$183.88
$149.27
$137.14
$148.11
$163.92
$171.98
$169.05
$129.37
$95.45
$102.96
GP grant
per capita
$799.07
$360.76
$676.92
$1 149.32
$720.76
$3 112.87
$380.61
$722.91
$1 947.25
$1 224.72
$245.52
$2 792.18
$236.93
$718.44
$399.25
$240.49
$468.03
$1 064.47
$948.81
$364.10
$1 037.64
$1 734.60
$1 413.33
Roads
per km
$92 498
$0
$478 229
$45 316
$431 643
$433 602
$38 685
$122 960
$46 667
$60 333
$58 742
$781 025
$60 578
$238 287
$209 157
$95 694
$72 474
$85 061
$46 188
$36 954
$182 860
$28 029
$34 161
General
purpose
grant
$95 872
$859 867
$697 685
$208 631
$212 934
$144 699
$21 908
$108 279
$111 166
$151 813
$54 275
$501 450
$105 484
$327 280
$124 551
$75 767
$74 938
$158 339
$71 548
$19 557
$56 809
$25 681
$23 320
Roads grant
$188 370
$859 867
$1 175 914
$253 947
$644 577
$578 301
$60 593
$231 239
$157 833
$212 146
$113 017
$1 282 475
$166 062
$565 567
$333 708
$171 461
$147 412
$243 400
$117 736
$56 511
$239 669
$53 710
$57 481
Total grant
Appendix D
187
RTM
Yugul Mangi
1 847
287
1 372
RTX
RTM
Yuendumu
1 077
252
392
476
134
500
1 002
Population
Yuelamu
RTX
RTS
Yirrkala/Dhanbul
RTX
Warruwi
Watiyawanu (Mt Liebig)
RTX
RTS
Walungurru
RTX
Wallace Rockhole
RTS
Walingeri–Ngumpinku
ACLG
category
Urapuntja
Council name
0
12 269
22 142
0
0
78
0
0
5
386
Council
area
(sq km)
177
907
214
54
73
64
335
23
76
301
Total road
length
(km)
$294 061
$253 095
$53 118
$127 689
$40 301
$69 412
$86 362
$26 293
$73 474
$170 092
General
purpose
grant
$180 511
$268 047
$76 134
$55 300
$26 816
$79 894
$137 767
$16 121
$47 750
$56 584
Roads grant
$474 572
$521 142
$129 252
$182 989
$67 117
$149 306
$224 129
$42 414
$121 224
$226 676
Total grant
$159.21
$184.47
$185.08
$118.56
$159.92
$177.07
$181.43
$196.22
$146.95
$169.75
GP grant
per capita
$1 019.84
$295.53
$355.77
$1 024.07
$367.34
$1 248.34
$411.24
$700.91
$628.29
$187.99
Roads
per km
$333 942
$267 655
$52 418
$144 605
$38 803
$70 158
$87 901
$22 463
$78 031
$190 220
General
purpose
grant
$186 464
$276 887
$74 900
$57 124
$27 701
$82 529
$142 310
$16 653
$49 324
$58 450
Roads grant
$520 406
$544 542
$127 318
$201 729
$66 504
$152 687
$230 211
$39 116
$127 355
$248 670
Total grant
188
Appendix E
Appendix E
Ranking of local governing
bodies on a relative
needs basis 2005–06
Councils often compare the grants they receive with the grants of other councils in their state and
assume that, if another council gets a similar sized grant, then both councils have been assessed as
having similar relative needs. Such an assumption can be incorrect.
In determining the allocation of general purpose grants and local road grants to councils, local
government grants commissions implicitly assign a ranking to each council in their state on the basis of
relative needs. A comparison of councils on the basis of relative needs is preferable to a comparison on
the basis of the actual grants they receive.
In this appendix, the grant per capita is used as the basis for comparing relative need for general
purpose grants. For local road grants, the allocation of grants for each council is divided by their length
of local roads to obtain a relative expenditure needs measure. In Tables E.1 to E.7, councils within a
state are sorted on the value of:
© the general purpose grant per capita
© the local road grants per kilometre.
For each council, the table gives its ranking obtained for both grants. The Australian Classification of
Local Governments category is also provided – see Appendix F for an explanation.
Councils are ranked from the council in the greatest assessed relative need to the council in the least
assessed relative need. For each state, the position of the average general purpose grant per capita
and the average local road grant per kilometre are also shown within the ranking of councils. These
state averages are taken from Tables 2.9 and 2.10 except in Western Australia and South Australia
where special local road grants have been excluded from the local road grant per kilometre calculation
for each council and the state average.
Councils should use these rankings when comparing the financial assistance grants they receive
with the financial assistance grants other councils in their state receive. For instance, Appendix D
shows that in Tasmania, Clarence City received $1 345 206 in general purpose grants in 2005–06
while Hobart City received $810 666. Clarence’s grant is $26.77 per capita while Hobart’s grant is
$16.70 per capita. This suggests that while the two councils have a similar population and are located
in a similar vicinity, the Tasmanian Local Government Grants Commission has assessed Clarence City
as having the greater relative need. In Table E.5, Clarence City is shown to rank 26th among Tasmania’s
councils for general purpose grants while Hobart City is a minimum grant council and is ranked 29th.
189
190
Key to abbreviations used in Tables E.1 to E.7 (see Appendix F for a full explanation)
RAS
Rural Agricultural Small
RAM
Rural Agricultural Medium
RAL
Rural Agricultural Large
RAV
Rural Agricultural Very Large
RSG
Rural Significant Growth
RTX
Rural Remote Extra Small
RTS
Rural Remote Small
RTM
Rural Remote Medium
RTL
Rural Remote Large
UCC
Urban Capital City
UDS
Urban Developed Small
UDM
Urban Developed Medium
UDL
Urban Developed Large
UDV
Urban Developed Very Large
UFS
Urban Fringe Small
UFM
Urban Fringe Medium
UFL
Urban Fringe Large
UFV
Urban Fringe Very Large
URS
Urban Regional Small
URM
Urban Regional Medium
URL
Urban Regional Large
URV
Urban Regional Very Large
Rank Council name
Grant
Classification per capita
Rank Council name
Grant
Classification per km
1
RTM
1
UDM
2
Urana Shire
RAS
$575.08
2
Queanbeyan
URM
$2 614.98
3
Brewarrina Shire
RAM
$548.25
3
Sydney City
UCC
$2 580.33
4
Conargo Shire
RAS
$506.04
4
Canterbury City
UDV
$2 440.69
5
Carrathool Shire
RAM
$505.57
5
Randwick City
UDV
$2 419.69
6
Bourke Shire
RAM
$471.21
6
Ashfield Municipal
UDM
$2 353.99
7
Balranald Shire
RAM
$433.02
7
North Sydney
UDM
$2 287.74
8
Jerilderie Shire
RAS
$422.64
8
Botany Bay City
UDM
$2 266.01
$756.57
Waverley
Appendix E
Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
$2 662.74
9
Bogan Shire
RAM
$411.10
9
Woollahra Municipal
UDM
$2 218.83
10
Lockhart Shire
RAM
$399.27
10
Marrickville
UDL
$2 210.04
11
Lachlan Shire
RAL
$391.78
11
UDM
$2 170.03
12
Silverton Village
RTX
$384.86
12
Burwood
UDM
$2 166.57
13
Tibooburra Village
RTX
$384.85
13
Parramatta City
UDV
$2 155.55
14
Lord Howe Island (Bd)
RTX
$379.96
14
UDM
$2 148.92
15
Cobar Shire
RTL
$376.66
15
Manly
UDM
$2 147.34
16
Bland Shire
RAL
$371.12
16
Rockdale City
UDL
$2 145.44
17
Coolamon Shire
RAM
$326.54
17
Canada Bay City
UDM
$2 133.05
18
Hay Shire
RAM
$320.82
18
Hurstville City
UDL
$2 117.19
19
Coonamble Shire
RAM
$297.23
19
Ryde City
UDL
$2 032.69
20
Harden Shire
RAM
$297.01
20
Lane Cove Municipal
UDM
$2 032.56
21
Wentworth Shire
RAL
$296.07
21
Auburn
UDM
$2 026.55
22
Bombala
RAM
$292.05
22
Bankstown City
UDV
$2 023.42
23
Wakool Shire
RAM
$282.66
23
Fairfield City
UDV
$2 015.80
24
Weddin Shire
RAM
$277.56
24
Mosman Municipal
UDS
$2 014.25
25
Gwydir Shire
RAL
$277.04
25
Willoughby City
UDM
$2 010.95
26
Warren Shire
RAM
$270.15
26
Holroyd City
UDL
$1 987.85
27
Walgett Shire
RAL
$268.86
27
Kogarah Municipal
UDM
$1 987.61
28
Narrandera Shire
RAL
$266.23
28
Warringah
UDV
$1 943.80
29
Warrumbungle
RAV
$260.68
29
Campbelltown City
UFV
$1 923.77
30
Murrumbidgee Shire
RAM
$254.20
30
Albury City
URM
$1 896.40
31
Gilgandra Shire
RAM
$252.83
31
Coffs Harbour City
URM
$1 876.66
32
Narromine Shire
RAL
$250.55
32
Sutherland Shire
UDV
$1 870.13
33
Tenterfield Shire
RAL
$245.63
33
Blacktown City
UDV
$1 858.24
34
Tumbarumba Shire
RAM
$239.82
34
Pittwater
UDM
$1 821.29
35
Berrigan Shire
RAL
$236.95
35
Orange City
URM
$1 806.95
191
192
Rank Council name
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
36
Forbes Shire
RAL
36
UFV
37
Boorowa
RAM
$223.76
37
Liverpool City
UFV
$1 791.25
38
Guyra Shire
RAM
$216.38
38
Ku-ring-gai
UDL
$1 783.67
39
Junee Shire
RAL
$215.63
39
Wollongong City
URV
$1 762.26
40
Temora Shire
RAL
$205.66
40
UDS
$1 750.74
41
Walcha
RAM
$205.25
41
Broken Hill City
URS
$1 742.56
42
Murray Shire
RAL
$200.55
42
Newcastle City
URV
$1 731.64
43
Greater Hume Shire
RAV
$197.89
43
Shellharbour City
URM
$1 730.52
44
Wellington
RAL
$197.29
44
Tweed Shire
URL
$1 724.33
45
Snowy River Shire
RAL
$197.17
45
Camden
UFM
$1 676.93
46
Glen Innes Severn
RAL
$193.17
46
Penrith City
UFV
$1 642.23
47
Upper Lachlan
RAL
$191.61
47
UFV
$1 620.01
48
Gundagai Shire
RAM
$189.28
48
Gosford City
UFV
$1 572.69
49
Corowa Shire
RAV
$188.49
49
Lake Macquarie City
URV
$1 558.89
$231.66
Hornsby Shire
$1 805.17
50
Oberon
RAL
$180.04
50
Wyong Shire
UFV
$1 552.05
51
Narrabri Shire
RAV
$173.24
51
Byron Shire
URM
$1 547.39
52
Cooma–Monaro
RAL
$171.17
52
Kiama Municipal
URS
$1 532.47
53
RAL
$170.91
53
Ballina Shire
URM
$1 529.61
54
Kyogle
RAL
$168.81
54
Hastings
URM
$1 508.44
55
Deniliquin
URS
$168.45
55
Maitland City
URM
$1 457.43
56
Cootamundra Shire
RAL
$167.14
56
Shoalhaven City
URL
$1 433.72
57
Gloucester Shire
RAM
$166.53
57
Blue Mountains City
UFL
$1 391.69
58
Parkes Shire
RAV
$164.62
58
Port Stephens
URM
$1 387.11
59
Blayney Shire
RAL
$161.78
59
Hawkesbury City
UFM
$1 384.74
60
Uralla Shire
RAL
$159.90
60
Wollondilly Shire
UFM
$1 339.58
61
Inverell Shire
RAV
$157.49
61
Cessnock City
URM
$1 326.62
62
Broken Hill City
URS
$149.30
62
Deniliquin
URS
$1 316.85
63
Cowra Shire
RAV
$146.10
63
Lismore City
URM
$1 238.88
64
Gunnedah Shire
RAV
$145.75
64
Nambucca Shire
RAV
$1 223.08
65
Leeton Shire
RAV
$142.09
65
Wingecarribee Shire
URM
$1 197.51
66
Tumut
RAV
$140.79
66
Bellingen Shire
RAV
$1 193.98
67
Upper Hunter
RAV
$140.57
67
Eurobodalla Shire
URM
$1 189.60
68
Bellingen Shire
RAV
$139.23
68
Kempsey Shire
URS
$1 184.92
69
Cabonne Shire
RAV
$137.45
69
Great Lakes
URM
$1 181.71
70
Moree Plains Shire
RAV
$137.21
70
Bega Valley Shire
URM
$1 118.76
71
Young Shire
RAV
$134.32
71
Greater Taree City
URM
$1 118.06
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
72
Richmond Valley
URS
$124.96
72
URS
73
Dungog Shire
RAL
$123.78
73
Bathurst Regional
URM
$1 094.88
74
Clarence Valley
URM
$123.56
74
Clarence Valley
URM
$1 062.76
75
Great Lakes
URM
$122.36
75
Wagga Wagga City
URM
$1 055.79
76
Mid-Western Regional
URS
$121.87
76
Dubbo City
URM
$1 053.43
77
Eurobodalla Shire
URM
$119.04
77
Muswellbrook Shire
RAV
$1 048.75
78
Palerang
RAV
$118.59
78
Kyogle
RAL
$1 034.15
Singleton Shire
$1 113.25
79
Lithgow City
URS
$116.62
79
Richmond Valley
URS
$1 024.97
80
Bega Valley Shire
URM
$115.89
80
Armidale Dumaresq
URS
$1 015.72
81
Yass Valley
RAV
$114.63
81
Dungog Shire
RAL
$1 013.10
82
Muswellbrook Shire
RAV
$113.97
82
Goulburn Mulwaree
URS
$1 007.36
83
Kempsey Shire
URS
$105.30
84
Nambucca Shire
RAV
$103.72
83
Lithgow City
State average
URS
$983.91
85
Tamworth Regional
URM
$96.73
84
Tumut
RAV
$951.69
86
Dubbo City
URM
$92.70
85
Tamworth Regional
URM
$951.49
87
Goulburn Mulwaree
URS
$91.44
86
Gloucester Shire
RAM
$948.94
88
Armidale Dumaresq
URS
$89.49
87
Griffith City
URS
$891.78
89
Lismore City
URM
$85.55
88
Cootamundra Shire
RAL
$882.60
90
Cessnock City
URM
$83.53
89
Glen Innes Severn
RAL
$851.53
91
Wagga Wagga City
URM
$82.65
90
Mid-Western Regional
URS
$842.59
92
Albury City
URM
$80.78
91
Palerang
RAV
$839.94
93
Bathurst Regional
URM
$80.46
92
Tumbarumba Shire
RAM
$836.66
94
Shoalhaven City
URL
$78.67
93
Yass Valley
RAV
$822.21
Appendix E
Rank Council name
$1 003.79
95
Greater Taree City
URM
$76.22
94
Upper Hunter
RAV
$821.65
96
Singleton Shire
URS
$74.24
95
Cooma–Monaro
RAL
$814.04
97
Blue Mountains City
UFL
$72.15
96
Blayney Shire
RAL
$811.36
98
Tweed Shire
URL
$69.15
97
Young Shire
RAV
$808.46
99
Griffith City
URS
$68.68
98
Cowra Shire
RAV
$805.83
100
Orange City
URM
$68.26
99
Snowy River Shire
RAL
$805.02
101
Maitland City
URM
$67.32
100
Leeton Shire
RAV
$802.29
102
Newcastle City
URV
$66.54
101
Gundagai Shire
RAM
$800.66
103
Hastings
URM
$64.31
102
Uralla Shire
RAL
$793.08
104
Coffs Harbour City
URM
$63.45
103
Gunnedah Shire
RAV
$783.94
105
Wollongong City
URV
$59.06
104
Inverell Shire
RAV
$783.29
106
Lake Macquarie City
URV
$56.19
105
RAL
$772.19
107
Port Stephens
URM
$55.76
106
Wakool Shire
RAM
$771.46
193
194
Rank Council name
Grant
State average
Rank Council name
Grant
$55.63
107
Cabonne Shire
RAV
$770.02
108
Wingecarribee Shire
URM
$55.14
108
Walcha
RAM
$769.97
109
Ballina Shire
URM
$54.24
109
Bombala
RAM
$766.34
110
Queanbeyan
URM
$53.70
110
Tenterfield Shire
RAL
$766.21
111
Wyong Shire
UFV
$50.36
111
Corowa Shire
RAV
$757.84
112
Shellharbour City
URM
$47.69
112
Greater Hume Shire
RAV
$757.73
113
Campbelltown City
UFV
$47.56
113
Oberon
RAL
$752.32
114
Byron Shire
URM
$47.22
114
Murray Shire
RAL
$749.85
115
Hawkesbury City
UFM
$46.93
115
Upper Lachlan
RAL
$747.86
116
Blacktown City
UDV
$44.13
116
Parkes Shire
RAV
$747.45
117
Penrith City
UFV
$42.68
117
Wellington
RAL
$746.76
118
Kiama Municipal
URS
$41.59
118
Moree Plains Shire
RAV
$742.90
119
Wollondilly Shire
UFM
$40.55
119
Forbes Shire
RAL
$742.50
120
Fairfield City
UDV
$39.62
120
Guyra Shire
RAM
$741.73
121
Gosford City
UFV
$38.21
121
Narrabri Shire
RAV
$739.90
122
Marrickville
UDL
$35.93
122
Junee Shire
RAL
$736.79
123
Liverpool City
UFV
$33.71
123
Temora Shire
RAL
$728.45
124
Camden
UFM
$28.34
124
Warrumbungle
RAV
$726.78
125
Parramatta City
UDV
$27.48
125
Berrigan Shire
RAL
$726.52
126
Auburn
UDM
$25.08
126
Walgett Shire
RAL
$726.29
127
Waverley
UDM
$24.51
127
Lockhart Shire
RAM
$722.35
128
Canterbury City
UDV
$24.41
128
Warren Shire
RAM
$722.26
129
Holroyd City
UDL
$22.80
129
Harden Shire
RAM
$720.70
130
Ashfield Municipal
UDM
$21.95
130
Gilgandra Shire
RAM
$720.54
131
Bankstown City
UDV
$20.85
131
Boorowa
RAM
$714.96
132
UDM
$20.23
132
Gwydir Shire
RAL
$713.11
133
Botany Bay City
UDM
$20.10
133
Narromine Shire
RAL
$708.73
134
Sydney City
UCC
$20.01
134
Narrandera Shire
RAL
$706.95
135
North Sydney
UDM
$17.63
135
Coonamble Shire
RAM
$706.02
136
UDS
$16.69
136
Hay Shire
RAM
$703.83
136
Burwood
UDM
$16.69
137
Weddin Shire
RAM
$700.89
136
UDM
$16.69
138
Wentworth Shire
RAL
$697.85
136
Lane Cove Municipal
UDM
$16.69
139
Murrumbidgee Shire
RAM
$696.93
136
Canada Bay City
UDM
$16.69
140
Bogan Shire
RAM
$696.44
136
Mosman Municipal
UDS
$16.69
141
Brewarrina Shire
RAM
$684.79
136
Kogarah Municipal
UDM
$16.69
142
Jerilderie Shire
RAS
$683.20
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
136
Manly
UDM
$16.69
143
Coolamon Shire
RAM
$680.73
136
Hurstville City
UDL
$16.69
144
Cobar Shire
RTL
$680.72
136
Ryde City
UDL
$16.69
145
Bourke Shire
RAM
$680.44
136
Willoughby City
UDM
$16.69
146
Urana Shire
RAS
$679.51
136
Warringah
UDV
$16.69
147
Lachlan Shire
RAL
$678.82
136
Pittwater
UDM
$16.69
148
Bland Shire
RAL
$674.06
136
Randwick City
UDV
$16.69
149
Conargo Shire
RAS
$671.85
136
Hornsby Shire
UFV
$16.69
150
Carrathool Shire
RAM
$670.39
136
UFV
$16.69
151
Balranald Shire
RAM
$666.77
136
Woollahra Municipal
UDM
$16.69
152
RTM
$663.49
136
Ku-ring-gai
UDL
$16.69
153
Lord Howe Island (Bd)
RTX
$0.00
136
Sutherland Shire
UDV
$16.69
153
Silverton Village
RTX
$0.00
136
Rockdale City
UDL
$16.69
153
Tibooburra Village
RTX
$0.00
Appendix E
Rank Council name
Table E.2: Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
Rank Council name
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
1
West Wimmera (S)
RAL
1
Melbourne (C)
UCC
$2 456.56
2
Loddon (S)
RAL
$319.43
2
Warrnambool (C)
URS
$1 634.91
3
Buloke (S)
RAL
$287.94
3
Greater Dandenong (C) UDV
$1 601.54
4
Pyrenees (S)
RAL
$277.31
4
Docklands Authority
UDS
$1 589.29
5
Hindmarsh (S)
RAL
$265.75
5
Yarra Ranges (S)
UFV
$1 407.23
6
Towong (S)
RAL
$247.75
6
Wodonga (RC)
URM
$1 404.47
7
Yarriambiack (S)
RAL
$240.94
7
Yarra (C)
UDM
$1 385.48
8
Northern Grampians (S) RAV
$195.75
8
Moonee Valley (C)
UDL
$1 383.36
9
Strathbogie (S)
RAL
$189.02
9
Port Phillip (C)
UDL
$1 349.42
10
Ararat (RC)
URS
$187.48
10
Brimbank (C)
UDV
$1 331.85
11
Mansfield
RAL
$181.75
11
Hume (C)
UFV
$1 331.06
$385.90
12
Gannawarra (S)
RAV
$168.15
12
Kingston (C)
UDV
$1 325.88
13
East Gippsland (S)
URM
$166.58
13
Darebin (C)
UDV
$1 299.32
14
Southern Grampians (S) RAV
$162.72
14
Banyule (C)
UDL
$1 284.46
15
Moyne (S)
RAV
$150.63
15
Knox (C)
UDV
$1 277.53
16
Corangamite (S)
RAV
$143.48
16
Whittlesea (C)
UFL
$1 270.91
17
Alpine (S)
RAV
$138.00
17
Frankston (C)
UDL
$1 243.08
18
Central Goldfields (S)
RAV
$137.84
18
Maribyrnong (C)
UDM
$1 236.88
195
Rank Council name
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
19
Moira (S)
URS
$135.49
19
Moreland (C)
UDV
$1 227.65
20
Glenelg (S)
URS
$135.08
20
Latrobe (C)
URL
$1 179.20
21
Murrindindi (S)
RAV
$131.05
21
Casey (C)
UFV
$1 170.40
22
Hepburn (S)
RAV
$129.05
22
Hobsons Bay (C)
UDL
$1 162.73
23
Golden Plains (S)
RAV
$128.78
23
Maroondah (C)
UDL
$1 162.67
24
Swan Hill (RC)
URS
$128.66
24
Melton (S)
UFM
$1 140.77
25
Campaspe (C)
URM
$125.66
25
South Gippsland (S)
URS
$1 138.31
26
South Gippsland (S)
URS
$125.57
26
Stonnington (C)
UDL
$1 136.43
27
Wellington (S)
URM
$123.44
27
East Gippsland (S)
URM
$1 132.81
28
Indigo (S)
RAV
$122.77
28
Wyndham (C)
UFL
$1 130.61
29
Horsham (RC)
URS
$121.88
29
Cardinia (S)
UFM
$1 121.09
30
Benalla
RAV
$119.80
30
Greater Geelong (C)
URV
$1 115.57
31
Colac–Otway (S)
URS
$113.79
31
Baw Baw (S)
URM
$1 112.33
32
Mildura (RC)
URM
$111.62
32
Ballarat (C)
URL
$1 102.66
33
Mount Alexander (S)
RAV
$108.27
33
Monash (C)
UDV
$1 098.40
34
Wangaratta (RC)
URS
$106.71
34
Nillumbik (S)
UFM
$1 084.56
35
Baw Baw (S)
URM
$101.98
35
Boroondara (C)
UDV
$1 064.57
36
Mitchell (S)
URS
$100.19
36
Colac–Otway (S)
URS
$1 063.05
37
Moorabool (S)
URS
$99.91
37
Alpine (S)
RAV
$1 035.62
38
Bass Coast (S)
UFS
$97.23
38
Bayside (C)
UDL
$1 033.76
39
Latrobe (C)
URL
$89.49
39
Murrindindi (S)
RAV
$1 030.89
40
Greater Shepparton (C) URM
$89.25
40
Mornington Peninsula (S)UFL
$1 028.54
41
Greater Bendigo (C)
$87.50
41
Wellington (S)
$1 016.61
42
Macedon Ranges (S)
URM
$80.58
42
Whitehorse (C)
UDV
$1 010.50
43
Wodonga (RC)
URM
$80.53
43
Manningham (C)
UDL
$990.06
44
Cardinia (S)
UFM
$78.61
44
Glen Eira (C)
UDV
$978.06
45
Ballarat (C)
URL
$74.58
45
Macedon Ranges (S)
URM
$957.70
46
Melton (S)
UFM
$72.19
46
Bass Coast (S)
UFS
$941.03
47
Warrnambool (C)
URS
$71.16
47
Queenscliffe (B)
URS
$922.50
48
Surf Coast (S)
RSG
$64.86
48
Moorabool (S)
URS
$914.64
49
Greater Geelong (C)
URV
$63.05
49
Surf Coast (S)
RSG
$912.09
50
Wyndham (C)
UFL
$59.05
50
Mitchell (S)
URS
$894.94
$55.71
51
Mansfield
RAL
$885.17
URL
State average
196
URM
51
Yarra Ranges (S)
UFV
$54.78
52
Glenelg (S)
URS
$873.20
52
Frankston (C)
UDL
$51.75
53
Corangamite (S)
RAV
$856.86
53
Greater Dandenong (C) UDV
$49.99
54
Greater Shepparton (C) URM
$849.64
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
54
Casey (C)
UFV
$49.98
55
Towong (S)
RAL
55
Brimbank (C)
UDV
$49.10
56
Mount Alexander (S)
RAV
56
Whittlesea (C)
UFL
$48.48
57
Queenscliffe (B)
URS
$45.44
57
Moyne (S)
RAV
$786.73
58
Hume (C)
UFV
$41.72
58
Golden Plains (S)
RAV
$784.96
59
Moreland (C)
UDV
$38.50
59
Wangaratta (RC)
URS
$762.68
60
Knox (C)
UDV
$37.95
60
Hepburn (S)
RAV
$748.06
61
Darebin (C)
UDV
$37.14
61
Pyrenees (S)
RAL
$743.19
62
Maribyrnong (C)
UDM
$36.96
62
Greater Bendigo (C)
URL
$727.36
63
Maroondah (C)
UDL
$36.26
63
Benalla
RAV
$718.81
64
Nillumbik (S)
UFM
$33.26
64
Southern Grampians (S) RAV
$697.31
65
Hobsons Bay (C)
UDL
$32.39
65
Strathbogie (S)
RAL
$678.27
66
Banyule (C)
UDL
$31.28
66
Central Goldfields (S)
RAV
$675.08
67
Mornington Peninsula (S)UFL
$30.97
67
Ararat (RC)
URS
$670.27
68
Whitehorse (C)
UDV
$27.15
68
Moira (S)
URS
$669.79
69
Moonee Valley (C)
UDL
$22.40
69
Campaspe (C)
URM
$649.15
70
Monash (C)
UDV
$21.34
70
Indigo (S)
RAV
$626.68
71
Kingston (C)
UDV
$17.94
71
West Wimmera (S)
RAL
$618.76
72
Docklands Authority
UDS
$16.71
72
Gannawarra (S)
RAV
$534.86
72
Yarra (C)
UDM
$16.71
73
Northern Grampians (S) RAV
$532.85
72
Melbourne (C)
UCC
$16.71
74
Mildura (RC)
URM
$505.48
72
Glen Eira (C)
UDV
$16.71
75
Loddon (S)
RAL
$502.65
72
Bayside (C)
UDL
$16.71
76
Horsham (RC)
URS
$493.81
72
Manningham (C)
UDL
$16.71
77
Swan Hill (RC)
URS
$393.22
72
Stonnington (C)
UDL
$16.71
78
Hindmarsh (S)
RAL
$355.86
72
Boroondara (C)
UDV
$16.71
79
Yarriambiack (S)
RAL
$298.90
72
Port Phillip (C)
UDL
$16.71
80
Buloke (S)
RAL
$292.75
State average
$813.26
Appendix E
Rank Council name
$807.16
$793.97
197
198
Table E.3: Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
Rank Council name
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
1
Diamantina
RTX
$7 127.60
1
Redcliffe
UDM
$2 293.44
2
Ugar Island
URS
$5 255.61
2
Brisbane
UCC
$1 932.68
3
Croydon
RTX
$4 687.63
3
Logan
UDV
$1 897.49
4
Bulloo
RTS
$3 794.35
4
Gold Coast
URV
$1 870.54
5
Isisford
RTX
$3 775.07
5
Toowoomba
UDL
$1 751.46
6
Boulia
RTS
$3 000.78
6
Redland
URV
$1 575.17
7
Burke
RTS
$2 962.55
7
Bundaberg
URM
$1 541.22
8
Barcoo
RTS
$2 766.54
8
Gladstone
URS
$1 502.77
9
Dauan Island
URS
$2 688.93
9
Rockhampton
URM
$1 468.14
10
Ilfracombe
RTX
$2 429.36
10
Pine Rivers
URV
$1 418.93
11
Aramac
RTS
$2 132.64
11
Cairns
URV
$1 351.79
12
Seisia Island
URS
$2 060.42
12
Townsville
URL
$1 349.29
13
Mapoon Aboriginal
Council
UFS
$2 025.21
13
Maroochy
URV
$1 326.52
14
McKinlay
RTM
$1 942.36
14
Thuringowa
UFM
$1 324.41
15
Tambo
RTS
$1 892.03
15
Mer Island
URS
$1 221.60
16
Perry
RAS
$1 882.96
16
Ipswich
URV
$1 205.35
17
Poruma Island
URS
$1 861.33
17
Caloundra
URL
$1 199.55
18
Etheridge
RTM
$1 823.32
18
Iama Island
URS
$1 157.25
19
Quilpie
RTM
$1 687.94
19
Caboolture
URV
$1 106.70
20
Winton
RTM
$1 682.24
20
Maryborough
UFS
$1 087.54
21
Warroo
RAS
$1 678.58
21
Goondiwindi
URS
$1 057.33
22
Kubin Island
UFS
$1 623.84
22
Torres
RTL
$1 051.75
23
Warraber Island
URS
$1 560.48
23
Hervey Bay
UFM
$999.46
24
Hammond Island
UFS
$1 531.38
24
Dalby
URS
$916.22
25
Bendemere
RAS
$1 467.35
25
Palm Island
URS
$914.73
26
St Paul’s Island
UFS
$1 439.72
26
Mackay
UFL
$884.74
27
Mabuiag Island
URS
$1 395.68
27
Charters Towers
URS
$883.84
28
Eidsvold
RAS
$1 331.09
28
Saibai Island
UFS
$866.29
29
Booringa
RAS
$1 324.07
29
Warraber Island
URS
$823.60
30
Jericho
RTM
$1 294.77
30
Yarrabah
UFS
$811.56
31
Richmond
RTM
$1 276.08
31
Rosalie
RAL
$805.61
32
Boigu Island
UFS
$1 142.88
32
Noosa
URM
$781.81
33
Erub Island
URS
$1 112.24
33
Yorke Island
URS
$771.88
34
Bungil
RAS
$1 068.45
34
Napranum
URS
$759.90
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
35
Umagico
UFS
35
URS
$757.75
36
Saibai Island
UFS
$1 020.97
36
Hammond Island
UFS
$706.33
37
Yorke Island
URS
$1 014.52
37
Beaudesert
UFM
$688.82
38
Paroo
RTM
$1 007.95
38
Johnstone
RAV
$681.83
$1 052.96
Poruma Island
39
Blackall
RTM
$984.86
39
Douglas
RAV
$672.71
40
Barcaldine
RTM
$982.98
40
Whitsunday
RAV
$663.62
41
Iama Island
URS
$947.90
41
Ugar Island
URS
$651.00
42
New Mapoon
UFS
$882.41
42
Erub Island
URS
$648.33
43
Taroom
RAM
$873.13
43
Atherton
RAV
$643.55
44
Carpentaria
RTM
$857.30
44
Cooloola
UFM
$638.65
45
Injinoo (Cowal Ck)
UFS
$838.44
45
Mabuiag Island
URS
$635.11
46
Dalrymple
RAM
$834.94
47
Flinders
RTM
$816.77
46
Sarina
State average
RAL
$621.31
48
Tara
RAM
$786.12
47
Barcaldine
RTM
$617.86
Appendix E
Rank Council name
$631.80
49
Bauhinia
RAM
$753.37
48
Hinchinbrook
RAV
$616.29
50
Mer Island
URS
$737.19
49
Roma
URS
$612.12
51
Waggamba
RAM
$724.37
50
Burnett
UFS
$611.70
52
Mornington
UFS
$720.94
51
Dauan Island
URS
$611.20
53
Cook
RAM
$715.01
52
New Mapoon
UFS
$597.88
54
Biggenden
RAS
$678.63
53
Laidley
RAV
$585.58
55
Murilla
RAM
$664.86
54
Seisia Island
URS
$580.71
56
Lockhart River
UFS
$640.66
55
Gatton
RAV
$578.22
57
Monto
RAM
$629.45
56
Kilcoy
RAM
$577.69
58
Badu Island
URS
$623.35
57
Cardwell
RAV
$575.03
59
Aurukun
UFS
$594.76
58
Livingstone
UFS
$572.04
60
Pormpuraaw
URS
$593.36
59
Wujal Wujal
URS
$566.25
61
Peak Downs
RAM
$577.18
60
Cherbourg
URS
$556.47
62
Bamaga
UFS
$544.46
61
Mount Morgan
RAM
$545.13
63
Longreach
RTL
$520.20
62
Jondaryan
RAV
$542.09
64
Inglewood
RAM
$514.80
63
Bamaga
UFS
$541.28
65
Mundubbera
RAM
$513.77
64
Burdekin
RAV
$537.15
66
Nebo
RAM
$463.17
65
Eacham
RAL
$532.69
67
Murweh
RTL
$455.64
66
Badu Island
URS
$529.45
68
Torres
RTL
$437.08
67
Umagico
UFS
$525.65
69
Clifton
RAM
$417.21
68
Calliope
RAV
$518.84
70
Wondai
RAM
$400.95
69
Cambooya
RAL
$517.24
199
200
Rank Council name
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
71
Hopevale
UFS
70
UFS
72
Kowanyama
UFS
$397.03
71
St Paul’s Island
UFS
$510.88
73
Balonne
RAL
$376.67
72
Warwick
UFS
$506.02
74
Chinchilla
RAL
$354.40
73
Mirani
RAL
$505.73
75
Cloncurry
RAM
$352.81
74
Crow’s Nest
RAV
$501.69
76
Gayndah
RAM
$350.10
75
Esk
RAV
$501.09
77
Woocoo
RAM
$347.71
76
Kubin Island
UFS
$493.14
78
Kilkivan
RAM
$345.67
77
Mareeba
RAV
$492.13
79
Napranum
URS
$338.83
78
Kingaroy
RAV
$491.65
80
Doomadgee
UFS
$333.03
79
Bowen
RAV
$488.60
81
Herberton
RAL
$333.03
80
Boonah
RAL
$485.22
82
Miriam Vale
RAM
$323.32
81
Doomadgee
UFS
$483.96
83
Millmerran
RAM
$309.28
82
Murgon
RAM
$480.20
84
Kolan
RAM
$301.90
83
Stanthorpe
RAV
$478.01
85
Mount Morgan
RAM
$297.20
84
Miriam Vale
RAM
$475.35
86
Murgon
RAM
$278.12
85
Nanango
RAL
$473.34
87
Wambo
RAL
$271.96
86
Isis
RAL
$471.77
$397.78
Woorabinda
$511.08
88
Broadsound
RAL
$254.69
87
Fitzroy
RAV
$466.24
89
Belyando
RAV
$248.96
88
Belyando
RAV
$465.74
90
Tiaro
RAM
$242.31
89
Wambo
RAL
$460.20
91
Wujal Wujal
URS
$241.00
90
Kolan
RAM
$458.92
92
Banana
RAV
$201.82
91
Herberton
RAL
$455.24
93
Kilcoy
RAM
$189.70
92
Aurukun
UFS
$453.97
94
Rosalie
RAL
$187.57
93
Tiaro
RAM
$453.71
95
Nanango
RAL
$173.88
94
Mundubbera
RAM
$452.75
96
Duaringa
RAL
$160.44
95
Mapoon Aboriginal
Council
UFS
$451.69
97
Eacham
RAL
$147.52
96
Woocoo
RAM
$447.94
98
Stanthorpe
RAV
$143.69
97
Inglewood
RAM
$447.07
99
Roma
URS
$133.87
98
Pittsworth
RAM
$446.88
100
Fitzroy
RAV
$131.69
99
Boigu Island
UFS
$446.77
101
Warwick
UFS
$131.22
100
Gayndah
RAM
$442.43
102
Palm Island
URS
$128.19
101
Clifton
RAM
$441.69
103
Goondiwindi
URS
$127.37
102
Kowanyama
UFS
$441.47
104
Charters Towers
URS
$126.10
103
Hopevale
UFS
$441.19
105
Mirani
RAL
$125.90
104
Broadsound
RAL
$440.33
106
Isis
RAL
$122.24
105
Mount Isa
UFS
$438.94
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
107
Cambooya
RAL
106
Wondai
RAM
$438.69
108
Pittsworth
RAM
$109.07
107
Emerald
RAV
$436.11
109
Kingaroy
RAV
$106.30
108
Kilkivan
RAM
$435.83
110
Boonah
RAL
$100.74
109
Nebo
RAM
$434.62
111
Yarrabah
UFS
$93.49
110
Croydon
RTX
$433.92
112
Mareeba
RAV
$93.33
111
Banana
RAV
$433.11
113
Bowen
RAV
$83.90
112
Biggenden
RAS
$427.44
114
Mount Isa
UFS
$82.13
113
Peak Downs
RAM
$427.39
115
Calliope
RAV
$80.91
114
Duaringa
RAL
$425.86
116
Dalby
URS
$76.23
115
Millmerran
RAM
$424.65
117
Crow’s Nest
RAV
$71.23
116
Lockhart River
UFS
$423.75
118
Hinchinbrook
RAV
$69.78
117
Etheridge
RTM
$423.66
119
Woorabinda
UFS
$69.06
118
Cook
RAM
$423.50
120
Cherbourg
URS
$63.50
119
Paroo
RTM
$421.94
121
Sarina
RAL
$59.96
120
Murilla
RAM
$419.36
122
Esk
RAV
$59.45
121
Balonne
RAL
$418.55
$56.14
122
Cloncurry
RAM
$418.33
State average
$117.79
123
Jondaryan
RAV
$55.78
123
Ilfracombe
RTX
$417.75
124
Johnstone
RAV
$51.53
124
Taroom
RAM
$416.19
125
Livingstone
UFS
$50.19
125
Tara
RAM
$415.64
126
Cardwell
RAV
$48.20
126
Murweh
RTL
$413.95
127
Emerald
RAV
$47.76
127
Mornington
UFS
$413.71
128
Burdekin
RAV
$47.24
128
Waggamba
RAM
$413.64
129
Cooloola
UFM
$45.74
129
Jericho
RTM
$412.77
130
Atherton
RAV
$43.56
130
Bulloo
RTS
$412.51
131
Maryborough
UFS
$42.48
131
Injinoo (Cowal Ck)
UFS
$412.12
132
Laidley
RAV
$41.86
132
Pormpuraaw
URS
$411.36
133
Douglas
RAV
$41.41
133
Eidsvold
RAS
$410.60
134
Gatton
RAV
$40.80
134
Bungil
RAS
$410.20
135
Burnett
UFS
$39.30
135
Perry
RAS
$410.07
136
Whitsunday
RAV
$34.30
136
Blackall
RTM
$410.04
137
Gladstone
URS
$33.86
137
Bauhinia
RAM
$409.92
138
Hervey Bay
UFM
$33.64
138
Carpentaria
RTM
$408.24
139
Bundaberg
URM
$29.70
139
Bendemere
RAS
$407.85
140
Townsville
URL
$26.43
140
Isisford
RTX
$407.36
141
Ipswich
URV
$25.25
141
Monto
RAM
$407.30
Appendix E
Rank Council name
201
Rank Council name
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
142
Mackay
UFL
$25.22
142
Longreach
RTL
$406.01
143
Beaudesert
UFM
$25.19
143
Richmond
RTM
$404.35
144
Rockhampton
URM
$25.08
144
Booringa
RAS
$403.91
145
Thuringowa
UFM
$23.25
145
Winton
RTM
$401.70
146
Noosa
URM
$21.60
146
Warroo
RAS
$401.10
147
Caloundra
URL
$19.62
147
Quilpie
RTM
$400.35
148
Cairns
URV
$18.80
148
Aramac
RTS
$398.70
149
Redcliffe
UDM
$18.28
149
Diamantina
RTX
$391.81
150
Caboolture
URV
$18.24
150
McKinlay
RTM
$391.62
151
Toowoomba
UDL
$17.94
151
Barcoo
RTS
$390.94
152
Pine Rivers
URV
$17.77
152
Burke
RTS
$389.53
153
Maroochy
URV
$17.45
153
Boulia
RTS
$389.27
154
Redland
URV
$17.35
154
Chinchilla
RAL
$389.17
155
Brisbane
UCC
$16.84
155
Flinders
RTM
$383.55
155
Gold Coast
URV
$16.84
156
Dalrymple
RAM
$376.54
155
Logan
UDV
$16.84
157
Tambo
RTS
$371.45
Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
202
Rank Council name
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
1
Murchison (S)
RTX
$7 459.80
1
Perth (C)
UCC
$3 557.50
2
Sandstone (S)
RTX
$5 989.74
2
Geraldton (C)
URS
$2 407.43
3
Upper Gascoyne (S)
RTX
$3 578.43
3
Capel (S)
RSG
$2 203.91
4
Yalgoo (S)
RTX
$2 713.13
4
Bunbury (C)
URM
$1 966.88
5
Menzies (S)
RTX
$2 223.24
5
Subiaco (C)
UDS
$1 907.93
6
Cue (S)
RTS
$1 799.91
6
Vincent (T)
UDS
$1 868.30
7
Nungarin (S)
RAS
$1 721.06
7
Narrogin (T)
URS
$1 778.09
8
Westonia (S)
RAS
$1 573.81
8
Canning (C)
UDL
$1 742.62
9
Koorda (S)
RAS
$1 516.39
9
Fremantle (C)
UDS
$1 734.03
10
Trayning (S)
RAS
$1 469.05
10
Northam (T)
URS
$1 703.73
11
Mount Marshall (S)
RAS
$1 226.52
11
Belmont (C)
UDM
$1 683.07
12
Ngaanyatjarraku (S)
RTM
$1 193.26
12
Bassendean (T)
UDS
$1 663.71
13
Mount Magnet (S)
RTS
$1 097.29
13
Bayswater (C)
UDM
$1 624.70
14
Tammin (S)
RAS
$931.62
14
Cambridge (T)
UDS
$1 624.04
15
Perenjori (S)
RAS
$899.86
15
Victoria Park (T)
UDS
$1 611.60
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
16
Mukinbudin (S)
RAS
$818.70
16
UDS
17
Meekatharra (S)
RTM
$810.55
17
Claremont (T)
UDS
$1 589.32
18
Shark Bay (S)
RTS
$809.21
18
Joondalup (C)
