2007–08 - Regional · For 2007–08, the Australian Government provided $1.783 billion in financial assistance grants through state and territory governments to councils in support

Local Government National Report

2007–08 Report on the Operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995

Local Governm

ent National R

eport 2007–08

www.infrastructure.gov.au

2007–082007–08

Local Government National Report

2007–08

2007–08 Report on the Operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995

© Commonwealth of Australia 2010 ISSN 1441 5739 ISBN 0 9756884 5 6

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 Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Requests for permission should be addressed to the General Manager, Local Government, at the address below.

The report is also available on the Internet at <www.infrastructure.gov.au>.

Acknowledgments

This report has been compiled by:

Mark Mansfield Mervyn Carter Karolina Russell Diana Rankin Valentine Thurairaja

For further information about this report contact:

Local Government Section Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government GPO Box 594 Canberra ACT 2601

Phone: 1800 065 113 Fax: (02) 6274 6249

Editor: Jenny Cook, PenUltimate Designer: Giraffe Visual Communication Management Indexer: Shirley Campbell Printer: Blue Star Print Group

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au

http://www.giraffe.com.au

iii

Foreword

I am pleased to present to Parliament the 2007–08 report on the operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth).

For 2007–08, the Australian Government provided $1.783 billion in financial assistance grants through state and territory 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 allocated these funds between councils. Importantly, these grants to councils are untied, so councils are able to devote funds to the priorities they themselves have identified.

While local government operates within frameworks set by the states and territories, the Australian Government has contributed around $33.1 billion in financial assistance grants since 1974–75 to enhance the capacity of councils to deliver services to their residents.

Aside from municipal services, such as town planning and refuse collection and disposal, councils also have significant responsibilities in maintaining and building infrastructure. This includes local roads, which are around 85 per cent of the road length in Australia and in some states or parts of states, water and sewerage infrastructure.

The Australian Government recognises the important role local government plays and provides substantial assistance to local government through the financial assistance grants and its other local government programs in contributing to councils’ resources.

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 Anthony Albanese MP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government

iv

Contents

Foreword iii

Contents iv

Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia 2Local government roles 2Local government functions 2Size and diversity 3Local government structural reform 8Involvement in inter-governmental structures 10National representation of local government 11Local government finances 11Assets and liabilities 20

Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government 24Overview of current arrangements 25Determining the quantum of the grant 25Determining entitlements for 2007–08 and 2008–09 26Inter-jurisdictional distribution of the grants 30Quantum of financial assistance grants allocations 33Principles for determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions 34Determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions 37Bodies eligible to receive financial assistance grants 38Methods of local government grants commissions 39Allocation of grants to councils in 2007–08 40Councils on the minimum grant 43Reviews of grants commission methods 44Impact of grants commission capping policies 45Acquittal of grants 45

Chapter 3 Local government efficiency and performance 48Local Government structural reform 48Council financial sustainability and asset management 49Productivity Commission research report into local government revenue-raising capacity 53State initiatives to improve council performance 54Summary 61

Chapter 4 Local government service provision to Indigenous communities 64Reporting requirements 64Australian Government expenditure and progress 68

v

Appendixes 73Appendix A National Principles for allocating general purpose and local road grants 74Appendix B State methods for distributing financial assistance grants 2007–08 77Appendix C Comparison of local government grants commission distribution models 124Appendix D Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies in 2007–08 137Appendix E Ranking of local governing bodies on a relative needs basis 2007–08 174Appendix F Australian classification of local governments 201Appendix G Progress in improving efficiency of local government 206Appendix H Progress reports on performance of local government in service

provision to Indigenous communities 240Appendix I Best practice in local government 254

Bibliography 259

Glossary 265

Index of local governments 265

General index 277

vi

Figures and Tables

Figure 1.1: Local government revenue by source, by jurisdiction, 2007–08 13

Figure 1.2: Local government expenditure by jurisdiction, 2006–07 17

Figure 2.1: Ratio of general purpose grant per capita for non-minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils 43

Table 1.1: Local government employment, by jurisdiction, 1987–2008 5

Table 1.2: Selected characteristics of local government bodiesa by jurisdiction, at 1 July 2007 5

Table 1.3: Characteristics of selected councils, 2007–08 9

Table 1.4: Share of taxation revenue by sphere of government and source of revenue, 2007–08 12

Table 1.5: Local government revenue sources by jurisdiction, 2007–08 12

Table 1.6: Local government revenue, by source by jurisdiction, $ per capita, 2007–08 13