UFV
$1 582.22
19
Wyalkatchem (S)
RAS
$769.85
19
Cottesloe (T)
UDS
$1 581.77
20
Wiluna (S)
RTS
$746.33
20
Stirling (C)
UDV
$1 581.11
21
Bruce Rock (S)
RAS
$743.27
21
Gosnells (C)
UFL
$1 569.36
22
Laverton (S)
RTM
$741.65
22
South Perth (C)
UDM
$1 566.44
23
Dumbleyung (S)
RAS
$726.63
23
Melville (C)
UDL
$1 548.17
24
Woodanilling (S)
RAS
$704.96
24
Peppermint Grove (S)
UDS
$1 515.67
25
Wickepin (S)
RAS
$699.30
25
East Fremantle (T)
UDS
$1 475.92
26
Carnamah (S)
RAS
$674.59
26
Mosman Park (T)
UDS
$1 463.07
27
Narembeen (S)
RAS
$670.49
27
Wanneroo (C)
UFL
$1 398.02
28
Morawa (S)
RAS
$590.14
28
Rockingham (C)
UFL
$1 380.30
29
Dundas (S)
RTM
$578.78
29
Armadale (C)
UFM
$1 347.51
Nedlands (C)
$1 600.20
30
Dowerin (S)
RAS
$577.83
30
Mandurah (C)
URM
$1 342.53
31
Kellerberrin (S)
RAS
$574.86
31
Cockburn (C)
UFL
$1 323.61
32
Quairading (S)
RAS
$564.11
32
Kwinana (T)
UFS
$1 316.53
33
Halls Creek (S)
RTL
$561.50
33
Kalamunda (S)
UFM
$1 239.46
34
Cuballing (S)
RAS
$534.35
34
Murray (S)
RSG
$1 197.07
35
Tambellup (S)
RAS
$528.57
35
Swan (S)
UFL
$1 189.39
36
Corrigin (S)
RAS
$496.99
36
Manjimup (S)
RAV
$1 173.51
37
Three Springs (S)
RAS
$481.71
37
Mundaring (S)
UFM
$1 106.22
38
Dalwallinu (S)
RAS
$464.64
38
Chittering (S)
RAM
$1 061.36
39
Narrogin (S)
RAS
$462.73
39
Port Hedland (T)
URS
$1 051.97
40
Kulin (S)
RAS
$455.00
40
Roebourne (S)
URS
$985.62
41
Kent (S)
RAS
$434.79
41
Nannup (S)
RAS
$974.13
42
Broomehill (S)
RAS
$430.24
42
Serpentine–Jarrahdale RSG
(S)
$952.66
43
Mingenew (S)
RAS
$425.56
43
Donnybrook–Balingup (S)RAM
$945.30
44
Kondinin (S)
RAS
$421.83
44
Busselton (S)
RSG
$936.53
45
Wandering (S)
RAS
$415.39
45
York (S)
RAM
$918.80
46
Wongan–Ballidu (S)
RAS
$413.06
46
Kalgoorlie/Boulder (C)
URS
$900.17
47
Exmouth (S)
RTM
$409.04
47
Dardanup (S)
RSG
$899.70
48
Derby–West Kimberley RTL
(S)
$409.00
48
Broome (S)
RTL
$896.38
49
Cunderdin (S)
RAS
$402.75
49
Collie (S)
RAL
$880.73
50
Nannup (S)
RAS
$390.87
50
Exmouth (S)
RTM
$870.15
Appendix E
Rank Council name
203
204
Rank Council name
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
51
Coorow (S)
RAS
$388.22
51
Harvey (S)
RSG
$827.30
52
Ravensthorpe (S)
RAS
$381.66
52
Gingin (S)
RAM
$822.93
53
Pingelly (S)
RAS
$370.99
53
Dumbleyung (S)
RAS
$814.11
54
East Pilbara (S)
RTL
$369.93
54
Waroona (S)
RAM
$808.30
55
Ashburton (S)
RTL
$365.94
55
Quairading (S)
RAS
$803.99
56
Carnarvon (S)
RAL
$353.29
56
Albany (C)
URM
$784.15
57
Wyndham–East
Kimberley (S)
RTL
$320.49
57
Augusta–Margaret
River (S)
RSG
$736.55
58
Brookton (S)
RAS
$313.95
58
Wyndham–East
Kimberley (S)
RTL
$730.12
59
Lake Grace (S)
RAS
$307.86
59
Goomalling (S)
RAS
$705.96
60
Cranbrook (S)
RAS
$307.59
60
Northam (S)
RAM
$675.57
61
Wagin (S)
RAS
$273.99
61
Greenough (S)
RSG
$670.92
62
Beverley (S)
RAS
$269.52
62
Bridgetown–
Greenbushes (S)
RAM
$665.64
63
Goomalling (S)
RAS
$268.54
63
Ngaanyatjarraku (S)
RTM
$648.78
64
Gnowangerup (S)
RAS
$246.36
65
Yilgarn (S)
RAS
$242.12
64
Toodyay (S)
RAM
$610.75
66
Merredin (S)
RAM
$238.99
65
Halls Creek (S)
RTL
$559.65
State average
$618.42
67
Jerramungup (S)
RAS
$238.11
66
Pingelly (S)
RAS
$557.72
68
West Arthur (S)
RAS
$232.39
67
Wongan–Ballidu (S)
RAS
$554.09
69
Victoria Plains (S)
RAS
$227.70
68
Dandaragan (S)
RAM
$552.62
70
Mullewa (S)
RAS
$224.21
69
Dundas (S)
RTM
$538.93
71
Leonora (S)
RTM
$221.98
70
Katanning (S)
RAM
$534.04
72
Chapman Valley (S)
RAS
$216.89
71
Denmark (S)
RAM
$533.54
73
Katanning (S)
RAM
$199.61
72
Boyup Brook (S)
RAS
$529.70
74
Kojonup (S)
RAM
$173.02
73
Boddington (S)
RAS
$522.05
75
Northam (S)
RAM
$172.28
74
Irwin (S)
RAM
$514.05
76
Bridgetown–
Greenbushes (S)
RAM
$166.69
75
Carnarvon (S)
RAL
$512.87
77
Boyup Brook (S)
RAS
$165.02
76
Mingenew (S)
RAS
$509.37
78
Moora (S)
RAM
$157.69
77
Bruce Rock (S)
RAS
$499.70
79
Boddington (S)
RAS
$154.70
78
Beverley (S)
RAS
$498.73
80
Northampton (S)
RAM
$151.32
79
Mount Magnet (S)
RTS
$493.15
81
Dandaragan (S)
RAM
$146.69
80
Shark Bay (S)
RTS
$491.40
82
Roebourne (S)
URS
$145.96
81
East Pilbara (S)
RTL
$485.50
83
Collie (S)
RAL
$145.21
82
Moora (S)
RAM
$481.16
84
Broome (S)
RTL
$144.77
83
Kellerberrin (S)
RAS
$477.04
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
85
Narrogin (T)
URS
84
RAM
86
Waroona (S)
RAM
$144.08
85
Cunderdin (S)
RAS
$471.48
87
Manjimup (S)
RAV
$141.69
86
Esperance (S)
RAV
$468.89
88
Donnybrook–Balingup (S)RAM
$138.41
87
Derby–West Kimberley RTL
(S)
$467.91
89
York (S)
RAM
$134.14
88
Wagin (S)
RAS
$466.59
90
Northam (T)
URS
$129.77
89
Plantagenet (S)
RAM
$465.50
91
Toodyay (S)
RAM
$129.44
90
Merredin (S)
RAM
$456.72
92
Gingin (S)
RAM
$109.28
91
Kojonup (S)
RAM
$455.44
93
Coolgardie (S)
URS
$108.34
92
Tambellup (S)
RAS
$453.26
94
Port Hedland (T)
URS
$105.57
93
Corrigin (S)
RAS
$452.57
95
Irwin (S)
RAM
$105.48
94
Cuballing (S)
RAS
$450.56
96
Denmark (S)
RAM
$104.71
95
Ashburton (S)
RTL
$447.93
97
Chittering (S)
RAM
$104.41
96
Broomehill (S)
RAS
$447.75
98
Esperance (S)
RAV
$100.92
97
Wandering (S)
RAS
$447.15
99
Murray (S)
RSG
$94.26
98
Coorow (S)
RAS
$446.70
100
Serpentine–Jarrahdale RSG
(S)
$88.73
99
Brookton (S)
RAS
$444.87
101
Plantagenet (S)
RAM
$85.60
100
Narrogin (S)
RAS
$444.18
102
Greenough (S)
RSG
$83.17
101
Wyalkatchem (S)
RAS
$442.83
103
Williams (S)
RAS
$77.04
102
Carnamah (S)
RAS
$441.45
104
Capel (S)
RSG
$66.21
103
Gnowangerup (S)
RAS
$441.04
105
Dardanup (S)
RSG
$62.75
104
Trayning (S)
RAS
$440.42
106
Geraldton (C)
URS
$60.27
105
Williams (S)
RAS
$440.21
107
Mundaring (S)
UFM
$59.11
106
Koorda (S)
RAS
$438.07
$55.81
107
Cranbrook (S)
RAS
$436.26
State average
$144.58
Northampton (S)
$474.27
108
Albany (C)
URM
$52.05
108
Wickepin (S)
RAS
$434.91
109
Harvey (S)
RSG
$48.91
109
Dalwallinu (S)
RAS
$434.41
110
Kalgoorlie/Boulder (C)
URS
$39.94
110
Cue (S)
RTS
$433.34
111
Armadale (C)
UFM
$37.81
111
Morawa (S)
RAS
$431.65
112
Augusta–Margaret
River (S)
RSG
$20.95
112
Three Springs (S)
RAS
$431.01
113
Cottesloe (T)
UDS
$16.74
113
West Arthur (S)
RAS
$430.12
113
Mosman Park (T)
UDS
$16.74
114
Sandstone (S)
RTX
$425.77
113
Subiaco (C)
UDS
$16.74
115
Woodanilling (S)
RAS
$424.49
113
Peppermint Grove (S)
UDS
$16.74
116
Mukinbudin (S)
RAS
$422.80
113
Victoria Park (T)
UDS
$16.74
117
Nungarin (S)
RAS
$422.62
Appendix E
Rank Council name
205
Rank Council name
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
113
Kwinana (T)
UFS
118
Tammin (S)
RAS
$419.40
113
Bayswater (C)
UDM
$16.74
119
Dowerin (S)
RAS
$418.58
113
Kalamunda (S)
UFM
$16.74
120
Westonia (S)
RAS
$415.80
113
Fremantle (C)
UDS
$16.74
121
Victoria Plains (S)
RAS
$415.60
$16.74
113
Cockburn (C)
UFL
$16.74
122
Coolgardie (S)
URS
$415.36
113
Melville (C)
UDL
$16.74
123
Narembeen (S)
RAS
$414.68
113
Canning (C)
UDL
$16.74
124
Chapman Valley (S)
RAS
$414.49
113
Gosnells (C)
UFL
$16.74
125
Kulin (S)
RAS
$402.87
113
Swan (S)
UFL
$16.74
126
Lake Grace (S)
RAS
$400.41
113
Bunbury (C)
URM
$16.74
127
Jerramungup (S)
RAS
$394.68
113
Stirling (C)
UDV
$16.74
128
Mount Marshall (S)
RAS
$387.55
113
Perth (C)
UCC
$16.74
129
Kondinin (S)
RAS
$385.97
113
Wanneroo (C)
UFL
$16.74
130
Leonora (S)
RTM
$382.20
113
Joondalup (C)
UFV
$16.74
131
Mullewa (S)
RAS
$381.63
113
Mandurah (C)
URM
$16.74
132
Perenjori (S)
RAS
$377.82
113
South Perth (C)
UDM
$16.74
133
Yalgoo (S)
RTX
$374.55
113
Rockingham (C)
UFL
$16.74
134
Ravensthorpe (S)
RAS
$368.08
113
Cambridge (T)
UDS
$16.74
135
Kent (S)
RAS
$366.59
113
Belmont (C)
UDM
$16.74
136
Laverton (S)
RTM
$356.94
113
Busselton (S)
RSG
$16.74
137
Upper Gascoyne (S)
RTX
$354.04
113
Bassendean (T)
UDS
$16.74
138
Menzies (S)
RTX
$351.58
113
Nedlands (C)
UDS
$16.74
139
Wiluna (S)
RTS
$333.68
113
Vincent (T)
UDS
$16.74
140
Meekatharra (S)
RTM
$321.60
113
Claremont (T)
UDS
$16.74
141
Yilgarn (S)
RAS
$310.71
113
East Fremantle (T)
UDS
$16.74
142
Murchison (S)
RTX
$308.97
Table E.5: South Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
206
Rank Council name
Grant per
Classification capita
Rank Council name
Grant
1
Le Hunte (DC)
RAS
$710.36
1
West Torrens (C)
UDM
$3 487.40
2
Karoonda–East Murray RAS
(DC)
$628.11
2
Campbelltown (C)
UDM
$2 274.81
3
Maralinga
RTX
$505.84
3
Marion (C)
UDL
$2 242.26
4
Orroroo/Carrieton (DC) RAS
$502.64
4
Unley (C)
UDM
$1 635.74
5
Kimba (DC)
$477.99
5
Prospect (C)
UDS
$1 631.75
RAS
Grant per
Rank Council name
6
Peterborough (DC)
RAS
$447.66
6
Norwood Payneham and UDM
St Peters (C)
$1 612.75
7
Franklin Harbour (DC)
RAS
$445.23
7
Walkerville (M)
UDS
$1 552.63
8
Elliston (DC)
RAS
$431.63
8
Holdfast Bay (C)
UDM
$1 530.64
9
Flinders Ranges
RAS
$413.97
9
Charles Sturt (C)
UDL
$1 479.78
10
Streaky Bay (DC)
RAM
$408.52
10
Burnside (C)
UDM
$1 470.45
11
Ceduna (DC)
RAM
$378.60
11
Salisbury (C)
UDL
$1 468.01
12
RTM
$373.91
12
Tea Tree Gully (C)
UDL
$1 409.18
13
Goyder (RG)
RAM
$363.32
13
Mount Gambier (C)
URS
$1 398.76
14
Gerard
RTX
$348.81
14
Gerard
RTX
$1 369.30
15
Yalata
RTX
$348.31
15
Nepabunna
RTX
$1 363.30
16
Mount Remarkable (DC) RAM
$341.25
16
Mitcham (C)
UDM
$1 361.65
17
Cleve (DC)
RAS
$331.75
17
UDL
$1 357.21
18
Southern Mallee (DC)
RAM
$316.79
18
Roxby Downs (M)
URS
$1 324.88
19
Coober Pedy (DC)
URS
$314.51
19
Onkaparinga (DC)
UFV
$1 180.70
20
Nepabunna
RTX
$293.08
20
Adelaide (C)
UCC
$1 146.48
21
Kangaroo Island
RAM
$276.71
21
Gawler (M)
UFS
$1 124.74
22
Coorong (DC)
RAL
$267.25
22
Playford (C)
UFL
$1 075.70
23
Mid Murray
RAL
$234.27
23
Port Lincoln (C)
URS
$1 048.63
24
Port Augusta (C)
URS
$204.63
24
Whyalla (C)
URS
$1 035.73
25
Port Pirie
RAV
$196.62
25
Yalata
RTX
$740.13
26
Outback Areas
RTL
Community Development
Trust
$191.02
26
(DC)
RAM
$735.18
27
Whyalla (C)
URS
$187.36
27
Kimba (DC)
RAS
$582.53
28
Tatiara (DC)
RAL
$174.81
28
Victor Harbor
URS
$530.41
29
Kingston (DC)
RAM
$172.46
29
Port Augusta (C)
URS
$498.31
30
Renmark Paringa (DC)
RAL
$164.24
30
Mount Barker (DC)
URS
$473.87
31
Northern Areas
RAM
$162.59
31
Adelaide Hills
UFM
$473.57
32
Loxton Waikerie (DC)
RAV
$160.33
32
Loxton Waikerie (DC)
RAV
$466.97
33
RAL
$155.20
33
Alexandrina
RAV
$428.11
34
Wakefield (RG)
RAL
$143.97
34
Berri and Barmera
RAV
$390.46
35
Tumby Bay (DC)
RAM
$136.16
35
36
Murray Bridge (DC)
RAV
$135.17
37
Berri and Barmera
RAV
$125.34
36
Grant
Mount Remarkable (DC) RAM
$378.92
State average
$363.01
Renmark Paringa (DC)
RAL
Appendix E
Rank Council name
$330.90
38
Playford (C)
UFL
$104.59
37
Barossa
UFS
$323.67
39
Copper Coast (DC)
RAV
$98.48
38
Murray Bridge (DC)
RAV
$321.51
207
Rank Council name
Grant per
Rank Council name
Grant
40
Grant (DC)
RAL
$98.46
39
Tatiara (DC)
RAL
$320.69
41
Mallala (DC)
RAL
$91.19
40
Port Pirie
RAV
$263.40
42
Barunga West (DC)
RAM
$82.00
41
Maralinga
RTX
$250.14
43
Wattle Range
RAV
$79.37
42
Elliston (DC)
RAS
$249.86
44
Yorke Peninsula (DC)
RAV
$74.15
43
Coorong (DC)
RAL
$248.11
45
Salisbury (C)
UDL
$65.48
44
Copper Coast (DC)
RAV
$219.20
46
(DC)
RAM
$58.24
45
Southern Mallee (DC)
RAM
$212.48
$55.55
46
RAL
$211.63
State average
208
47
Mount Gambier (C)
URS
$49.55
47
Wattle Range
RAV
$210.41
48
Port Lincoln (C)
URS
$46.44
48
Kangaroo Island
RAM
$204.86
49
Gawler (M)
UFS
$43.23
49
Light RC
RAV
$193.41
50
Onkaparinga (DC)
UFV
$38.94
50
Franklin Harbour (DC)
RAS
$191.83
51
Clare and Gilbert Valleys RAL
$31.35
51
Yankalilla (DC)
RAM
$189.85
52
Mount Barker (DC)
URS
$20.10
52
Streaky Bay (DC)
RAM
$186.20
53
Yankalilla (DC)
RAM
$16.67
53
Kingston (DC)
RAM
$185.05
53
Adelaide (C)
UCC
$16.67
54
Ceduna (DC)
RAM
$182.59
53
Robe (DC)
RAS
$16.67
55
Mallala (DC)
RAL
$179.89
53
Roxby Downs (M)
URS
$16.67
56
Cleve (DC)
RAS
$179.67
53
Adelaide Hills
UFM
$16.67
57
Robe (DC)
RAS
$174.54
53
Campbelltown (C)
UDM
$16.67
58
Le Hunte (DC)
RAS
$171.73
53
Prospect (C)
UDS
$16.67
59
Flinders Ranges
RAS
$166.66
53
West Torrens (C)
UDM
$16.67
60
Tumby Bay (DC)
RAM
$166.51
53
UDL
$16.67
61
Grant (DC)
RAL
$150.03
53
Norwood Payneham and UDM
St Peters (C)
$16.67
62
Yorke Peninsula (DC)
RAV
$148.56
53
Marion (C)
$16.67
63
Clare and Gilbert Valleys RAL
$147.25
UDL
53
Light RC
RAV
$16.67
64
Goyder (RG)
RAM
$145.67
53
Tea Tree Gully (C)
UDL
$16.67
65
Peterborough (DC)
RAS
$141.12
53
Mitcham (C)
UDM
$16.67
66
Barunga West (DC)
RAM
$140.04
53
Charles Sturt (C)
UDL
$16.67
67
Mid Murray
RAL
$135.28
53
Barossa
UFS
$16.67
68
Wakefield (RG)
RAL
$131.56
53
Burnside (C)
UDM
$16.67
69
RTM
$130.59
53
Holdfast Bay (C)
UDM
$16.67
70
Northern Areas
RAM
$129.33
53
Unley (C)
UDM
$16.67
71
Karoonda–East Murray RAS
(DC)
$126.70
53
Alexandrina
RAV
$16.67
72
Orroroo–Carrieton (DC) RAS
$110.15
Grant per
Rank Council name
Grant
53
Victor Harbor
URS
$16.67
73
Coober Pedy (DC)
URS
53
Walkerville (M)
UDS
$16.67
74
Outback Areas
RTL
Community Development
Trust
$89.46
Appendix E
Rank Council name
$0.00
Table E.6: Tasmanian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
Rank Council name
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
1
RAS
$561.45
1
UCC
Flinders (M)
Hobart (C)
$4 259.40
2
King Island (M)
RAS
$277.00
2
Glenorchy (C)
URM
$3 139.19
3
Central Highlands (M)
RAM
$270.27
3
Devonport (C)
URS
$2 919.30
4
West Coast (M)
RAL
$182.09
4
Launceston (C)
URM
$2 723.23
5
Tasman (M)
RAM
$149.99
5
West Coast (M)
RAL
$2 672.66
6
Southern Midlands (M) RAL
$149.58
6
Burnie (C)
URS
$2 329.34
7
Break O’Day (M)
RAL
$147.46
7
Brighton (M)
URS
$2 217.61
8
Kentish (M)
RAL
$147.22
8
Break O’Day (M)
RAL
$2 112.03
9
Glamorgan–Spring Bay RAM
(M)
$130.96
9
Clarence (C)
URM
$2 075.28
10
Dorset (M)
RAL
$127.75
10
Sorell (M)
RAV
$1 895.90
11
Circular Head (M)
RAL
$118.29
12
Northern Midlands (M) RAV
$109.75
11
Central Coast (M)
URS
$1 871.62
13
George Town (M)
RAL
$108.01
12
Waratah–Wynyard (M)
RAV
$1 838.55
14
Waratah–Wynyard (M)
RAV
$88.27
13
Dorset (M)
RAL
$1 784.44
15
Central Coast (M)
URS
$79.86
14
Meander Valley (M)
RAV
$1 775.64
16
Huon Valley (M)
RAV
$79.47
15
Kingborough (M)
URS
$1 775.14
17
Derwent Valley (M)
RAL
$76.21
16
Kentish (M)
RAL
$1 735.23
18
Brighton (M)
URS
$73.09
17
Derwent Valley (M)
RAL
$1 733.65
19
Meander Valley (M)
RAV
$70.35
18
Southern Midlands (M) RAL
$1 714.27
20
West Tamar (M)
UFS
$68.24
19
George Town (M)
RAL
$1 703.71
21
Latrobe (M)
RAL
$68.03
20
Northern Midlands (M) RAV
$1 684.66
22
Sorell (M)
RAV
$64.34
21
West Tamar (M)
UFS
$1 645.28
$55.85
22
Glamorgan–Spring Bay RAM
(M)
$1 613.34
State average
State average
$1 872.41
23
Burnie (C)
URS
$50.88
23
Circular Head (M)
RAL
$1 593.17
24
Devonport (C)
URS
$31.45
24
Latrobe (M)
RAL
$1 577.47
25
Kingborough (M)
URS
$30.92
25
Tasman (M)
RAM
$1 565.74
26
Clarence (C)
URM
$26.77
26
Huon Valley (M)
RAV
$1 547.29
209
210
Rank Council name
Grant
Rank Council name
Grant
27
Launceston (C)
URM
$24.23
27
Central Highlands (M)
RAM
28
Glenorchy (C)
URM
$16.81
28
King Island (M)
RAS
$1 167.58
29
Hobart (C)
UCC
$16.70
29
Flinders (M)
RAS
$1 159.53
$1 255.59
Table E.7: Northern Territory councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2005–06
Rank Council name
Grant per
Rank Council name
Grant
1
Peppimenarti
RTX
$275.75
1
Cox Peninsula
RTX
2
Ikuntji
RTX
$221.04
2
Tennant Creek (T)
URS
$3 112.87
3
Nyirripi
RTX
$200.58
3
Darwin (C)
UCC
$3 013.05
4
Wallace Rockhole
RTX
$196.22
4
Alice Springs (T)
URS
$2 930.90
5
Umbakumba
RTS
$190.12
5
Palmerston (T)
UFS
$2 792.18
6
Yuelamu
RTX
$185.08
6
Borroloola
RTS
$2 721.00
7
Yuendumu
RTM
$184.47
7
Jabiru (T)
URS
$2 676.93
8
Nyirranggulung Mardrulk RTS
$183.88
8
Katherine (T)
URS
$2 636.26
9
Walungurru
RTS
$181.43
9
Binjari
RTX
$2 617.60
10
Areyonga
RTX
$180.58
10
Litchfield (S)
RAV
$2 246.46
11
Warruwi
RTX
$177.07
11
Daguragu
RTS
$1 963.78
$3 376.85
12
Kunbarllanjnja
RTS
$176.62
12
Pine Creek
RTS
$1 947.25
13
Imanpa
RTX
$175.26
13
Coomalie (CGC)
RTM
$1 773.48
14
Kaltukatjara
RTX
$174.41
14
Mataranka
RTX
$1 734.60
15
Tiwi Island
RTM
$174.39
15
Amoonguna
RTX
$1 571.14
16
Minjilang
RTX
$171.98
16
Jilkminggan
RTX
$1 524.88
17
Urapuntja
RTS
$169.75
17
Marngarr
RTX
$1 413.33
18
Aputula
RTX
$169.41
18
Warruwi
RTX
$1 248.34
19
Milyakburra
RTX
$169.05
19
Alpurrurulam
RTS
$1 235.00
20
Timber Creek
RTX
$165.36
20
Peppimenarti
RTX
$1 224.72
21
Nauiyu Nambiyu
RTS
$163.92
21
Imanpa
RTX
$1 156.00
22
Aherrenge (Arunga)
RTX
$161.97
22
Timber Creek
RTX
$1 149.32
23
Anmatjere
RTM
$161.27
23
Nauiyu Nambiyu
RTS
$1 064.47
24
Gapuwiyak
RTS
$161.22
24
Milingimbi
RTS
$1 037.64
25
Ramingining
RTS
$160.60
25
Yirrkala–Dhanbul
RTS
$1 024.07
26
Watiyawanu (Mt Liebig) RTX
$159.92
26
Yugul Mangi
RTM
$1 019.84
27
Yugul Mangi
RTM
$159.21
27
Minjilang
RTX
$948.81
28
Angurugu
RTS
$151.47
28
Elliott District
RTS
$904.60
29
Numbulwar–Numburindi RTS
$149.27
29
Angurugu
RTS
$848.67
Grant per
30
Nganmarriyanga
(Palumpa)
RTX
$148.11
31
RTX
$146.95
30
Areyonga
32
Thamarrurr
RTM
$146.68
31
Umbakumba
RTS
$799.07
33
Daguragu
RTS
$144.61
32
Ramingining
RTS
$722.91
34
Lajamanu
RTM
$144.58
33
Thamarrurr
RTM
$720.76
35
Ltyentye Purte (Santa
Teresa)
RTS
$144.45
34
Nyirranggulung Mardrulk RTS
$718.44
36
Papunya
RTX
$143.66
35
Ltyentye Purte (Santa
Teresa)
RTS
$702.42
37
Galiwinku
RTM
$140.21
36
Wallace Rockhole
RTX
$700.91
38
Arltarlpilta
RTX
$138.34
37
Tiwi Island
RTM
$676.92
39
Elliott District
RTS
$137.86
38
Kunbarllanjnja
RTS
$662.49
40
Ali Curung
RTS
$137.49
39
Aherrenge (Arunga)
RTX
$661.31
41
Ntaria
RTS
$137.14
40
Maningrida
RTM
$637.81
42
Belyuen
RTX
$136.74
41
RTX
$628.29
43
Alpurrurulam
RTS
$132.26
42
Anmatjere
RTM
$534.16
44
Borroloola
RTS
$131.65
43
Galiwinku
RTM
$473.65
45
Jilkminggan
RTX
$130.38
44
Nganmarriyanga
(Palumpa)
RTX
$468.03
46
Milingimbi
RTS
$129.37
45
Aputula
RTX
$460.98
47
Maningrida
RTM
$125.96
46
Walungurru
RTS
$411.24
48
Yirrkala–Dhanbul
RTS
$118.56
47
Arltarlpilta
RTX
$404.50
49
Tapatjatjaka
RTX
$118.56
48
Numbulwar–Numburindi RTS
$399.25
Rank Council name
Grant
State average
$825.97
RTX
$823.08
50
Pine Creek
RTS
$117.33
49
Gapuwiyak
RTS
$394.65
51
Tennant Creek (T)
URS
$116.30
50
Tapatjatjaka
RTX
$380.61
52
Binjari
RTX
$108.94
51
Ali Curung
RTS
$374.04
53
Coomalie (CGC)
RTM
$106.13
52
Watiyawanu (Mt Liebig) RTX
$367.34
54
Marngarr
RTX
$102.96
53
Milyakburra
RTX
$364.10
55
Amoonguna
RTX
$99.51
54
Trust Account
ZZZ
$360.76
56
Mataranka
RTX
$95.45
55
Yuelamu
RTX
$355.77
57
Jabiru (T)
URS
$82.31
56
Lajamanu
RTM
$300.20
58
Cox Peninsula
RTX
$82.10
57
Belyuen
RTX
$299.13
59
Katherine (T)
URS
$75.20
58
Yuendumu
RTM
$295.53
$58.09
59
Ikuntji
RTX
$291.76
60
Litchfield (S)
RAV
$47.41
60
Kaltukatjara
RTX
$270.76
61
Alice Springs (T)
URS
$34.95
61
Papunya
RTX
$245.52
62
Palmerston (T)
UFS
$34.88
62
Ntaria
RTS
$240.49
63
Darwin (C)
UCC
$17.43
63
Nyirripi
RTX
$236.93
64
Trust Account
ZZZ
$0.00
64
Urapuntja
RTS
$187.99
State average
Appendix E
Rank Council name
211
Appendix F
Australian classification
of local governments
The Australian Classification of Local Governments (ACLG) was first published in September 1994 and
has proved a useful way to categorise local governing bodies across Australia. The ACLG categorises
councils using the population, the population density and the proportion of the population that is
classified as urban for the council.
The local governing bodies included in the classification system are those that receive general purpose
financial assistance grants as defined under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995.
Therefore, bodies, declared by the Australian Government minister on the advice of the state minister
to be local governing bodies for the purposes of the Act, are included in the ACLG. These include
community councils. However, county councils, voluntary Regional Organisations of Councils and the
Australian Capital Territory are excluded.
The classification system generally involves three steps. Each step allocates a prefix (letter/s of
the alphabet) to develop a three-letter identifier for each class of local government (there are 22
categories). So, for example, a medium-sized council in a rural agricultural area would be classified
as RAM – rural, agricultural, medium. If it were remote, however, it would be classified as RTM – rural,
remote, medium. Table F.1 provides information on the structure of the classification system.
Developers of the system recognised that, with so many different types of local governing bodies in
Australia, and with changing population distribution patterns, there will be occasions where a council’s
profile does not fully match the characteristics of the class into which it has been placed. When this
occurs, a local governing body may be reallocated to a classification that more accurately reflects its
circumstances.
Notwithstanding the capacity of the ACLG system to group like councils, it should be noted that there
remains considerable scope for divergence within these categories, and for this reason the figures in
Appendix D should only be taken as a starting point for enquiring into grant outcomes. This divergence
can occur because of factors including isolation, population distribution, local economic performance,
daily or seasonal population changes, the age of the population and geographic differences. Allocation
of the general purpose grant between states on an equal per capita basis and the local road grant on a
fixed shares basis can also cause divergence.
To ensure that the ACLG is kept up to date, at the end of each financial year local government grants
commissions advise of any changes in the classification of councils in their state.
Table F.2 provides details of the number of local governing bodies at June 2006, by ACLG category and
by state. As there were changes to the ACLG reported for local governing bodies in 2005–06, Table F.3
gives changes to local governing body classifications and reasons for the change.
212
Further details of the classification system can be found in the original report on the ACLG (Department
of Housing and Regional Development 1994).
Appendix F
Local government grants commissions do not take the ACLG classification of a council into account
when determining the level of general purpose grant.
Table F.1: Structure of the classification system
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Identifiers
Category
CAPITAL CITY (CC)
Not applicable
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
OR
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
90 per cent or more of
the local governing body
population is urban
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
SIGNIFICANT GROWTH (SG)
Average annual population growth
more than 3 per cent, population
more than 5 000 and not remote
Not applicable
AGRICULTURAL (A)
SMALL (S)
MEDIUM (M)
LARGE (L)
VERY LARGE (V)
up to 2 000
2 001–5 000
5 001–10 000
10 001–20 000
RAS
RAM
RAL
RAV
REMOTE (T)
EXTRA SMALL (X)
SMALL (S)
MEDIUM (M)
LARGE (L)
up to 400
401–1 000
1 001–3 000
3 001–20 000
RTX
RTS
RTM
RTL
URBAN (U)
Population more than
20 000
OR
If population less than
20 000,
UCC
EITHER
Population density more
than 30 persons per sq km
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
RSG
Source: Department of Housing and Regional Development 1994, Australian Classification of Local Governments
213
Table F.2: Number of councils by ACLG by category and by state, June 2006
State
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Urban Development Small (UDS)
2
1
0
12
2
0
0
17
Urban Development Medium (UDM)
15
2
1
3
7
0
0
28
Urban Development Large (UDL)
6
9
1
2
5
0
0
23
Urban Development Very Large (UDV)
8
10
1
1
0
0
0
20
11
12
21
7
8
5
4
68
22
8
3
3
0
3
0
39
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
7
3
1
7
0
0
0
0
11
0
1
23
1
2
1
1
29
3
3
4
3
1
0
0
14
1
3
1
5
1
0
0
11
7
3
0
1
1
0
0
12
0
1
0
8
0
0
0
9
3
0
7
53
10
2
0
75
22
0
26
17
12
3
0
80
25
9
14
2
9
9
0
68
19
13
21
2
9
5
1
70
3
0
4
5
4
0
27
43
0
0
6
4
0
0
20
30
1
0
11
6
1
0
9
28
1
0
3
6
1
0
0
11
Total
155
80
157
142
74
29
63
700
Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services, unpublished data
Table F.3: Changes in ACLG category for 2005–06: reasons for change by state, June 2006
Council name
Classification
Reason for change
RAL
1
New South Wales
Glen Innes Severn
Warrumbungle
RAV
1
Forbes Shire
RAL
2
UDM
2
UFS
2
South Australia
Barossa
214
Key: Reason for change
1 Amalgamations/splits/boundary changes
2 Changes due to population movements
3 Declared council
4 Revision of classification to more adequately reflect circumstances
Source: Department of Transport and Regional services, unpublished data from information supplied by relevant local
government grants commissions
Appendix G
Appendix G
Progress in improving efficiency
of local government
Effective and efficient local government is important because local government delivers key economic,
social and environmental services to its communities.
This section incorporates reports from all state departments and some local government associations
on activities in 2005–06 towards meeting these aims. It includes progress reports on developing
performance indicators, reforming legislation, and implementing other microeconomic reforms.
New South Wales
Department of Local Government
New South Wales Local Government Reform Program
The aim of the New South Wales Government’s Local Government Reform Program is to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of local government services provided to the people of New South Wales.
The program consists of a three-pronged approach of:
© reforming the structure of local government
© encouraging greater cooperation between councils
© promoting better council practices.
Reforming the structure of local government
When the reform program was initially announced in September 2003, the primary focus was on the
structure of local government, and the need to more closely align council areas with communities of
interest. This was achieved through a series of independently facilitated regional reviews throughout
the state, which involved some 49 councils.
As a result, the number of councils in New South Wales has been reduced from 172 at the end of 2003
to 155 at the end of 2005. This includes 22 new councils constituted as a result of the government’s
reform program. This has represented the most significant reform to the structure of local government
in New South Wales in over 60 years.
The government is continuing to encourage councils to pursue voluntary amalgamation options where
there is common support and clear benefits.
215
Encouraging greater cooperation between councils
The New South Wales Government is pursuing a number of initiatives to encourage councils to consider
entering into strategic alliances or resource-sharing arrangements, where they can achieve better
service outcomes and more efficient service delivery for their communities.
A number of councils have already entered into formal resource-sharing and alliance arrangements,
either with their neighbouring councils or through other forums such as Regional Organisations of
Councils.
Two formal forums to encourage greater cooperation between councils were established during
2005–06, they are the Strategic Alliance Conference and the Ongoing Strategic Alliance Network.
Strategic Alliance Conference – On 1 May 2006, the department, together with the Local Government
and Shires Associations, hosted the Strategic Alliance Conference. Over 220 delegates, representing
100 councils, attended the conference.
Delegates enjoyed presentations from 11 different types of resource-sharing arrangements, ranging
from formal strategic alliances, Regional Organisations of Council initiatives through to single service
sharing models. Delegates also participated in discussions about where the opportunities for greater
resource sharing exist, what the obstacles to greater sharing between councils are and how these
obstacles could be overcome.
The department will be using the information gathered from the conference to help it determine ways to
facilitate greater resource sharing among councils.
Ongoing Strategic Alliance Network – The department is facilitating establishment of an ongoing
Strategic Alliance Network, the objectives of which are:
© to serve as a driver for real change
© to serve as an ideas ‘clearing house’
© to promote resource sharing and strategic alliances among councils.
Representatives from 50 councils and Regional Organisations of Councils have nominated to join the
Network, including 15 councils that have volunteered to serve as pilots for any initiatives the Network
wants to trial.
The department will serve as secretariat for the Network for its first year of operation, after which, it is
intended that councils will run the Network – that is, it will be run by councils for councils.
Further initiatives to facilitate greater cooperation between councils included developing a resourcesharing database and a guidance paper and forming strategic alliances.
Database on council resource sharing – The department has been collecting information from
councils on resource-sharing initiatives in which they are currently involved. This information is being
compiled into a database that will be placed on the department’s website to help councils learn from
each other.
Resource sharing guidance paper – The department is currently preparing a paper for councils setting
out options for resource sharing. The paper will contain advantages and/or disadvantages of different
models and provide some case studies.
216
Appendix G
Strategic alliances formed during 2005–06 – The department’s focus on greater resource sharing
has resulted in development of a number of new alliances between councils. These include:
© Mid North Coast Alliance, which consists of Bellingen, Coffs Harbour, Gloucester, Great Lakes,
Greater Taree, Hastings, Kempsey and Nambucca Councils
© South West Alliance, involving Young, Cootamundra, Harden, Temora, Weddin and Boorowa
Councils
© Penrith–Lachlan Councils Sister City Alliance
© Western Local Government Alliance, made up of Bourke, Bogan, Brewarrina, Cobar, Walgett and
Central Darling councils
© Cooma–Monaro, Bombala and Snowy River Council Alliance
© Murray, Deniliquin and Conargo Council Strategic Alliance
© Bathurst, Dubbo and Orange Council Alliance
© Tumbarumba and Tumut Council Alliance.
Promoting better council practices
The Promoting Better Practice stage of the Local Government Reform Program commenced in late
2003–04. It is a review program designed to help councils assess and improve their performance.
The program commenced with a pilot review of Campbelltown City Council. The department worked
with key stakeholders, such as the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales,
Local Government Managers Australia, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the
Ombudsman, to develop the program.
As at July 2006, the department had completed 28 council reviews and a further 12 were underway.
A review examines both the strategic framework of the council and its operational performance.
Reports identify both good practices and areas for improvement. The review program is helping
councils to improve their strategic management as well as their governance framework, their financial
performance and their delivery of services to local communities.
Overall, the department has found the standard of operations in councils reviewed to be good. Some
smaller councils are experiencing difficulties across a range of areas, but others are performing well,
suggesting that size can but need not be an impediment to good performance.
The review found that some council practices are working well. In particular:
© many councils work effectively with their neighbouring councils, especially on sharing resources
© almost all councils reviewed have at least the basic elements of a good governance framework
in place
© councils are making greater use of web-based information to inform their communities
© councils make impressive efforts to undertake positive community engagement
© many councils are working to develop a stronger strategic focus.
Councils are working assiduously to overcome skills shortages by developing strategies to attract and
retain staff in key areas where shortages are an issue (such as town planning and finance).
217
The review identified several areas where council practices could be improved. In particular:
© councils have not developed or realised a long-term strategic vision for their council areas
© councils are not adequately addressing the challenges of ageing populations (although some
councils are beginning to plan for this issue)
© most councils are not practising risk management to a good standard
© councils’ meeting procedures are patchy, and poor control of meetings is often associated with
serious conflict among councillors, which in turn damages the reputation of the council in the
community; this could be addressed by more appropriate use of the Model Code of Conduct for
Local Councils in NSW
© councils’ long-term asset management planning is insufficient
© smaller councils in particular are often failing to manage community land according to relevant
statutory requirements.
Integrated planning and reporting
The department is currently reviewing the existing local government planning and reporting framework,
with a view to strengthening councils’ strategic focus and ‘cutting red tape’ in planning and reporting
processes.
The review aims to improve councils’ capacity to engage their communities in planning for the
future and to strengthen links between local, regional and state service providers. This improved
engagement will result in more efficient use of council resources and better long-term management of
community assets.
These areas were identified as key concerns in Are Councils Sustainable? the report of the independent
inquiry into the financial sustainability of local government released in May 2006.
So far, a discussion paper has been issued to all councils, relevant government agencies and
industry groups, to gauge councils’ current strategic planning performance and canvas their views on
improvements.
Consultation has also been undertaken with industry representatives, such as the Local Government
and Shires Association, Local Government Managers Australia, Local Government Community Services
Association and Corporate Planners Network.
An options paper, with a series of proposed reforms, is currently being prepared.
Progress in developing performance indicators for local government
The department’s 2004–05 Comparative Information on New South Wales Local Government Councils
was released in September 2006. This was the 15th year the publication has been produced and now
contains 32 performance indicators.
The information contained in the publication is collected by electronic surveys of councils and other
government departments such as the State Library of New South Wales. The department produces
four data collections relating to rates, finances, waste management and general information. The
information collected has also been used to calculate financial assistance grants, analyse councils’
financial health and check compliance of rates collected.
The 2004–05 publication will continue to produce time series data for each indicator. New South Wales
will continue to review and develop appropriate performance measures. To promote use, transparency
218
Appendix G
and accountability the department continues to make the publication and the raw data freely available
and accessible via the Internet.
Victoria
Local Government Victoria, Department for Victorian Communities
Priorities for 2005–06 continue to be implementation of best value, the Local Government Improvement
Incentive Program and further work to help local governments manage their infrastructure assets.
Implementation of best value
Best Value Victoria was introduced in December 1999 and required all local governments to apply Best
Value Principles to their services by 31 December 2005. The Best Value Commission was established
in December 2000 and it reports annually to the Minister for Local Government on implementation of
the Best Value Principles.
A key recommendation in the Local Government Best Value Commission 2004 Annual Report was that
the Ministerial Program and Reporting Codes be revoked. The Minister for Local Government accepted
the commission’s recommendation and the codes were subsequently revoked in June 2005.
In October 2005 all councils reported they were on target to meet the 31 December 2005 deadline
for applying the Best Value Principles to their services. Due to a range of circumstances a minority of
reviews (33 across eight councils) were not completed by the deadline. Overall, the outstanding reviews
accounted for around 2 per cent of all service reviews councils undertook and the Minister for Local
Government received assurances from the councils concerned that these reviews would be finalised as
soon as reasonably practicable.
Throughout 2005–06 the Best Value Commission has worked with the local government sector and
Local Government Victoria to develop voluntary guidelines to assist councils with ongoing application of
Best Value Victoria.
National Competition Policy – Local Government Improvement Incentive Program
As part of the Local Government Improvement Incentive Program introduced in November 2002 and
replacing the system of National Competition Policy payments to councils, the Victorian Government
and individual Victorian councils signed new Local Government Improvement Incentive Program
Agreements that are effective from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2006. The agreements cover the reporting
periods for 2004–05 and 2005–06.
Compliance for 2005–06 is based on the assessment criterion: National Competition Policy (trade
practices, local laws and competitive neutrality).
From 2006–07, the federal government is no longer making competition payments available to the
states and territories. Hence Victorian councils will no longer receive competition payments under the
Local Government Improvement Incentive Program. They will, however, still be obliged to comply with
National Competition Policy principles as specified in the Competition Principles Agreement 1995
between the federal and state and territory governments and as recommitted to at the February 2006
COAG meeting.
219
Infrastructure asset management initiatives
Local Government Victoria, in cooperation with the peak local government bodies, is implementing a
range of initiatives to help councils improve their asset management capabilities.
Improving asset management knowledge and practices through Best Practice Guidelines
Development of a package of Best Practice Guidelines was completed during the year. This included:
© Guidelines to help councils measure and report on the condition of their road assets. These
guidelines identify factors that contribute to variance in the measurement and reporting of road
condition by municipalities and provide a suggested consistent approach. The guidelines were
developed and tested after documenting the asset management practices of seven councils in the
north and south west of the state.
© Providing a framework for council officers and councillors for developing, analysing and prioritising
business cases for asset investment proposals. These Guidelines for Local Government Asset
Investment were introduced to, and discussed with, council members in workshops at regional
forums in June 2006.
Monitoring and continuous improvement through Department for Victorian Communities Asset
Management Performance Measures Project
This project developed support tools that councils can use to monitor improvements in their asset
management. The Asset Management Performance Measures Project initiated by Local Government
Victoria provides councils with a measurement tool to monitor their own asset management
improvement and to benchmark their performance against like council groupings.
Implementation of the Asset Management Performance Measures Project will meet councils’ need to
measure their own asset management performance and to demonstrate continuous improvement to
their communities. Local Government Victoria provided support for this project during June 2006 at six
regional council training sessions. Local Government Victoria will collect aggregate data annually.
Infrastructure financing
During the year Local Government Victoria, together with the Municipal Association of Victoria and
the Association for Local Government Professionals, convened infrastructure financing workshops in
Bendigo, Whitehorse and Horsham to showcase some innovative approaches that councils such as
Mornington Peninsula, Cardinia and Ararat are using to better manage and finance their infrastructure,
particularly road, assets.
As part of the state government’s Moving Forward statement, the government will be working with
councils to help them access expertise that will assist in procuring privately financed infrastructure
projects. This will help attract higher levels of private sector investment to major regional
infrastructure projects.
Improved management
Implementation of the Road Management Act
Implementation of the Road Management Act 2004 enables local governments to develop and publish
road management plans setting out performance targets and standards for their road management.
The Act provides a framework for improved asset management performance by road authorities
including local governments.
220
Findings from a survey of councils conducted by Local Government Victoria and the peak bodies
in 2004 identified a number of asset management topics in need of further consideration for
incorporation into ongoing skills training programs. This work is being incorporated into ongoing training
programs to be conducted by the peak bodies.
Appendix G
Skills and training – Survey of Asset Management Skills and Training Needs
Measures taken in Victoria to develop comparable performance measures
Each year Local Government Victoria, in collaboration with local governments, publishes two reports
on indicators.
The Local Government in Victoria 2005 report was released in March 2006. The indicators published
in this report cover rates, operating and capital expenditure, debt, infrastructure renewal, operating
result and community satisfaction with overall performance, advocacy and engagement. This report
provides commentary on statewide indicator results, including analysis by local government type
(that is, inner metropolitan, outer metropolitan, regional cities, small shires and large shires). It also
includes individual local government results in an attachment. The report can be downloaded from
<www.dvc.vic.gov.au> in the Local Government Victoria section under local government publications.
The 2005 report shows that, while Victorian councils’ debt levels remained stable, rates generally
rose more slowly in 2005 than in the two previous years. Most councils show a substantial increase in
capital expenditure.
The annual Community Satisfaction Survey was undertaken in early 2006, with 77 of 79 local
governments participating on a voluntary basis. The overall performance of local governments has
stabilised since the survey began in 1998. This year, 79 per cent of respondents reported ‘excellent,
good and adequate’ for overall council performance compared with 78 per cent in 2005. At a statewide
level, the key drivers of satisfaction, that is those service areas that most impact on how respondents
view the performance of their council, are town planning policy and approvals, followed by economic
development, local roads and footpaths, and appearance of public areas.
As in previous survey years, metropolitan respondents were generally more satisfied than country
respondents. Nevertheless, there were a number of measures where country local governments
achieved higher ratings than metropolitan local governments, including health and human services,
appearance of public areas, traffic management and parking facilities, and enforcement of by-laws. The
full research report is available at <www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au>.
Municipal Association of Victoria
Local government in Victoria has continued to make strong gains in the efficiency and effectiveness of
the sector following the substantial reforms undertaken in the mid 1990s. Council provision of services
has expanded in the last decade and municipalities now provide an extensive range of services to
the community. Since the introduction of National Competition Policy, local government has also
restructured many of its services to ensure it fulfils competitive neutrality principles enshrined in this
body of legislation.
Specific actions taken in 2005–06 by Victorian local government that improved the efficiency and
effectiveness of the sector include:
© continued improvement of asset management through the Advanced Step Asset
Management program
221
©
©
©
an examination of the financial trends in local government over time to identify the challenges
facing the sector
publication of Future of Local Government project statements
business case development of collaborative service provision to garner increased economies of
scale, particularly in the areas of infrastructure provision and back-of-house council services.
It is the Municipal Association of Victoria’s view that the 79 Victorian local governments are continually
improving their efficiency and effectiveness despite delivering a greater number of services to their
communities while depending predominantly on rates revenue to fund services.
Diverse role of local government in Victoria
The role of local government in Victoria is increasingly diverse. Whereas the core local government
services were in provision of infrastructure and waste collection, councils now provide a myriad
of services including home and community care, immunisation, child care, preschool, community
facilities, economic and tourism development, and maternal and child health programs.
This expansion of responsibilities has occurred in the context of substantial changes to government
service provision. The National Competition Policy dictates that government should not have a
competitive advantage over the private sector purely because of being a government. The major
restructuring that occurred due to development of this policy has created a lasting legacy of improved
efficiency and effectiveness of councils.
Victorian local government has also undergone a considerable period of reform. Compulsory
amalgamations, rate capping, and introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, among others,
have ensured that the level of efficiency and adoption of market-based governance models has
been unparalleled by any other state. Continual efficiency reform can be seen through the Best
Value program.
This trend of increasing local government services is valuable: (a) for the community because it allows
local government to respond to complex issues with sensitivity to the localised context, and (b) for
federal and state governments, by allowing devolution of programmatic responsibility for service
delivery to a sphere of government that can more easily tailor services to the needs of individual
communities and at a reduced cost.
While local government in Victoria has expanded its role, its revenue-raising capacity has remained
largely static. Despite substantial rate increases sustained over a number of years, many councils
(frequently rural) still face pressures in responding to their liabilities associated with provision
of infrastructure. Local government continues to rely primarily on revenue derived from rates on
properties to subsidise the cost of providing valuable community services on behalf of other spheres
of government. This raises fundamental issues regarding the desirability of the provision of (typically)
secondary services – that is, services provided to a selected group within the community – being
financed by a rating model based on the value of property, and where benefits will frequently flow over
the municipal boundary. Likewise, not all councils have a similar ability to raise revenue from other
sources, for example, fees, fines and charges. This has, prima facie, resulted in local government
diverting infrastructure renewal expenditure towards service provision.
At the same time, local government reliance upon general purpose grants has declined as the escalators
within the system have failed to keep pace with local government expansion (see Figure G.1).
222
12%
Appendix G
Figure G.1: General purpose grants as a proportion of local government revenue,
1995–96 to 2004–05
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1995–96
1996–97
1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01
2001–02
2002–03 2003–04
2004–05
Source: Municipal Association of Victoria
Despite the general trend of expanding local government responsibility, each council is evolving to
provide individualised services to the community, and the funding model should encourage these
individual responses. It is therefore the view of the Municipal Association of Victoria that local
government should have access to larger non-rate revenue bases to enable it to provide these
required services.
The trend of gradual expansion of local government responsibility was correctly identified in the Hawker
inquiry into cost shifting. The inquiry acknowledged that cost shifting onto local government has been
occurring for a number of years. It also unveiled a number of underlying issues and tensions relating to
the system of government in Australia and raised questions about the existing governance and financial
arrangements. It is the view of the Municipal Association of Victoria that the single biggest factor
limiting the value and effectiveness of the financial assistance grants process is lack of funds in the
national pool.
Specific measures taken by local government
Infrastructure and assets
As was reported in last year’s submission to the National Report, local government has seen improved
performance in asset management practice and implementation under the Advanced Step Asset
Management program, a best practice framework for local government. In 2005–06, the planned
expansion in the scope of the Step program was completed, and participating councils developed asset
management plans for all significant asset classes (roads, bridges, drains, buildings, and some parks
and gardens). This outcome is fundamental to identifying the infrastructure gap at each council (and
comparing it to the Department for Victorian Communities assessment), establishing priority-driven
asset renewal programs and identifying strategic options to manage the gap. Without having asset
plans in place for all assets, these strategic perspectives cannot be obtained.
223
In addition to the asset management plans, the Step program examined the projected capital
underspend (and overspend) for all classes of assets for participating councils. Figure G.2 provides an
example of the predicted cumulative funding gap for a participating council. Each council participating
in this project will have a similar understanding of the asset funding gap.
Figure G.2: Aggregate capital funding gap
50 year aggregated capital funding gap in $ separated by asset type
7 000 000
sporting ovals
playground equipment
building fit out
build mechanical services
building roof
build structure – short life
build structure – long life
storm water pipes
storm water pits
bridges & major culverts – short life
bridges & major culverts – long life
all kerbs
other footpaths
concrete footpaths
all spray seals
all asphalt surfaces
all gravel resheets
pavement (sealed access roads)
pavement (sealed collector roads)
pavement (sealed link roads)
6 000 000
5 000 000
4 000 000
3 000 000
2 000 000
1 000 000
0
–1 000 000
2006
2011
2016
2021
2026
2031
2036
2041
2046
2051
First year ahead of each 5 year averaged group
Source: Municipal Association of Victoria
This advanced Step program will help the sector undertake the strategic planning to work towards
overcoming the asset management gap in the future and prioritise expenditure on the renewal and
maintenance of council assets.
Local government financial trends
In addition to the 2004–05 examination of the key financial trends in the local government sector, the
Municipal Association of Victoria has continued to work with Victorian councils to identify the long-term
financial trends in the sector.
This analysis has indicated that the sector’s aggregate financial position continues to improve, but
many small rural councils have declined. Analysis has focused on identifying the factors affecting the
viability of councils and it is the intention of the Municipal Association of Victoria to examine this issue
further in 2006–07.
Recent improvements to the financial statements, through adoption of international accounting
standards, will increase the Municipal Association of Victoria’s capacity to monitor the sector’s
comparative financial performance.
224
In June 2006, the Municipal Association of Victoria hosted the second Future of Local Government
Summit, featuring Australian and international representatives from the sector. The aim of the summit
was to identify strategies for local government to embrace reform and improve innovation.
Appendix G
Future of local government
The summit identified a roadmap for the future of local government in Australia, including seven
principles that were approved, with acclamation, by delegates from across the nation. The principles are:
© local government’s time has come: global forces and events in Australia have presented the sector
with the opportunity of a lifetime, which local government must use to its advantage
© local government to speak with one voice: there is a need for the sector to work together and
adopt a leadership role
© local government to be community driven
© local government to derive power from community engagement
© local government to demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness
© local government to pursue community sustainability
© involve all spheres of government in the change and the process.
In addition, the summit established that individual state local government associations and the
Australian Local Government Association (on an opt-in basis) should progress development of three
‘tools’ for councils, namely:
© a regional cooperation framework to enable joint collaborative projects such as shared services
and regional collaboration
© a sector accountability framework that identifies community needs and priorities and reports on
how councils are responding to those requirements
© a sector performance and funding framework that identifies performance targets and measures
for local government and develops a sustainable funding model.
Business cases for collaborative services
Several projects in Victoria examined the business cases for collaborative provision of services to
increase scale economies, and hence, council efficiency. Three examples of these projects include:
© A proposal from a number of north-eastern Victorian councils to establish a structure for group
provision of infrastructure, such as roads. These councils currently face a limited number of
contractors and prices fluctuate significantly. A business case is currently being developed aimed
at examining the feasibility of greater cooperation in undertaking infrastructure construction.
© A proposal from a consortium of north-western Victorian councils to establish shared information
technology and back-office facilities.
© A consortium of councils appointed the Municipal Association of Victoria as an agent to procure
an integrated library management system and managed services on their behalf. The tender was
let in November 2005 and implementation of this system for the initial consortium members will
be completed by June 2007. The next financial year will see a further eight libraries being included
in the consortium. This represents approximately 50 per cent of municipal libraries in Victoria.
Substantial recurrent cost savings will be achieved and library management policies, business
rules and practices will be harmonised.
225
The greatest challenge in local government provision of services is for appropriate methods of
funding to keep pace with increasing service costs and demand. It is the contention of the Municipal
Association of Victoria that increasing the quantum of financial assistance grants to Australian
councils would achieve this aim. It is the view of the Municipal Association of Victoria that the financial
assistance grants are best distributed through the current model of per capita allocation between
states and distributed by state grants commissions within states.
The local government sector in Victoria has embraced the challenge of innovation to improve its
financial health. The future of local government agenda will proactively adopt greater regionalisation
to enhance efficiency and service effectiveness. Simultaneously, there has been a concerted effort
across the sector to provide services collaboratively.
Asset management continues to be a key determinant of the financial health of councils. The Municipal
Association of Victoria’s analysis has identified cumulative capital underspend as being the biggest
financial viability issue facing councils. The Advanced Step Asset Management program will map the
predicted infrastructure gap for every class of asset for the next 50 years. This provides councils with
the capacity to effectively strategically plan to prioritise infrastructure renewal, maintenance, and
upgrade of council assets.
Queensland
Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation
Under the Local Government Act 1993, the 18 largest councils in Queensland were required to
consider some form of National Competition Policy reform for their significant business activities
along with any other business activities undertaken in direct competition with the private sector. The
remaining 107 councils were also required to consider reforming any business activities undertaken
in direct competition with the private sector. All councils were also required to review anti-competitive
provisions in local laws.
National Competition Policy Local Government Financial Incentive Package
The National Competition Policy Local Government Financial Incentive Package is a pool of funds,
totalling $150 million in 1994–95 dollars, which the Queensland Government has allocated as a
significant incentive for local government to implement National Competition and related COAG water
reforms. The funds also recognise costs to local government of reviewing their business activities and
local laws and implementing such reforms.
Given the importance of local government infrastructure and facilities to overall state development,
councils’ implementation of National Competition Policy reforms (where the benefits outweigh the
costs) also contributes to economic and social development at state and regional levels.
The 18 largest local governments were originally selected for the primary focus of reform on the
basis that their significant business activities (Type 1 and Type 2 activities) accounted for around
80 per cent of the local government business expenditure in Queensland. These councils were
required to undertake public benefit assessments before deciding which competitive neutrality
reforms should be applied. Additionally, all local governments were required to identify their Type 3
business activities (that is, other business activities undertaken in direct competition with the private
sector) and determine whether to apply the reforms (that is, full cost pricing, code of competitive
226
Nominations for new business activities for National Competition Policy under the Financial Incentive
Package closed on 30 March 2002, by which time 736 nominations had been received.
Appendix G
conduct, commercialisation or corporatisation). Although reform of Type 3 business activities was not
mandatory, 40 councils nominated Type 3 activities for reform at the outset of the reform program.
Councils must first nominate a business for reform and resolve to apply the specific reforms. Once
a council’s business nominations have been accepted, the businesses must undertake a series of
reforms to be eligible for payments out of the Financial Incentive Package.
The original date for completion of National Competition Policy reforms was 30 June 2002. However,
the guidelines were amended to provide an extension of time for all councils (with the exception of
Brisbane City Council which had already been granted a year’s extension) to gain the greatest benefit
from the Business Management Assistance Program, discussed below.
For those councils that met the new requirements of the guidelines, the deadline for implementation
of reforms to be eligible for Financial Incentive Package payments was extended to 30 June 2003.
Of the eligible 124 councils, 117 sought and were granted an extension of time. In addition, 223 new
business activities were nominated across 85 councils in the last round, with 15 of these businesses
being nominated by the ‘big 18’ group.
In compiling its assessments against the Implementation Pool of the National Competition Policy Local
Government Financial Incentive Package for the year ending 31 July 2002, the Queensland Competition
Authority commented that good progress continued to be made, with the 18 largest councils achieving
an average reform level of 77.7 per cent. The remaining 106 councils made more progress than in
previous years and reached an average reform level of 54 per cent. The payments to the 106 smaller
councils in June 2003 as a result of reform progress at 30 June 2002 have illustrated the success of
the state government funded Business Management Assistance Program in which 117 councils have
participated.
The Queensland Government’s position on applying the National Competition Policy reforms to local
government has always been that they are a set of management tools to choose from if they are going
to benefit a council and there is a positive public outcome.
Apart from provision of funds under the Financial Incentive Package, there have been a number of
initiatives, such as training and development of guidelines for dealing with competitive neutrality
complaints in local governments, to support local governments in implementing National Competition
Policy reforms and in carrying out investigations to enable reporting on cross subsidies.
Components of the National Competition Policy Financial Incentive Package
The $150 million allocation of the Financial Incentive Package has three components, namely:
© $1 million in a training pool to provide National Competition Policy training and assistance to local
governments by the Local Government Association of Queensland and the department.
© $7.5 million in a review pool to help local governments meet the cost of reviews of local laws, to
conduct public benefit assessments of the impacts of introducing competitive neutrality reforms
and assessments of the cost effectiveness of introducing two-part tariffs under the COAG
water reforms.
© $141.5 million in an implementation pool to be paid to local governments for implementing
National Competition Policy reforms.
227
Of the $150 million, $45 million (in 1994–95 dollars) was set aside for Brisbane City Council, made
up of $2.25 million from the review pool (which has been fully expended) and $42.75 million from
the implementation pool. This allocation was based on a variety of characteristics, such as recurrent
expenditure, revenue and population, all of which suggested that an amount in the vicinity of
30 per cent of the funding pools would be appropriate.
Payments to local governments under the National Competition Policy Financial Incentive Package
Payments have been made to local governments over a seven-year period commencing in 1997–98,
with the total amount under the Financial Incentive Package subject to Queensland receiving the
full amount of its competition payments from the federal government. Table G.1 shows the funds
distributed to date and funds remaining (including indexation).
Table G.1: Actual payments to local governments under the National Competition Policy Financial
Incentive Package, 1997–98 to 2003–04
Year
Amount ($m)
1997–98
7.9
1998–99
30.3
1999–2000
32.7
2000–01
27.4
2001–02
23.9
2002–03
20.2
2003–04
8.1
Total
150.5
Notes: The above amounts are provided from the review and implementation pools of the Financial Assistance Package and
include indexation. The federal government determines indexation based on population changes and Consumer Price Index.
The actual funds available to local government for the remainder of the Financial Incentive Package are subject to Queensland
receiving the full amount of its competition payments from the federal government.
Source: Queensland Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation, October 2006
In each of the seven years of distributions to date, unspent funds were carried forward, increasing the
potential funds for distribution in the subsequent financial years.
The payments to local governments in 2003–04 comprised $8.1 million from the implementation pool
to 117 local governments recognising their progress in implementing National Competition Policy and
COAG water reforms.
The remaining funds in each pool of the Financial Incentive Package are:
© Training pool – unexpended funds in this pool were supplemented in 2001–02 to finance the
$600 000 Business Management Assistance Program. All funds have been expended under
this program.
© Review pool – of the available $8.255 million, $635,100 remains undistributed. The remaining
funds will be distributed to local governments by the end of 2006.
© Implementation pool – the final payment from this pool was made in 2004 and, in accordance
with Financial Incentive Package guidelines, any undispersed funds will be distributed to local
governments by the end of 2006.
228
In August 2001, the state government provided funding to establish the Business Management
Assistance Program to improve councils’ financial management capability and hence enhance
their general capacity to provide services to their communities, while maximising their potential
for payments through the Financial Incentive Package. The Local Government Association of
Queensland, in consultation with the Department of Local Government and Planning, and Treasury, has
implemented the initiative. The initiative was funded with $0.6 million from the indexation component
of the competition payments allocated to the National Competition Policy Financial Incentive Package.
Appendix G
Business Management Assistance Program
As part of the Business Management Assistance Program, consultants worked with the 107
participating councils to develop action plans outlining a program for implementing the remaining
National Competition Policy reforms in the required time. Support has been provided in implementing
the National Competition Policy requirements that also result in improved financial management
practices for the councils and improved outcomes for their communities. This support has enabled
them to maximise their potential payments from the state government under the Financial
Incentive Package.
Measures taken in Queensland to develop comparable performance measures
Under its performance management program for local governments, the Queensland Department of
Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation is committed to helping local governments achieve
performance improvement and best practice in the services they provide to their communities.
The department released its annual comparative performance report titled Queensland Local
Government Comparative Information 2004–05 in September 2006. This report is produced in
partnership with local governments and provides a comprehensive collection of performance and
contextual information for key local government functions such as road maintenance, water, sewerage,
waste management, library services, local government rating and financial management.
The 2004–05 report, continuing to be produced on CD ROM, represents Queensland councils’
significant contribution to a healthy system of local government that is transparent and accountable.
The information contained in the comparative report was supplied by 117 of Queensland’s councils –
providing a great example of the strong partnership that exists between councils and the Queensland
Government.
The performance measures contained within the report are reviewed yearly with any amendments
and/or additions to the measures being based on the feedback and recommendations received from
local governments during the course of the year.
The publication aims to help local governments develop new and more effective ways to deliver their
services by providing an effective tool by which local governments can monitor trends over time and
benchmark their performance both internally and against other councils.
With the publication also available freely on the department’s website, at <www.lgp.qld.gov.au/estore/
local_govt/>, community members also have greater access to the comparative information. The
publication, therefore, helps to enhance the transparency and public accountability of Queensland local
government.
229
Local Government Association of Queensland
Disaster Management Alliance
An alliance between the State of Queensland through the Department of Emergency Services and
the Local Government Association of Queensland on behalf of local government was formed under a
memorandum of agreement in July 2005.
The alliance has been established to build upon existing collaborative arrangements in order to
effectively implement disaster management reforms arising from the COAG review into natural
disasters in Australia. These reforms emphasise disaster mitigation as a means of reducing the
consequences of disasters before they occur.
To help local government implement these reforms, the Association has secured funding under the
Natural Disaster Mitigation Program for the Local Government Association of Queensland Disaster
Management Capability Development and Implementation Project that is expected to operate until
July 2008.
The Disaster Management Alliance is seeking to enhance councils’ capacity to undertake effective
disaster management through:
© developing appropriate guidelines, tools, policies and protocols
© enhancing communication, education and training in disaster management
© fostering regional disaster management frameworks that enable local governments to work
collaboratively to exploit synergies in dealing with common/shared disaster risks and their
treatments.
Since July 2005, the alliance has conducted a major survey of all local governments to determine their
current and required capacities to undertake contemporary disaster management. The results of this
survey have informed the project outcomes.
The alliance has produced the Elected Member’s Guide to Disaster Management together with
a companion CD containing a range of useful publications and guides to contemporary disaster
management. This publication will help raise the profile of disaster mitigation as a means to reduce the
consequences of disasters through improved community engagement and by mainstreaming disaster
management into councils’ day-to-day decision-making processes including land use planning and
processing development applications.
The alliance has established a trial regional disaster management group based on the 13 councils
of the Darling Downs Regional Organisation of Councils. This trial is helping develop regional risk
profiling processes and regional risk management strategies that can be applied to other regions within
Queensland. Additional groups are under negotiation and/or development.
Water management
The Local Government Association of Queensland has been working with the Queensland Water
Directorate and the state government on a number of water reform initiatives in accordance with
agreements COAG made. This work has included progression of the Statewide Water Information
Management (SWIM) project. The SWIM project aims to design and implement an online water
reporting system in Queensland for efficiently collecting, storing and reporting Local Government Water
Service Provider (LGWSP) data.
230
Appendix G
The following deliverables will be produced to support this objective:
© A comprehensive and standardised set of data requirements, accounting and reporting rules
for water industry performance reporting agreed by federal, state and local government
(currently underway).
© A Queensland water reporting system for gathering, storing and reporting data on water business
performance, to be accessible by relevant state and federal government departments and, where
appropriate, the private sector and the community at large.
© Capacity-building programs to improve the capability of LGWSP to provide quality data for
the system.
© An annual industry performance report to help LGWSP measure their own performance over time
and, where appropriate, compare themselves with similar businesses.
The Queensland Government has agreed to support a number of elements within the SWIM project
that contribute to meeting state government objectives. To this end, the Department of Local
Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation has begun a whole-of-state-government review of data
requests being made of LGWSPs. This review aims to coordinate and rationalise the requests made
by all state government departments and is a key element of developing the data collection and
dissemination model.
The Local Government Association of Queensland has sought funding support through the Australian
Water Fund’s Raising National Water Standards program to facilitate development of the database
element of SWIM.
Western Australia
Department of Local Government and Regional Development
The Department of Local Government and Regional Development continues to explore the concept of
using Internet technology to facilitate data collections from local government.
The Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission has redesigned its data collection
instrument (Information Return) to be better aligned with local government operating statements. Initial
feedback is very positive and will result in a more accurate and time-effective process.
The current skills shortage in local government places significant strain on resources. There is a
need to attract and retain more young, professional and skilled people to work in local government.
The department has focused strongly on attracting graduating students to local government through
participation at career expos and student career days.
The Local Government (Official Conduct) Amendment Bill 2005 was introduced into the Western
Australian Parliament in November 2005. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Local Government
Act 1995 to provide a disciplinary framework to deal with individual misconduct by local government
council members when they do not comply with a code of conduct or they contravene particular
laws applying to them in Acts and Regulations. The Western Australian Government sees this as a
very important area of local government legislative reform and expects that the Bill will come before
the parliament during 2007. If passed, these new laws will provide for establishment of a statewide
standards panel to deal more efficiently with complaints about breaches of codes of conduct. The
department is developing new procedures that are expected to streamline its complaints-handling and
investigation processes in this area.
231
The department conducted 14 local law seminars around the state to help local governments improve
their local laws under the Local Government Act 1995. The seminars highlighted the key elements of
making good local laws, legislative requirements and correct drafting techniques.
The CEO Support Program, administered by the department, is continuing to provide assistance and
peer support to newly appointed chief executive officers. It aims to encourage good practice and help
minimise potential difficulties for new CEOs.
Measures taken in Western Australia to develop comparable performance measures
The department has continued to devote significant resources to developing a new system for
monitoring the operations of local government. There is continued emphasis on incorporating
a multitude of statutory ratios in the new system and on creating a finance working group that
reviews changes in accounting standards and that meets regularly to develop improvements in local
government monitoring. The new system will enable the department to assess councils’ performance
against key areas of activity and will provide timely advice as to the financial health of local
governments.
The department’s role in ensuring local government adherence to statutory compliance is being further
resourced to expand its monitoring of the financial health and statutory compliance levels of local
governments. This resourcing included development of new software that allows the department to be
more proactive, with greater analysis of compliance and financial data. In addition, the department has
completed 16 compliance audits of various local governments throughout the state.
The department has conducted reviews of key performance indicator reports of other states, with a
view to developing similar reports for Western Australia in the near future.
The Western Australian Grants Commission has published comparative data for all the state’s 142
local governments on its website. The comparative statistics will cover the period 2001–02 to
2006–07 indicating changes to assessments made and to provide a benchmark that compares
relative local government revenues and expenditures for similar councils.
Western Australian Local Government Association
Systemic sustainability study
The Western Australian Local Government Association commissioned the Systemic Sustainability Study
Panel to conduct an independent investigation into the structure and sustainability of local government.
The study was undertaken to enhance those aspects of local government that are effective while
suggesting improvements in those that are not.
The major findings of the panel’s interim report were that:
© 83 local governments are financially unsustainable
© local governments do not apply finance and accounting regulations consistently
© the average operating deficit in Western Australia of 4.5 per cent of their own source revenue is
causing a large intergenerational equity transfer.
The panel will make specific recommendations to improve local government delivery of services in its
final report to be released in early November. The recommendations are expected to include:
232
©
©
the current system of local government financial assistance grants and other supplementary
revenues, including entitlements to a minimum grant, may work against efficient and
rational practice
the areas of skill and capability shortfall are having an impact on local government’s capacity to
fulfil their legislative liabilities and deliver services their communities expect
a raft of changes to the Local Government Act 1995 that would dramatically enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of local government service delivery.
Appendix G
©
The panel will also be making recommendations to enhance the consistency of financial data and
establishing a financial sustainability industry ranking methodology. This will establish a consistent
methodology for determining a local government’s financial sustainability.
New disciplinary framework for local government in Western Australia
There is a strong sentiment within local government in Western Australia that the current system for
dealing with misconduct by elected members does not work. There is presently no framework for
addressing individual councillors’ behavioural problems. While all councils are required to establish
codes of conduct, they are virtually unenforceable.
Traditionally, the state government has relied upon formal and informal inquiries into local governments
to ascertain the validity of complaints, with the focus being on the whole council rather than on
individual councillors. This has taken a heavy toll, both for those directly affected by an inquiry and
for the rest of the sector, through negative publicity that undermines public perceptions. The current
system only allows the Minister for Local Government to suspend or dismiss an entire council, with
no legislative authority to deal with individual councillors for misconduct. This unfairly discriminates
against those elected members who have acted appropriately at all times.
At the request of the local government sector, the Western Australian Local Government Association
has lobbied the state government to develop a new legislative framework through which allegations of
misconduct by elected members can be scrutinised and dealt with. The result has been development
of the Local Government (Official Conduct) Amendment Bill 2005, which is expected to come before the
state parliament in 2007.
If passed, the legislation will provide for establishment of a statewide Standards Panel to deal
with complaints about minor breaches by elected members. Minor breaches are classified as
contraventions of a uniform Code of Conduct, which is to be prescribed in regulations to the Local
Government Act 1995. Proven breaches can attract penalties for elected members, including public
censure, public apology or an order to undertake additional training.
Serious breaches, which are contraventions of the Local Government Act 1995 or recurrent minor
breaches, can be referred to the State Administrative Tribunal for determination, with penalties
including those available to the Standards Panel plus more serious sanctions of up to six months’
suspension or up to five years’ disqualification as an elected member.
The new system should facilitate early and timely resolution of instances of alleged misconduct
before councils become dysfunctional and a council inquiry becomes the only option. It should also
provide mechanisms to help local governments maintain good order and control within their council
environments, and minimise cost imposts on local governments and those parties involved with a
disciplinary matter.
233
Community development
During 2005 the State–Local Government Heritage Working Party, established by the Minister for
the Environment and Heritage to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of heritage management
in Western Australia, produced recommendations for improving the way local governments deal with
heritage. The submission caused the Western Australian Planning Commission to gazette a State
Planning Policy for Heritage and to make recommendations for changes to the model scheme text,
prescribed under the Town Planning Regulations 1967, and common standards for heritage listing and
local planning. The Heritage Loan Subsidy Scheme, administered by the Association, was overhauled to
improve financial incentives for heritage conservation works.
The Association administered two grant programs to help councils meet their legislative and policy
requirements; they were the Disability Access and Inclusion Plan Implementation Support grants and
the Local Government Scheme grants.
The Association developed the Disability Access and Inclusion Plan Implementation Support
grants in conjunction with the Disability Services Commission. These grants help to ensure local
governments increase their capacity to implement the aims of Disability Access and Inclusion Plans, as
specified in amendments to the Disability Services Act 1993. The grants allow Western Australian local
governments to access funds to help them implement their Disability Access and Inclusion Plans and
successfully realise them in the community.
The Association developed the Local Government Scheme grants in conjunction with the Physical
Activity Taskforce with funds provided by Lotterywest. These grants aim to encourage new and
innovative approaches to increasing physical activity in the community. This allows local governments
to increase local community capacity to address physical inactivity at a community level and develop
relationships and networks with local community groups and service providers. Evaluation reports
are provided six- and 12-monthly for the 12-month funding period. Innovation and case studies are
reported to encourage information sharing between local governments and to showcase best practice.
The Association initiated two research projects to provide an evidence base for provision of council
services to people with disabilities. The projects included research around inclusive sport and
recreation practices, in partnership with peak disability service agencies, and research around local
government’s employment of people with disabilities.
The Association, in partnership with Lotterywest and the Western Australian Council of Social Services,
has embarked on a research project to determine the relationship between local government and the
not-for-profit sector in developing and delivering community services. This project, which will occur over
the next 12 months, will develop a suite of macro indicators for consideration by local government in
benchmarking and reporting on community service and community development provision.
South Australia
Office for State–Local Government Relations and Local Government
Association of South Australia – combined report
The Local Government Association of South Australia established a nine-point plan in August 2004
to address a range of rating and financial issues. The plan included pursuing a range of legislative
amendments to the Local Government Act 1999 and establishing an independent inquiry.
In August 2005, a review board, commissioned by the Association to undertake an independent
inquiry into the financial sustainability of local government in South Australia, released its final report.
234
Appendix G
The report made significant recommendations regarding the need for local government to improve its
financial governance. The Association subsequently mounted a comprehensive Financial Sustainability
Program designed to provide practical assistance to councils. The measures include issue of a series
of information papers supported by manuals, guidelines, templates, codes and standards. The inquiry
received a category award in the 2006 National Awards for Local Government (see Appendix I).
New South Wales and Western Australia have followed South Australia’s lead and their local
government associations have conducted similar inquiries.
The Local Government (Financial Management and Rating) Amendment Act 2005 was passed in
November 2005. The Amendment Act was introduced to strengthen accountability and financial
governance measures, including new obligations for a council to adopt long-term financial plans and
asset management plans and a new requirement to consult with communities about annual business
plans in the lead up to adopting their annual budgets. The Amendment Act will also require councils
to provide eligible state seniors with the option to postpone a prescribed portion of their council rates
each financial year.
The joint State and Local Government Financial Accountability Advisory Committee finalised the Local
Government Financial Governance Code of Practice in April 2006. The code is designed to:
© establish best practice benchmarks in financial governance
© reinforce community confidence in the information sources upon which council decisions
are based
© establish consistency within the sector to improve the transparency, accountability, quality and
accessibility of financial information.
Measures taken in South Australia to develop comparable performance measures
The Association continued its Comparative Performance Measurement Project in 2005–06.
This project provides data to all South Australian councils on corporate level performance in four key
areas of governance, community satisfaction, financial and asset management, and quality of life. In
addition to viewing their own data, councils can compare their performance with the average results
for groupings of councils adopted by the local government sector. Data for the performance indicators
is drawn from the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission, a variety of state agencies,
local government statistical returns and from a voluntary community survey.
Of South Australia’s 68 councils, 31 participated in the voluntary survey in 2006 and a number of
other councils commissioned their own independent surveys. The results of the project in 2005–06
were provided to all councils via a secure website. Work also commenced during 2005–06 on a
proposal to make the results of the project publicly available. The Association believes it is vital that
factual information is available to the public on the performance of councils and their accountability
for expenditure of public funds. The Association is therefore proceeding with development of a public
website to display the information.
During 2005–06, the South Australian Local Government Financial Management Group (a group of
finance professionals from councils) developed a modern set of key indicators of the sustainability
of a council’s financial performance and financial position. The indicators are consistent with those
recommended by the Independent Inquiry into the Financial Sustainability of Councils and have been
endorsed by the Local Government Association of South Australia’s Financial Sustainability Advisory
Committee. It is expected that all councils will adopt those indicators in 2006–07.