Table 1.7: Local government expenditure by purpose, by jurisdiction, 2007–08 15

Table 1.8: Local government expenditure by purpose, by jurisdiction, $ per capita, 2007–08 16

Table 1.9: Estimated specific purpose payments from the Australian Government direct to local government, by jurisdiction, 2007–08 18

Table 1.10: Grants from states to local government, by purpose, 2006–07 19

Table 1.11: Local government assets and liabilities, 2007–08 21

Table 2.1: Calculation of financial assistance grants actual entitlements and adjustments for 2007–08 27

Table 2.2: Calculation of financial assistance grants estimated entitlements and cash grant paid for 2008–09 28

Table 2.3: Allocations of general purpose and local road grants among jurisdictions, 2007–08 31

Table 2.4: 2008–09 allocation of estimated grant entitlement among jurisdictions and percentage change from 2007–08 actual grant allocation 32

Table 2.5: National financial assistance grant allocation, 1974–75 to 2008–09 33

Table 2.6: Distribution of local governing bodies, by type and jurisdiction, at 1 July 2007 38

Table 2.7: Average general purpose grant per capita to councils, by state and ACLG category, 2007–08 41

Table 2.9: Status of most recent major methodology reviews, by state at 30 June 2008 44

Table 3.1: Number of local governments, by state, 1910–2008 49

Table 3.2: Infrastructure backlog estimate, extrapolated from Access Economics and Municipal Association of Victoria results 51

vii

Table 3.3: Number of councils doing NAMS Plus to prepare their first asset management plan, 2007–08 52

Table 3.4: Progress of Victoria’s councils in developing asset management plans, 2007–08 57

Table 4.1: Distribution of Indigenous councils, by eligibility type and state, at July 2007 69

Table B.1: Average expenditures per unit for each expenditure function, except Local Roads and Bridges – Victoria 87

Table B.2: Average grant revenue on a per unit basis, based on actual grants received by local government in 2005–06 – Victoria 89

Table B.3: Standardised fees and charges per unit, 2007–08 – Victoria 90

Table B.4: Changes in general purpose grant entitlements from 2006–07 to 2007–08 – Victoria 92

Table B.5: Natural disaster assistance from general purpose grant funding, 2007–08 – Victoria 92

Table B.6: Changes in local road length from 2006–07 to 2007–08 – Victoria 93

Table B.7: Average annual costs used in allocating local road grants for 2007–08 – Victoria 94

Table B.8: Changes in local road grant entitlement from 2006–07 to 2007–08 – Victoria 95

Table B.9: Outline of expenditure assessment, 2007–08, Queensland 98

Table B.10: Rural roads standards and cost adjustors, Queensland 100

Table B.11: Urban roads standards and cost adjustors, Queensland 100

Table B.12: Local road funding allocation, 2007–08, Western Australia 104

Table B.13: Special projects funds for Indigenous access roads 2007–08 – Western Australia 105

Table B.14: Special projects funds for bridge works 2007–08 – Western Australia 105

Table B.15: Expenditure functions, standard cost and units of measure – South Australia 108

Table B.16: Expenditure functions, standard cost, units of measure and aggregate units of measure – South Australiaa 110

Table B.17: Description of non-road expenditure functions, Tasmania 114

Table B.18: Application of cost adjustors to expenditure standards – Tasmania 115

Table B.19: Expenditure allowances allocated to councils, 2007–08 – Tasmania 118

Table B.20: Application of cost adjustors to expenditure functions, 2007–08 – Northern Territory 123

viiiviii

Table C.1: Features of local government grants commission models for assessing local road need, 2007–08 125

Table C.2: Differences in the distribution models grants commissions use for the general purpose component for 2006–07 allocations 127

Table C.3: The scope of equalisation of grants commission general purpose models 128

Table C.4: Grants treated by inclusion in general purpose grant allocations for 2007–08, by jurisdiction 134

Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08 176

Table E.2: Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08 181

Table E.3: Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08 183

Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08 189

Table E.5: South Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08 193

Table E.6: Tasmanian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08 197

Table E.7: Northern Territory councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08 198

Table F.1: Structure of the classification system 202

Table F.2: ACLG category listing of local governments by state, July 2008 203

Table F.3: Changes in ACLG category for 2007–08: reasons for change by state, July 2008 204

Table G.1: Roads ACT benchmarked assets, 2007–08 237

Table G.2: Benchmarks for ACT NOWaste, 2007–08 239

Table H.1: Financial assistance grant entitlements to Indigenous councils, 2006–07 250

Table I.1 Categories for the 2008 National Awards for Local Government 255

ix

Preface

The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) 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 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 that were in receipt of grants under the Act in 2007–08. 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 2007–08 is at Appendix D, while Appendix E shows the ranking of local governing

x

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.