235
Tasmania
Local Government Division, Department of Premier and Cabinet
In June 1996, as required under the National Competition Principles Agreement, the former
government submitted a policy application statement, titled Application of National Competition Policy
to Local Government, to the National Competition Council. This statement was prepared in consultation
with local government and provided broad guidance on how the key competition principles would be
applied to local government.
A review of the 1996 application statement began during 2002 and, following consultation with the
Local Government Association of Tasmania, was completed in April 2004 with the publication of
a new application statement, titled National Competition Policy – Applying the Principles to Local
Government in Tasmania (2004 Application Statement). In addition, the 2004 Application Statement
was accompanied by a supporting document, Significant Business Activities and Local Government in
Tasmania. These documents reaffirm local government’s responsibilities in relation to the competition
principles, as set out in the National Competition Policy Agreements, with a view to helping local
government continue to apply competition principles to its activities.
Under the 2004 Application Statement, in applying competitive neutrality principles, local government
is required to:
© identify relevant business activities which it considers to be significant business activities
© undertake public benefit assessments of the corporatisation of those business activities as
outlined in the 2004 Application Statement
© corporatise those activities where a public benefit assessment indicates the benefits outweigh the
costs of doing so and apply full cost attribution to all other significant business activities.
The Local Government Act 1993 (Tas.) was amended in 1999 to require councils to report competitive
neutrality costs for their significant business activities in their annual reports.
The 2004 Application Statement reaffirms the requirement of each state and territory to establish a
competitive neutrality complaints mechanism. This mechanism, established under the Government
Prices Oversight Regulations 1998, provides that a person who believes he or she has been adversely
affected by a contravention of the competitive neutrality principles may lodge a complaint with the
Government Prices Oversight Commission, which has responsibility for investigating all alleged
breaches of the competitive neutrality principles in Tasmania.
The 2004 Application Statement also acknowledges that the Government Prices Oversight Amendment
Act 1997 extended coverage of the Government Prices Oversight Act 1995 to include local government
monopoly or near monopoly services. As a consequence of this extended coverage, local government
monopoly or near monopoly providers now fall under the prices oversight jurisdiction of the Government
Prices Oversight Commission. In this regard, the Government Prices Oversight Act 1995 has been
applied to the three bulk water authorities.
The state’s obligations under the Strategic Framework for the Efficient and Sustainable Reform of the
Australian Water Industry require bulk water authorities to charge on a volumetric basis to recover all
costs. These authorities are also required to earn a positive real rate of return on the written-down
replacement cost of their assets.
Beginning in 2001, the Government Prices Oversight Commission commenced an annual review
process requiring councils to provide advice on the performance of their water and wastewater
236
Appendix G
businesses for that year. In June 2005, the commission completed its 2003–04 review of councils’
performance with respect to cost recovery for provision of water and wastewater services. The audit
findings were presented to the National Water Commission in September 2005 with the submission
of Tasmania’s 2005 National Competition Policy – Water Reform Progress Report. The review found a
generally high level of compliance by Tasmanian councils in both water and wastewater pricing.
In June 2005, Tasmania signed the Intergovernmental Agreement on the National Water Initiative.
The National Water Commission is responsible for national water reform and advising the Australian
Government and state and territory governments on water reform issues. Under the National Water
Initiative, Tasmania is currently developing its implementation plans, and once these plans are agreed
to, future reviews will be conducted in accordance with the National Water Initiative obligations.
At present, while the National Water Initiative commitments in relation to local government water
and wastewater businesses do not differ significantly from those under National Competition Policy,
there are some additional national reporting requirements for pricing and service delivery that may
affect those councils with in excess of 10 000 water and/or wastewater connections. The National
Water Initiative implementation plans are scheduled to be provided to the National Water Commission
for approval in the near future. Tasmania is proposing to conduct the Government Prices Oversight
Commission reviews of councils’ water and wastewater pricing every two years under the National
Water Initiative. Officers from the National Water Commission have provided in-principle support for a
two-year review.
Councils are also required, according to Regulation 32 of the Local Government Regulations 1994,
to demonstrate that the Urban Water and Wastewater Pricing Guidelines for local government in
Tasmania are being applied in relation to supply of domestic water. In order to demonstrate this, a
council must incorporate, in its annual report, a statement reporting on its plans for supply of water for
domestic consumption and sufficient financial information to demonstrate that it is applying the pricing
guidelines to that water.
The previous requirement was for a statement to appear in a council’s operating plans for the
forthcoming year.
Partnership agreements
Following its re-election in March 2006, the state government re-affirmed its commitment to working
cooperatively with local government to achieve benefits for local communities around the state. The
Premier’s Local Government Council and the Partnership Agreements program have demonstrated that
the two spheres of government can work together, in partnership, to improve sustainable economic
development, to promote social and environmental outcomes and to better coordinate service delivery
to the community.
The Local Government Office facilitates the Partnership Agreement process. During the year, the office
coordinated development, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, review and reporting processes
for all Partnership Agreements with local government. This included preparation of the annual report
to Parliament in December 2005, implementation of a new web-based database reporting system
and continuing liaison with councils, regional bodies and all state government agencies involved in
negotiating and implementing Partnership Agreements.
All 29 Tasmanian councils are currently involved in the processes for statewide, regional and bilateral
Partnership Agreements. By 30 June 2006, 25 of the 29 Tasmanian councils had signed bilateral
Partnership Agreements with the state government or had completed an agreement ready for signing.
237
By 30 June 2006, bilateral Partnership Agreements had been signed with 23 councils – Break O’Day,
Brighton, Burnie City, Central Highlands, Circular Head (second agreement), Derwent Valley, Devonport
City, Dorset, Flinders, George Town, Glamorgan–Spring Bay, Glenorchy City, Hobart City, Kingborough,
King Island, Latrobe, Launceston City (second agreement), Meander Valley, Northern Midlands,
Tasman, Waratah–Wynyard, West Coast and West Tamar.
Agreements with Kentish and Sorell councils had been approved and arrangements had been made
for them to be signed in July 2006 by the Premier and the respective mayors. First agreements with
Clarence City Council and Central Coast Council were close to finalisation, and progress had been
made on first agreements with Southern Midlands and Huon Valley councils.
Progress had also been made on reviewing and re-developing agreements with 12 councils.
The Partnership Agreements process has been augmented with a new reporting database, made
available through the Internet. Unanticipated issues with the reporting system’s implementation
slowed activity on reviewing and developing new agreements during the first half of 2005–06. After
issues were resolved, and training and assistance were provided to users, the system became fully
operational and is now successfully used by councils, regional bodies and state agencies to make
regular reports on agreement activities.
It has also been found that negotiations for second agreements are containing issues of greater
complexity, requiring longer research and negotiation stages. The extended timeframes for
development of second agreements have also had an impact on the forecast number of agreements to
be signed in 2005–06.
Two regional Partnership Agreements, with Cradle Coast Authority and Northern Tasmania
Development, are being redeveloped. The regional agreement with Southern Tasmanian Councils is
being implemented.
Premier’s Local Government Council
The office continued to provide secretariat functions for the Premier’s Local Government Council and
the associated officials committee, each of which met twice in 2005–06.
The Premier’s Local Government Council was established in 2000 to provide a forum for high-level
discussions and agreement on issues from a statewide perspective; it is chaired by the Premier, the
Hon. Paul Lennon MHA. For both meetings in 2005–06, membership included the President of the
Local Government Association of Tasmania, Councillor Lynn Mason, Lord Mayor Rob Valentine, Mayor
Jock Campbell, Mayor Mike Downie, Mayor Barry Easther, Mayor Deirdre Flint, Mayor Ross Hine and
Councillor Robert Legge.
The officials committee supports the Premier’s Local Government Council, with membership from local
government and state agencies and was chaired in 2005–06 by the Secretary of the Department of
Premier and Cabinet, Linda Hornsey.
The Premier’s Local Government Council work program in 2005–06 included some ongoing projects as
well as actions to address new issues. Progress included:
© continuation of the project on strategic infrastructure and its relationship to the economic
development of the state
© information for councils on promoting Tasmania as a single entity and the Tasmania brand
© oversight of the development of a draft statewide Partnership Agreement for young Tasmanians
238
©
revision of the Guidelines for Communication and Consultation between the State and Local
Government, which are part of the statewide Partnership Agreement on Communication and
Consultation, and preparation for their distribution and promotion
planning and commencement of the project to review the operations and functions of the Local
Government Board.
Appendix G
©
The Premier’s Local Government Council also oversaw the continuing implementation and completion
of the State and Local Government Financial Relations Partnership Agreement that had been signed
in 2003–04. This agreement remains one of the most far-reaching and innovative intergovernmental
agreements negotiated in the country. In summary, the agreement commits the state government to
paying council rates on certain land tenures and abolition of a number of levies, while local government
now pays payroll and land tax. The initiative has continued to attract significant national interest.
Inter-governmental relationships
The office continued its role in developing an historic tripartite Partnership Agreement for Population
Ageing in Tasmania between the Australian Government, the state government and the Local
Government Association of Tasmania. By 30 June 2006, the three parties – federal, state and local
government – had accepted the agreement and a suitable signing date was being determined.
As part of its responsibility for overseeing implementation of the statewide Partnership Agreement on
Communication and Consultation, the local government office monitors the extent to which Cabinet
Minutes reflect consultation with local government.
The office continues to provide support to the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council and
the Local Government Joint Officers’ Group. In August 2005, the Local Government and Planning
Ministers’ Council conducted a joint meeting with Housing Ministers to examine affordable housing
issues and other planning matters of national significance. The Local Government Joint Officers’ Group
met five times during 2005–06, including three teleconferences. A key activity of the Local Government
Joint Officers’ Group was forming a working group to progress support and development of the intergovernmental agreement.
On 24 April 2006, the Premier signed the inter-governmental agreement between the Australian
Government, the state and territory governments and the Australian Local Government Association.
The inter-governmental agreement establishes principles to guide inter-governmental relations on local
government matters.
The inter-governmental agreement arose from recommendations of the Commonwealth Parliamentary
inquiry report, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government (the Hawker Report).
The inter-governmental agreement formalises, on a national level, many of the principles of the
Tasmanian Government’s partnership process. In particular, the inter-governmental agreement
reinforces the State–Local Government Partnership Agreement on Communication and Consultation,
which has now been in place for three years.
Local Government Board
The Local Government Board is a statutory body established under Part 2 of the Local Government Act
1993. The Local Government Office continued to provide executive and administrative support for the
board to conduct general reviews of all councils every eight years, as required by the Local Government
Act 1993, and special reviews, as directed by the Premier.
239
General reviews of three councils – Circular Head, George Town and Latrobe – were conducted during
2005–06.
As a matter of policy, the board does not conduct reviews of councils during election campaigns.
Elections for local government and state government were held during 2005–06. This meant there was
a lengthier delay than the time normally scheduled between the review of George Town and Circular
Head councils and a delay in the release of the report of the review of the George Town Council. The
Latrobe review was also delayed until completion of the 18 March 2006 state election.
Commencement of the review of the Sorell Council was also delayed. The Sorell review was largely
completed by 30 June 2006 but the final report had not yet been approved. The board’s reports are at
<www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/lgo/information/board/history.html>.
In its reports, the board makes recommendations for improvements by the council being reviewed and
points to leading practice in local government. The minister accepted all recommendations the board
made about the councils reviewed.
The board’s chairperson is John Gibson. Other board members are Mary Binks, Brian Inches, Helen
Cooper and Marguerite Scott (a statutory position as Director of Local Government). Substitute
members during 2005–06 included Paul Arnold, David Sales, Graeme Yeoland and Chris Batt.
Review of Local Government Board
On 7 December 2005, the Premier’s Local Government Council endorsed commencement of the
project to review the operations and functions of the Local Government Board. On 15 February 2006,
the then Minister Assisting the Premier on Local Government, the Hon. Jim Cox MHA, approved terms of
reference for the project and membership of the steering committee to oversee it.
The terms of reference for the review are:
©
©
©
to evaluate the operations and functions of the Local Government Board
to evaluate the effectiveness of the board in delivering outcomes for local government and the
community
to consider and provide to the Premier, as the Minister for Local Government and Community
Development:
– options for improvement of the board’s operations and functions
– details of a range of alternative means by which the board might deliver outcomes for local
government and the community.
The members of the steering committee for the review are Chris Batt (chair), Margaret Sing, Liz Gillam,
Andrew Paul, Paul West and David Baulch.
The steering committee has sought information from key stakeholders in the development of an issues
paper that will be the principal vehicle for inviting submissions to the review.
Review of the Local Government Act 1993
The review of the Local Government Act 1993 was completed in 2005 with the passage of the Local
Government Amendment Act 2005 and associated regulations. A number of implementation tasks
were completed during 2005–06.
240
On 1 January 2006, all councils were also required to adopt a code for tenders and contracts. The
code is to be available to the public and details the standard procedures that councils are to adopt for
procuring goods and services.
Appendix G
Councils were required to adopt a Customer Services Charter by 1 January 2006. The charter must set
out customer service principles and detail procedures for handling customer complaints.
On 1 July 2006, the threshold amount above which the Local Government Amendment Act 2005
requires a council to seek tenders for goods and services was increased from $50 000 to $100 000.
This increase was given effect by the Local Government (General) Amendment Regulations 2006.
Councils were also required to adopt a code of conduct by 1 July 2006. In advance of this, the Local
Government Office prepared regulations to govern the procedures of the Code of Conduct Panels
and the Standards Panel. The panels will hear complaints under those codes. The Local Government
(General) Amendment (Code of Conduct) Regulations 2006 commenced on 1 July 2006.
The Local Government Office completed development of a new land information certificate that is
to be provided, by councils, mostly to solicitors and other parties for the conveyance of land. The
requirements of the new land information certificate are detailed in the Local Government (General)
Amendment (Section 337 Certificate) Regulations 2006, which commenced on 1 July 2006.
Throughout the year the Local Government Office conducted information sessions for councils on the
changes to the local government legislation; they also explained the role of the office in investigating
complaints, particularly in relation to breaches of the legislation. These sessions were conducted
at 15 council chambers, namely, Burnie City, Central Coast, Devonport City, Kentish, Latrobe, West
Tamar, Launceston City, Break O’Day, Northern Midlands, Glamorgan Spring Bay, Southern Midlands,
Glenorchy City, Brighton, Tasman and Derwent Valley.
Council by-laws
Following review of the Local Government Act 1993, councils have accepted responsibility for tabling
council by-laws in Parliament. The office has developed and disseminated guidelines and instructions
on completion of these processes.
The office has also developed a detailed policy on developing Regulatory Impact Statements to enable
councils to meet National Competition Policy obligations. The Director has a statutory role in approving
Regulatory Impact Statements and in ensuring that by-laws that restrict competition or impact on
business are in the public interest. Seven such certificates were issued during the year. The office has
also been developing guidelines to help councils review by-laws and encourage adoption of leading
practice in their development.
The office continued to maintain the only Internet database of all council by-laws which, from
2002–03, has allowed Tasmanian ratepayers to readily access their council by-laws and to compare
them with others’. The office continued to receive reports that council officers also benefit from the
ready availability of this information to easily compare the approach taken by other councils and, if
appropriate, to adopt an already tested response. The database was accessed 4882 times during
2005–06. The database address is <www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/lgd>.
Administration of legislation and investigations
The Local Government Division provides regular assistance to local government and the community
through providing advice and responses to queries and complaints.
241
During 2005–06, the office conducted six formal investigations into allegations of breaches of
the Local Government Act 1993. The office also conducted a number of informal investigations of
allegations that were not ultimately accepted as formal complaints.
Measures taken to develop comparable performance measures
Key performance indicators for local government
Key performance indicators are measures that focus on achieving outcomes most critical to the current
and future success of the organisation. The Key Performance Indicators Project that commenced
in 1999–2000 is an innovative development and another example of the government’s cooperative
partnership approach with local government in Tasmania. It also represents a unique collaboration
across the three spheres of government. Local government, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the
Tasmanian State Grants Commission all use the data the Local Government Office collected from local
government for the project.
Local government has displayed strong support for the measurement system and all 29 councils have
voluntarily provided data for the past six years.
The sixth key performance indicators report, Measuring Council Performance in Tasmania 2004–05,
included a five-year trend analysis. This analysis showed that over the last five years there has
been a consistent downward trend, on a statewide basis, in the debt–service ratio. The report also
demonstrates a consistent reduction in the level of rates outstanding at the end of the financial year.
The Local Government Office continued to provide management of the Key Performance Indicators
Project, as well as executive and administrative support for the Key Performance Indicators Committee.
The key performance indicators report is published and distributed by the office on behalf of the Key
Performance Indicators Committee. The committee provides guidance on general policy and process
issues. In 2005–06, the committee was chaired by the General Manager of Devonport City Council,
David Sales. Other members were Paul West from Waratah–Wynyard Council, Kim Wiggins from
Glenorchy City Council, Frank Barta from Clarence City Council, Jeremy Threlfall from the State Grants
Commission, Chris Batt from the Local Government Office and Liz Gillam from the Local Government
Association of Tasmania.
During the year the Key Performance Indicators Committee and the Local Government Office reviewed
the current key performance indicators. Outcomes from the review will be reflected in some changes
for the 2005–06 key performance indicators report.
Northern Territory
Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport
Measures taken to develop comparable performance indicators
The aim of the Northern Territory performance indicators program was to introduce performance
management tools to all councils in the territory in such a way as to ensure they become an integrated
and valuable part of community management practices. In support of that aim, the Department of
Local Government, now the Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport, linked development
and implementation of performance indicators for local governing bodies to introduction of its best
practice program.
242
Appendix G
While the Northern Territory has been collecting comparable performance indicators since 1997–98,
not all local governing bodies embraced the reporting of such. Despite early enthusiasm there was an
increasing decline in councils willing to participate in the collection of performance data. Reporting
of performance information was well within the capacity of the municipal and larger councils, but the
capacity to provide the required information was more limited for small and remote councils.
In November 2003, in recognition of the difficulties experienced by the smaller councils, the then
Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, in conjunction with the Northern
Territory Grants Commission, mandated a requirement for all councils to submit an annual return of
local government data. This return combines the requirements of both agencies and simplified the
reporting process requiring councils to provide financial and performance measurement data. This
method has proved to be successful and was used in 2005–06 for the data relating to 2004–05.
Local Government Association of the Northern Territory
The Association provides to its member councils examples of local government best practice in the
form of guest speaker presentations at the two general meetings it holds each year (May and October).
Two such presentations during 2005–06 included the reform of local government in Japan by the
Director General of the Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, Yoshiyasu Hyotani, and
the Director of Wyndam City Council (Victoria), Bernie Cronin, on the importance and relevance of social
planning for councils when undertaking community services for their residents.
The Association, in partnership with the Northern Territory Emergency Services, launched the Guide
to Disaster Risk Management in Northern Territory Aboriginal Communities and, with the support of
Emergency Management Australia and the Northern Territory Government, conducted a workshop
for councils on how to use the guide. The Association helped 15 member councils build community
infrastructure and implemented the Regional Aviation Security Program – Securing our Regional
Skies through five workshops. The workshops were conducted with assistance and support from the
Northern Territory Police and the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services.
The Association participated in two committee deliberations that were pursuing local government
structural reform with the aim of amalgamating the councils of Kunbarllanjnja, Minjilang and Warruwi
into one council in the region of Western Arnhem Land and the councils of Coomalie and Pine Creek
(and extensive areas surrounding them) in the region encompassing the towns of Adelaide River,
Pine Creek and Batchelor. The Association managed consultancies that delivered management and
transitional plans for both proposals. This work will continue in 2006–07 as all councils have concerns
about their ongoing operational capabilities.
The Association provided a range of human resource management and industrial relations services
to councils, including recruiting and appointing chief executive officers for 28 remote area council
positions and conducting an induction program for them. The Association secured their services
through negotiation of standard employment contracts – a practice that was not well managed in
previous years.
The Association, with expertise and assistance from the Western Australian Local Government
Association, represented councils in the Industrial Relations Commission on 12 occasions and made
367 contacts with councils about disciplinary matters, industrial relations and advice on industrial
awards. This was done as a means of sharing resources as most councils in the Northern Territory do
not employ specialist industrial relations or human resource management personnel.
243
Under the Australian Government’s Networking the Nation program, the Association met its ongoing
information and communications technology obligations to councils (following cessation of the program
on 30 June 2005) to provide a local government network throughout the Northern Territory. The
Association provided, among other things:
© a 9.00 am to 5.00 pm help desk ( approximately 3000 calls received)
© equipment repair, sourcing, configuration, shipping and installation
© virus filtering of incoming email
© website design, administration, backup, training and support (40 websites developed)
© community-based training in basic information technology use
© intervention and disaster recovery against internal and external abuse, malicious damage,
password denial or loss, and firewall administration.
These services contributed greatly to councils having stable information and communications
technology environments.
As most councils are unable to attract qualified financial management personnel to undertake crucial
financial reporting and management obligations, the Association undertook this work for eight councils.
The Association provided engineering services to councils including management of nine member
councils’ AusLink Roads to Recovery projects. It also completed road safety audits for six councils,
completed a waste management plan for the Ntaria Council, as well as managing or collaborating on
waste oil, natural resource management and swimming pools in remote areas projects in conjunction
with the Northern Territory and Australian governments.
The Association managed a number of federal community services projects in conjunction with the
Northern Territory Government, all of which were designed to achieve harm reduction outcomes.
Projects included partial construction of a police station at Mutujulu, a sobering up and special
care centre at Nhulunbuy, safe houses at Elliot and Milikapiti and sport and recreation facilities at
Ali Curung.
Department of Territory and Municipal Services
ACT NOWaste
In 2005–06 ACT NOWaste continued to provide domestic garbage and recycling services to ACT
households, and supplied over 2500 rubbish bins to new households. Customer satisfaction with
household garbage and recycling collection services continued to be high, with satisfaction rates of
92.1 per cent.
The Materials Recovery Facility continues to sort, bail and transport the territory’s recyclable materials
to markets where they are turned into products ranging from steel cans to road cones. During 2005–06
the facility sorted over 49 600 tonnes of recyclables. In addition, weekly tours and open days of the
facility were conducted to increase community awareness of recycling activities.
Targeted education and information campaigns continue to be conducted to better inform the
community on the use of available services. In 2005–06 the ‘Recycle Right’ campaign continued to be
244
The Waste Wise Schools program continued to educate students, teachers and the local community in
sustainable waste management practices.
Appendix G
implemented. The campaign included a competition with newspaper advertisements and a series of
television advertisements.
Public events recycling has been further facilitated with special bin tops and a Guide for Recycling
at Public Events developed to provide advice to public event organisers to enable recovery of more
recyclables and minimise waste disposal.
The second NOWaste awards for excellence in sustainable waste management were held in November
2005 and attracted significant interest. The awards were established to encourage innovative solutions
in waste reduction and to promote ideas that can be adopted by others. The awards were open to all
schools, businesses, government departments and community organisations in the territory that had
actively implemented waste minimisation initiatives during the previous two years.
ACT NOWaste conducted a benchmarking exercise in 2004–05 to develop a range of benchmarks
for local government services. Benchmarking that has previously been carried out, and benchmarks
currently adopted, are listed in Table G.2.
Table G.2: ACT NOWaste benchmarks
Performance measure
Value
Average cost of waste services
$85 per household, per annum
Customer satisfaction with kerbside garbage and recycling services
92.1%
Annual tonnes of waste to landfill
192 000 tonnes for 2005–06
Source: ACT Department of Territory and Municipal Services, unpublished data
Other potential benchmarking indicators (currently under consideration) include:
© cost of household service delivery and cost of overall service delivery to residents
© participation rates in services
© level of contamination in recycling stream (domestic only)
© level of recyclables in waste stream (both commercial and domestic)
© levels of recyclables and resources recovered
© cost per unit (for example, tonnes) of specific resource recovery and waste management services
© level of expenditure on waste avoidance and reduction
© customer satisfaction ratings on services
© number of customers using services (collection, landfill, drop-off centres, other).
Roads ACT
In 2005–06 Roads ACT commenced reviewing the streetlight and stormwater maintenance contract
documentation and the corresponding inspection and superintendence contract documents in
preparation for the tendering of new contracts in early 2007. These contracts are performancebased contracts that incorporate the Department of Territory and Municipal Services Infrastructure
Standards and, where relevant, include reference to industry, Austroads Guidelines and departmental
specifications for maintenance works.
245
A government in-house provider, Road Maintenance Services provides routine road maintenance
works. In 2005–06 the road pavement repairs program targeted roads that had deteriorated as a
consequence of aging and the impact of heavy vehicles. A total of 717 286 square meters of road
pavement (4.9 per cent of the municipal road network) was resealed.
A contractor has continued to implement the Integrated Asset Management System. This will allow
more efficient and effective prioritisation and management of the local government assets through
collection of location, asset type and condition data. The community footpath and driveway database
within the Integrated Asset Management System is now live and available for use. Previous databases
for road pavements, bridges, streetlights and stormwater are being transferred into new system as the
data are cleansed.
Roads ACT has agreed to contribute to the Australian Local Government Association’s proposal for a
national approach to data collection for local roads. Seven performance measures for local roads are
being trialled in Stage 1 of this project.
Table G.3 provides the current levels of service for key assets managed by Roads ACT with respect
to inspection and intervention, and compares the service with best practice ‘target levels’ of service.
The target levels of service have been identified from benchmarking with other local councils and road
authorities (RTA New South Wales, DIER Tasmania, VicRoads and Transit New Zealand).
Table G.3: Roads ACT benchmarked assets
Asset type
Current service level
Benchmarked service level
Territorial (state) road network resurfaced
Approx. 3% annually
8–10% annuallya
Municipal (local) road network resurfaced
Approx. 3% annually
7–10% annuallya
Traffic signals
Service level ‘D’ (2)
Service level ‘D’b
Traffic signals
Service level ‘B’ (3)
Service level ‘B’c
Linemarking
Remark every 5 to 8 years
Remark every 5 yearsd
Sign replacement
2% per year
8% per yeare
Streetlights – territorial bulk replacement
Nil
Every 3 yearsf
Streetlights – municipal bulk replacement
Nil
Every 3 yearsf
Streetlights – operation – lamp faults
Fix 90% within 7 days
Fix 95% within 5 daysf
Community paths
Depends on risk group
Depends on risk groupg
Notes:
a Benchmarks sourced from Strategic Study into Management of ACT Roads and Stormwater Asset’s by ARRB Transport
Research Ltd.
b Service level ‘D’ is defined as ‘where drivers, during peak hours, are somewhat restricted in their freedom to select their
desired speeds or to manoeuvre within the traffic stream’.
c Service level ‘B’ is defined as ‘where drivers, during business hours, have reasonable freedom to select their desired speeds’.
d Under normal circumstances, line marking projects are identified on the basis of existing marking falling to a minimum
threshold level for reflectivity of 100 mcd/lux/m2.
e Signs should be replaced on 12-year cyclical program to achieve the Australian Standards guidelines for serviceability.
f To bring in line with other jurisdictions.
g Paths are categorised based on risk profile:
High – around major group centres and between aged persons facilities and local shops etc., inspection frequency is every
12 months.
Medium – around local shops, high-density housing, tourist attractions and bus stops, inspection frequency is every
three years.
Low – around low/medium density residential areas and cycle paths, inspection frequency is every five years.
Source: ACT Department of Territory and Municipal Services, unpublished data
246
Parks, Conservation and Lands is a branch within the Environment and Recreation Network responsible
for planning and managing parks and reserves and the public domain, including lakes, street trees,
public open space and city places. It protects and conserves the territory’s natural resources, promotes
appropriate recreational, educational and scientific uses of Canberra’s parks and reserves, and
maintains the look of the city.
Appendix G
Parks, Conservation and Lands (formerly Canberra Urban Parks and Places)
Parks, Conservation and Lands is continuing to focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of
service delivery by:
© implementing asset management plans for all assets including a specific asset management plan
for urban trees with 20-year predictive financial and tree growth modelling
© reviewing implications of the recently completed customer satisfaction survey which measures
customers’ interactions with Parks, Conservation and Lands
© completing a service charter with the community for all its services
© developing a milestone report program to link initiatives to the Strategic Plan and Annual Action
Plan, and to monitor and report regular progress within a consistent key performance indicator
framework
© reviewing Parks, Conservation and Lands governance practices following internal audit
recommendations, for example, upgrading documentation and procedures for Parks, Conservation
and Lands fleet and plant and equipment.
Parks, Conservation and Lands has undertaken the following work in 2005–06 to continue to develop
comparable performance measures:
© Board and Executive Committee representation on the Parks Forum, and representation on the
Best Practice and Standards Committee (Australia).
© Membership and completion of annual audit (third consecutive year) for the Yardstick
Benchmarking Program (Australia and New Zealand’s premier parks benchmarking report,
conducted in June 2006).
© Contribution to the Parks Forum Benchmarking Framework Project in 2006 to establish
benchmarks for the parks management industry.
Ranger Services
Ranger Services provides regulatory services to the Canberra community. During 2005–06 Ranger
Services continued to improve service delivery in the area of domestic dog control through:
© continued development of competency-based training for staff
© Certificate IV Enforcement and Investigation Course for senior rangers
© ongoing memorandum of understanding with the RSPCA in relation to de-sexing
impounded animals
© continued development of responsible pet ownership education resources for territory schools
© continued development of emergency management protocols focusing on avian influenza
© designing and implementing animal rescue disaster response capability.
This contributed to achieving the lowest recorded dog euthanasia rate of 5.4 per cent, and improved
compliance and enforcement activities with 96 per cent of reported attacks resulting in a dog seizure.
247
During 2005–06 Ranger Services continued to play an important role in enforcing parking regulations
within the territory. The total number of parking spaces enforced is estimated to be around 50 000,
with 103 323 parking infringement notices issued in 2005–06. Revenue from parking fees in territory
car parks during 2005–06 was $11.25 million. New infringement issuing technology was introduced
during the year providing better occupational health and safety outcomes for staff and superior data
management.
To improve effectiveness of traffic camera operations in the territory, Ranger Services:
© continued upgraded technology in fixed site equipment thereby reducing costs and unscheduled
maintenance requirements
© enhanced public awareness in road safety through involvement in various public relations
activities, such as car shows and the National Science Festival.
Ranger Services continued to benchmark against itself on over 100 parameters month to month.
248
Appendix H
Appendix H
Progress reports on performance
of local government in service
provision to Indigenous
communities
The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 requires an assessment, based on comparable
national data, of the delivery of local government services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities. State and territory agencies (and some local government associations) have provided the
following reports on activities aimed at improving local government services to Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander communities.
Table H.1 details the 2005–06 financial assistance grants to the 91 Indigenous councils eligible for
funding under the Act.
New South Wales
Department of Local Government
Local Government Aboriginal Network
The Department of Local Government continues to participate in the annual Local Government
Aboriginal Network Conference.
Social Justice Initiatives Survey
Since 2000 the Department of Local Government has conducted surveys to collect data on specific
Aboriginal and disability initiatives New South Wales councils are undertaking. In 2004, the department
surveyed councils to obtain data for the year ending 31 December 2003 about a range of Aboriginal,
disability and youth initiatives. Findings from the survey, to which 143 councils responded, include:
© 14 councils (10%) continue to implement the Aboriginal Mentoring Program and 46 Aboriginal
people have participated
© 48 councils (34%) reported that they had an Aboriginal advisory or consultative committee
© 56 councils (39%) reported that they had a role in reconciliation groups in their area
© 34 councils (24%) employed an Aboriginal Community Development or Liaison Officer
249
©
92 councils (64%) reported that they had assisted with Aboriginal cultural exhibitions, events
or programs.
The department has surveyed councils about their Aboriginal initiatives for 2004 and 2005 and the
results are currently being analysed.
Social Plans
Under the Local Government Act 1993 all councils in New South Wales are required to develop a
social/community plan at least every five years. A social/community plan examines the needs of
the local community and formulates strategies that council and/or other agencies could facilitate
or implement to address these identified needs. The social/community plan identifies specific
policies and action plans for seven mandatory target groups, which includes Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people. Through this process, councils may identify issues and services they could be
addressing in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
One hundred and thirty New South Wales councils were required to submit a current plan to the
Department of Local Government by 30 June 2006. The 22 councils that were proclaimed during 2004
are required to submit a current social/community plan by 30 November 2006. This is the second time
councils have been required to submit a current social/community plan to the department, with the
first being in 1999.
As at 30 June 2006, 98 (75%) of the 130 councils required to have a current social/community plan
lodged with the department had one in place. Of those 98 councils, 89 (91%) submitted on time and
nine (9%) submitted after the due date.
Social and community planning provides an effective mechanism for councils to plan for the current
and future needs of their diverse local communities. The department has started reviewing council
social/community plans; the review will also involve management plans and annual reports to assess
the inclusion of recommended actions regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
New South Wales Government Aboriginal Affairs Policy
The New South Wales Government has developed a 10-year plan for action, Two Ways Together,
Partnerships: a new way of doing business with Aboriginal people 2003–2012, to improve service
delivery by both state and local governments to Aboriginal people. The Chief Executive Officers
Group on Aboriginal Affairs and the New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs coordinated
development of the plan. The Department of Local Government is represented on a number of working
groups established to develop and monitor the implementation of specific action plans concerning
such areas as heritage and culture, housing and infrastructure, and families, children and young
people. Services listed in action plans that are relevant to local government include urban planning and
development, water, sewage, waste collection, roads, community services such as recreation and youth
facilities, information technology, and heritage and cultural strategies.
As part of the New South Wales Two Ways Together plan the department has identified the key action
of developing a resource kit to help councils work more effectively with local Aboriginal communities.
The kit is being developed in consultation with councils and key Aboriginal agencies and will be
finalised during 2007.
250
Local Government Victoria, Department for Victorian Communities
Appendix H
Victoria
Local Government Victoria is aware the Municipal Association of Victoria continues to support the
Municipal Association of Victoria Local Government Indigenous Network which comprises councillors
and council officers interested in Indigenous issues within local government. Its forums provide
opportunities for local governments to meet with federal and state government agencies involved
in service delivery to Indigenous people, and with Indigenous representatives and other agencies
such as Reconciliation Victoria. The forum also enables Victorian councils to share and promote local
government best practices for assisting Indigenous people in local communities.
In 2004–05 the Victorian Government enacted the new framework for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
preservation through the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. Local government participated in development
of this framework by responding to a discussion paper prepared by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. Local
government supported the overall intent of the new legislation to streamline the laws governing
protection and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage across Victoria. It is also continuing to work
with the Victorian Government to develop regulations that will determine what local government and
other planning authority permits will require Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plans.
Councils continue to use Toomnangi as a useful resource for the sector to share its ideas and initiatives
in Victorian local governments’ involvement in Indigenous affairs.2
Queensland
Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation
The Community Governance Improvement Strategy, with a budget of $16.6 million over four years,
was developed to support Aboriginal shires and Island councils to improve their operations so they can
deliver effective local government services to their community and improve compliance with relevant
legislation. Implementation of the strategy commenced during 2004–05.
The Community Governance Improvement Strategy is a comprehensive package of activities that
are performance driven and focus on improving the standard of corporate governance and financial
accountability of Aboriginal shire councils. Until a separate review of Torres Strait governance has been
completed some components of the strategy are also offered to the Aurukun and Mornington Shire
Councils and to Island councils.
A range of strategies has been developed under the Community Governance Improvement Strategy,
including strategies for skills development, business system improvement and stakeholder
engagement.
The department has continued to work with the Aboriginal shires and the Island councils on
various projects; staff have made 250 visits to the councils over the past 12 months. Performance
Development Plans (a shared responsibility agreement between the department and each council)
have been negotiated with 33 councils. The department has officially signed off these plans, thus
earning each participating council incentive payments of between $20 000 and $40 000.
2 Indigenous Interagency Coordination Committee for Local Government, Municipal Association of Victoria 2005, Toomnangi:
Indigenous Communities and Local Government – a Victorian Study, Municipal Association of Victoria, Melbourne.
251
A White Paper reviewing community governance in the 17 Torres Strait Island communities is being
developed. The objective of the review is to develop a new legislative model to improve community
governance.
Indigenous Library Services
Indigenous Knowledge Centres
Fourteen Indigenous Knowledge Centres operate in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
throughout Cape York, the Torres Strait, and in Cherbourg in southeast Queensland. Local Aboriginal or
Island councils manage Indigenous Knowledge Centres. The State Library provides support in the form
of establishment costs and organisation, project development, and training and networking support
for administrators. Indigenous Knowledge Centres are community spaces that offer traditional library
services; they can also be ‘keeping places’ and small museums.
The State Library has been supporting development of partnerships between Indigenous Knowledge
Centres, other government departments and community organisations to improve service delivery to
communities and to enhance the sustainability of Indigenous Knowledge Centres.
Throughout 2005–06, the State Library’s Indigenous Library Services provided ongoing support to
Indigenous Knowledge Centre staff and continued to work with local councils to develop and sustain
the existing Indigenous Knowledge Centres at Aurukun, Badu, Cherbourg, Erub, Injinoo, Lockhart River,
Mabuiag Island, New Mapoon, Poruma, Pormpuraaw, Seisia and Wujal Wujal. Two new Indigenous
Knowledge Centres were established in 2006 at Dauan Island and Boigu Island.
All Indigenous Knowledge Centre administrators underwent training during 2006 to learn and upgrade
their skills in the library management software (Aurora), stock selection and Indigenous family history
research. Five experienced Indigenous Knowledge Centre administrators participated in Stage 2 Public
Library Services training in Brisbane in March 2006, while 15 new administrators participated in Stage
1 Public Library Services training in Cairns in April 2006.
After-school and homework programs for children and young people have become an important
component of daily activities at many Indigenous Knowledge Centres and some have commenced
weekly movie sessions to entice new community members to the centres. The continued use of the
music-based literacy karaoke program I Can Sing, I Can Read is enhancing the children’s ability to read
and sing within their communities and has successfully made links with other community organisations.
During 2006, the State Library commenced a sustainability evaluation of each Indigenous Knowledge
Centre. The sustainability evaluations promote the assurance that each Indigenous Knowledge Centre
will remain relevant to the needs of each individual community and foster an environment of family
learning, community engagement and cultural revitalisation.
As a part of the State Library redevelopment due to be completed in late 2006, the State Library will
include an Indigenous Knowledge Centre to be known as ‘kuril dhagun’. Although very different in
scale and purpose to the community-based regional Indigenous Knowledge Centres, kuril dhagun will
be an important part of the network. Part of the program of exhibitions and events will use content
from the regional Indigenous Knowledge Centres, working with them to develop content that reflects
the communities they serve. Kuril dhagun will be a focal point for the vibrant and living cultures of
Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders.
252
An independent audit was undertaken during 2006 to ascertain the information and communications
technology capacity at each Indigenous Knowledge Centre. Recommendations contained in this report
are now being discussed with councils.
Appendix H
Information and communications technology in Indigenous Knowledge Centres
The State Library considers the lack of information and communications technology infrastructure as a
major restriction to the effective operation of the Indigenous Knowledge Centres and the services they
are able to provide to their respective communities.
An effective and reliable Internet connection is also vital to support the State Library’s Taking IT On
project, due to take place in 2006–07. The Taking IT On project will provide basic information
technology and technical support training to library administrators and other adults in 22 remote
Indigenous communities where libraries and Indigenous Knowledge Centres are located. The Australian
Government, through the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts,
supports this information technology training and technical support program.
During 2005–06 the State Library was a key respondent to discussion papers about the Australian
Government’s Connect Australia initiative, in particular the Backing Indigenous Ability funding and
its proposed use for public Internet access and information technology training in remote Indigenous
communities.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Training and Employment Strategy 2005–10
The State Library has continued to improve employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal
people and Torres Strait Islanders. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Training and Employment
Strategy 2005–10 has progressed to final draft stage following extensive consideration and
consultation with the Indigenous Advisory Committee. Key activities the State Library undertook to
support implementation of the strategy included:
© continuation of the scholarship program
© appointment of two Indigenous trainees
© increased employment of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders in executive and senior
positions within the State Library.
Half of those now employed by Indigenous Library Services are Aboriginal people and Torres Strait
Islanders.
The knowledge and skills of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders working in the Indigenous
Knowledge Centres continue to be enhanced through regular training opportunities provided by the
State Library.
Reconciliation Strategy
The Library Board of Queensland endorsed the State Library’s Reconciliation Strategy in June 2006.
The strategy confirms the State Library’s commitment to developing leadership for reconciliation by
building the capacity of State Library staff to develop and sustain reconciliation activities, improve
service delivery for reconciliation by facilitating information and knowledge exchange, and achieve
reconciliation through engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Workshops
held with State Library staff in 2005 provided the foundation upon which the Reconciliation Strategy
was developed.
253
Protocols for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander collections
Extensive consultation with the Indigenous Advisory Committee and key organisations has facilitated
development of draft protocols for managing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander collections held
by the State Library. The protocols ensure access to the collections while acknowledging the moral,
intellectual and cultural rights of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders as owners of their
cultural heritage. State Library staff and clients will use the protocols as a guide for accessing and
using the collections including photographs, genealogies, and manuscripts and published material.
Indigenous council membership of the LGAQ is continuing to increase. In all, 15 community councils are
now members of the LGAQ and Indigenous councils represent 10.7 per cent of total LGAQ membership.
The LGAQ maintained regular dialogue with both the Aboriginal Local Government Association and the
Island Coordinating Council during the year.
The LGAQ, in partnership with the State Indigenous Natural Resource Management Murri Network,
held a forum in Cairns in February 2006 to explore opportunities for councils to undertake land and
sea initiatives. The forum attracted over 60 delegates from 10 Aboriginal community governments.
Councils’ key capacity needs were identified and specific actions were outlined by the LGAQ in
response to those needs. The actions included development of a guide for Aboriginal councils on
integrating land and sea management into local government corporate plans. A similar guide is being
developed for the Island councils.
The LGAQ is currently developing a range of other natural resource management support products and
training to assist all Queensland councils.
Native Title and Indigenous Cultural Heritage
This year the LGAQ was funded to continue to act as the group representative for a number of regional
groups of councils negotiating native title outcomes. The model’s aim is to provide efficiencies sought
by the Queensland Attorney-General while ensuring local government continues to have access to the
level of representation it needs.
The LGAQ’s native title officer, a position funded by the federal Attorney-General’s Department until
30 June 2007, coordinates these council groups and works closely with the legal representative elected
by each group. Currently a third of Queensland councils are members of regional native title groups and
negotiations with various native title claim groups about native title and cultural heritage are ongoing.
Individual councils are also involved in native title and cultural heritage negotiations.
Indigenous councils – Councillor Training Program
A contract with the Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation (January 2006
to June 2008) provides members of Indigenous councils with an opportunity to earn the Certificate IV
in Local Government (Administration). Councils have responded positively to this initiative; to date the
department has delivered the program to 16 out of 32 councils.
LGAQ undertook training needs analyses within councils before starting the training program. The
training program consists of 12 units of competence to be achieved for the formal qualification; topics
reflect core skills that councils identified within their training needs analysis. The interactive, user-
254
Key skills such as corporate planning, operational planning and managing budgets are currently being
delivered. Attendees are required to consider and prepare documentary evidence of skills, knowledge
and attributes towards the Certificate in Local Government, while reviewing and improving their
own council’s documents and systems. The improvement and increased awareness of legislation,
regulations and compliance for all individuals is a priority.
Appendix H
led program requires all candidates to contribute, discuss and share business processes within their
own council.
The department led the Business Training Program, which is designed to improve and increase
knowledge of and skills in using the Local Government Act 1993. This program forms part of the
transitional arrangements from the Communities Act to the Local Government Act, with a focus
on governance.
At the conclusion of the program in 2008, LGAQ believes councils will have been enabled to establish
or improve all key business documents and processes that comply with the Local Government Act
1993 and Finance Standards 2004.
Western Australia
Department of Local Government and Regional Development
The Department of Local Government and Regional Development facilitated a range of initiatives
to strengthen the relationship between local government and Indigenous communities to improve
service delivery.
The department is committed to working with local government to develop Indigenous councillors’
capacity to strengthen local government systems. It has held workshops for this purpose in Wiluna
and Halls Creek, delivered a capacity-building program to the Shire of Wiluna in the form of a series of
workshops with all councillors, and provided ongoing support to shire staff.
In August 2005, the Human Services Director Generals Group, through the Wiluna Development
Project, mandated the department as lead state agency to address levels of disadvantage suffered by
Indigenous communities. The project focuses on the department supporting the shire in developing
a partnership approach between government, industry and the community to improve the townsite of
Wiluna. Key results include:
© a signed memorandum of understanding with the Shire of Wiluna to progress a Department of
Housing and Works New Living Program which centres on improving the streetscape and building
12 new houses
© a commitment to build a new school
© a commitment to upgrade the sewerage infrastructure
© partnering with industry to increase employment opportunities
© a new swimming pool and art gallery
© an increase in sport and recreational programs
© an increase in shire service provision to the Aboriginal reserve, Bondini
© an increase in Indigenous employment with the shire
© ongoing research to devise a governance and management model for the Desert Gold
horticultural lease
© attracting a project management fund of $1.9 million.
255
In addition, the department has formed a partnership with the Fire and Emergency Services Authority
of Western Australia to provide greater support to local governments who are coordinating emergency
management plans with discrete communities.
The department improved statewide Indigenous service delivery by facilitating ways to increase the
capacity of local governments and their Indigenous communities to enter into service agreements.
Activities the department is currently involved in include undertaking community-based feasibility
studies, creating an equitable negotiation process, stocktaking the viability of local, state and federal
funding and identifying and eliminating financial, administrative and cultural risks in both a policy and
operational context.
To improve Indigenous representation in local government, the department delivered a comprehensive
Indigenous local government election strategy. The strategy ensured broad Indigenous community
exposure to the role of local government through departmental field visits, radio advertising and
development and dissemination of written material designed for an Indigenous audience. The strategy
also included developing an ongoing partnership with the Australian Electoral Commission and the
Western Australian Electoral Commission to increase enrolments and voter turnout.
The Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission has continued to recognise the social
and economic implications of having Indigenous communities within councils in Western Australia. For
the 2005–06 grant allocations, four disability factors, to the value of $18.6 million, were applied to
recognise Indigenous communities. The Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission’s
methodology provides comprehensive recognition of Indigenous factors and allowances.
Young Indigenous Local Government Scholarships
The Young Indigenous Local Government Scholarship program aims to help Indigenous youth gain
work skills and increase their employment prospects. In 2005–06, the department made 12 $10 000
scholarships available to local governments to fund 12-month work placements.
Indigenous Leadership Program
Through the Indigenous Leadership Program, small grants are available for Indigenous communities to
provide leadership initiatives. The Garnduwa Indigenous Leadership Program was funded in 2006. The
program ran for 12 months and involved up to 60 young Indigenous people in the Kimberley.
Western Australian Local Government Association
In response to the new Western Australian Emergency Management Act 2005, the Western Australian
Local Government Association is working, in partnership with the Fire and Emergency Services
Authority of Western Australia, to implement a project that examines local government’s emergency
management role as well as that of the Aboriginal communities.
South Australia
Office for State–Local Government Relations and the Local Government
Association of South Australia – combined report
South Australia continues the approach characterised by collaboration between the spheres of
government in program design and implementation.
256
For several years the Australian Local Government Association, the Local Government Association
of South Australia and the South Australian Government have encouraged councils to consider
developing agreements with Indigenous community organisations located in their areas. Agreement
making supports the role of councils in coordinated planning strategies, sets out areas of mutual
interest for the overall benefit of the local council area and provides a structured framework to promote
effective working relationships and offer community capacity-building opportunities. Three significant
agreements, each different, yet consistent with the spirit of working together, are now in place in South
Australia. The agreements are the:
© land use agreement between Yorke Peninsula and Narungga Nations Aboriginal Corporation
© reconciliation agreement between the Cities of Holdfast Bay, Marion and Onkaparinga, the District
Council of Yankalilla and Southern Kaurna
© alliance agreement between Coorong District Council and the Raukkan Community Council.
Appendix H
Agreements
Land use agreement between Yorke Peninsula and Narungga Nations Aboriginal Corporation
Statewide negotiations have resulted in the first Indigenous Land Use Agreement involving local
government in South Australia. Four councils, the Narungga Native Title Committee, the Aboriginal
Legal Rights Movement, and the South Australian Government negotiated the Indigenous Land Use
Agreement that sets out a process for planning infrastructure development, including a protocol for
protecting Aboriginal heritage. The agreement was signed in December 2004 after some 20 months of
consultation and negotiation.
Under the agreement, a committee comprising members of the signatory parties is to be established
to resolve any Native Title and cultural heritage issues that may arise, and to work together on issues
at a local level. The process was a pilot under South Australia’s unique statewide negotiations and it
was used by a local government sub-group to develop a template, the Indigenous Land Use Agreement
for South Australian councils. The Local Government Association of South Australia conducted a
successful forum on Native Title issues on 27 September 2005 where a DVD showing an account of
negotiations of the Narungga Indigenous Land Use Agreement was launched. The template is one
option available to councils. It has been circulated to all councils and is also available on the Local
Government Association of South Australia website at <www.lga.sa.gov.au.au/goto/nativetitle>.
Reconciliation agreement between Cities of Holdfast Bay, Marion and Onkaparinga, the District
Council of Yankalilla and Southern Kaurna
A new reconciliation agreement, the Kaurna Tappa Iri Regional Agreement, was launched on
9 September 2005. Taking two years to complete, the agreement covers the period 2005 to 2008
and is the result of a working group of representatives of the three Kaurna heritage associations,
the Kaurna Native Title claimant group Kaurna Yerta, and the Cities of Holdfast Bay, Marion and
Onkaparinga, and the District Council of Yankalilla. The agreement provides a structure for progressing
reconciliation under seven themes. The agreement won the Strengthening Indigenous Communities
Award in the 2005 National Awards for Local Government.
Alliance agreement between Coorong District Council and Raukkan Community Council
The alliance agreement forms part of a broader project, the Local Government/Aboriginal Service
Agreement Project, which involves working with a number of councils and Aboriginal landholding bodies
located within those council areas.
257
First initiated in 2003, and funded primarily by the South Australian Government through the Aboriginal
Affairs and Reconciliation Division and Office for State/Local Government Relations, the project was
part-funded and managed by the Local Government Association of South Australia. This collaborative
work explored the notion of service agreements and considered approaches to application; it resulted
in publication of a new guide to help South Australian councils develop agreements. Titled A Local
Government/Aboriginal Service Agreement Case Study Guide, the guide features a checklist of steps
to take, and offers practical guidance by showcasing an actual alliance agreement developed by the
Coorong District Council and the Raukkan Community Council.
The alliance agreement recognises the value of coordinated strategic planning on matters of mutual
interest. The alliance formed part of the work on the guide and the process and experiences of
the emerging alliance form a story of this journey. Useful protocol tips, information about days of
significance to Aboriginal people and about the Aboriginal Flag also feature in the guide. Launched on
6 October 2005, the guide is available on the Local Government Association of South Australia website
at <www.lga.sa.gov.au/goto/indigenous>.
Native Title
In addition to the signing and registration of the Narungga Indigenous Land Use Agreement, an
agreement was signed in relation to a marina development and wider Far West Coast. Negotiations
commenced involving the District Council of Ceduna. Negotiations have also commenced in Coober
Pedy and covering eight councils along the Murray River. Preparations for the Kaurna negotiations
involving 29 councils and covering more than the entire Adelaide metropolitan area were also
advanced. The statewide negotiations have finalised a strategic plan to prioritise negotiations following
liaison with the National Native Title Tribunal. Information about the statewide negotiations can be
found on <www.iluasa.com>.
Local government elections
South Australia’s local government elections are held every four years and elections were held
on 10 November 2006. Voting is voluntary and conducted by postal ballot. Consistent with South
Australia’s Strategic Plan target to increase voter turnout in local government elections to 50 per cent
by the year 2014, the South Australian Government and the Local Government Association of South
Australia are cooperating in their efforts to promote interest among under-represented groups in local
government elections.
Aboriginal leaders and networks are a focus of activities with a joint state and local government
program involving the Office for State–Local Government Relations, Aboriginal Affairs and
Reconciliation Division, and Local Government Association of South Australia. The project is building
on the work undertaken for the previous local government elections and the approach recognises
that councils have responsibility for promoting elections in their area. As at 30 June 2006, a revised
poster and a brochure with Aboriginal artwork setting out key election dates were in production to help
councils with their promotional campaigns. Information sessions, specifically for Aboriginal leaders,
about local government and local government election processes were scheduled for regional and
metropolitan areas.
Review of funding of five Aboriginal local governing authorities
In 1994–95 the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission commenced funding five
Aboriginal local governing authorities located in ‘out of Local Government Act’ areas of South Australia.
258
Appendix H
These bodies are: Anangu Pitjantjatjara; Gerard Community Council; Nepabunna Community Council;
Yalata Community Council; and Maralinga Tjarutja. Over the years, the commission, as part of its
regular visiting program, has increased its knowledge of local government type services and has
worked with the authorities to develop relevant General Information Return reporting methods thus
ensuring requirements are met throughout the state.
Ten years on, the commission endorsed a review to inform the commission about local government
type service revenues, and provide an assessment of each authority’s future needs. The review
commenced in September 2004 and considered current sources of funding for local government type
services, data collection and reporting arrangements and other state and territory funding models.
Anangu Pitjantjatjara was used as a case study to outline matters taken into consideration. This
research provided a foundation for further discussions between the commission and the authorities.
During 2005–06, the commission did additional investigations into the extent of funding (both the
range and depth of funding) received by the communities in order to try to identify each community’s
funding needs.
Over the past 10 years, but more importantly the last three years, the commission is grateful for the
collaborative relationship that has developed between all the funding partners. It is hoped that with this
degree of cooperation the commission will be able to identify the funding gap, to more appropriately
identify each community’s funding needs.
Tasmania
Local Government Division, Department of Premier and Cabinet
The Tasmanian Government continues a major program of negotiating Partnership Agreements with
individual councils and regional groupings of local governments across the state. As part of negotiating
some agreements, the Tasmanian Government is seeking to promote links between local government
and the Aboriginal community.
The aim is to identify key issues that affect Aboriginal people in the local government area and develop
strategies to address them. Broadly, the topics covered include:
© strategies to improve the level of participation of Aboriginal people in local government
© promoting understanding of Aboriginal issues in the wider community
© sustaining the reconciliation process by encouraging public support and participation
© taking joint action to reduce social disadvantage in the Aboriginal community
© measures to enhance economic development and employment opportunities for Aboriginal people.
The government’s cooperative and collaborative working relationship with the Australian Government
continues to progress Tasmania’s COAG trial focusing on Aboriginal family violence. The trial is being
conducted in the north of the state and local government is engaged in the process. The Launceston
City Council continues to fully support the trial.
The Tasmanian Government recently returned Cape Barren and Clarke Islands to the Tasmanian
Aboriginal people. With the agreement of the Flinders Council, the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal
Association will take on responsibility for maintaining the road network on Cape Barren Island. This
will provide much needed employment opportunities on the island. Additionally, Flinders Council
259
has indicated a willingness to negotiate a service agreement with the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal
Association to maintain the rubbish tip and cemetery on the island.
In Tasmania the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association provides municipal services on Cape Barren
Island. They are responsible for power, water and sewerage infrastructure and services; the Australian
Government funds the Association to provide these services.
With the recent return of Cape Barren Island to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people, the Tasmanian
Government has recognised this unique situation with the Cape Barren Island Road Maintenance
Contract, the Cape Barren Island High School, and the Cape Barren Island Renewable Energy Project.
Cape Barren Island Road Maintenance Contract
As part of the Cape Barren Island land return, the Tasmanian Government has provided funding to
the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association for maintenance of roads on Cape Barren Island –
something that was previously the responsibility of the Flinders Council.
The Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association will undertake up to $350 000 in road maintenance
and upgrading work annually on a contractual basis to the Department of Energy, Infrastructure and
Resources. To help the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association take up this role, training is being
provided to community members and capital funding has been allocated to purchase the necessary
road building equipment.
The annual maintenance and upgrade program will be determined in consultation with the Cape Barren
Island community.
The initiative is expected to provide significant employment and training opportunities, as well as a
better road network for the island. This will, in turn, help the community develop tourism and other
commercial ventures.
Cape Barren Island High School
The Tasmanian Government provided a new classroom, equipment and teacher for children on Cape
Barren Island for Years 7 to 10. Secondary school students now no longer have to move to Launceston
or Flinders Island for their secondary education.
Cape Barren Island Renewable Energy Project
Negotiations on a proposal for a renewable energy project for Cape Barren Island are continuing. The
project involves upgrading existing wind turbines, establishing improved energy storage and replacing
existing diesel generation capacity. It will be a partnership between the Cape Barren Island community,
Hydro Tasmania and the federal and state governments. Employment opportunities in construction
and ongoing maintenance of the power generation system will be created. Additionally, the new power
system will provide greater opportunities for business development, which in the past was not feasible
given the expense and unreliability of the previous power generation system.
260
Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport
Appendix H
Northern Territory
Bilateral Agreement
In 2005–06, the primary vehicle for progressing microeconomic reforms to local government and
measures to improve Indigenous service delivery has been the Overarching Agreement on Indigenous
Affairs between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Northern Territory of Australia. The Prime
Minister, the Hon. John Howard MP, and the Northern Territory Chief Minister, the Hon. Clare Martin
MLA, signed the agreement in April 2005.
The agreement sets out a collaborative approach by the Northern Territory and Australian governments
to work with Indigenous communities to improve government service delivery and key social and
economic outcomes for Indigenous Territorians.
In signing the agreement the two spheres of government agreed to address five priority areas. The two
priority areas relevant to this report are:
(i) strengthening governance and developing community capacity to ensure that communities
are functional and effective, and
(ii) improving service delivery and infrastructure that recognises demographic change and the
need to lift the performance of the governments.
Schedules are being progressively attached to the agreement to set out in more detail how the
governments will work together in priority areas. Schedule 2.3 deals with establishing stronger local
government structures.
Schedule 2.3 outlines commitments to carry forward the work the Northern Territory has undertaken
to establish stronger, regionalised and more sustainable local government bodies. Under the
agreement, the Australian Government has provided an additional $1.6 million for recruiting and
placing senior public sector employees in remote locations as Development Coordinators. Officers are
currently placed in the predominately Indigenous areas of Tiwi Islands, Southern Barkly, East Arnhem,
Nyirranggulung, Thamarrurr, Victoria River, Groote Eylandt and Central Australia. A Development
Coordinator will also soon be placed at Borroloola.
Development Coordinators are working with local government bodies and other regional organisations
to facilitate better governance, strategic planning and improved service delivery. They are using a
community development approach to lay a strong foundation for successful regionalisation of local
government and future Regional Partnership Agreements. Their role also includes providing detailed
and reliable data about the target communities for the Northern Territory and Australian governments,
and importantly, for the communities themselves.
Governance
Much work needs to be done to improve the standard of governance and leadership in remote and
regional communities. Without strong governance, the best efforts to lift the standard of service
delivery will continue to face enormous hurdles.
The Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport recently entered into a Joint Venture
Agreement with Reconciliation Australia to develop a groundbreaking Indigenous governance program.
The program will provide an accessible, entry-level approach to Indigenous governance development
261
that will cater for elected members on large councils as well as governing bodies of smaller Indigenous
organisations. The Department has provided $500 000 for this program.
The program will allow for immediate access to resources to enable Indigenous representatives to solve
common governance problems such as reaching quorums, avoiding conflicts of interest and separating
administrative and elected member functions. It will also provide avenues for Indigenous elected
members to attend established accredited training that registered training organisations are providing.
The Australian Government is contributing financially to this project through the Bilateral Agreement.
Further reform
Since 2003, the Northern Territory has encouraged a process of voluntary regionalisation of local
government under the Stronger Regions – Stronger Futures strategy. As a result, three regional local
government bodies have been formed and other groups have variously held discussions and released
proposals.
However, the pace of voluntary change has been disappointing – especially given the fundamentally
unsustainable nature of many existing small, remote local government bodies. As a result, the
department is directly intervening in many local governments to secure basic service delivery in the
absence of functional governance and/or administration.
Accordingly, the Northern Territory Cabinet is considering proposals for a more directed approach to
local government reform, with an announcement expected in late 2006.
Local Government Association of the Northern Territory
The Association has 63 members, 50 of whom are either based in Aboriginal communities or whose
elected representatives are Aboriginal. The great bulk of services the Association delivers are for
Aboriginal communities.
The Association provides to its member councils examples of local government best practice in the
form of guest speaker presentations at its two general meetings per year (May and October). The
presentations during 2005–06 were made by the Director General of the Council of Local Authorities
for International Relations, Yoshiyasu Hyotani, on the reform of local government in Japan and from
the Director, Wyndam City Council (Victoria), Bernie Cronin, on the importance and relevance of social
planning for councils when undertaking community services for residents.
The Association, in partnership with the Northern Territory Emergency Services, launched the Guide
to Disaster Risk Management in Northern Territory Aboriginal Communities and, with the support of
Emergency Management Australia and the Northern Territory Government, conducted a workshop
for councils on how to use the guide. The Association helped 15 member councils build community
infrastructure and implemented the Regional Aviation Security Program – Securing our Regional
Skies through five workshops. The workshops were conducted with assistance and support from the
Northern Territory Police and the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services.
The Association participated in two committee deliberations that were pursuing local government
structural reform with the aim of amalgamating the councils of Kunbarllanjnja, Minjilang and Warruwi
into one council in the region of Western Arnhem Land and the councils of Coomalie and Pine Creek
(and extensive areas surrounding them) in the region encompassing the towns of Adelaide River,
Pine Creek and Batchelor. The Association managed consultancies that delivered management and
262
The Association provided a range of human resource management and industrial relations services
to councils, including recruiting and appointing chief executive officers for 28 remote area council
positions and conducting an induction program for them. The Association secured their services
through negotiation of standard employment contracts – a practice that was not well managed in
previous years.
Appendix H
transitional plans for both proposals. This work will continue in 2006–07 as all councils have concerns
about their ongoing operational capabilities.
The Association, with expertise and assistance from the Western Australian Local Government
Association, represented councils in the Industrial Relations Commission on 12 occasions and made
367 contacts with councils about disciplinary matters, industrial relations and advice on industrial
awards. This was done as a means of sharing resources as most councils in the Northern Territory do
not employ specialist industrial relations or human resource management personnel.
Under the Australian Government’s Networking the Nation program, the Association met its ongoing
information and communications technology obligations to councils (following cessation of the program
on 30 June 2005) to provide a local government network throughout the Northern Territory. The
Association provided, among other things:
© a 9.00 am to 5.00 pm help desk (approximately 3000 calls received)
© equipment repair, sourcing, configuration, shipping and installation
© virus filtering of incoming email
© website design, administration, backup, training and support (40 websites developed)
© community-based training in basic information technology use
© intervention and disaster recovery against internal and external abuse, malicious damage,
password denial or loss, and firewall administration.
These services contributed greatly to councils having stable information and communications
technology environments.
As most councils are unable to attract qualified financial management personnel to undertake crucial
financial reporting and management obligations, the Association undertook this work for eight councils.
The Association provided engineering services to councils including management of nine member
councils’ AusLink Roads to Recovery projects. It also completed road safety audits for six councils,
completed a waste management plan for the Ntaria Council, as well as managing or collaborating on
waste oil, natural resource management and swimming pools in remote area projects in conjunction
with the Northern Territory and Australian governments.
The Association managed a number of federal community services projects in conjunction with the
Northern Territory Government, all of which were designed to achieve harm reduction outcomes.
Projects included partial construction of a police station at Mutujulu, a sobering up and special care
centre at Nhulunbuy, safe houses at Elliot and Milikapiti and sport and recreation facilities at Ali Curung.
263
Chief Minister’s Department
During 2005–06 the ACT Chief Minister’s Department worked with other ACT Government agencies to
develop a draft framework to guide whole-of-government policy and actions in addressing the social,
economic and cultural needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the territory. The draft
framework is designed around the five priority areas of:
© respect, diversity and human rights
© strong, safe cohesive communities
© health and wellbeing
© education and training
© economic opportunity.
The draft framework identifies a range of critical outcome indicators that, to a large extent, mirror the
headline and strategic indicators within the COAG-endorsed Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage
Framework. The draft framework also accords with the Canberra Social Plan and its goals and targets.
The draft framework will be used across government as the basis for developing, monitoring, reporting
and evaluating policy and program direction at the whole-of-government level in the territory.
The areas where individual agencies are expected to take a lead role have been identified, and will be
included in agency service plans.
The department’s activities, in relation to relevant priority areas, are outlined below.
Respect, diversity and human rights – representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people
Throughout 2005–06 the Community Affairs Branch of the Chief Minister’s Department supported
the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Consultative Council to conduct an initial
consultation process with the territory’s Indigenous community on an ACT Indigenous representative
body. A report from that consultation process was formally presented to the Minister for Indigenous
Affairs in April 2006.
Further consultations will be undertaken during 2006–07 in partnership with the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander communities to develop a structure and constitution for the new body that reflect
priorities expressed during the initial community consultation process.
Strong Safe Cohesive Communities – ACT COAG Trial
From 2003 to 2005 the ACT Government participated in a trial partnership with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander communities and the Australian Government to pursue a range of agreed objectives.
The trial was evaluated between October and December 2005. Overall the evaluation report was
positive; it proposed that the trial had helped participants learn important lessons about working
together. Consistent with the ACT Government’s commitment to the Indigenous community, the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Consultative Council has been asked to consider the
evaluation report in the context of providing advice on future collaboration.
264
Appendix H
Building capacity
The ACT Government has supported a range of activities aimed at building capacity within the
Ngunnawal community, including funding a series of healing camps and supporting meetings of the
United Ngunnawal Elders Council. In addition, the government has continued to provide funding to
support refurbishment and operation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre.
The Community Inclusion Fund supports the Connecting Communities project, which is designed to
strengthen the sense of community and identity in the Indigenous community around Wanniassa
through a culturally appropriate after-school program and an adult education course.
The Community Inclusion Fund supports an Indigenous Women’s Law and Justice Support project,
which aims to improve access to and outcomes for Indigenous women in relation to law and justice
services by providing culturally appropriate services.
Education and training
The Community Inclusion Fund supports a number of projects designed to help Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children achieve positive educational outcomes. The On Track program provides
Indigenous primary school-aged students with an alternative educational approach in a positive and
supportive outdoor environment. The Gugan Gulwan Education Support program provides for a qualified
teacher two days per week offering an innovative and culturally appropriate education program for
Indigenous high school students who have left the school system early, or are at risk of leaving.
Table H.1: Financial assistance grant entitlements to Indigenous councils for 2005–06
Population
Council
area
(sq km)
Total
road
length
(km)
General
purpose
grant
Road
grant
1 166
7 383
183
$693 495
$83 076
Badu Island
786
10
53
$489 957
$28 061
$518 018
$623.35
$529.45
Bamaga
937
67
58
$510 162
$31 394
$541 556
$544.46
$541.28
295
67
53
$337 151
$23 679
$360 830
$1 142.88
$446.77
1 250
31
70
$79 377
$38 953
$118 330
$63.50
$556.47
Council name
Total
grant
General
purpose
grant
per capita
Road grant
per km
$776 571
$594.76
$453.97
Queensland
Aurukun
Boigu Island
Cherbourg
Dauan Island
Doomadgee
120
4
5
$322 671
$3 056
$325 727
$2 688.93
$611.20
1 236
1 510
127
$411 625
$61 463
$473 088
$333.03
$483.96
Erub Island
320
6
12
$355 917
$7 780
$363 697
$1 112.24
$648.33
Hammond Island
208
17
6
$318 527
$4 238
$322 765
$1 531.38
$706.33
Hopevale
914
1 100
185
$363 571
$81 621
$445 192
$397.78
$441.19
Iama Island
363
1
4
$344 089
$4 629
$348 718
$947.90
$1 157.25
446
795
265
$373 945
$109 213
$483 158
$838.44
$412.12
Kowanyama
1 054
2 520
212
$418 473
$93 592
$512 065
$397.03
$441.47
Kubin Island
226
152
21
$366 987
$10 356
$377 343
$1 623.84
$493.14
Lockhart River
642
3 597
221
$411 301
$93 648
$504 949
$640.66
$423.75
Mabuiag Island
240
6
9
$334 962
$5 716
$340 678
$1 395.68
$635.11
Injinoo (Cowal Ck)
265
Population
Council
area
(sq km)
Total
road
length
(km)
General
purpose
grant
Road
grant
Mapoon
Aboriginal Council
214
1 840
35
$433 396
Mer Island
462
7
5
1 042
1 231
813
6
Council name
Mornington
Napranum
Total
grant
General
purpose
grant
per capita
Road grant
per km
$15 809
$449 205
$2 025.21
$451.69
$340 582
$6 108
$346 690
$737.19
$1 221.60
560
$751 222
$231 679
$982 901
$720.94
$413.71
20
$275 471
$15 198
$290 669
$338.83
$759.90
360
94
16
$317 667
$9 566
$327 233
$882.41
$597.88
2 378
71
41
$304 830
$37 504
$342 334
$128.19
$914.73
Pormpuraaw
631
4 360
381
$374 409
$156 730
$531 139
$593.36
$411.36
Poruma Island
175
0
4
$325 733
$3 031
$328 764
$1 861.33
$757.75
Saibai Island
368
104
7
$375 716
$6 064
$381 780
$1 020.97
$866.29
Seisia Island
144
2
7
$296 700
$4 065
$300 765
$2 060.42
$580.71
St Paul’s Island
239
18
17
$344 092
$8 685
$352 777
$1 439.72
$510.88
57
0
2
$299 570
$1 302
$300 872
$5 255.61
$651.00
288
53
20
$303 252
$10 513
$313 765
$1 052.96
$525.65
New Mapoon
Palm Island
Ugar Island
Umagico
Warraber Island
Woorabinda
Wujal Wujal
Yarrabah
Yorke Island
Qld total and
average
239
1
5
$372 955
$4 118
$377 073
$1 560.48
$823.60
1 035
388
80
$71 482
$40 886
$112 368
$69.06
$511.08
379
11
20
$91 340
$11 325
$102 665
$241.00
$566.25
2 322
156
50
$217 078
$40 578
$257 656
$93.49
$811.56
$340 879
$6 175
$347 054
$1 014.52
$771.88
$11 968 584 $1 289 811 $13 258 395
$551.93
$466.98
$1 193.26
$648.78
$373.91
$130.59
336
2
8
21 685
25 610
2762
1 683
159 948
1 317
$2 008 260
2 223
52
787
$831 208
$102 775
Western Australia
Ngaanyatjarraku
(S)
$854 447 $2 862 707
South Australia
Anangu
Pitjantjatjara
Gerard
Maralinga
$933 983
93
0
10
$32 439
$13 693
$46 132
$348.81
$1 369.30
134
0
147
$67 782
$36 771
$104 553
$505.84
$250.14
71
0
10
$20 809
$13 633
$34 442
$293.08
$1 363.30
237
2
40
$82 550
$29 605
$112 155
$348.31
$740.13
2 758
54
994
$1 034 788
$196 477 $1 231 265
$375.20
$197.66
Aherrenge
(Arunga)
499
0
42
$80 822
$27 775
$108 597
$161.97
$661.31
Ali Curung
495
0
152
$68 056
$56 854
$124 910
$137.49
$374.04
Alpurrurulam
725
100
33
$95 891
$40 755
$136 646
$132.26
$1 235.00
Amoonguna
321
0
7
$31 943
$10 998
$42 941
$99.51
$1 571.14
Angurugu
833
2
152
$126 172
$128 998
$255 170
$151.47
$848.67
Nepabunna
Yalata
SA total and
average
Northern Territory
266
Population
Total
road
length
(km)
General
purpose
grant
Road
grant
Total
grant
General
purpose
grant
per capita
Road grant
per km
1 361
3 631
206
$219 486
$110 036
$329 522
$161.27
$534.16
Aputula
229
0
66
$38 795
$30 425
$69 220
$169.41
$460.98
Areyonga
223
0
37
$40 269
$30 454
$70 723
$180.58
$823.08
Arltarlpilta
312
12
52
$43 162
$21 034
$64 196
$138.34
$404.50
Belyuen
249
41
84
$34 049
$25 127
$59 176
$136.74
$299.13
Binjari
265
3
5
$28 868
$13 088
$41 956
$108.94
$2 617.60
Anmatjere
Borroloola
938
13
25
$123 492
$68 025
$191 517
$131.65
$2 721.00
Daguragu
711
43
36
$102 816
$70 696
$173 512
$144.61
$1 963.78
Galiwinku
1 911
0
352
$267 942
$166 725
$434 667
$140.21
$473.65
Gapuwiyak
1 027
0
368
$165 576
$145 233
$310 809
$161.22
$394.65
157
0
125
$34 703
$36 470
$71 173
$221.04
$291.76
Ikuntji
197
0
20
$34 527
$23 120
$57 647
$175.26
$1 156.00
1 531
13
28
$126 015
$74 954
$200 969
$82.31
$2 676.93
Jilkminggan
277
6
16
$36 115
$24 398
$60 513
$130.38
$1 524.88
Kaltukatjara
412
0
343
$71 858
$92 872
$164 730
$174.41
$270.76
Imanpa
Jabiru (T)
1 324
530
672
$233 842
$445 191
$679 033
$176.62
$662.49
Lajamanu
913
7 313
303
$132 002
$90 962
$222 964
$144.58
$300.20
Ltyentye Purte
(Santa Teresa)
594
1 242
118
$85 805
$82 886
$168 691
$144.45
$702.42
2 321
0
310
$292 356
$197 721
$490 077
$125.96
$637.81
Kunbarllanjnja
Maningrida
311
3
12
$32 020
$16 960
$48 980
$102.96
$1 413.33
1 222
0
53
$158 087
$54 995
$213 082
$129.37
$1 037.64
Milyakburra
220
0
52
$37 192
$18 933
$56 125
$169.05
$364.10
Minjilang
288
0
73
$49 530
$69 263
$118 793
$171.98
$948.81
Nauiyu Nambiyu
516
43
144
$84 581
$153 284
$237 865
$163.92
$1 064.47
Nganmarriyanga
(Palumpa)
480
0
155
$71 095
$72 545
$143 640
$148.11
$468.03
Marngarr
Milingimbi
643
0
305
$88 178
$73 349
$161 527
$137.14
$240.49
Numbulwar–
Numburindi
1 229
4 500
302
$183 454
$120 574
$304 028
$149.27
$399.25
Nyirranggulung
Mardrulk
1 285
28 700
441
$236 287
$316 831
$553 118
$183.88
$718.44
Nyirripi
322
0
431
$64 586
$102 117
$166 703
$200.58
$236.93
Papunya
400
0
214
$57 465
$52 542
$110 007
$143.66
$245.52
Peppimenarti
241
0
120
$66 456
$146 966
$213 422
$275.75
$1 224.72
Ntaria
Ramingining
707
0
145
$113 547
$104 822
$218 369
$160.60
$722.91
Tapatjatjaka
325
12
56
$38 531
$21 314
$59 845
$118.56
$380.61
Thamarrurr
2 619
3 450
286
$384 154
$206 136
$590 290
$146.68
$720.76
Tiwi Island
2 561
2 115
905
$446 613
$612 612 $1 059 225
$174.39
$676.92
Appendix H
Council name
Council
area
(sq km)
267
Council name
Population
Council
area
(sq km)
Total
road
length
(km)
Road
grant
Total
grant
General
purpose
grant
per capita
Road grant
per km
477
0
147
$90 689
$117 464
$208 153
$190.12
$799.07
1 002
386
301
$170 092
$56 584
$226 676
$169.75
$187.99
Walingeri–
Ngumpinku
500
5
76
$73 474
$47 750
$121 224
$146.95
$628.29
Wallace Rockhole
134
0
23
$26 293
$16 121
$42 414
$196.22
$700.91
Umbakumba
Urapuntja
Walungurru
476
0
335
$86 362
$137 767
$224 129
$181.43
$411.24
Warruwi
392
78
64
$69 412
$79 894
$149 306
$177.07
$1 248.34
Watiyawanu
(Mt Liebig)
252
0
73
$40 301
$26 816
$67 117
$159.92
$367.34
1 077
0
54
$127 689
$55 300
$182 989
$118.56
$1 024.07
Yirrkala–Dhanbul
Yuelamu
Yuendumu
287
22 142
214
$53 118
$76 134
$129 252
$185.08
$355.77
1 372
12 269
907
$253 095
$268 047
$521 142
$184.47
$295.53
$294 061
$180 511
Yugul Mangi
1 847
0
177
NT total and
average
39 010
86 652
9617
National total
and average
65 136
272 264
14 690
268
General
purpose
grant
$474 572
$159.21
$1 019.84
$5 910 924 $5 220 428 $11 131 352
$151.52
$542.83
20 922 556
$321.21
$514.71
7 561 163 28 483 719
Appendix I
Appendix I
Best practice in
local government
The Australian Government encourages best practice in local government. The government has
three main initiatives to recognise and promote best practice – the annual National Awards for Local
Government, the Leading Practice Database, and the Leading Practice Seminar Series.
The National Awards for Local Government are the peak national awards that reward and highlight
outstanding achievements in local government. They recognise councils’ resourcefulness, and
commend councils on finding better ways of delivering services and developing local solutions to often
complex and challenging problems.
The awards were established in 1986 to foster and acknowledge innovation and continuous
improvement in local government. They are managed by the Local Government Section of DOTARS. The
awards have attracted thousands of entries over their history, with many receiving both national and
international attention. They help to show how local governments throughout Australia demonstrate
remarkable enterprise in developing excellent and innovative ways of delivering services and managing
scarce resources in a changing environment. Details of the national and category award winners for
2006 are provided below.
Leading Practice Database
The Leading Practice Database includes summaries of all entries in the National Awards for Local
Government received since 1997. It is an interactive, searchable database, featured on the DOTARS
website at <dynamic.dotars.gov.au/nolg/nalg/index.aspx>. This valuable resource facilitates the
sharing of ideas, excellence and innovation among local government bodies across Australia.
Leading Practice Seminar Series
The Leading Practice Seminar Series is a DOTARS initiative started in 2000. Since that time entrants
in the National Awards for Local Government have shared their experiences with over 200 other local
government bodies across Australia.
The seminar series is run as a partnership between DOTARS and host councils, regional organisations
of councils or local government associations. The seminars provide an opportunity for councils to hear
269
from their colleagues and to discuss how particular project case studies might apply in their specific
situations.
In June 2006 a Leading Practice Seminar was held in Griffith, New South Wales, sponsored by the
Griffith City Council. The Hornsby Shire Council made presentations on the Somerville Park Early
Childhood Education Centre, the City of Salisbury on the Working Together for Families program, and
the Bankstown City Council on the culturally and linguistically diverse women’s leadership project
Women Speak. Each of these projects was an award winner in the 2005 National Awards for Local
Government. Two local programs – the Dorothy Waide Centre for Early Learning and the Creative
Riverina Youth Team – also provided presentations. Participants came from a number of councils in the
surrounding region and from as far away as Eurobodalla Shire on the South Coast of New South Wales.
2006 National Awards for Local Government
The year 2006 marked the 20th anniversary of the awards. The 2006 awards were launched on
28 April 2006 by media release by the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, and were
presented to coincide with the Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly in
Canberra on 27 November 2006.
The awards are funded by sponsorship from a number of Australian Government agencies. The
following departments were sponsors of the 2006 awards: Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry;
Employment and Workplace Relations; Environment and Heritage and its Australian Greenhouse Office;
Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; Health and Ageing; Immigration and Multicultural
Affairs; Industry, Tourism and Resources; and Transport and Regional Services. The Prime Minister’s
Community Business Partnership also provided sponsorship.
With 18 categories available in 2006, the awards reflect the diverse range of services local government
provides to its communities. This year, 215 entries were received from local governments across
Australia. Judging panels selected winners in each category and the winners were announced in August
2006. Table I.1 shows the categories in the four broad areas of Capacity Building, Community Services,
Environment and Management Practices.
270
Categories
Capacity Building
Community Services
Environment
Management Practices
Awards
Strength in Diversity
Health and Wellbeing
Local Greenhouse Action
Efficiency Improvement
Strong and Resilient
Communities
Planning for an Ageing
Community
Integrating Biodiversity
Conservation into Planning
and Management
Information Technology
Strengthening
Indigenous
Communities
Valuing and Promoting
Quality Child Care
Natural Resource
Management: Local
Government Integration
into Natural Resource
Management Planning and
Implementation
Increasing Women’s
Participation
Community Water Grants –
Water Saving
Asset Management
Youth Engagement
Community Business
Partnerships
Appendix I
Table I.1: Categories for the 2006 National Awards for Local Government
Local Government
Leadership Award for
Injury Prevention and
Management
Innovation in Regional
Development
Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services, unpublished data
National judging to select the winners of the 2006 awards took place on 27 and 28 September. The
National Judging Panel consisted of an independent chair, Ms Kathryn Greiner AO; a local government
specialist, Emeritus Professor Maurice Daly; a representative from the Australian Local Government
Association, Alderman Kerry Moir; a representative from Local Government Managers Australia,
Mr Steve McGrath; and a representative from DOTARS, Mr Daniel Owen. The National Judging Panel
selected the national winners following presentations from the 26 category award winners. Details of
the category and national award-winning projects, including contact details for further information, are
available on the DOTARS website at <dynamic.dotars.gov.au/nolg/nalg/index.aspx>. A brief summary
of each project is provided below.
National and special award winners 2006
National Award for Outstanding Achievement
City of Playford, South Australia – Marni Waeindi Indigenous Transition Pathways
Marni Waeindi – ‘towards a future’. This name, given by the Kaurna Plains Aboriginal Elders, recognises
community support for the Playford Indigenous Transition Pathways Centre. It is a broadly supported,
locally driven and culturally attuned way for Indigenous young people to fundamentally improve their
wellbeing through learning, training and meaningful employment opportunities.