Local government efficiency and performance is discussed in Chapter 3. It reports on infrastructure issues, primarily local roads and asset management issues, which affects the efficiency and effectiveness of local government performance. 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 2008 Award winners are at Appendix I.

A report on delivery of local government services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is in Chapter 4 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 2007–08 to the 90 identified Indigenous councils.

Chapter 1 Local governance in Australia

1

1Chapter 1

Local governance in Australia

2

Local Government National Report 2007–08


Local government is an integral part of Australian culture and plays a small but significant role in the Australian economy.

Official local government began in Australia when the colonial government found it increasingly difficult to provide services to local areas. During the early 1840s, municipal institutions were established, presenting the opportunity for residents to pay for their own local services. In 1840 the Adelaide Corporation was created, followed in July 1842 by incorporation of the City of Sydney and in August 1842 the Town of Melbourne. Local government grew in tandem with colonial governments as governance developed across Australia through the second half of the nineteenth century.

Local government initially developed property-based services, such as building and maintenance of local roads, which were the main lines of communication and thus of significant importance.

During Federation in 1901, the structure and powers of the state and federal governments were decided upon, thus settling on what responsibilities both spheres of government would share or be solely accountable for. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, before the time of Federation, state and territory governments had been responsible for managing local issues through operating local governments.

Because each state and the Northern Territory provide the legal and regulatory framework for local government operations, significant differences often exist between jurisdictions in the roles, functions, responsibilities and services council undertake.

The Australian Government provides funding to local government through the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) as the primary means to help achieve these goals.

Local government rolesOut of all spheres of government in Australia, local governments possess the closest relationship with communities and therefore have a unique opportunity to gain an understanding of, and to meet particular local and community needs.

While local government systems differ to some extent from state to state, broadly the roles of local government involve governance, service delivery, advocacy, asset management, planning, community development and regulation.

Local government functionsCouncils determine service provision according to local needs and the requirements of the various state local government Acts. They are increasingly providing services above and beyond those

3


traditionally associated with local government. Examples of local government functions and services include:

• administration (of aerodromes, quarries, cemeteries, parking stations and street parking)

• building (inspection, licensing, certification and enforcement)

• community services (child care, aged care and accommodation, refuge facilities, meals on wheels, counselling and welfare)

• cultural/educational (libraries, art galleries and museums)

• engineering (public works design, construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, footpaths, drainage, cleaning, waste collection and management)

• health (water sampling, food sampling, immunisation, toilets, noise control, meat inspection and animal control)

• planning and development approval

• recreation (golf courses, swimming pools, sports courts, recreation centres, halls, kiosks, camping grounds and caravan parks)

• water and sewerage (in some states)

• other (abattoirs, sale-yards, markets and group purchasing schemes).

Size and diversityLocal government accounted for over $10.1 billion in taxation revenue in 2007–08, representing 0.9 per cent of gross domestic product. In 2007–08, 697 local governing bodies were eligible to receive financial assistance grants from the Australian Government and of these 90 were Indigenous bodies.

The term ‘local governing bodies’ is defined in the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) 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 this report that relate to councils may not be strictly comparable with those for local governing bodies.

Local government employeesIn June 2008, it was estimated that the local government sector employed around 171 000 people nationally (Table 1.1).

Between May 2007 and June 2008, the number of employees in local government across Australia increased by 1.5 per cent.

Tasmania had the largest increase with 11.1 per cent, followed by Victoria with 6.9 per cent. The largest decreases in local government employment occurred in South Australia (13.7%) and the Northern Territory (11.4%). These states had the largest increases in the previous year. The drop in numbers of local government employees in the Northern Territory may be attributed to preparations

4


for the local government reforms that took effect on 1 July 2008, particularly in the centralisation of administrative functions and the introduction of resource sharing arrangements.

The population served per local government employee varies considerably across jurisdictions. In June 2008 it varied from 70.9 in the Northern Territory to 158.6 in South Australia—with the national average being 117.1 people served.

Between February 1987 and June 2008 the population served per local government employee in New South Wales and Victoria increased by 51 per cent and 29.6 per cent respectively following considerable local government structural reform in those jurisdictions. During the same period the population served per local government employee fell in all other jurisdictions; the Northern Territory and Tasmania had the largest decrease at –64.0 per cent and –22.2 per cent respectively.