Marni Waeindi is best described as a learning node, connected to a network of other agencies and
local industry, that provides a comprehensive range of education, training and other support services
to engage Indigenous young people in seamless, aspirational action-based learning with a strong
emphasis on employment, social inclusion and cultural participation.
During 2005–06, 150 Indigenous young people engaged in learning programs including technology,
visual arts, hospitality, horticulture, tyre fitting, hair and beauty. These young people are now
271
participating in further training and employment, with 15 employed, two undertaking traineeships,
17 in structured work placements, 75 undertaking vocational education and training courses and 10 in
school-based traineeships. The extent of engagement and learning outcomes is unprecedented.
National Award for Merit
Carpentaria Shire Council, Queensland – Normanton Youth Rural Training Program
Normanton is a town of 1500 people in the Gulf of Carpentaria region of Queensland. It has a large
Indigenous population living in poor socioeconomic circumstances.
Few young people finish Year 10 and those who do are often susceptible to peer pressure that suggests
the norm is to go on the dole. The Carpentaria Shire Council, in conjunction with Aboriginal groups, the
Murr Murr Corporation, Delta Downs cattle station and local police, decided to initiate a program that
would help the town’s young people and teach them skills.
The main components of the Youth Rural Training Program were:
© formulating training modules that involved several aspects of what young Aboriginal people enjoyed
doing, while at the same time making sure that the modules were beneficial for the participants
© ensuring that community consultation was paramount by involving the leaders of the Gkuthaarn
and Kuktj peoples and the Yargin and Bynoe Aboriginal Corporations in all aspects of
decision making
© obtaining the free services of Aboriginal mustering contractors, station personnel, welders and
leatherworkers to take charge of the various training modules, and because these trainers were
Aboriginal, ensuring more effective communication and providing role models.
The program was highly successful, with more than 100 attendees. The town’s young people were
taught new skills in a field they enjoyed. They were clothed and fed, and at the end presented with
certificates and trophies. Most importantly, during the Youth Rural Training Program, Normanton police
did not have one report of a young person misbehaving or carrying out any illegal activity.
National Award for Merit
Swan Hill Rural City Council, Victoria – Swan Hill Healthy Minds Network
The Swan Hill community wanted a better understanding about depression and mental illnesses and
how it could reduce and prevent suicides in the region.
The mayor called for a roundtable discussion with key people who provide services to residents
suffering with or caring for people with a mental illness. This meeting led to the formation of the
Swan Hill Healthy Minds Network. The network’s first task was to support a Community Depressive
Illness Forum.
Six hundred and fifty people from the community attended the forum and 350 of them filled out
evaluation forms. The evaluations provided the network with clear direction for addressing the needs of
the community and responding to issues relating to depression and mental illness.
National Award for Innovation
Campaspe Shire Council, Victoria – Community Development Program
For the last three years, the Shire of Campaspe’s Community Development Program has been the
region’s major social capacity building initiative. In that time, more than 10 per cent of the shire’s
272
Engaging the community was the first step in the process of empowering locals to steer their own
district’s or township’s future. By then integrating community plans developed by residents into the
council’s planning and budget processes, the Shire of Campaspe has signalled its support for this
innovative and unique program.
Appendix I
population participated in some form of consultation, engagement or contribution towards helping
secure a better and more sustainable future for their local communities.
Local Community Plan Groups representing 10 communities and 100 localities across the region
developed the blueprints for their communities’ future. Participants drew up a comprehensive list of
broad project areas requiring action, including the impacts of water industry reform, the need for health
service reviews, improved public transport access, access to broadband, an integrated approach to
tourism planning and the development of rail trails connecting districts. Importantly, solutions are now
being put in place for many of these identified concerns, and the communities are finding new ways to
more effectively negotiate their district’s or township’s future.
National Award for Innovation
(presented to a council with fewer than 15 000 ratepayers)
Sarina Shire Council, Queensland – Picture This program
The Picture This program is aimed at engaging young people living in small isolated areas of the
community cope with the demographic and social difficulties that exist because of lack of transport
and recreational facilities. A support worker consulted young people to gauge their needs within each
area. This was achieved through a campaign calling for young people to ‘make a difference’ to where
they lived by becoming part of the ‘youth action’ in their community.
The project took the young people through a series of safety audit activities that enabled them to look
at their community through a crime prevention and safety assessment perspective. The young people
then developed a pictorial audit of the community that gave the Sarina Shire Council a view of the
community through the eyes of its young people.
The Youth Action Group that evolved from this project became aware of the processes of working for
change within their community, and wrote to the council to invite them to view their picture boards and
talk about the solutions to the problems as they saw them. The first of these consultation processes
led to the council providing seed money for a grant submission for a new multi-purpose half basketball
court. The Youth Action Group is now actively involved in providing community input to the council and
helping run events for young people.
273
National Award for Excellence
Goulburn Mulwaree Council, New South Wales – Goulburn – A Water Conservation Community
Goulburn’s 22 000 residents have been on water restrictions for almost four years, including more than
18 months on level five restrictions, limiting domestic water use to just 150 litres per person, per day.
The amount of water used by Goulburn residents is now around one-third of that used by residents in
Australia’s capital cities.
The city’s daily average water use has more than halved in only four years. Water use has decreased
from an average of 13 megalitres per day in 2002 to between five and six megalitres per day. This use
rate has been maintained since 2004.
The entire community – residents, businesses, industry, sporting groups and the Goulburn
Mulwaree Council – have worked together to achieve this result, primarily through education and the
establishment of partnerships between the council and the community.
National Award for Excellence
(presented to a council with fewer than 15 000 ratepayers)
District Council of Yorke Peninsula, South Australia – Broadbanding in the District Council of Yorke
Peninsula
The District Council of Yorke Peninsula was the lead project proposer in a collaborative partnership to
assist in providing broadband service to the community, at a cost equivalent to metropolitan areas,
using the latest technologies for maximum coverage.
Wireless communications was identified as the most cost-effective, flexible, scalable and rapidly
deployable technology providing the greatest coverage. Wireless broadbanding is providing a
conservative 10 kilometre radial access wireless local loop around the major regional towns, enabling
data, voice and video capabilities to the maximum number of regional businesses, government
services, rural health services, not-for-profit organisations and individuals.
This broadband technology has enabled the district council to provide its growing web-based
e-commerce and corporate services to the majority of businesses and individuals. The technology also
allows state government, health services, tertiary education, businesses and individuals within the
region, for the first time, cost-effective broadband and Internet Protocol telephone communications for
developing new business and social opportunities.
Category award and commendation winners 2006
ASSET MANAGEMENT
Category winner
Clarence Valley Council, New South Wales – Regional Water Supply Strategy
The Regional Water Supply Strategy is the culmination of a cooperative partnership between the local
government authorities of the Clarence Valley–Coffs Harbour region and the state government. Key
objectives include water supply security for the region and protection of natural river systems.
The overall strategy consists of a ‘non-build’ water efficiency element and a ‘build’ element involving
the provision of major regional water supply infrastructure.
274
George Town Council, Tasmania – Removing the Crystal Ball in Asset Management
Appendix I
Winner council with under 15 000 ratepayer base
This project is benefitting the George Town Council by clearly and accurately identifying the current
and future costs of maintaining, rehabilitating and renewing existing assets as distinct from the future
maintenance and capital commitment undertaken when adding new assets. The community has been
proactively engaged, primarily with its building assets to date, and in future there will be a discussion
about desired levels of serviceability and affordability.
Commendation
MidCoast County Council, New South Wales – A Re-engineered Approach to Asset Management
MidCoast Water is a community-based utility structured as a county council. It provides water and
wastewater services to 35 000 customers in the mid-north coast of New South Wales. MidCoast Water
was formed eight years ago from three separate organisations and faced several unique challenges
for asset management. These challenges included a large and widely spread asset base, low
relative revenue and customer density, rapid decentralised customer growth and an environmentally
sensitive region.
MidCoast Water recognised that, as well as rapid population growth in the region, the rate of demand
for higher levels of service was accelerating. In order to successfully manage this trend, MidCoast
Water developed a strategy based on shorter planning horizons and optimised use of capital. This
strategy relies on using new automation technologies and process techniques that significantly improve
the performance and output of existing infrastructure at much lower cost than traditional capital
upgrade approaches.
Commendation
Latrobe City Council, Victoria – Assessment of Road Signs for Retroreflectivity
Road signs are an essential part of the transport infrastructure that underpins the function of
Australian communities. However, unless correctly maintained, road signs may fade to the point where
they cease to serve their purpose. What is often not understood or appreciated is that the night-time
luminance of signs (measured by a scientific property of the sign sheeting known as retroreflectivity)
can diminish to the point where the sign is next to invisible – yet the sign can look perfectly
functional by day.
Latrobe City has pioneered the Australian development and use of a procedure for testing road signs
for retroreflectivity. A portable ‘retroreflectometer’, used in conjunction with other technology, enables
daytime scientific testing of signs for night-time performance. Signs are compared to appropriate in-use
standards, and replaced only when needed. This approach builds on the latest complex research and
testing from around the world, as well as the established methods used by Australian traffic engineers.
275
COMMUNITY BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS
Category winner
City of Cockburn, Western Australia – Cockburn Community Development Strategy –
Alcoa/City of Cockburn Community Projects Fund
The Community Projects Fund provides an effective and innovative framework for business, community
and local government to work collectively to address issues that the local community identifies, with
solutions that the local community develops.
The City of Cockburn and Alcoa World Alumina Australia provide the funding for the Community Projects
Fund. These funds are made available only to community associations that are members of the
Regional Community Development Group. Other community groups can apply through these member
groups. The fund is therefore available to a wide range of educational, volunteering and environmental
groups that are involved in creating a sustainable future for Cockburn.
Liverpool Plains Shire Council, New South Wales – Australian Railway Monument and Museum
Werris Creek, located on a major railway junction, is the first and last railway town in New South
Wales. The Werris Creek railway station is the third largest in New South Wales. The Australian Railway
Monument commemorates railway men and women who have lost their lives in railway accidents
since 1850. The landscaped monument area features six large sculptures of railway workers, an
amphitheatre for public concerts and walls of remembrance containing more than 2400 names.
The project involved partnerships with heritage advisors, RailCorp, the Department of Commerce, the
Australian Museum and most importantly the many volunteers who instigated the concept and worked
for some 11 years to ensure the project came to fruition.
Commendation
Penrith City Council, New South Wales – Growing Small and Home-based Businesses within
Penrith Valley
As a growing city with several major new urban release areas in the making, the Penrith Council has
adopted a one-to-one jobs policy that requires developers to create jobs to match the number of
working residents who will live in new release areas. Employment strategies for these areas have a
strong focus on home-based businesses that are emerging to meet the demands of industry in the
western Sydney region and to service an expanding population base.
The council is working in partnership with developers to promote Penrith’s attractions, including its
lifestyle attributes; to target home-based businesses; and to introduce planning controls that will
generate design and built forms conducive to home-based businesses. The council is also working in
partnership with telecommunication providers to promote the concept of ‘smart’ homes that have the
capacity to meet the information, communications and technology needs of the contemporary homebased business owner.
276
Municipal Council of Roxby Downs, South Australia – Roxby Downs Council Building
Community Assets
Appendix I
Commendation
The Roxby Downs Council facilitated formation of a business partnership with the community to
operate its own newspaper. The paper, which now employs eight people, has been instrumental in
building community pride and self-belief and has increased community capacity by giving a local voice
to individuals, community groups and businesses.
The council became the catalyst and driver to bring together local businesses and local people
with specialist skills in newspaper production and management to develop and fund the paper’s
feasibility stage.
COMMUNITY WATER GR ANTS – WATER SAVING
Joint category winner
Goulburn Mulwaree Council, New South Wales – Goulburn – A Water Conservation Community
This project won a National Award for Excellence. A description of the project is on page 274.
Joint category winner
Brisbane City Council, Queensland – Rocks Riverside Park Water Mining Project
Rocks Riverside Park is Brisbane’s largest riverfront park, covering 26 hectares with 800 metres of
prime river frontage. The park represents a model for creating contemporary urban public infrastructure
and facilities.
One of the key aims of the Rocks Riverside Park was to demonstrate how public space could be
developed sustainably and inclusively. As part of this aim, the council decided to irrigate the park using
recycled water. Mined wastewater is treated using constructed reed beds and ultraviolet disinfection.
This produces high-quality non-potable water suitable for irrigation.
The project is the largest of its type in Australia with the potential to save up to 130 megalitres of water
every year. The project also reduces the flow of nitrogen and nutrients to the Brisbane River by 750
kilograms per year, and saves 100 tonnes per year in greenhouse gas emissions.
Commendation
Gold Coast City Council, Queensland – Gold Coast Water’s Home Watersaver Service
The Home Watersaver Service involves licensed plumbers on contract to Gold Coast Water visiting
residents’ homes to install water conservation technology. For $20, the plumber installs a triple-A rated
showerhead, tap flow regulators in kitchen, bathroom and outdoor taps and a water-saving device in
single-flush toilets; places water conservation prompts around the house; and provides a package of
information and advice on water-efficient products and water-saving tips. Designed with community
needs at its heart, the Home Watersaver Service is an efficient, cost-effective program for reducing
residential indoor and outdoor water and energy consumption.
Aimed at home and rental property owners, the program is quickly gaining a high profile in the
community. It is achieving its objective of raising awareness of water conservation and water-efficient
devices by retro-fitting a large portion of homes. Research indicates that each home taking part in the
program will save 21 000 litres of water per year.
277
EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT
Category winner
Local Government Association of South Australia – Independent Inquiry into Financial
Sustainability of Local Government in South Australia
Confused media and public debate regarding the real financial position of local government in South
Australia was causing very real risks to good local decision making that could potentially lead to
inappropriate state-level responses. The Local Government Association of South Australia determined
that a robust independent inquiry was warranted. An independent board was appointed with support
services and it conducted a six-month inquiry incorporating a public submission and hearings program.
The board produced a final report in August 2005.
The report included 62 recommendations guiding the Association and councils as to how they could
best improve their financial sustainability using tools mostly within their control. Late in 2005 the
Association prepared a comprehensive Financial Sustainability Program and in 2006 commenced its
implementation.
Notwithstanding some criticism in the report of local government practices, councils have almost
universally welcomed its findings and recommendations. In addition to achieving its objective of
providing a factual underpinning to media and public debate over local government’s challenges, it has
provided a clear strategy for efficiency improvement. The approach has been recognised as innovative
and providing leadership to local government, with two other states subsequently establishing
similar inquiries.
Commendation
Penrith City Council, New South Wales – Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad
The Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad is an autonomous team of specialised
investigative officers targeting the illegal disposal of waste in western Sydney councils.
The member councils (Bankstown, Baulkham Hills, Fairfield, Holroyd, Liverpool and Penrith) have
formed a strategic alliance with the New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation
in an effort to reduce the illegal dumping of waste through innovative, yet cost-effective, methods. The
Penrith City Council manages the RID Squad project on behalf of these members.
The RID Squad provides resources to each council area to tackle the problem of illegal dumping
through the strategic alliance, which enables costs for each party to be distributed and reduced.
Commendation
City of Joondalup, Western Australia – Organisational Review – The Inclusive Way
The City of Joondalup initiated an organisational review to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness
in service delivery and organisational practices. The review was targeted at a high organisational level
to identify the key areas for improvement.
Three project teams (organisational development, service review and process review) and an overall
organisational review team were established. The teams developed a comprehensive project plan
setting forth the aims and objectives of the review.
278
Appendix I
Organisational review process was comprehensive and inclusive of all staff. The success of the project
can be attributed to the clear direction and support from the chief executive officer and leadership
team, including the significant trust placed in all project teams to review their discrete areas according
to their agreed methodologies. Each of the teams used a variety of methods, including focus groups,
structured interviews and questionnaires, to collect information about current operations. The teams
then analysed the data, drew conclusions for potential change and improvement, and provided a report
to the organisational review team.
Commendation
Randwick City Council, New South Wales – Public Place Management at Randwick Council
During 2005 and 2006 the Randwick City Council introduced a new public place management program
supported by three new positions within the organisation. The program aimed to enhance operational
focus and accountability, minimise duplication, reduce customer response times and enhance the
overall amenity and safety of the city’s public places.
New public place officers are responsible for monitoring and reporting on the impact the council’s
roads, parks, playgrounds, footpaths and street furniture have on the appearance of Randwick City.
The public place management program’s effectiveness has been due in large part to the innovative
and state-of-the-art technology that supports the operations of the public place officers. Officers
are equipped with wireless notebooks that allow them access to the council’s software applications,
including the geographic information system, live in the field. This enables them to instantly log
requests for service, obtain important land and property information, track the progress of previously
logged customer requests and monitor scheduled maintenance programs.
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
Category winner
Rockingham City Council, Western Australia – The Rockingham Community Health and
Wellbeing Project
This project is a partnership between the City of Rockingham and key stakeholders. To ensure the city
and its partners best meet the challenges of future growth and development in the region, the project
is based on principles of sustainable growth through creation and enhancement of the built, natural,
social and economic environments.
The project takes an innovative approach by adopting a socio-structural or social model of health,
whereby the social, environmental and economic systems that affect health and wellbeing are the
primary consideration (as opposed to the individualist model, which focuses on individual responsibility
for health and wellbeing). It is based on the idea that all residents and workers in the City of
Rockingham should have the capacity and opportunity to make healthy, safe, affordable, convenient
and environmentally sound choices in their day-to-day living and working situations.
Swan Hill Rural City Council, Victoria – Swan Hill Healthy Minds Network
This project won a National Award for Merit. A description of the project is on page 272.
279
Commendation
Campbelltown City Council, South Australia – Know Your Limits Alcohol Awareness Project
This program was piloted in November 2005 to educate young adults (aged 18–21) on responsible
drinking habits and to promote behavioural change. In partnership with the South Australian Police,
local young adults were engaged in a night of monitored drinking and activities to explore and discuss
drinking behaviours.
The success of the program can be attributed to its innovation and the hands-on approach taken to
engage, explore and assess the potential dangers of unsafe drinking behaviours.
The event was structured similarly to a ‘pub crawl’, and participants were breathalysed after each drink
to assess their blood alcohol concentration and accurately demonstrate how a maximum of six drinks
affected them over a five-hour period. This real-life simulation provided young adults with a unique
opportunity to understand and document the effect alcohol had on their individual blood alcohol
concentration levels.
Commendation
Golden Plains Shire Council, Victoria – Golden Plains Health Planning Forum
The Golden Plains Shire faced significant challenges in fostering effective health and wellbeing
services, including rapid population growth, limited health servicing outside regional centres, and poor
service coordination and role clarity. This had resulted in over-servicing and/or gaps in servicing in
some areas and over-burdening of non-health provider services, which had led to poor health outcomes
for residents.
The council initiated the Golden Plains Health Planning Forum, engaging the key decision makers of
more than 15 departments and agencies to meet quarterly and work together to coordinate health
service delivery in the shire. The forum’s vision and commitment to providing health services in the
shire have enabled it to forge strong and enduring partnerships between agencies and improve health
outcomes for communities in the region.
INCREASING WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION
Category winner
City of Salisbury, South Australia – Project Connect
Driven by the National Framework for Women in Local Government, Project Connect was derived from
a series of internal surveys and focus groups for the City of Salisbury’s paid staff across all levels and
disciplines to highlight the issues that affect them in the workplace.
Project Connect has given men and women opportunities to realise they have similar needs for
professional development programs. One specific innovation in Project Connect is a seven-session
development program for women, called Growing Professionally. The program aims to promote selfesteem within the workplace and build women’s confidence in their professional competence.
280
Holroyd City Council, New South Wales – Increasing Women’s Participation in the Public and
Private Sphere
Appendix I
Commendation
The Holroyd City Council established two key groups that share common goals:
© the Women’s Development Team, which aims to increase the representation of women in both
elected and administrative positions in the council
© the Holroyd Women’s Working Party, which aims to increase the participation of women in the
community.
The council established these groups to ensure that women from all aspects of life are empowered to
participate in both the public and private spheres of the community. Through constant consultation
and a collaborative approach, the two groups have developed and implemented practical strategies to
achieve a community where women are well skilled, equipped and empowered to actively participate in
community life.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Category winner
Clarence Valley Council, New South Wales – Life in the Engine Room
In February 2004 the councils of Copmanhurst, Grafton, Maclean, Pristine Waters, North Coast
Water and Clarence River County were amalgamated to form the Clarence Valley Council. The
amalgamation created many logistical and systems challenges for the new organisation. The cultures
and work processes of the former entities were very different, as were their infrastructures and asset
management protocols.
The information technology team for the Clarence Valley Council was officially formed in December
2004. More than 300 information technology-related projects were identified as critical to the
organisation’s initial development phase. With so many projects and so little time, the council decided
that, where possible, it would implement solutions that were tried and tested. Turn-key solutions were
favoured over in-house developed systems and these solutions have been implemented effectively.
INNOVATION IN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Category winner
Northern Tasmania Development – Regional Organisations of Councils, Tasmania – Beyond ROC
and Role
The year 2000 in northern Tasmania saw three bodies focusing on tourism, economic development
and governance. These have been combined into one system that operates within a company
structure, limited by guarantee and shares. Eight hundred shares were issued at $20 per share. The
region’s eight councils own 100 shares each. A skills-based independent board of management,
drawn from the broader community, runs the organisation. Councils’ role in the new organisation is
defined by a shareholders agreement. Several standing committees have been formed to address the
economic, social and environmental needs of the region. The structure is flexible enough to respond to
opportunities.
Today, the 120 private sector members contribute in excess of $100 000 each year to the organisation
in the form of membership fees that range from $200 to $6000. In 2003–04, the $700 000
281
budget was 80 per cent funded by local government. The 2006–07 budget of $2.8 million will be
only 20 per cent funded by local government. This is a significant and dramatic shift that is building
community ownership.
District Council of Yorke Peninsula, South Australia – Broadbanding in the District Council of Yorke
Peninsula
This project won a National Award for Excellence. A description of the project is on page 274.
Commendation
City of Playford, South Australia – City of Playford’s Regional Development Model Achieves World
Class Investment Outcomes
In 1999 the City of Playford outlined a comprehensive economic and industrial development strategy
in its economic plan, An Innovative City. Its key objectives were developing industry clusters, building
networks between companies, creating national and international market development and investment
opportunities for local companies, and developing technology transfer programs.
By 2001 Playford had created a $230 million global company resulting from its food cluster program
and was invited to speak at the 2001 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development World
Congress on Clusters, held in Paris. Building on the cluster methodology, Playford released its new plan
– Innovation and the Knowledge Economy – in late 2003. It outlined a regional approach to industrial
regeneration, innovation and creating industrial clusters. This plan is one of the key platforms in the
council’s city plan.
The success of the economic program is largely due to a comprehensive forward planning process with
government agencies building common aims and objectives that maximise resource allocation and
reduce duplication.
INTEGR ATING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION INTO PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT
Category winner
Brisbane City Council, Queensland – Compton Road Upgrade – Fauna Protection Measures
Compton Road is a major east–west arterial road connecting Brisbane City to Logan City. The road is a
significant carrier of peak-time traffic and had been progressively upgraded from two to four lanes over
a period of a decade. In 2003 Brisbane City Council commenced plans to upgrade the last remaining
two-lane section of road. As it travelled between the environmentally significant Karawatha Forest and
Kuraby Forest, this section had remained at two lanes.
Early in the project’s planning phase, local environmental groups and ecological experts were brought
in to develop measures to address the potential environmental impact of the upgrade to four lanes,
notably fauna mortality. Through genuine collaboration with these stakeholders and a desire to protect
the local environment, Brisbane City Council developed and implemented an upgrade project that:
© was supported by local environmental protection groups
© met council objectives for improving the road corridor
© was successful in virtually eliminating existing and potential fauna mortality in the area.
282
King Island Council, Tasmania – Currie Sewage Treatment Wetlands
Appendix I
This project demonstrates that primary treatment of sewage using a relatively simple wetland system is
an environmentally and economically sustainable solution for small communities throughout Australia.
While there was some initial community concern because the wetland was adjacent to the township of
Currie and in view of nearby residences, a motel and restaurant, the project has demonstrated that by
integrating a passive system with the surrounding natural environment, these systems can enhance
rather than detract from the aesthetics of an area.
The system has also had positive environmental effects. It has enabled extensive greenhouse gas
savings through minimal use of mechanical equipment compared with conventional systems and the
absence of chemical additives. The system has also afforded biodiversity enhancement through the
use of local native plant species, re-creation of natural dunal swales and improved quality of the water
disposed to nearby ocean habitats.
Commendation
City of Onkaparinga, South Australia – Fitting the Pieces Together – Biodiversity Management City
of Onkaparinga 2006
The City of Onkaparinga is an owner and custodian of public land and has care and control over
significant areas of biological diversity. These areas are mainly situated within riverine corridors,
coastal regions, reserves, road reserves, cemeteries, Crown land and landfill sites.
The city has integrated biodiversity policy into its primary strategic directions document, Creating our
Future; developed a road map for priorities and actions through a biodiversity strategy; incorporated
biodiversity objectives into various strategic documents; pursued regulatory change by strengthening
its development plan; created council positions that ensure biodiversity is considered in on-ground
planning and design of developments and council land; and engaged and sought input from other
agencies and community groups in an ongoing analysis of council performance through a native
vegetation review.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP AWARD FOR INJURY PREVENTION
AND MANAGEMENT
Category winner
Holroyd City Council, New South Wales – Holroyd’s Safety System of Innovation
Holroyd Council determined that the city’s safety management system needed review and modified it
with a ‘home grown’ version based on the Australian Standard (AS/NZS 4804 2001).
The council looked at the safety system’s existing structure and redefined it by identifying underlying
safety programs requiring further development and then finding the means to make necessary
changes. Teams were formed within the safety committee, enabling multiple programs or policies to be
developed or reviewed simultaneously within a 12-month period.
As a result of changes in its safety system, Holroyd experienced a 41.6 per cent reduction in insurance
premiums from 2003–04 and lost-time injuries declined during 2004–05.
283
Commendation
MidCoast Water County Council, New South Wales – Occupational Health, Safety, Welfare and
Injury Management (Workplace Safety)
MidCoast Water has developed a comprehensive safety system to address the specific hazards and
risks associated with its industry and region. The project involves ongoing improvement through
development, implementation, review and modification of the organisation’s systems and processes.
The project has included developing corporate policies, management plans, work procedures, and
training and auditing systems, while encouraging innovation in workplace practice improvement.
Substantial improvements to workplace safety have already taken place. These have been
highlighted in workplace audits and a reduction of lost-time injuries, resulting in reduced workers’
compensation premiums.
LOCAL GREENHOUSE ACTION
Category winner
Darwin City Council, Northern Territory – Shoal Bay Landfill Renewable Energy Facility
Darwin City Council’s regional Shoal Bay waste disposal site accepts in excess of 96 000 tonnes of
non-green waste and 142 000 cubic metres of green waste every year. Darwin’s tropical environment,
and the large volumes of green waste produced, leads to ever-increasing landfill gas emissions.
As part of its Road to Sustainability program, the council joined Cities for Climate Protection and
entered into a partnership with Land Management Services aimed at reducing landfill emissions by
constructing the first renewable energy facility in a tropical city.
This true ‘triple bottom line’ emission reduction project has:
© reduced landfill emissions from 46 000 tonnes to under 550 tonnes
© reduced fire risks, making the landfill a safer work environment
© provided electricity for 1000 homes
© provided an income from power sales which is used to fund implementation of further
environmental projects, including energy reduction action.
Commendation
Darebin City Council, Victoria – Going Places – Darebin’s Travel Reward Scheme
Darebin City Council’s innovative web-based Going Places travel rewards program shows the
community how a small change in personal travel can affect global greenhouse gas emissions and
save them money.
Residents register online and pledge to replace at least two of their normal drive-alone car trips each
week (one return journey). As the weeks pass, members log these trips onto the website, catch up with
any news and events and collect their program rewards including pedometers, local shopping vouchers
and movie vouchers. Members also receive a discount card to use at local participating businesses,
and there is a website facility for individuals to record their pedometer steps.
284
INTEGR ATION INTO NATUR AL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
AND IMPLEMENTATION
Appendix I
NATUR AL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Category winner
Byron Shire Council, New South Wales – West Byron Integrated Water Management Reserve –
Natural Resource Management in Action
Due to the increasing popularity of Byron Bay as a tourist and retirement destination, the Byron
Shire Council identified the need for increased treatment capacity for the West Byron Sewage
Treatment Plant.
The Byron Bay community was concerned about the impact of the sewage treatment plant on
the surrounding marine and terrestrial habitats. Over 10 years of consultation and planning, the
community, through the Byron Bay Waste Water Steering Committee, strove to minimise the impact of
the sewage treatment plant on the surrounding ecosystems while maximising the resource potential of
by-products.
Features of the reserve include a biological process treatment plant designed to minimise electricity
consumption and chemical use; an on-site effluent re-use project that helps manage acid sulphate
soils and accumulates carbon dioxide emissions; an urban re-use pipeline that supplies treated
effluent to Byron Bay for use on sports fields and plant nurseries; bio-solids recycling on local farms as
a soil conditioner; and an educational and recreation facility.
Commendation
Blacktown City Council, New South Wales – State of the Waterways Management Plan
Blacktown City Council, recognising the complexity and expense of managing its waterways and
catchments, embarked on a new planning project. The council’s management plan – the first of its kind
undertaken by a New South Wales council – provides for:
© developing a ‘rapid reach assessment’ for in-field creek analysis of 260 kilometres of drainage
lines (including 153 kilometres of naturalised creeks) and analysis of over 400 individual reaches
to determine the baseline condition for the waterways
© modelling pollutants for 115 sub-catchments within the 246 square kilometres of the Blacktown
City local government area
© compiling and developing over 270 waterway and catchment management actions, set against
baseline management targets for measuring implementation success
© setting a 15-year management action priority schedule to address priority waterway and
catchment management zones throughout the local government area
© compiling the research, analysis, methodologies and management plan in a report detailing the
analysis results and management actions for each major waterway and catchment.
285
Commendation
Local Government Association of Queensland – Integrating Natural Resource Management into
Local Government Corporate, Strategic and Operational Plans
The Local Government Association of Queensland has developed a practical resource to help councils
across Queensland understand the importance of sustainable natural resource management practices.
The guideline outlines a process for integrating natural resource management into a council’s corporate
plan and linking the corporate plan to the regional natural resource management plans. It is through
their corporate plan that councils deliver sustainable services to their communities. The corporate plan
is therefore a significant vehicle through which sustainable natural resource management outcomes
and activities can be pursued.
PLANNING FOR AN AGEING COMMUNITY
Category winner
Lake Macquarie City Council, New South Wales – Over 55 and Understood Project
In recognition of the rapidly ageing local population, Lake Macquarie City Council, in conjunction with
the New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development and a research consultancy,
conducted a comprehensive study into the 55+ market and the associated opportunities this provides
to local businesses.
Key findings of the study were:
© Lake Macquarie’s 55+ population is expected to increase to 39 per cent by 2022
© businesses have low levels of awareness and are underestimating the impact the 55+
demographic has on their businesses
© residents 55+ rated a high importance for general practitioner and general health services and
clothing products
© residents have a preference for consuming services rather than goods and they prefer to deal with
individuals who are similar to them.
Commendation
Manningham City Council, Victoria – Ageing Well in Manningham
Ageing Well in Manningham is a significant project for the council due to the large and culturally diverse
ageing population. The council was determined to develop an age-friendly community by working in
partnership with the community and supporting citizen participation.
A number of people were enlisted to start conversations about ageing in the community and to report
their findings. This group included individuals who were able to network between people otherwise
living, working or studying in different circles. Five weeks later, the group gathered to share their
insights about ageing in Manningham. They reported a much fuller picture of the challenges and
opportunities of an ageing population than is likely to have come from a standard consultation or from
council officers.
286
Town of Vincent, Western Australia – Town of Vincent Seniors Strategy
Appendix I
Commendation
The Town of Vincent in inner-city Perth has a population of just over 25 000 (2001 Census), of whom
20 per cent are aged 55 or over. It has an increasing population aged 75 or above and about half of the
55 and over group do not speak English as a first language.
A study undertaken in 2003–04 recommended that the most effective long-term approach to providing
for older residents was to focus on building a ‘connected community’ with a particular focus on seniors.
In response, the town commenced a process of consulting with seniors, the first stage of which
involved a survey. Following the survey, seniors forums were conducted focusing on specific topics
raised in the study.
Personal/home safety was the highest priority and most important aspect identified. Other topics for
consultation included transport, attitudes towards seniors, physical access and home support.
STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY
Category winner
Darebin City Council, Victoria – Darebin Interfaith Council
The Darebin Interfaith Council was established in June 2005 in response to the results of a
comprehensive community consultation. The Interfaith Council is facilitated and resourced by the
Darebin City Council and has a membership of more than 100 religious leaders. It is a collaborative
partnership between faith leaders aimed at providing leadership, information, guidance and
inspiration to the local community on matters related to faith and promoting the benefits of interfaith
collaboration, comprehension and dialogue.
The establishment of the Interfaith Council has enabled the Darebin City Council to access previously
hard to reach segments of the community. Its development has contributed to the overall social capital
of the Darebin community and its resilience in times of crisis and hardship.
Commendation
Ipswich City Council, Queensland – Building a Better Life through Community Harmony
Ipswich City Council designed and implemented an innovative project to promote community harmony
and cross-cultural understanding among young people throughout the city. The project was a
partnership between federal and local government, schools, community organisations and individuals
who worked together to achieve a significant community development goal.
Living in Harmony actively engaged the city’s students and young people in:
© depicting the diversity of cultures through a poster competition focusing on the four themes of
justice, equity, fairness and friendship
© examining and celebrating experiences of diversity through anti-racism and creative workshops
held in primary and secondary schools
© developing a comprehensive resource book for schools – a culmination of the project outcomes.
287
Commendation
Wollongong City Council, New South Wales – Wollongong City Council Interpreter Service
The City of Wollongong’s residents represent a diverse range of cultures and backgrounds. The 2001
Census revealed that approximately 23 per cent of the population was born overseas with 15 per cent
born in non–English speaking countries. In addition, 17 per cent of the population speaks a language
other than English at home.
The Wollongong City Council was one of the first councils to adopt a Local Ethnic Affairs Policy
Statement. Since its adoption of the program in 1990, the council has made significant progress in
increasing its capacity to deliver services to a culturally diverse city. The Interpreter Service builds
on the city’s Local Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement commitment and represents a commitment to the
Australian Government’s multicultural policy agenda.
STRENGTHENING INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES
Category winner
City of Playford, South Australia – Marni Waeindi Indigenous Transition Pathways
This project won a National Award for Outstanding Achievement. A description of the project is on
page 271.
Carpentaria Shire Council, Queensland – Normanton Youth Rural Training Program
This project won a National Award for Merit. A description of the project is on page 272.
Commendation
Kwinana Town Council, Western Australia – Spectacles Cultural Tours
The Spectacles Cultural Tours, located in the Spectacles Wetland area in Kwinana, offer a rich
Indigenous experience in a bushland setting 40 kilometres south of the Perth city centre.
The Department of Conservation and Land Management and Alcoa Australia manage the Spectacles
Wetlands. The 360 hectares of wetlands is a significant site for Aboriginal people. The wetlands are
part of a major and ancient trade route following freshwater swamps and lakes that link the Aboriginal
people of the Murray and Swan rivers. The area has cultural significance as an ancient ceremonial,
camping and food-gathering site.
The Spectacles Cultural Tours provide an infrastructure for Indigenous people to share knowledge,
language and history, while preserving and promoting a vibrant traditional and contemporary
Indigenous culture.
288
Port Stephens Council, New South Wales – Indigenous Strategic Committee and the Aboriginal
Projects Fund
Appendix I
Commendation
The Aboriginal Projects Fund was initiated by the Port Stephens Council in response to the needs and
wishes of the Port Stephens Indigenous community. The fund was established in 1999 in response
to a recommendation from a review conducted in conjunction with the council’s Indigenous Strategic
Committee. The committee – a partnership between councillors, senior staff and representatives of
the Karuah and Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Councils – identifies projects through an expression of
interest process.
Projects funded focus on providing local solutions that enhance outcomes for Indigenous youth –
such as work skills, parenting, participation in sport, and staying in school – that the local Indigenous
communities have identified as important.
STRONG AND RESILIENT COMMUNITIES
Category winner
Campaspe Shire Council, Victoria – Community Development Project
This project won a National Award for Innovation. A description of the project is on page 272.
Winner council under 15 000 ratepayer base
Moyne Shire Council, Victoria – The Hawkesdale and District Family Services Centre – Community
Comes Together to Achieve a Dream
The Moyne Shire Council and the community joined together to develop a new purpose-built children’s
centre after a review of early childhood services in 2002 found Hawkesdale was suffering from poor
facilities, isolation and fragmentation. A working party was formed and a dedicated group of hardworking mothers joined with the council to get the project off the ground.
The project was made a reality with an Australian Government grant, a donation from the Handbury
Foundation and a substantial financial contribution from the council.
Commendation
Banyule City Council, Victoria – West Heidelberg Everyday Living and Learning (WHELL) Project
The project, jointly sponsored by Phillip’s Gate Anglican Community and Banyule City Council, is
a coordinated partnership approach by existing service providers in the West Heidelberg area.
The project involves establishing playgroups for young parents with an emphasis on early literacy,
employment training, and leadership and mentoring opportunities.
The project strengthens the community and provides children with a better start in life by working
to minimise identified risk factors relating to poor socioeconomic circumstances, poor family and
community relationships, and poor literacy, educational and vocational opportunities and outcomes.
The project enhances participants’ capacity for resilience, leadership and educational opportunities,
lifelong outcomes and community aspirations through a strength-based model that is locally controlled.
289
Commendation
Greater Dandenong City Council, Victoria – Paddy O’Donoghue Community Services Centre
Fifty-four per cent of Noble Park’s population of 36 000 were born abroad, and an increasing number
of young families are choosing to make Noble Park their home. With 16.5 per cent of older residents
requiring access to community services close to public transport, the council agreed to build an intergenerational facility.
The council began a consultation process in November 2002 with residents from a cross-section of
ages, cultural backgrounds and community groups to identify needs. Over a period of 18 months it
became clear that the council needed to take a holistic approach to meeting the long-term needs of
its residents.
Completed within 14 months from the design stage, the centre is fast becoming a popular meeting
place and recreational facility while providing a valuable community service to Noble Park’s residents.
Commendation
Rockingham City Council, Western Australia – The Threads that Bind: Community Capacity
Mapping in Waikiki
In 2005 the City of Rockingham, home to 78 000 people, developed an innovative tool for responding
to requests from residents and visitors for additional community centres.
The community capacity-mapping tool measures stocks of social capital and provides a microscopic
overview of demographics, capacities and assets within suburbs to further enhance social capital
and help define what facilities are needed. This model is an example of a clearly planned audit of an
area, concentrating on positives and leading to actions that promote social capital, resilience and
independence.
Traditionally, local governments focus on identifying deficiencies and developing ways to fix these
deficiencies. This project resulted in a rejuvenated and active resident’s association, ongoing ownership
of the revitalised park and reinforcement of the view that Rockingham is a great place to live.
VALUING AND PROMOTING QUALITY CHILD CARE
Commendation
Penrith City Council, New South Wales – Penrith City Council’s Children’s Services
The Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative was established in 2002. The cooperative has
developed its strategic plan and restructured its administrative and management processes. Having
one central management body has enabled a global budgeting process that has improved the viability
of centres, ensured a streamlined approach to best practice in child care service delivery and improved
efficiencies in financial management, recruitment processes and purchasing power. The council’s
contribution to the budget has decreased each year since the inception of the cooperative and the
global budgeting approach to financial management.
This initiative has shown that adopting a streamlined approach to managing children’s services can
enhance the quality of service delivery. With sound business practices, centre directors are supported
to develop quality programs that include good nutritional practices, and to provide a secure, happy,
caring and stimulating environment for children to grow and learn.
290
Category winner
Appendix I
YOUTH ENGAGEMENT
Livingstone Shire Council, Queensland – verbYL Youth Project
verbYL is a new concept in both library and youth services. It provides a safe, funky hang-out space
for young people between the ages of 13 and 25. The project has a full-time youth librarian who is
responsible for all library-based resources (games, novels, comics, magazines, CDs and DVDs) and
library programs (for example, book of the month) and a full-time youth worker who is responsible for
all youth information and referral resources (for example, drugs, alcohol, pregnancy and employment).
The youth worker also develops a monthly event night (for example, karaoke or an art workshop)
and organises visits from other youth service providers to the space (for example, youth justice or
youth housing). The youth worker also develops programs around youth issues (such as alcohol or
employment). Each member has a card that gives them access to computers and games consoles and
allows them to borrow resources. The computer room has six Internet-linked computers and the games
room has two televisions that can be used for a variety of video games.
The Livingstone Shire Council Youth Council is run out of verbYL and plays a major part in the daily
running of the centre itself, as well as being involved in broader community issues.
Sarina Shire Council, Queensland – Picture This Program
This project won a National Award for Innovation. A description of the project is on page 273.
Commendation
Pine Rivers Shire Council, Queensland – Engaging Our Youth Is as Easy as ‘ABC’
The Pine Rivers Shire Council has partnered with the local police and youth community to develop
and implement two youth support projects that provide young people with fun opportunities for
empowerment, education and connecting back to family and community.
Youth with a Voice has encouraged and empowered local 12- to 17-year-olds to take an active role
in providing services to the broader Pine Rivers Shire youth community. This group has been given
responsibility for planning, organising and marketing key youth and family activities (for example, Blue
Light discos and family movies by the pool).
Loud@The Library provides young people with a space to network, share ideas, learn from others and
make new friends. Program attendees have access to a number of activities – including Internet, music
listening posts and selected pay television channels – as well as the opportunity to take on a role in the
Youth with a Voice project. They also help the library select youth-relevant resources, as well as playing
the role of ‘secret agents’ within their peer groups to monitor the behaviour of others and use peer
group influence to modify undesirable behaviour.
291
Commendation
Bayside City Council, Victoria – Bayside Youth Documentary Project 2005
As part of the 2005 Bayside Film Festival, an innovative educational filmmaking project – the Bayside
Youth Documentary Project 2005 – aimed to develop skills of investigation and expression in young
people through the experience of making short documentary films. The project targeted Year 9
students and youth groups within the Bayside municipality. Professional filmmakers worked directly
with youth groups and alongside media teachers to deliver film production workshops over a four-month
period. Two hundred students and young people were involved in the project.
As a result, 27 documentary films were screened during the 2005 Bayside Film Festival, with 12 films
receiving awards for excellence in the Youth Documentary Awards.
Commendation
Banyule City Council, Victoria – The Northern Skateboard and BMX Titles
The Northern Skateboard and BMX Titles is an exciting initiative coordinated by Banyule City Council’s
Youth Services. It is widely acknowledged as representing a new era for amateur skateboarding and
BMX riding opportunities for young people. The project spanned three months of skateboard and BMX
heats held in seven local government areas across the northern metropolitan region of Victoria from
September to December 2005, culminating in a grand final at Riverslide Park in Melbourne’s central
business district. One hundred and ninety young people entered the competition series and more than
3500 people attended the event.
The project is an excellent example of collaboration and partnership: it involved eight local
governments (Banyule, Darebin, Moreland, Hume, Yarra, Nillumbik, Whittlesea and Melbourne),
VicHealth, key industry stakeholders, young people and their families.
Commendation
Bankstown City Council, New South Wales – Driving Change, the XROADS Project
XROADS is a road safety campaign created entirely by local young people from the Bankstown local
government area. The campaign targets 16- to 25-year-olds, particularly young male novice drivers
involved in speeding or drag racing. It promotes safe driving and safe passenger behaviour and
encourages young people to examine the consequences of risky driving.
XROADS focuses on the capacity of young drivers to make choices. More than 30 young people were
involved in the project. The participants wrote, composed and produced a song and coordinated
pre- and post-production of a film clip using techniques that would appeal to the target audience.
Through this process, young people had the opportunity to develop practical skills while at the same
time creating a meaningful campaign. They were entirely responsible for developing and directing
the project.
The XROADS DVD will complement road safety education and awareness programs in Bankstown and
potentially across New South Wales.
292
Caboolture Shire Council, Queensland – Caboolture Shire Volatile Substance Misuse
Appendix I
Commendation
The Caboolture Shire Council developed a strategy to address volatile substance misuse through
collaborative partnerships with Youth Caboolture Area Network interagency, key stakeholders and the
community, including state government departments, youth sector services, Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander organisations, businesses and individuals.
The council secured cross-agency funding for the Out There & Active program for activities, and
employment support and training. The families and friends of the young people were included to ensure
program success and support.
As a result of the program, young people’s self-esteem increased and they started to form networks
with other young people (including the council’s Youth Advisory Group) for event planning and hosting,
as well as with workers and council staff. The shire has seen an 80 per cent reduction in chroming (the
practice of inhaling organic solvents, volatile substances or propellant gases) and in homelessness.
Young people who were engaged in chroming are now helping to determine the direction of the Out
There & Active program as well as providing information and ideas for program planning. Some young
people are now employed and are serving as role models and young leaders for their peers and within
their communities.
293
Bibliography
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001, Australian Social Trend 2001, cat. no. 4102 pp. 184, cited in
National Strategy for an Ageing Australia.
—— 2002, Year Book Australia 2002: Population: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population, cat.
no. 1301.1.
—— April 2004a, Government Finance Statistics 2002–03, cat. no. 5512.0.
—— April 2004b, Taxation Revenue 2002–03, cat. no. 5506.0.
—— August 2004, Environment Expenditure Local Government 2002–03, cat. no. 4611.0.
—— March 2004a, Australian demographic statistics, cat. no. 3101.0.
—— Employed Wage and Salary Earners, Australia: Original Series, cat. no. 6248.0, various issues.
—— March 2004b, Wage and Salary Earners, Public Sector, Australia: Original Series, cat. no.
6248.0.55.001.
—— October 2003, Population Characteristics of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: 2001
Census, cat. no. 4713.0.
Blagg, H 2005, Aboriginal Customary Law, Background Paper No. 8 ‘A new way of doing justice
business? Community justice mechanisms and sustainable governance in Western Australia’, State
Solicitor’s Office, Perth, WA; available at <www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/Aboriginal/BackgroundPapers/
BP-08.pdf>.
Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001, Review of the Operation of the Local Government (Financial
Assistance) Act 1995, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia 2003, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government,
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economic, Finance and Public Administration, the
Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Costello, P & Minchin, N 2006, Final Budget Outcome 2005–06, Department of the Treasury,
Australian Government, Canberra.
Department of Housing and Regional Development 1994, Australian Classification of Local
Governments, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Department of Transport and Regional Services and the Australian Local Government Association
2003, Review into the Roads to Recovery program, DOTARS and ALGA, Canberra.
Department of Transport and Regional Services 2005, Government Response to the Report of the
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration –
Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government, June 2005.
Financial Sustainability Review Board 2005, ‘Rising to the Challenge: Towards Financially Sustainable
Local Government in South Australia’, Volume 1: Overview, South Australia.
294
Bibliography
Indigenous Interagency Coordination Committee for Local Government, Municipal Association of
Victoria 2005, Toomnangi: Indigenous Communities and Local Government – a Victorian Study,
Municipal Association of Victoria, Melbourne.
Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA) 2006, Are Councils Sustainable?, Final
Report: Findings and Recommendations, Independent Inquiry into the Financial Sustainability of NSW
Local Government, Sydney.
National Competition Commission 2003, Assessment of Governments’ Progress in Implementing the
National Competition Policy and Related Reforms, Volume 2: Water Reform, AusInfo, Canberra.
New South Wales Department of Local Government 2004, The Model Code of Conduct for Local
Councils in NSW, Nowra.
New South Wales Department of Local Government 2005, Comparative Information on NSW Local
Government Councils 2003–04, NSW Department of Local Government, Sydney.
Productivity Commission 2004, Review of National Competition Policy Reforms, Discussion Draft,
October 2004, Productivity Commission, Melbourne.
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, November 2003, Overcoming
Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2003, Productivity Commission, Canberra.
295
Glossary
AAV
assessed annual value
ACLG
Australian Classification of Local Government
balanced budget approach
A method of general purpose grant assessment whereby gross expenditure needs and revenue
capacity for each council are assessed with the difference between the expenditure and revenue
assessments being the equalisation need.
capping
Capping, for the purposes of this report, is the stabilising of component factors to bring a council’s
grant to within a set range of that council’s grant in a previous year.
COAG
Council of Australian Governments
Commonwealth Grants Commission
A statutory authority established by the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 whose main
task is to recommend to the Australian Government, for consideration by the Ministerial Council for
Commonwealth–State Financial Relations, the shares for each state and territory of the pool of funds
that includes GST revenue.
cost adjustors
See ‘disability factor’
CRI – cost relativity index
See ‘disability factor’
direct assessment approach
A method of grant assessment whereby a positive or negative assessment of expenditure need or
revenue capacity is made for each council relative to a standard assessment. The sum of positive and
negative assessments is the equalisation need.
disability factor
A measure of underlying influences that would lead a council to spend more (or less) per capita than
the state average, expressed as an adjusting ratio of the state average. In some states, these are
called ‘cost adjustors’ and ‘cost relativity indexes’.
296
The Department of Transport and Regional Services provides policy advice to the Ministers for the
federal Transport and Regional Services portfolio and delivers a variety of programs on behalf of the
Australian Government.
Glossary
DOTARS
effort neutral or neutrality
The assessment of a financial assistance grant is effort neutral when it neither rewards nor penalises
a council where expenditure or revenue-raising patterns vary from the state average because of policy
differences, differences in efficiency or levels of self help.
escalation factor
The ratio by which the level of financial assistance grant nationally is adjusted, and which the Treasurer
determines according to the requirements of the Act.
estimated factor
This is the escalation factor, as determined by the Treasurer at the start of the financial year, to
determine the levels of grant payments, according to the requirements of the Act that will be paid to
local government for that year.
final factor
This is the escalation factor, as determined by the Treasurer at the end of the financial year, according to
the requirements of the Act. It will determine the final entitlement payable for local government financial
assistance for that year. Determination of the final factor will (usually) require adjustments to be made
to the actual payments, which were based on the estimated factor as the beginning of the year.
financial assistance grants
These are ‘untied’ funds (not tied to a specific purpose) the Australian Government grants to local
governments under the Act through the state governments.
Financial assistance grants to local government are supplied to states as ‘tied’ (for a specific purpose)
but once distributed to local government are ‘untied’. They comprise two components: ‘general
purpose’ and ‘local road’.
full horizontal equalisation
Distribution of general purpose grants to local government, with the objective of ensuring each council
is able to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not lower than the average standard in the state
and takes account of differences in expenditure required in performing its functions and in the capacity
to raise revenue (subsections 6.3(a) and 6.3(b) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance)
Act 1995).
This is one of two components (the local road grant being the other) of the financial assistance grants
to local government. The objective is to strengthen local government by addressing the vertical fiscal
imbalance caused by local government’s narrow tax base. General purpose grants promote equity
between councils and certainty of funding. They are distributed among states on a per capita basis and
within states on a horizontal equalisation basis in accordance with the National Principles.
297
GST
goods and services tax
Hawker Report
The Report of the inquiry into local government and cost shifting by the House of Representatives
Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration chaired by Mr David Hawker
MP. The report is entitled Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government, and was
published by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in October 2003.
inclusion approach
The inclusion, in calculating a council’s general purpose grant, of all assessed expenditure and grants,
including that related to commonwealth and state specific-purpose funding.
LGAQ
local government grants commissions
In each state and the Northern Territory, local government grants commissions have been established
under state and territory law. Their primary role is to make recommendations to the state or territory
minister on distributing available financial assistance grants to councils in that state or territory.
local road grant
This is one of two components (the other being the general purpose grant) of the financial assistance
grant to local government. It was formerly provided as a tied grant and became untied from 1 July
1991. It continues to be identified and distributed according to the former tied grant arrangements.
It is distributed between states on the basis of historical shares and within states on the basis of road
expenditure needs.
minimum grant entitlement
Every council is entitled to receive a minimum grant which is not less than the amount it would
receive if 30 per cent of the available general purpose grant for that state were distributed on a
per capita basis.
National Competition Policy
A series of reforms to encourage competition and discourage anti-competitive behaviour, set out
in three inter-governmental agreements (the Competition Principles Agreement, the Conduct Code
Agreement and the Agreement to Implement the Competition Policy and Related Reforms), which
emanated from the Report of the Independent National Competition Policy Review Committee (the
Hilmer Report).
negative allowances
Allowances that equalise the financial capacity of ‘advantaged’ councils to that of the average level for
that state, by accordingly reducing the level of the financial assistance grant. Councils assessed as
being ‘advantaged’ may, for example, enjoy high values per property.
298
Grant provided to councils that do not have access to significant other revenue, such as that
from rates.
Glossary
operational subsidy
positive allowances
Allowances that equalise the financial capacity of ‘disadvantaged’ councils to that of the average level
for that state, by accordingly increasing the level of the financial assistance grant. Councils assessed
as being ‘disadvantaged’ may, for example, suffer low values per property.
rate capacity
A measure of a council’s capacity to raise revenue from rateable property, having regard to activities on
that property, such as agriculture or mining.
rate pegging
Action by state governments to limit any variation in rates levied by councils, usually by placing a ceiling
or allowable limit on the percentage increase from year to year.
revenue allowances
Revenue allowances compensate councils for their relative lack of revenue-raising capacity. Property
values are the basis for assessing revenue-raising capacity because rates, based on property values,
are the principal source of councils’ income. Property values, to some extent, are an indicator of the
relative economic wealth of local areas.
RRI
revenue relativity index
specific purpose grant
Payments made by Australian or state or territory governments to a council for a specific purpose. Such
grants usually require a council to meet certain conditional arrangements.
standardised revenue and expenditure
The assessed (as distinct from actual) revenue and expenditure for each council, determined by its
local government grants commission as required for horizontal equalisation purposes, which takes into
account each council’s expenditure needs, revenue-raising capacity and disabilities.
structural reform
A change to the external relationships between councils including boundary changes and
amalgamation of councils. Cooperative service provision, major resource sharing initiatives and joint
service delivery.
SWIM
Statewide Water Information Management
the Act
299
A
Adelaide City, 180, 207, 208
Adelaide Hills, 180, 207, 208
Aherrenge, 185, 210, 211
Albany City, 122, 174, 204, 205
Albury City, 158, 191, 193
Alexandrina, 180, 207, 208
Ali Currung, 185, 211, 263
Alice Springs Town, 185, 210, 211
Alpine Shire, 164, 195, 196
Alpurrurulam, 185, 210, 211
Amoonguna, 185, 210, 211
Anangu Pitjantjatjara, 132, 181, 207, 208, 259
Angurugu, 185, 210
Anmatjere, 185, 210, 211
Aputula, 185, 210, 211
Aramac, 168, 198, 202
Ararat, 164, 195, 197
Areyonga, 185, 210, 211
Arltarpilta, 186, 211
Armadale City, 174, 203, 205
Armidale Dumaresq, 158, 193
Arunga, 185, 210, 211
Ashburton Shire, 174, 204, 205
Ashfield Municipal, 158, 191, 194
Atherton, 168, 199, 201
Auburn, 158, 191, 194
Augusta–Margaret River Shire, 121, 174, 204, 205
Aurukun, 119, 168, 199, 200, 251, 252
B
Badu Island, 168, 199, 252
Ballarat, 164, 196
Ballina Shire, 158, 192, 194
Balonne, 168, 200, 201
Balranald Shire, 158, 191, 195
Bamaga, 168, 199
Banana, 168, 200, 201
Bankstown City, 158, 191, 194, 270, 278, 292
Banyule City, 108, 164, 195, 197
National Awards for Local Government, 289, 292
Barcaldine, 168, 199
300
Barcoo, 168, 198, 202
Barossa, 181, 207, 208, 214
Barunga West District, 181, 208
Bass Coast Shire, 164, 196
Bassendean Town, 174, 202, 206
Bathurst Regional, 158, 193, 217
Bauhinia, 168, 199, 201
Baulkham Hills Shire, 158, 192, 195, 278
Baw Baw Shire, 109, 164, 196
Bayside City, 108, 164, 196, 197, 292
Bayswater City, 174, 202, 206
Beaudesert, 168, 199, 202
Bega Valley Shire, 158, 192, 193
Bellingen Shire, 158, 192, 217
Belmont City, 174, 202, 206
Belyando, 168, 200
Belyuen, 186, 211
Benalla, 164, 196, 197
Bendemere, 168, 198, 201
Berri and Barmera, 181, 207
Berrigan Shire, 158, 191, 194
Beverley Shire, 175, 204
Biggenden, 168, 199, 201
Binjari, 186, 210, 211
Blackall, 168, 199, 201
Blacktown City, 158, 191, 194, 285
Bland Shire, 158, 191, 195
Blayney Shire, 158, 192, 193
Blue Mountains City, 158, 192, 193
Boddington Shire, 175, 204
Bogan Shire, 158, 191, 194, 217
Boigu Island, 168, 198, 200, 252
Bombala, 158, 191, 194, 217
Boonah, 168, 200, 201
Booringa, 168, 198, 202
Boorowa, 158, 192, 194, 217
Boroondara City, 108, 165, 196, 197
Borroloola, 186, 210, 211
Botany Bay City, 158, 191, 194
Boulia, 168, 198, 202
Bourke Shire, 158, 191, 195, 217
Bowen, 168, 200, 201
C
Cabonne Shire, 159, 192, 194
Caboolture, 169, 198, 202, 293
Cairns, 169, 198, 202
Calliope, 169, 199, 201
Caloundra, 169, 198, 202
Cambooya, 169, 199, 201
Cambridge Town, 175, 202, 206
Camden, 159, 192, 194
Campaspe City, 165, 196, 197, 272–273, 289
Campelltown City (NSW), 159, 191, 194, 217
Campelltown City (SA), 181, 206, 208, 280
Canada Bay City, 159, 191, 194
Canning City, 175, 202, 206
Canterbury City, 159, 191, 194
Capel Shire, 175, 202, 205
Cardinia Shire, 165, 196
Cardwell, 169, 199, 201
Carnamah Shire, 175, 203, 205
Carnavon Shire, 175, 204
Carpentaria, 169, 199, 201, 272, 288
Carrathool Shire, 159, 191, 195
Casey City, 109, 165, 196, 197
Ceduna District, 181, 207, 208, 258
Central Coast Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 241
Central Darling Shire, 159, 191, 195, 217
Central Goldfields Shire, 165, 195, 197
Central Highlands Municipal, 184, 209, 210, 238
Cessnock City, 159, 192, 193
Chapman Valley Shire, 175, 204, 206
Charles Sturt City, 181, 207, 208
Charters Towers, 169, 198, 200
Cherbourg, 169, 199, 201, 252
Chinchilla, 169, 200, 202
Chittering Shire, 175, 203, 205
Circular Head Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 240
Clare and Gilbert Valleys, 181, 208
Claremont Town, 175, 203, 206
Clarence City, 184, 209, 238, 242
Clarence Valley, 159, 193, 274, 281
Cleve District, 181, 207, 208
Clifton, 119, 169, 199, 200
Cloncurry, 169, 200, 201
Cobar Shire, 159, 191, 195, 217
Cockburn City, 175, 203, 206, 276
Coffs Harbour City, 159, 191, 193, 217
Colac–Otway Shire, 165, 196
Collie Shire, 175, 203, 204
Conargo Shire, 159, 191, 195, 217
Coober Pedy District, 181, 207, 209, 258
Cook, 169, 199, 201
Coolamon Shire, 159, 191, 195
Coolgardie Shire, 175, 205, 206
Cooloola, 169, 199, 201
Coomalie Community Government, 186, 210, 211, 262–263
Cooma–Monaro, 159, 192, 193, 217
Coonamble Shire, 159, 191, 194
Coorong District, 181, 207, 208, 257–258
Coorow Shire, 175, 204, 205
Cootamundra Shire, 159, 192, 193, 217
Copper Coast District, 181, 207, 208
Corangamite Shire, 165, 195, 196
Corowa Shire, 159, 192, 194
Corrigin Shire, 175, 203, 205
Cottesloe Town, 176, 203, 205
Cowal Creek, 171, 199, 201
Cowra Shire, 159, 192, 193
Cox Peninsula, 186, 210, 211
Cranbrook Shire, 176, 204, 205
Crow’s Nest, 169, 200, 201
Croydon, 169, 198, 201
Cuballing Shire, 176, 203, 205
Cue Shire, 176, 202, 205
Cunderdin Shire, 176, 203, 205
Boyup Brook Shire, 175, 204
Break O’Day Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 241
Brewarrina Shire, 159, 191, 194, 217
Bridgetown–Greenbushes Shire, 175, 204
Brighton Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 241
Brimbank City, 109, 165, 195, 197
Brisbane City, 4, 6, 119, 168, 198, 202
National Competition Policy, 227, 228
Broadsound, 119, 168, 200
Broken Hill City, 159, 192
Brookton Shire, 175, 204, 205
Broome Shire, 175, 203, 204
Broomehill Shire, 175, 203, 205
Bruce Rock Shire, 175, 203, 204
Bulloo, 168, 198, 201
Buloke Shire, 165, 195, 197
Bunbury City, 122, 175, 202, 206
Bundaberg, 169, 198, 201
Bungil, 169, 198, 201
Burdekin, 169, 199, 201
Burke, 169, 198, 202
Burnett, 169, 199, 201
Burnie City, 184, 209, 238, 241
Burnside City, 181, 207, 208
Burwood Municipal, 159, 191, 194
Busselton Shire, 175, 203, 206
Byron Shire, 159, 192, 194, 285
301
D
Daguragu, 186, 210, 211
Dalby, 119, 169, 198, 201
Dalrymple, 169, 199, 202
Dalwallinu Shire, 176, 203, 205
Dandaragan Shire, 176, 204
Dardanup, 176, 203, 205
Darebin City, 108, 109, 165, 195, 197, 292
Darwin City, 186, 210, 211, 284
Dauan Island, 169, 198, 199, 252
Deniliquin, 159, 192, 217
Denmark Shire, 176, 204, 205
Derby–West Kimberley Shire, 176, 203, 205
Derwent Valley Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 241
Devonport City, 184, 209, 238, 241, 242
Diamantina, 170, 198, 202
Docklands Authority, 108, 165, 195, 197
Donnybrook–Balingup Shire, 176, 203, 205
Doomadgee, 170, 200
Dorset Municipal, 184, 209, 238
Douglas, 170, 199, 201
Dowerin Shire, 176, 203, 206
Duaringa, 170, 200, 201
Dubbo City, 160, 193, 217
Dumbleyung Shire, 176, 203, 204
Dundas Shire, 176, 203, 204
Dungog Shire, 160, 193
E
Eacham, 170, 199, 200
East Fremantle Town, 176, 203, 206
East Gippsland Shire, 109, 165, 195, 196
East Pilbara Shire, 6, 176, 204
Eidsvold, 170, 198, 201
Elliott District, 186, 210, 211, 263
Elliston District, 181, 207, 208
Emerald, 170, 201
Erub Island, 170, 198, 199, 252
Esk, 170, 200, 201
Esperance Shire, 176, 205
Etheridge, 170, 198, 201
Eurobodalla Shire, 160, 192, 193
Exmouth Shire, 176, 203
F
Fairfield City, 160, 191, 194, 278
Fitzroy, 170, 200
Flinders (Qld), 170, 199, 202
302
Flinders Municipal (Tas.), 184, 209, 210, 238, 259–260
Flinders Ranges, 181, 207, 208
Forbes Shire, 160, 192, 194, 214
Franklin Harbour District, 181, 207, 208
Frankston City, 109, 165, 195, 196
Fremantle City, 176, 202, 206
G
Galiwinku, 186, 211
Gannawarra, 165, 195, 197
Gapuwiyak, 186, 210, 211
Gatton, 170, 199, 201
Gawler Municipal, 181, 207, 208
Gayndah, 170, 200
George Town Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 240
Geraldton City, 122, 176, 202, 205
Gerard, 132, 181, 207, 259
Gilgandra Shire, 160, 191, 194
Gingin Shire, 176, 204, 205
Gladstone, 170, 198, 201
Glamorgan–Spring Bay Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 241
Glen Eira City, 108, 165, 196, 197
Glen Innes Severn, 160, 192, 193, 214
Glenelg Shire, 165, 196
Glenorchy City, 184, 209, 210, 238, 241, 242
Gloucester Shire, 160, 192, 193, 217
Gnowangerup Shire, 176, 204, 205
Gold Coast, 119, 170, 198, 202, 277
Golden Plains Shire, 165, 196, 197, 280
Goomalling Shire, 177, 204
Gooniwindi, 170, 198, 200
Gosford City, 160, 192, 194
Gosnells City, 177, 203, 206
Goulburn Mulwaree, 160, 193, 274, 277
Goyder, 181, 207, 208
Grant District, 181, 208
Great Lakes, 160, 192, 193, 217
Greater Bendigo City, 165, 196, 197
Greater Dandenong City, 165, 195, 196, 290
Greater Geelong City, 109, 165, 196
Greater Hume Shire, 160, 192, 194
Greater Shepparton City, 165, 196
Greater Taree City, 160, 192, 193, 217
Greenborough Shire, 177, 204, 205
Griffith City, 160, 193, 270
Gundagai Shire, 160, 192, 193
Gunnedah Shire, 160, 192, 193
Guyra Shire, 160, 192, 194
Gwydir Shire, 160, 191, 194
K
Halls Creek Shire, 177, 203, 204, 255
Hammond Island, 170, 198, 199
Harden Shire, 160, 191, 194, 217
Harvey Shire, 177, 204, 205
Hastings, 160, 192, 193, 217
Hawkesbury City, 160, 192, 194
Hay Shire, 160, 191, 194
Hepburn Shire, 165, 196, 197
Herberton, 170, 200
Hervey Bay, 170, 198, 201
Hinchinbrook, 170, 199, 201
Hindmarsh Shire, 165, 195, 197
Hobart City, 184, 209, 210, 238
Hobson’s Bay City, 108, 165, 196, 197
Holdfast Bay City, 181, 207, 208, 257
Holroyd City, 160, 191, 194, 278, 281, 283
Hopevale, 170, 200
Hornsby Shire, 160, 192, 195, 270
Horsham Rural City, 166, 196, 197
Hume City, 166, 195, 197, 292
Hunters Hill Municipal, 161, 192, 194
Huon Valley Municipal, 184, 209, 238
Hurstville City, 161, 191, 195
Kalamunda Shire, 177, 203, 206
Kalgoorlie–Boulder City, 122, 177, 203, 205
Kaltukatjara, 186, 210, 211
Kangaroo Island, 181, 207, 208
Karoonda–East Murray District, 181, 206, 208
Katanning Shire, 177, 204
Katherine Town, 186, 210, 211
Kellerberrin Shire, 177, 203, 204
Kempsey Shire, 161, 192, 193, 217
Kent Shire, 177, 203, 206
Kentish Municipal, 184, 209, 238, 241
Kiama Municipal, 161, 192, 194
Kilcoy, 171, 199, 200
Kilkivan, 171, 200, 201
Kimba District, 182, 206, 207
King Island Municipal, 185, 209, 210, 238, 283
Kingaroy, 171, 200, 201
Kingborough Municipal, 185, 209, 238
Kingston City (Vic.), 108, 166, 195, 197
Kingston District (SA), 182, 207, 208
Knox City, 166, 195, 197
Kogarah Municipal, 161, 191, 194
Kojonup Shire, 177, 204, 205
Kolan, 171, 200
Kondinin Shire, 177, 203, 206
Koorda Shire, 177, 202, 205
Kowanyama, 171, 200
Ku-ring-gai, 161, 192, 195
Kubin Island, 171, 198, 200
Kulin Shire, 177, 203, 206
Kunbarllanjinja, 186, 210, 211, 262–263
Kwinana Town, 177, 203, 206, 288
Kyogle, 161, 192, 193
I
Iama Island, 170, 198, 199
Ikuntji, 186, 210, 211
Ilfracombe, 170, 198, 201
Imanpa, 186, 210
Indigo Shire, 166, 196, 197
Inglewood, 171, 199, 200
Injinoo, 171, 199, 201, 252
Inverell Shire, 161, 192, 193
Ipswich, 171, 198, 201, 287
Irwin Shire, 177, 204, 205
Isis, 171, 200
Isisiford, 171, 198, 201
J
Jabiru Town, 186, 210, 211
Jericho, 171, 198, 201
Jerilderie Shire, 161, 191, 194
Jerramungup Shire, 177, 204, 206
Jilkminggan, 186, 210, 211
Johnstone, 171, 199, 201
Jondaryan, 171, 199, 201
Joondalup City, 177, 203, 206, 278–279
Junee Shire, 161, 192, 194
H
L
Lachlan Shire, 161, 191, 195, 217
Laidley, 171, 199, 201
Lajamanu, 186, 211
Lake Grace Shire, 177, 204, 206
Lake Macquarie City, 161, 192, 193, 286
Lane Cove Municipal, 161, 191, 194
Latrobe City (Vic.), 166, 196, 275
Latrobe Municipal (Tas.), 185, 209, 238, 240, 241
Launceston City, 185, 209, 210, 238, 241, 259
Laverton Shire, 177, 203, 206
Le Hunte District, 182, 206, 208
Leeton Shire, 161, 192, 193
Leichhardt Municipal, 161, 191, 194
Leonora Shire, 177, 204, 206
303
Light, 182, 208
Lismore City, 161, 192, 193
Litchfield Shire, 186, 210, 211
Lithgow City, 161, 193
Liverpool City, 161, 192, 194, 278
Liverpool Plains Shire, 161, 192, 193, 276
Livingstone, 171, 199, 201, 291
Lockhart River, 171, 199, 201, 252
Lockhart Shire, 161, 191, 194
Loddon Shire, 166, 195, 197
Logan, 119, 171, 198, 202
Longreach, 171, 199, 202
Lord Howe Island Board, 161, 191, 195
Lower Eyre Peninsula District, 182, 207, 208
Loxton Waikerie District, 182, 207
Ltyentye Purte, 186, 211
M
Mabuiag Island, 171, 198, 199, 252
Macedon Ranges Shire, 166, 196
Mackay, 171, 198, 202
McKinlay, 172, 198, 202
Maitland City, 161, 192, 193
Mallala District, 182, 208
Mandurah City, 177, 203, 206
Maningrida, 186, 211
Manjimup Shire, 177, 203, 205
Manly, 161, 191, 195
Manningham City, 108, 166, 196, 197, 286
Mansfield, 166, 195, 196
Mapoon Aboriginal Council, 171, 198, 200
Maralinga, 132, 182, 206, 208, 259
Mareeba, 171, 200, 201
Maribyrnong City, 108, 166, 195, 197
Marion City, 182, 206, 208, 257
Marngarr, 187, 210, 211
Maroochy, 172, 198, 202
Maroondah City, 108, 166, 196, 197
Marrickville, 161, 191, 194
Maryborough, 172, 198, 201
Mataranka, 187, 210, 211
McKinlay, 172, 198, 202
Meander Valley Municipal, 185, 209, 238
Meekatharra Shire, 177, 203, 206
Melbourne City, 108, 166, 195, 197, 292
Melton Shire, 166, 196
Melville City, 178, 203, 206
Menzies Shire, 178, 202, 206
Mer Island, 172, 198, 199
Merredin Shire, 178, 204, 205
304
Mid Murray, 182, 207, 208
Mid-Western Regional, 162, 193
Mildura Rural City, 166, 196, 197
Milingimbi, 187, 210, 211
Millmerran, 172, 200, 201
Milyakburra, 187, 210, 211
Mingenew Shire, 178, 203, 204
Minjilang, 187, 210, 262–263
Mirani, 172, 200
Miriam Vale, 172, 200
Mitcham City, 182, 207, 208
Mitchell Shire, 166, 196
Moira Shire, 166, 196, 197
Monash City, 108, 166, 196, 197
Monto, 172, 199, 201
Moonee Valley City, 108, 166, 195, 197
Moora Shire, 178, 204
Moorabool Shire, 166, 196
Morawa Shire, 178, 203, 205
Moree Plains Shire, 162, 192, 194
Moreland City, 108, 166, 196, 197, 292
Mornington, 119, 172, 199, 201, 251
Mornington Peninsula Shire, 108, 166, 196, 197
Mosman Municipal, 162, 191, 194
Mosman Park Town, 178, 203, 205
Mount Alexander Shire, 166, 196, 197
Mount Barker District, 182, 207, 208
Mount Gambier City, 182, 207, 208
Mount Isa, 172, 200, 201
Mt Liebig, 188, 210, 211
Mount Magnet Shire, 178, 202, 204
Mount Marshall Shire, 178, 202, 206
Mount Morgan, 172, 199, 200
Mount Remarkable District, 182, 207
Moyne Shire, 166, 195, 197, 289
Mukinbudin Shire, 178, 203, 205
Mullewa Shire, 178, 204, 206
Mundaring Shire, 178, 203, 205
Mundubbera, 172, 199, 200
Murchison Shire, 178, 202, 206
Murgon, 172, 200
Murilla, 172, 199, 201
Murray Bridge District, 182, 207
Murray Shire (NSW), 162, 192, 194, 217
Murray Shire (WA), 178, 203, 205
Murrindindi Shire, 167, 196
Murrumbidgee Shire, 162, 191, 194
Murweh, 172, 199, 201
Muswellbrook Shire, 162, 193
Nambucca Shire, 162, 192, 193, 217
Nanango, 172, 200
Nannup Shire, 178, 203
Napranum, 172, 198, 200
Naracoorte Lucindale, 182, 207, 208
Narembeen Shire, 178, 203, 206
Narrabri Shire, 162, 192, 194
Narrandera Shire, 162, 191, 194
Narrogin Shire, 178, 202, 205
Narrogin Town, 122, 178, 202, 205
Narromine Shire, 162, 191, 194
Naulyu Nambiyu, 187, 210
Nebo, 172, 199, 201
Nedlands City, 178, 203, 206
Nepabunna, 132, 182, 207, 259
New Mapoon, 172, 199, 252
Newcastle City, 162, 192, 193
Ngaanyatjarraku Shire, 178, 202, 204
Nganmarriyanga, 187, 211
Nillumbik Shire, 108, 167, 196, 197, 292
Noosa, 172, 198, 202
North Sydney, 162, 191, 194
Northam Shire, 122, 178, 204
Northam Town, 178, 202, 205
Northampton Shire, 178, 204, 205
Northern Areas, 182, 207, 208
Northern Grampians Shire, 167, 195, 197
Northern Midlands Municipal, 185, 209, 238, 241
Norwood, Payneham and St Peters City, 182, 207, 208
Ntaria, 187, 211, 263
Numbulwar–Numburindi, 187, 210, 211
Nungarin Shire, 178, 202, 205
Nyirranggulung Mardrulk, 187, 210, 211
Nyirripi, 187, 210, 211
Paroo, 172, 199, 201
Parramatta City, 162, 191, 194
Peak Downs, 172, 199, 201
Penrith City, 162, 192, 194, 217
National Awards for Local Government, 276, 278, 290
Peppermint Grove Shire, 179, 203, 205
Peppimenarti, 187, 210
Perenjori Shire, 179, 202, 206
Perry, 172, 198, 201
Perth City, 179, 202, 206
Peterborough District, 183, 207, 208
Pine Creek, 187, 210, 211, 262–263
Pine Rivers, 173, 198, 202, 291
Pingelly Shire, 179, 204
Pittsworth, 173, 200, 201
Pittwater, 162, 191, 195
Plantagenet Shire, 179, 205
Playford City, 183, 207, 271–272, 282, 288
Pormpuraaw, 173, 199, 201, 252
Port Adelaide Enfield, 183, 207, 208
Port Augusta City, 183, 207
Port Hedland Town, 179, 203, 205
Port Lincoln City, 183, 207, 208
Port Phillip City, 108, 167, 195, 197
Port Pirie, 183, 207, 208
Port Stephens, 162, 192, 193, 289
Poruma Island, 173, 198, 199, 252
Prospect City, 183, 206, 208
Pyrenees Shire, 167, 195, 197
Q
Quairading Shire, 179, 203, 204
Queanbeyan, 162, 191, 194
Queenscliffe Borough, 108, 167, 196, 197
Quilpie, 173, 198, 202
O
R
Oberon, 162, 192, 194
Onkaparinga District, 182, 207, 208, 257, 283
Orange City, 162, 191, 193, 217
Orroroo–Carrieton District, 182, 206, 208
Outback Areas Community Development Trust,
3, 131–132, 183, 207, 209
Ramingining, 187, 210, 211
Randwick City, 162, 191, 195, 279
Ravensthorpe Shire, 179, 204, 206
Redcliffe City, 173, 198, 202
Redland, 173, 198, 202
Renmark Paringa District, 183, 207
Richmond, 173, 198, 202
Richmond Valley, 162, 193
Robe District, 183, 208
Rockdale City, 162, 191, 195
Rockhampton, 173, 198, 202
Rockingham City, 179, 203, 206, 279, 290
Roebourne Shire, 179, 203, 204
Roma, 173, 199, 200
P
Palerang, 162, 193
Palm Island, 172, 198, 200
Palmerston Town, 187, 210, 211
Palumpa, 187, 211
Papunya, 187, 211
Parkes Shire, 162, 192, 194
N
305
306
Rosalie, 119, 173, 198, 200
Roxby Downs Municipal, 183, 207, 208, 277
Ryde City, 163, 191, 195
S
Saibai Island, 173, 198, 199
St Paul’s Island, 173, 198, 200
Salisbury City, 60, 183, 207, 208, 270, 280
Sandstone Shire, 179, 202, 205
Santa Teresa, 186, 211
Sarina, 173, 199, 201, 273, 291
Seisia Island, 173, 198, 199, 252
Serpentine–Jarrahdale Shire, 179, 203, 205
Shark Bay Shire, 179, 203, 204
Shellharbour City, 163, 192, 194
Shoalhaven City, 163, 192, 193
Silverton Village, 163, 191, 195
Singleton Shire, 163, 193
Snowy River Shire, 163, 192, 193, 217
Sorell Municipal, 185, 209, 238, 240
South Gippsland Shire, 167, 196
South Perth City, 179, 203, 206
Southern Grampians Shire, 167, 195, 197
Southern Mallee District, 183, 207, 208
Southern Midlands Municipal, 185, 209, 238, 241
St Paul’s Island, 173, 198, 200
Stanthorpe, 173, 200
Stirling City, 179, 203, 206
Stonnington City, 108, 167, 196, 197
Strathbogie Shire, 167, 195, 197
Strathfield Municipal, 163, 191, 194, 214
Streaky Bay District, 183, 207, 208
Subiaco City, 179, 202, 205
Surf Coast Shire, 109, 167, 196
Sutherland Shire, 163, 191, 195
Swan Hill Rural City, 167, 196, 197
Swan Shire, 179, 203, 206
Sydney City, 163, 191, 194
Temora Shire, 163, 192, 194, 217
Tennant Creek Town, 187, 210, 211
Tenterfield Shire, 163, 191, 194
Thamarrurr, 187, 211
Three Springs Shire, 179, 203, 205
Thuringowa, 173, 198, 202
Tiaro, 173, 200
Tibooburra Village, 163, 191, 195
Timber Creek, 187, 210
Tiwi Island, 187, 210, 211
Toodyay Shire, 179, 204, 205
Toowoomba, 173, 198, 202
Torres, 119, 173, 198, 199
Townsville, 173, 198, 201
Towong Shire, 167, 195, 197
Trayning Shire, 179, 202, 205
Trust Account, 187, 211
Tumbarumba Shire, 163, 191, 193, 217
Tumby Bay District, 183, 207, 208
Tumut, 163, 192, 193, 217
Tweed Shire, 163, 192, 193
U
Ugar Island, 174, 198, 199
Umagico, 174, 199
Umbakumba, 187, 210, 211
Unley City, 183, 206, 208
Upper Gascoyne Shire, 179, 202, 206
Upper Hunter, 163, 192, 193
Upper Lachlan, 163, 192, 194
Uralla Shire, 163, 192, 193
Urana Shire, 163, 191, 195
Urapuntja, 188, 210, 211
V
Victor Harbor, 183, 207, 209
Victoria Park Town, 180, 202, 205
Victoria Plains Shire, 180, 204, 206
Vincent Town, 180, 202, 206, 287
T
W
Tambellup Shire, 179, 203, 205
Tambo, 173, 198, 202
Tammin Shire, 179, 202, 206
Tamworth Regional, 163, 193
Tapatjatjaka, 187, 211
Tara, 173, 199, 201
Taroom, 173, 199, 201
Tasman Municipal, 185, 209, 238, 241
Tatiara District, 183, 207, 208
Tea Tree Gully City, 183, 207, 208
Wagga Wagga City, 163, 193
Waggamba, 174, 199, 201
Wagin Shire, 180, 204, 205
Wakefield, 183, 207, 208
Wakool Shire, 163, 191, 193
Walcha, 163, 192, 194
Walgett Shire, 163, 191, 194, 217
Walingeri–Ngumpinku, 188, 211
Walkerville Municipal, 183, 207, 209
Wallace Rockhole, 188, 210, 211
Wingecarribee Shire, 164, 192, 194
Winton, 174, 198, 202
Wodonga Rural City, 167, 195, 196
Wollondilly Shire, 164, 192, 194
Wollongong City, 164, 192, 193, 288
Wondai, 174, 199, 201
Wongan–Ballidu Shire, 180, 203, 204
Woocoo, 174, 200
Woodanilling Shire, 180, 203, 205
Woollahra Municipal, 164, 191, 195
Woorabinda, 174, 200, 201
Wujal Wujal, 174, 199, 200, 252
Wyalkatchem Shire, 180, 203, 205
Wyndham City, 167, 196, 262
Wyndham–East Kimberley Shire, 180, 204
Wyong Shire, 164, 192, 194
Walungurru, 188, 210, 211
Wambo, 174, 200
Wandering Shire, 180, 203, 205
Wangaratta Rural City, 167, 196, 197
Wanneroo City, 180, 203, 206
Waratah–Wynyard Municipal, 185, 209, 238, 242
Waroona Shire, 180, 204, 205
Warraber Island, 174, 198
Warren Shire, 164, 191, 194
Warringah, 164, 191, 195
Warrnambool City, 109, 167, 195, 196
Warroo, 174, 198, 202
Warrumbungle, 164, 191, 194, 214
Warruwi, 188, 210, 262–263
Warwick, 174, 200
Watiyawanu, 188, 210, 211
Wattle Range, 183, 208
Waverley, 164, 191, 194
Weddin Shire, 164, 191, 194, 217
Wellington (NSW), 164, 192, 194
Wellington Shire (Vic.), 109, 167, 196
Wentworth Shire, 164, 191, 194
West Arthur Shire, 180, 204, 205
West Coast Municipal, 185, 209, 238
West Tamar Municipal, 185, 209, 238, 241
West Torrens City, 183, 206, 208
West Wimmera Shire, 167, 195, 197
Westonia Shire, 180, 202, 206
Whitehorse City, 108, 167, 196, 197
Whitsunday, 174, 199, 201
Whittlesea City, 109, 167, 195, 197, 292
Whyalla City, 184, 207
Wickepin Shire, 180, 203, 205
Williams Shire, 180, 205
Willoughby City, 164, 191, 195
Wiluna Shire, 180, 203, 206, 255
Y
Yalata, 132, 184, 207, 259
Yalgoo Shire, 180, 202, 206
Yankalilla District, 184, 208, 257
Yarra City, 108, 167, 195, 197, 292
Yarra Ranges Shire, 109, 167, 195, 196