The differences between jurisdictions reflect the relative size of the local government sector in the state, the extent of outsourcing, and the range of functions local government performs.

PopulationAcross all jurisdictions, the average population for local governing bodies at 1 July 2008 was just over 29 110 (Table 1.2). However, 50 per cent of local governing bodies have less than 7433 residents. In 2007–08, population ranged from zero for the Roads Trust in the Northern Territory to 989 152 in 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 3169 in the Northern Territory, where there are many small Indigenous communities, to 64 446 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 25 803, but half of them have a population of less than 3628.

The median population size for Western Australian local governing bodies is 2358 the smallest median for all the states. Western Australia is the only state where major structural reform of local government since the 1990s has not occurred.

5


Tabl

e 1.

1: L

ocal

gov

ernm

ent e

mpl

oym

ent,

by ju

risdi

ctio

n, 1

987–

2008

Juris

dict

ion

Empl

oyee

s Fe

b 19

87‘0

00 a

Popu

latio

n M

ar 1

987

‘000

b

Popu

latio

n se

rved

pe

r em

ploy

ee F

eb

1987

Empl

oyee

s Au

g 19

98‘0

00 a

Popu

latio

n Se

pt 1

998

‘000

b

Popu

latio

n se

rved

pe

r em

ploy

ee

Sept

199

8

Empl

oyee

s Ju

ne 2

008

‘000

a

Popu

latio

n Ju

ne 2

008

‘000

b

Popu

latio

n se

rved

pe

r em

ploy

ee

June

200

8

NSW

62.8

5 59

6.2

8944

.66

363.

014

2.7

51.7

6 96

7.2

134.

8

Vic.

42.7

4 19

7.4

9831

.14

674.

915

0.3

41.7

5 29

7.6

127.

0

Qld

26.6

2 66

2.7

100

36.5

3 47

1.5

95.1

43.5

4 27

9.4

98.4

WA

10.3

1 48

6.9

135

13.3

1 84

0.4

138.

416

.62

163.

213

0.3

SA8.

21

390.

418

18.

11

488.

818

3.8

10.1

1 60

1.8

158.

6

Tas.

3.5

448.

612

83.

647

1.6

131.

05.

049

8.2

99.6

NT

0.8

157.

819

72.

619

0.9

73.4

3.1

219.

970

.9

Tota

l15

4.8

15 9

40.0

103

139.

918

813

.013

0.7

171.

721

027

.311

7.1

Sour

ces:

a

ABS,

Wag

e an

d Sa

lary

Ear

ners

, Pub

lic S

ecto

r, Au

stra

lia, c

at. n

o. 6

248.

0.b

ABS,

Aus

tral

ian

Dem

ogra

phic

Sta

tistic

s, c

at. n

o. 3

101.

0.

Tabl

e 1.

2: S

elec

ted

char

acte

ristic

s of

loca

l gov

ernm

ent b

odie

sa by

juris

dict

ion,

at 1

July

200

7

Stat

eNo

. of b

odie

sCh

arac

teris

ticM

inim

umFi

rst q

uart

ileM

edia

nTh

ird q

uart

ileM

axim

umAv

erag

eTo

tal

NSW

155

Popu

latio

n (n

o)57

6 95

420

382

60 3

0228

7 63

444

046

6 82

7 06

5

Road

leng

th (k

m)

048

388

11

259

3 24

593

414

4 74

8

Area

(sq

km)

022

12

689

4 94

553

509

4 56

870

8 03

4

Vic.

79Po

pula

tion

(no)

3 23

016

446

41 5

8611

1 53

722

3 42

464

446

5 09

1 20

9

Road

leng

th (k

m)

4561

31

288

2 26

45

168

1 62

312

8 20

7

Area

(sq

km)

911

81

534

4 03

722

087

2 87

722

7 31

6

Cont

inue

d

6


Stat

eNo

. of b

odie

sCh

arac

teris

ticM

inim

umFi

rst q

uart

ileM

edia

nTh

ird q

uart

ileM

axim

umAv

erag

eTo

tal

Qld

157

Popu

latio

n (n

o)57

1 01

73

628

12 8

8598

9 15

225

803

4 05

1 08

0

Road

leng

th (k

m)

226

587

21

370

5 49

199

315

5 97

8

Area

(sq

km)

069

52

422

10 5

0111

7 08

411

154

1 75

1 10

1

WA

140

Popu

latio

n (n

o)14

192

12

358

12 6

4718

3 89

714

649

2 05

0 88

4

Road

leng

th (k

m)

950

577

11

151

4 15

489

512

5 27

6

Area

(sq

km)

299

82

117

6 99

737

8 53

317

765

2 48

7 13

2

SA74

Popu

latio

n (n

o)66

2 38

78

301

21 0

3215

6 03

721

009

1 55

4 65

6

Road

leng

th (k

m)

031

194

51

559

3 88

41

049

77 6

39

Area

(sq

km)

056

984

3 82

68

863

2 10

315

5 58

8

Tas.