Yarrabah, 174, 198, 201
Yarriambiack Shire, 167, 195, 197
Yass Valley, 164, 193
Yilgarn Shire, 180, 204, 206
Yirrkala–Dhanbul, 188, 210, 211
York Shire, 180, 203, 205
Yorke Island, 174, 198, 199
Yorke Peninsula District, 184, 208, 257
Young Shire, 164, 192, 193, 217
Yuelamu, 188, 210, 211
Yuendumu, 188, 210, 211
Yugul Mangi, 188, 210
307
308
General index
A
Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, 78
Aboriginal communities, see Indigenous communities
Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic.), 251
Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, 257
Aboriginal Local Government Association, 254
Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders National
Principle, 41, 83, 154–5
ACLG, 212–14
acquittal of grants, 53
ACT, see Australian Capital Territory
ACT NOWaste, 244–5
actual entitlements, 30–40, 158–88
Advanced Step Asset Management program, 223–4
affordable housing, 10
aged services, 286–7
airports, 10
aviation security, 262
Alcoa, 276, 288
alcohol awareness, 280
ALGA, see Australian Local Government Association
allocation of grants, see grants
amalgamations and structural reform, 4, 59
National Principle, 88–9, 92–3
New South Wales, 215, 281; reason for change in
ACLG category, 214
Northern Territory, 262–3
see also National Competition Policy
annual reports and publications
New South Wales, 218–19
Northern Territory, 243
Queensland, 229
Tasmania, 236, 242
Victoria, 219, 221
Western Australia, 70
Application of National Competition Policy to Local
Government, 236
Are Councils Sustainable?, 218
area of local governing bodies, 5, 6, 157–88
Indigenous councils, 265–8
% share, 64
Arnold, Paul, 240
art galleries, 255
asset management, 68, 274–5
Australian Capital Territory, 246, 247
Victoria, 220–1, 223–4
see also roads
Asset Management Award, 274–5
Asset Management Performance Measures Project, 220
assets and liabilities, 25–6, 62–73
see also infrastructure
Association for Local Government Professionals, 220
Attorney-General’s Department, 254
AusLink, 65–7
Australian Capital Territory, 11, 43, 244–8, 264–8
general purpose grants, 32–3, 35, 40
Indigenous communities, 264–5
local government buildings, value of, 64
National Competition Policy payments, 57
rate revenue, 15; land value assessment method, 17
roads, see Australian Capital Territory road network
specific purpose payments, 22
Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Community Consultative Council, 264
Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister’s Department,
264–5
Australian Capital Territory Community Inclusion Fund,
265
Australian Capital Territory Department of Territory and
Urban Services, 244–8
Australian Capital Territory Parks, Conservation and
Lands, 247
Australian Capital Territory Ranger Services, 247–8
Australian Capital Territory road network, 35, 40, 73,
245–6
calculation of grant entitlements, 32–3
estimated value, 63, 73
Roads to Recovery program, 22
sealed and unsealed, 64
Australian Classification of Local Governments, 212–14
Australian Constitution, 2
Australian Electoral Commission, 256
B
Backing Indigenous Ability funding, 253
balanced budget model, 147
Barta, Frank, 242
Batt, Chris, 240, 242
Baulch, David, 240
Bayside Youth Documentary Project 2005, 292
benchmarking, see performance measures
Best Practice Guidelines, 220
Best Value Commission (Vic.), 219
Better Roads Victoria Program, 69
Bilateral Agreement, 261–2
Binks, Mary, 240
biodiversity conservation, 282–3
Black Spot program, 66
BMX Titles, 292
Boat Harbour Beach, 22
Bondini, 255
borrowings, 87–8
bridges, 125, 139
broadband, 274
Budget papers, state, 65
buildings, 63–4
sale of under-utilised, 68
business development, 276–7, 282
Business Management Assistance Program (Qld), 227,
229
by-laws (local laws), 227, 232, 241
Bynoe Aboriginal Corporation, 272
C
Campbell, Jock, 238
Canberra, see Australian Capital Territory
Canberra Urban Parks and Places, 247
Cape Barren Island, 259–60
capital cities, see classification of local governing bodies
capping policies, 53, 108–9
cars, 248, 284
Certificate IV in Local Government (Administration), 254
children’s services, 22, 130
Indigenous, 81, 252
Christmas Island Shire, 44–5
Cities for Climate Protection Program, 284
Clarke Island, 259
classification of local governing bodies, 3, 44–5, 157–214
average grants, 47–8
estimated spending on local roads, 65
on relative needs basis, 189–211
see also Indigenous councils; minimum grant
councils
COAG, see Council of Australian Governments
Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire, 44–5
codes of conduct, 233, 241
collaborative services, see resource sharing
Commonwealth funding, see Australian Government
funding; grants
Commonwealth Grants Commission, 28, 139
Hawker Report recommendations concerning, 87, 88;
road grant review, 29
review (2001), 52, 132, 154
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, 2
Community Business Partnerships Award, 276–7
community development, 234, 272–3, 276–7, 289–90
Indigenous, 76–7, 251–2, 255–6, 261
Community Governance Improvement Strategy (Qld), 251
community satisfaction surveys, 221, 244
Community Water Grants, 277
Comparative Information on New South Wales Local
Government Councils, 218–19
comparative performance, see performance measures
Comparative Performance Measurement Project (SA), 235
competition policy, see National Competition Policy
competitive neutrality, 57, 227, 236
Compton Road upgrade, 282
computing, see information and communications
technology
conferences, workshops and other forums, 45–6, 269–70
New South Wales, 216, 249
Queensland, 254; State Library, 253
General index
Australian Government funding, 20–3, 65–8
Backing Indigenous Ability, 253
Bilateral Agreement with Northern Territory, 261
Indigenous services, 76–7
see also grants; Hawker Inquiry
Australian Greenhouse Office, 270
Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), 9, 11,
257, 270, 271
Future of Local Government Summit, 225
Hawker Report, 10, 88
intergovernmental agreement, 239
National Local Roads Database, 246
Australian Museum, 276
Australian Railway Monument and Museum, 276
Australian Transport Council, 11
Australian Water Fund, 231
average grants, 46–8, 49–51
revenue per unit, Victoria, 106
aviation, 10
aviation security, 262
awards and recognition, 245
see also National Awards for Local Government
309
South Australia, 257
Victoria, 220, 225
Western Australia, 232, 255
Connect Australia initiative, 253
Connecting Communities project, 265
Constitution, 2
consumer price index, 29, 34
contracts and tenders, 241, 245
Cooper, Helen, 240
Cost Shifting Inquiry, see Hawker Inquiry
Council of Australian Governments (COAG), 9, 11
Indigenous trials, 259, 264
National Reform Agenda, 57–8
natural disasters review, 230
water reforms, 226, 227, 228, 230–1
Council of Local Authorities for International Relations,
262
councillors, 256, 258
codes of conduct, 233, 241
training, 253–4, 255, 262
councils, see local governing bodies
CPI, 29, 34
Cradle Coast Authority, 238
Creative Riverina Youth Team, 270
Cronin, Bernie, 262
cultural and linguistic diversity, 270, 286–8
see also Indigenous communities
cultural heritage, see heritage management
Currie Sewage Treatment Wetlands, 283
customer service charters, 241, 247
D
Daly, Emeritus Professor Maurice, 271
Darebin Interfaith Council, 287
Darling Downs Regional Organisation of Councils, 230
databases, 46, 269
Australian Capital Territory, 246
New South Wales, 216
Queensland, 230–1
Tasmania, 238, 241
debt, Victorian councils, 221
declared local governing bodies, 3, 44
Delta Downs cattle station, 272
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 270
Department of Communications, Information Technology
and the Arts, 253
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations,
76, 270
Department of Environment and Heritage, 270
Department of Families, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs, 270
310
Department of Health and Ageing, 270
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 270
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 270
Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS),
262, 270, 271
Leading Practice Seminar Series, 269–70
Regional Partnerships program, 23
depression, 272
Desert Gold horticultural lease, 255
Development Assessment Forum, 10
direct assessment model, 147–8
disability services/initiatives, 22, 234, 249
disaster assistance payments, Victoria, 109
disaster management, 230, 256, 262
distribution of grants, see grants
diversity, cultural and linguistic, 270, 286–8
dog control, 247
domestic garbage and recycling services, 244–5
Dorothy Waide Centre for Early Learning, 270
Downie, Mike, 238
drainage, see water and sanitation
dumping, illegal, 278
E
early childhood services, see children’s services
Easther, Barry, 238
economic development, 276–7, 282
see also employees and employment
education and training, 292
community programs, 244–5
council staff, 221, 227, 228, 247
see also conferences, workshops and other forums
education and training, Indigenous community programs
Australian Capital Territory, 265
councillors, 254–5, 256
Queensland, 252–3, 254–5, 272
South Australia, 258, 271–2
Tasmania, 260
efficiency, 56–60, 215–68
National Awards for Local Government, 278–9
effort neutrality, 41
Elected Member’s Guide to Disaster Management, 230
electoral representation, 256, 258, 264
electronic services, see Internet
eligibility criteria, 44–5
local government grants commissions, 43
emergency management, 230, 256, 262
Emergency Management Australia, 262
F
factoring back, 156
females, see women
filmmaking, 292
final factor, 30, 32, 34
finance, 12–26, 58–60
borrowings, 87–8
Hawker Report recommendation, 89–90
Victoria, 221, 224; workshop, 220
see also expenditure; grants; resource sharing;
revenue
financial sustainability, 58
South Australia, 234–5, 278; Salisbury City Council
financial governance model, 60
Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western
Australia, 256
Flint, Deidre, 238
forums, see conferences, workshops and other forums
fringe local government bodies, see classification of local
governing bodies
functions of local government, 2–3, 17
expenditure by, 18–20, 24
see also Hawker Inquiry; infrastructure
funding, see finance; grants
Future of Local Government Summit, 225
G
Garnduwa Indigenous Leadership Program, 256
GDP, 3
general purpose grants, 28–53, 157–211
mainstream councils in relation to Indigenous
population, 82–3
as proportion of local government revenue, Victoria,
222–3
see also minimum grant councils; National Principles
general purpose grants distribution methods, 145–56
New South Wales, 52, 95–9, 102
Northern Territory, 52, 139–42
Queensland, 52, 113–16, 119
South Australia, 52, 126–32
Tasmania, 52, 132–9
Victoria, 52, 103–9
Western Australia, 52, 120–4
Gibson, John, 240
Gillam, Liz, 240, 242
Gkuthaarn people, 272
goods and services tax (GST), 29, 42
governance, 2–26
Indigenous communities, 251–2, 254–5, 261–2
parliamentary resolution, 87
see also finance; legislation
Government Prices Oversight Amendment Act 1997, 236
Government Prices Oversight Commission (Tas.), 236–7
grants, 28–53, 157–88
distribution methods, 41–6, 51–3, 95–143; Hawker
Report recommendation, 89
Indigenous councils, 82–3, 265–8
as revenue source, 13, 14, 17
see also general purpose grants; road grants
Grants Commissions, see Commonwealth Grants
Commission; local government grants commissions
greenhouse gases, 284
Greiner, Kathryn, 271
gross domestic product, 3
GST, 29, 42
Gugan Gulwan Education Support program, 265
Guide to Disaster Risk Management in Northern Territory
Aboriginal Communities, 262
Guidelines for Local Government Asset Investment, 220
General index
employees and employment, Indigenous community
programs, 253, 255, 259–60, 271–2
see also education and training, Indigenous
community programs
employees and employment in local government, 3–4
health and safety, 283–4
Indigenous Australians, 255, 263
women, 280–1
engineering, 263
see also infrastructure
environment protection, 282–3, 284–6, 288
Cape Barren Island renewable energy project, 260
equalisation, see horizontal equalisation
equalisation ratio method of factoring back, 156
escalation factor, 29–30
estimated entitlements, 30, 32–5, 157–88
Excellence, National Award for, 274
expenditure, 18–20
assessments, 149–50, 152–3
average per unit, Victoria, 104
GDP ratio, 3
roads, 65, 71, 72
see also Australian Government funding; state
government funding
H
Hawker Inquiry, 10, 28–9, 45, 56, 86–90, 223
amalgamation National Principle, 88–9, 92–3
South Australian local roads funding, 31, 67–8, 89
Hawkesdale and District Family Services Centre, 289
Health and Wellbeing Award, 279–80
311
health services, 272, 280
occupational, 283–4
for older people, 286
heritage management, 234
Indigenous, 251, 254, 257
Hine, Ross, 238
home-based businesses, development of, 276
horizontal equalisation, 41, 42, 146–9
impact of capping policies, 53
Hornsey, Linda, 238
House of Representatives, 87
see also Hawker Inquiry
household garbage and recycling services, 244–5
housing, 10
Indigenous, 255
Housing Ministers’ Conference, 10
Hydro Tasmania, 260
Hyotani, Yoshiyasu, 262
I
identified local road grants, see road grants
illegal dumping, 278
immigrants, 286–8
women, 270
Inches, Brian, 240
Increasing Women’s Participation Award, 280–1
Indian Ocean Territories, 44–5
Indigenous communities, 76–84, 249–68
Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders
National Principle, 83, 154–5
National Awards for Local Government, 257, 271–2
Indigenous Coordination Centres, 76
Indigenous councils (local governing bodies), 82–3
Queensland, 82, 119, 155, 251–2, 254–5, 265–6
South Australia, 82, 132, 258–9, 266
Western Australia, 82, 255, 266
Indigenous cultural heritage, 251, 254, 257
Indigenous Knowledge Services, 252–3
Indigenous Land Use Agreements, 257
Indigenous Leadership Program, 256
Indigenous Women’s Law and Justice Support project,
265
industrial relations, 263
Industry Commission, 56
information and communications technology
Queensland, 230–1; Indigenous Knowledge Centres,
253
Victoria, 225
see also Internet
312
infrastructure, 62–73
Australian Capital Territory, 245–8
borrowings, 87–8
National Summit on the Future of Australian Cities
and Towns, 10
Tasmania, 238; Cape Barren Island, 260
Victoria, 220–1, 223–4
Wiluna Development Project (WA), 255
see also roads; water and sanitation
injury prevention, 283–4
innovation awards, 272–3, 281–2
Inquiry into Local Government and Cost Shifting, see
Hawker Inquiry
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, 11
Management Manual, 72
Integrating Biodiversity Conservation into Planning and
Management Award, 282–3
interest income, 13, 14
Inter-governmental Agreement, 10, 86–7
inter-governmental structures, 9–11
Internet, 46
Indigenous Knowledge Centres, 253
Tasmania, 238, 241
Victoria, 284
interpreter services, 288
Islander Coordinating Council, 254
J
Japan, 262
K
Karawatha Forest, 282
Kaurna Tappa Iri Regional Agreement, 257, 258
Key Performance Indicators Project (Tas.), 242
Kimberley region, 256
Know Your Limits Alcohol Awareness Project, 280
Koori communities, see Indigenous communities
Kuktj people, 272
Kuraby Forest, 282
kuril dhagun, 252
L
land conveyancing, 241
land rates, 12–17
land use, 257
land value, 62
methods of assessing, 15–17
Local Government Association of the Northern Territory,
73, 262–3
Local Government Board of Tasmania, 239–40
Local Government Division (Tas.), 236–42, 259–60
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986, 28,
45, 98, 102
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995, 2,
28, 44
Commonwealth Grants Commission review (2001),
52, 132, 154
escalation factor determinations, 29–30
grant distribution requirements, 43, 44
Indigenous communities reporting requirement, 249
performance assessment requirement, 56
Local Government Financial Incentive Package (Qld),
226–8
Local Government (Financial Management and Rating)
Amendment Act 2005 (SA), 235
Local Government (General) Amendment (Code of
Conduct) Regulations 2006 (Tas.), 241
Local Government (General) Amendment (Section 337
Certificate) Regulations 2006 (Tas.), 241
Local Government Grants Act 1978 (WA), 43
Local Government Grants Commission Act 1995 (NT), 43
Local Government Grants Commission Act 1992 (SA), 43
local government grants commissions, 43–4, 45–6,
52–3, 95–143
Local Government Improvement Incentive Program (Vic.),
219
Local Government in Victoria, 221
Local Government Joint Officers Group, 9, 239
Local Government Leadership Award for Injury Prevention
and Management, 283–4
Local Government Managers Australia, 11, 271
Local Government (Official Conduct) Amendment Bill
2005 (WA), 233
Local Government Reform Program (NSW), 215–18
Local Government Regulations 1994 (Tas.), 237
Local Government Victoria, 219–21, 251
Local Greenhouse Action Award, 284
local laws, 227, 232, 241
local roads, see roads
Lotterywest, 234
General index
Leading Practice Database, 269
Leading Practice Seminar Series, 269–70
Legge, Robert, 238
legislation, 2, 7
Airports Act 1996, 10
establishing state grants commissions, 43
Queensland, 43, 226, 255; local laws, 227
South Australia, 43, 72, 234, 235
Tasmania, 43, 236, 239, 240–2
Victoria, 43, 251; road maintenance, 220
Western Australia, 43, 233, 234, 256; local laws,
232
see also Local Government (Financial Assistance)
Act 1995
length of local roads, 5, 6, 157–88
Lennon, Hon. Paul, 238
liabilities, 25–6
library services, 225, 291
Indigenous, 252–4
linguistic and cultural diversity, 270, 286–8
local governance, see governance
local governing bodies, 3–8, 44–5
see also amalgamations and structural reform;
classification of local governing bodies; Indigenous
councils
Local Government Aboriginal Network (NSW), 249
Local Government/Aboriginal Service Agreement Project,
257
Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), 43, 250
Local Government Act 1993 (Qld), 43, 226, 255
Local Government Act 1993 (Tas.), 236, 239, 240–2
Local Government Act 1995 (WA), 233
Local Government Act 1999 (SA), 72, 234
Local Government Amendment Act 2005 (Tas.), 240–1
Local Government and Cost Shifting inquiry, see Hawker
Inquiry
Local Government and Planning Joint Committee, 9
Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council, 9–10,
58, 88
agreement on nationally consistent frameworks, 58
Inter-governmental Agreement, 10, 87
National Reform Agenda actions, 57
Local Government Association of Queensland, 229,
230–1, 254–5, 286
Local Government Association of South Australia, 72,
234–5, 256–9, 278
Local Government Association of Tasmania, 236, 238,
242
M
Main Roads WA, 70, 125
Marni Waeindi Indigenous Transition Pathways, 271–2,
288
Mason, Cr Lynn, 238
MacGrath, Steve, 271
313
Measuring Council Performance in Tasmania 2004–05,
242
mental illnesses, 272
mentoring programs, 249
mergers, see amalgamations and structural reform
Merit, National Award for, 272
methods of distribution, 45–6, 51–3, 95–143
Hawker Report recommendation, 89
microeconomic reform, 261
see also National Competition Policy
MidCoast Water County Council, 275, 284
migrants, 286–8
women, 270
Milikapiti, 263
minimum grant councils, 42, 49–52, 156
Northern Territory, 49–51, 141
Queensland, 49–51, 119
symbol indicating in Appendix D, 157
Victoria, 49–51, 108
ministerial councils, 9–11
see also Council of Australian Governments; Local
Government and Planning Ministers’ Council
Moir, Alderman Kerry, 271
Morton Consulting Services, 132
motor vehicles, 248, 284
Municipal Association of Victoria, 78, 220, 221–6, 251
Municipal Engineering Australia, see Institute of Public
Works Engineering Australia
municipal libraries, 225, 291
municipal rates, 12–17
Murr Murr Corporation, 272
museums, 276
Mutujulu, 263
N
Narungga Nations Aboriginal Corporation, 257
National Awards for Local Government, 88, 269, 270–93
Strengthening Indigenous Communities Award, 83–4,
257, 288–9
National Competition Council, 56, 236
National Competition Policy, 56–7
Queensland, 226–9
Tasmania, 236–7, 241
Victoria, 219
National Competition Policy – Applying the Principles to
Local Government in Tasmania, 236
National Competition Policy – Water Reform Progress
Report, 237
national conference of local government grants
commissions, 45
national local roads database, 46
314
National Native Title Tribunal, 258
National Principles, 41–3, 92–4, 153–6
Hawker Report recommendation for additional, 87–8,
92–3
impact of capping policies, 53
National Reform Agenda, 57–8
national representation, 11
National Summit on the Future of Australian Cities and
Towns, 10
National Water Commission, 237
native title, 254, 257, 258
natural disaster assistance payments, 109
natural disaster management, 230, 256, 260
natural resource management, 285–6
Indigenous communities, 254, 257, 263
urban land and parks, 247
needs basis, ranking of councils on, 189–211
net debt, 26
net worth, 25, 26
Networking the Nation program, 263
New South Wales, 4–8, 11, 35, 37, 58, 215–19
assets and liabilities, 26
average grant per capita, 47, 49–51
buildings, value of, 64
distribution methods, 52, 95–103; comparison with
other grants commission models, 144–56
employment in local government sector, 3–4
expenditure by purpose, 18–20
Indigenous communities, 154, 249–50
Leading Practice Seminar, Griffith, 270
local governing bodies by ACLG category, 47–8, 214;
grant distribution, 158–64
local governing bodies by relative needs ranking,
191–5
local governing bodies by type, 44
minimum grant councils, 49–51
National Awards for Local Government, 274–9, 281,
283–6, 288–90, 292
revenue sources, 13–17
state funding, 24
see also New South Wales road network
New South Wales Department Environment and
Conservation, 278
New South Wales Department of Commerce, 276
New South Wales Department of Local Government,
215–19, 249–50
New South Wales Department of State and Regional
Development, 286
territory funding, 24, 262
Northern Territory Department of Community
Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, 243
Northern Territory Department of Local Government,
Housing and Sport, 242–3, 261–2
Northern Territory Department of Planning and
Infrastructure, 73
Northern Territory Emergency Services, 262
Northern Territory Local Government Association, 73,
262–3
Northern Territory Local Government Grants Commission,
139–43, 144–56, 243
Internet address, 46
legislation establishing, 43
methodology reviews, 52
Northern Territory Local Government Grants Commission
Act 1995, 43
Northern Territory Police, 262
Northern Territory road network, 35, 40, 185–8, 263
average grant per kilometre, 48
estimated value, 63
length, 5, 6, 185–8; sealed and unsealed, 64
relative needs basis, 210–11
Roads to Recovery program, 22, 263
Roads Trust, 3, 4
territory funding, 73
General index
New South Wales Grants Commission, 95–103, 144–56
New South Wales Local Government Aboriginal Network,
249
New South Wales Local Government Act 1993, 43, 250
New South Wales Local Government and Shires
Association, 216
New South Wales Local Government Reform Program,
215–18
New South Wales Ongoing Strategic Alliance Network, 216
New South Wales Promoting Better Practice in Local
Government program, 217–18
New South Wales road network, 35, 37, 158–64
estimated value, 63
grant distribution method, 99–101, 102–3; status of
state funding, 68–9
New South Wales Social Justice Initiatives Survey,
249–50
New South Wales Strategic Alliance Conference, 216
New Zealand, 9
Ngunnawal Elders Council, 265
Nhulunbuy, 263
Noble Park, 290
Normanton Youth Rural Training Program, 272, 288
Northern Skateboard and BMX Titles, 292
Northern Tasmania Development, 238, 281–2
Northern Territory, 4–8, 11, 35, 40, 242–4
employment in local government sector, 3–4, 263
Indigenous communities, 83, 155, 261–3, 266–8
210–11
local governing bodies by type, 3, 44
minimum grant councils, 49–51, 141
National Awards for Local Government, 284
O
occupational health and safety, 283–4
Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination, 83
older people, services for, 286–7
On Track program, 265
Ongoing Strategic Alliance Network, 216
online services, see Internet
other grant support National Principle, 153–4
Out There & Active program, 293
Outstanding Achievement, National Award for, 271–2
Over 55 and Understood Project, 286
Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs, 261–2
Owen, Daniel, 271
P
Paddy O’Donoghue Community Services Centre, 290
parking, 248
parks management, 247
parliamentary inquiries, see Hawker Inquiry
315
316
parliamentary resolution, 87
partnership agreements, 237–8, 239, 257–8, 259
Paul, Andrew, 240
pay parking, ACT, 248
Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative, 290
per capita expenditure, 19
per capita grants, 35, 46–7, 157–211
minimum grant councils, 42, 49–51
per capita revenue from rates, 13–15
per kilometre local road grants, 46, 48, 157–211
Performance Development Plans, 251
performance measures
Australian Capital Territory, 245, 246, 247
New South Wales, 218–19
Northern Territory, 242–3
Queensland, 229
Tasmania, 242
Victoria, 221; asset management, 220
Phillip’s Gate Anglican Community, 289
Picture This program, 273
planning, 218
health services, 280
Indigenous land use, 257
waterways management, 285
Planning for an Ageing Community Award, 286–7
Planning Officials Group, 10
Playford Indigenous Transition Pathways Centre, 271–2
population, 4–5, 33, 157–88
areas of rapid growth, 10, 275, 280
Indigenous council areas, 265–8
% in minimum grant councils, 49–51
served per employee, 3–4
power generation, Cape Barren Island, 260
prices oversight, Tasmania, 236–7
Prime Minister’s Community Business Partnership, 270
principles, 102–3
see also National Principles
procurement, 241, 245
Productivity Commission, 89–90
Project Connect, 280
Promoting Better Practice in Local Government program,
217–18
property taxes/rates, 12–17
proportional method of factoring back, 156
public libraries, 225, 291
public place management, 247, 279
public toilets, 122
publications
New South Wales, 216, 218–19, 250
Queensland, 230, 252
South Australia, 257, 258
Tasmania, 236, 242
Victoria, 78, 220
see also annual reports and publications
purchasing, 241, 245
Q
quantum of allocations, 36–40
quantum of grant, 29–30
difference between estimated and actual
entitlements, 34
Queensland, 4–8, 11, 35, 38, 58, 59, 226–31
employment in local government sector, 4
Indigenous communities, 82, 119, 155, 251–5,
265–6
198–202
National Awards for Local Government, 272, 273,
277, 282, 286, 287, 288, 291, 293
National Competition Policy, 57, 226–9
state funding, 24
see also Queensland road network
Queensland Aboriginal Local Government Association,
254
Queensland Business Management Assistance Program,
227, 229
Queensland Community Governance Improvement
Strategy, 251
Queensland Competition Authority, 227
Queensland Department of Emergency Services, 230
Queensland Department of Local Government, Planning,
Sport and Recreation, 226–9, 231, 251–2, 254, 255
Queensland Disaster Management Alliance, 230
R
RailCorp, 276
rates, 12–17
Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local
Government, see Hawker Inquiry
Raukkan Community Council, 257–8
recognition and awards, 245
see also National Awards for Local Government
reconciliation, 249, 253, 257
Reconciliation Australia, 261
recreation and sport, 255, 263, 273, 291–2
recycling, 244–5
Regional Aviation Security Program - Security our Regional
Skies, 262
Regional Development Council, 11
regional local government bodies, see classification of
local governing bodies
Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs)
Queensland, 230
Tasmania, 238, 281–2
Regional Partnership Agreements, 76, 261
Regional Partnerships program, 23
regionalisation, 122, 262
Regulation Reduction Incentive Fund, 22
regulatory reform, 57
relative needs basis, ranking of councils on, 189–211
religion, 287
remote local governing bodies, see classification of local
governing bodies
renewable energy, 260, 284
Report on Local Government Road Assets and
Expenditure, 70, 71
reporting requirements, 56
on Indigenous services, 249
see also annual reports and publications
resource sharing, 58
New South Wales, 216–17, 274, 278
South Australia, 257–8
Tasmania, 237–8, 239, 259, 281–2
Victoria, 225–6
revenue, 12–17
ACT parking fees, 248
assessments, 151–2
National Competition Policy payments, 56–7
road grants, 28–40, 157–211
average per kilometre, 46, 48
Indian Island Territories, 45
Indigenous communities, 83
National Principle, 144–5
Roads to Recovery program, 22, 66, 67
road grants distributions methods, 144–5
New South Wales, 99–101, 102–3
Queensland, 112–13, 116–18
reviews, 29, 52
Tasmania, 138–9
Victoria, 110–12
Western Australia, 125–6
Road Management Act 2004 (Vic.), 220
road safety education, 292
road signs, 275
road traffic camera operations, 248
General index
Queensland Local Government Act 1993, 43, 226, 255
Queensland Local Government Association, 229, 230–1,
254–5, 286
Queensland Local Government Comparative Information
2003–04, 229
Queensland Local Government Financial Incentive
Package, 226–8
Queensland Local Government Grants Commission,
112–19, 144–56
Queensland road network, 35, 38, 168–74
estimated value, 63
grant distribution method, 112–13, 116–18;
state funding, 65, 70
Queensland Roads Management and Investment Alliance,
70
Queensland State Indigenous Natural Resource
Management Murri Network, 254
Queensland State Library, 252–4
Queensland Statewide Water Information Management
(SWIM) project, 230–1
Queensland Transport Infrastructure Development
Scheme, 65
Queensland Water Directorate, 230
317
roads, 64–73
assessing expenditure needs for general purpose
model, 149–50
Cape Barren Island, 260
estimated value, 62–3
length maintained, 5, 6, 157–88; Indigenous
councils, 265–8; sealed and unsealed, 64
National Awards for Local Government, 275
see also road grants
Roads ACT, 245–6
Roads to Recovery program, 22, 66, 67, 263
Roads Trust, NT, 3, 4
Rockingham Community Health and Wellbeing Project,
279
Rocks Riverside Park Water Mining Project, 277
ROCS, see Regional Organisations of Councils
role, see functions of local government
RSPCA, 247
rural local governing bodies, see classification of local
governing bodies
rural roads, spending on, 65
S
safety, 283–4
on roads, 292
sale of goods and services, 13, 14, 17
Sales, David, 240, 242
satisfaction surveys, 221, 244
scope of equalisation, 148–9
Scott, Marguerite, 240
sealed roads, 64, 130, 149
seminars, see conferences, workshops and other forums
Senate, 87
service agreements, 256, 260
service charters, 241, 247
sewerage, see water and sanitation
Shared Responsibility Agreements, 76, 251
Shoal Bay, 284
Significant Business Activities and Local Government in
Tasmania, 236
Sing, Margaret, 240
Sisters Beach, 22
skateboarding, 292
small business development, 276
Social Justice Initiatives Survey (NSW), 249–50
social planning, 250
see also community development
solid waste management, see waste management
Somerville Park Early Childhood Education Centre, 270
318
South Australia, 4–8, 11, 35, 39, 58, 234–5
Indigenous communities, 82, 132, 155, 256–9, 266
206–9
local governing bodies by type, 3, 44
277, 278, 280, 282, 283, 288
Salisbury City Council financial governance model, 60
state funding, 24
see also South Australian road network
South Australian Comparative Performance Measurement
Project, 235
South Australian Local Government/Aboriginal Service
Agreement Project, 257
South Australian Local Government Act 1999, 72, 234
South Australian Local Government Association, 72,
234–5, 256–9, 278
South Australian Local Government Financial
Accountability Advisory Committee, 235
South Australian Local Government (Financial
Management and Rating) Amendment Act 2005, 235
South Australian Local Government Financial
Management Group, 235
South Australian Local Government Grants Commission,
126–32, 144–56
South Australian Local Government Grants Commission
Act 1992, 43
South Australian Local Government Transport Advisory
Panel, 131
South Australian Office for State–Local Government
Relations, 234–5, 256–9
Swan Hill Health Minds Network, 272
SWIM project, 230–1
swimming pools, 255, 263
Systemic Sustainability Study Panel, 232–3
General index
South Australian road network, 35, 39, 180–4
estimated value, 63
grant distribution method, 131; methodology reviews,
52
state funding, 65, 71–2
supplementary funding to overcome disadvantage,
31, 66, 67–8, 89
South Australian State Aquatic Centre, 22
Southern Kaurna, 257
Special Premiers’ Conference 1990, 28
specific purpose payments, 20–1, 22
Spectacles Cultural Tours, 288
spending, see expenditure
sponsorship of National Awards for Local Government,
270
sport and recreation, 255, 263, 273, 291–2
staff, see employees and employment
state government funding, 24, 65, 68–73
Northern Territory, 24, 262
Queensland, 24, 65, 70
Tasmania, 24, 260
State Grants Commission Act 1976 (Tas.), 43
state grants commissions, 43–4, 45–6, 52–3, 95–143
State Indigenous Natural Resource Management Murri
Network, 254
State Library of Queensland, 252–4
state responsibilities, 2
State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement (WA),
65, 70–1
Statewide Water Information Management (SWIM) project
(Qld), 230–1
Step program, 223–4
Strategic Alliance Conference, 218
Strategic Regional program, 66, 67
streets, see roads
Strength in Diversity Award, 287–8
Strengthening Indigenous Communities Award, 83–4,
257, 288–9
Strengthening Tasmania, 22
Strong and Resilient Communities Award, 289–2990
Strong Safe Cohesive Communities, 264
Stronger Regions - Stronger Futures strategy, 262
structural reform, see amalgamations and structural
reform
suicide prevention, 272
T
Taking IT On project, 253
Tasmania, 4–8, 11, 35, 39, 58, 236–42
employment in local government sector, 4, 259
Indigenous communities, 155, 259–60
209–10
National Awards for Local Government, 68, 275,
281–2, 283
see also Tasmanian road network
Tasmanian Department of Premier and Cabinet, 236–42,
259–60
Tasmanian Government Prices Oversight Commission,
236–7
Tasmanian Key Performance Indicators Committee, 242
Tasmanian Local Government Act 1993, 236, 239, 240–2
Tasmanian Local Government Amendment Act 2005,
240–1
Tasmanian Local Government Association, 236, 238, 242
Tasmanian Local Government Board, 239–40
Tasmanian Local Government Division, 236–42, 259–60
Tasmanian Local Government (General) Amendment
(Code of Conduct) Regulations 2006, 241
Tasmanian Local Government (General) Amendment
(Section 337 Certificate) Regulations 2006, 241
Tasmanian Local Government Grants Commission, 132–9,
144–56, 242
319
Tasmanian Local Government Regulations 1994, 237
Tasmanian Premier’s Local Government Council, 238–9
Tasmanian road network, 35, 39, 184–5
estimated value, 63
grant distribution method, 138–9; methodology
reviews, 52
Roads to Recover program, 22
Tasmanian State Grants Commission Act 1976, 43
taxation, 12–17
GST, 29, 42
telecommunications, see Internet
tenders and contracts, 241, 245
territories, 44–5
see also Australian Capital Territory; Northern
Territory
thoroughfares, see roads
Threlfall, Jeremy, 242
toilets, public, 122
Toomnangi, 78
Torres Strait Islander communities, see Indigenous
communities
Town Planning Regulations 1967 (WA), 234
traffic camera services, 248
training, see education and training
Two Ways Together, Partnerships: a new way of doing
business with Aboriginal people 2003–12, 250
U
unincorporated areas, 6
roads in, 65, 67, 69, 71
unsealed roads, 64, 130, 144
urban local governing bodies, see classification of local
governing bodies
urban roads, spending on, 65
V
Valentine, Rob, 238
valuation of land, methods of assessing, 15–17
value of buildings, 63–4
value of local road network, 62–3
Valuing and Promoting Quality Childcare Award, 290
verbYL Youth Project, 291
VicHealth, 292
320
Victoria, 4–8, 11, 35, 37, 58, 219–26
Indigenous communities, 78, 154, 251
195–7
279, 280, 284, 286, 287, 289–90, 292
National Competition Policy, 57, 219
revenue sources, 13–17; general purpose grants as
proportion, 222–3
state funding, 24
see also Victorian road network
Victoria Grants Commission, 103–12, 144–56
Victoria Grants Commission Act 1976 (Vic.), 43
Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, 251
Victorian Asset Management Performance Measure
Project, 220
Victorian Best Value Commission, 219
Victorian Communities Asset Management Performance
Measures Project, 220
Victorian Department for Victorian Communities, 219–21,
251
Victorian Local Government Improvement Incentive
Program, 219
Victorian road network, 35, 37, 164–7, 220
estimated value, 63
grant distribution method, 110–12; methodology
reviews, 52
relative needs basis, 195–7*
road signs, 275
volatile substance misuse, 293
waste management
Northern Territory, 263, 284
Waste Wise Schools program (ACT), 245
water and sanitation
New South Wales, 274, 275, 285
Queensland, 230–1, 277
Tasmania, 236–7, 283
Wiluna Development Project, 255
web sites, see Internet
Weipa Structural Adjustment Package, 22
Werris Creek, 276
West, Paul, 240, 242
West Byron Integrated Water Management Reserve, 285
West Heidelberg Everyday Living and Learning (WHELL)
Project, 289
Western Arnhem Land, 262
Western Australia, 4–8, 11, 35, 38, 59, 231–4
employment in local government sector, 4, 255
Indigenous communities, 82, 155, 255–6, 266
202–6
National Awards for Local Government, 276, 278–9,
287, 288, 290
state funding, 24, 65, 256
see also Western Australian road network
Western Australian Aboriginal Roads Committee, 83
Western Australian Bridge Committee, 125
Western Australian Council of Social Services, 234
Western Australian Department Housing and Works New
Living Program, 255
Western Australian Department of Indigenous Affairs, 83
Western Australian Department of Local Government and
Regional Development, 231–2, 255–6
Western Australian Disabilities Services Commission, 234
Western Australian Electoral Commission, 256
Western Australian Emergency Management Act 2005,
256
Western Australian Fire and Emergency Services
Authority, 256
Western Australian Human Services Director Generals
Group, 255
Western Australian Indigenous Leadership Program, 256
Western Australian Local Government Act 1995, 233
Western Australian Local Government Association, 70,
125, 232–4, 263
local government emergency management role
project, 256
Western Australian Local Government Grants Act 1978,
43
Western Australian Local Government Grants
Commission, 45, 83, 144–56, 256
Information Return, 231
publication of comparative data, 232
Western Australian Local Government (Official Conduct)
Amendment Bill 2005, 233
Western Australian Planning Commission, 234
Western Australian road network, 35, 38, 125–6, 174–80
estimated value, 63, 174–80
length, 5, 174–80; sealed and unsealed, 64
Western Australian State–Local Government Heritage
Working Party, 234
Western Australian State Road Funds to Local
Government Agreement, 65, 70–1
Western Australian Town Planning Regulations 1967, 234
Western Australian Young Indigenous Local Government
Scholarships, 256
Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping Squad, 278
whole-of-government approach to Indigenous service
delivery, 76–7
COAG trials, 259, 264
Wiggins, Kim, 242
Wiluna Development Project, 255
women, 280–1
culturally and linguistically diverse, 270
workers, see employees and employment
workshops, see conferences, workshops and other forums
General index
W
321
322
X
XROADS Project, 292
Y
Yardstick Benchmarking Program, 247
Yargin Aboriginal Corporation, 272
Yeoland, Graeme, 240
Young Indigenous Local Government Scholarships, 256
young people, 238, 273, 287, 291–3
Indigenous, 249, 252, 256, 271–2, 272
Youth Engagement Award, 291–3

Local Government National Report 2005-06

Transkrypt

Podobne dokumenty

English corner - Australia

Contact - Quakers Hill High School