29Po

pula

tion

(no)

879

5 88

811

758

21 2

3965

051

16 8

6048

8 94

8

Road

leng

th (k

m)

161

302

447

739

980

490

14 2

22

Area

(sq

km)

7861

01

155

3 52

19

574

2 34

267

912

NT

62Po

pula

tion

(no)

031

958

01

349

70 2

453

169

196

495

Road

leng

th (k

m)

754

145

304

727

228

14 1

65

Area

(sq

km)

00

630

428

700

1 59

598

859

All j

uris

dict

ions

696

Popu

latio

n (n

o)0

1 45

67

433

30 3

6898

9 15

229

110

20 2

60 3

37

Road

leng

th (k

m)

031

374

01

283

5 49

194

966

0 23

5

Area

(sq

km)

011

81

841

4 79

537

8 53

37

896

5 49

5 94

2

Not

es:

a

Incl

udes

all

loca

l gov

ernm

ent b

odie

s th

at re

ceiv

ed fi

nanc

ial a

ssis

tanc

e gr

ant f

undi

ng in

200

7–08

. b

Th

e fir

st q

uart

ile is

the

char

acte

ristic

size

at w

hich

25

per c

ent o

f loc

al g

over

ning

bod

ies

have

sm

alle

r pop

ulat

ions

and

75

per c

ent a

re la

rger

. c

Th

e m

edia

n is

the

char

acte

ristic

size

at w

hich

50

per c

ent o

f loc

al g

over

ning

bod

ies

have

sm

alle

r pop

ulat

ions

and

50

per c

ent a

re la

rger

. d

Th

e th

ird q

uart

ile is

the

char

acte

ristic

size

at w

hich

75

per c

ent o

f loc

al g

over

ning

bod

ies

have

sm

alle

r pop

ulat

ions

and

25

per c

ent a

re la

rger

. So

urce

: Der

ived

from

loca

l gov

ernm

ent g

rant

s co

mm

issi

on’s

unp

ublis

hed

data

.

Tabl

e 1.

2 c

ontin

ued

7


Local road length maintainedIn 2007–08, local governing bodies were responsible for around 660 235 kilometres of local roads nationally. This is a significant proportion (over 80%) of the nation’s roads by length. For all jurisdictions, the proportion of the length of local government roads that is sealed is around 41 per cent; the proportion varies from 15 per cent in the Northern Territory to 58 per cent in Queensland.

Table 1.2 shows that the average length of road for which local governing bodies are responsible is 949 kilometres. However, 25 per cent of local governing bodies are responsible for less than 313 kilometres of local road and 25 per cent are responsible for more than 1283 kilometres. The local governing body responsible for the longest road length is Brisbane City Council with 5491 kilometres. In New South Wales and South Australia the minimum road length is zero because some local governing bodies, while being eligible for financial assistance grants under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth), do not have local road responsibility.

AreaThe area of local governing bodies, like population, varies considerably within and between states (Table 1.2). Nationally, the average area of local governing bodies on 1 July 2007 was 7896 square kilometres. However, 50 per cent of local governing bodies had an area of less than 1841 square kilometres. Nine local governing bodies in Western Australia and Queensland cover areas greater than 100 000 square kilometres. The council responsible for the largest area is East Pilbara in Western Australia with 378 533 square kilometres.

The minimum area for many jurisdictions is zero square kilometres (Table 1.2). 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 in 2007–08, local governing bodies in the Northern Territory had the smallest areas. This was because a large proportion of the Northern Territory was unincorporated (that is, not included within the boundary of a local governing body) and many Indigenous community councils’ boundaries were not defined.

The area of local governing bodies in South Australia was generally smaller than the area in other states and this reflected the fact that a large proportion (around 85 per cent) of South Australia is unincorporated.

DiversityConsiderable diversity can exist both within and between jurisdictions, which extends beyond rural–metropolitan differences. In addition to size and population, other significant differences between local governing bodies include:

• attitudes and aspirations of local communities

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

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

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

• range and scale of functions.

8


Indigenous councils, for example, have been established under different legislative frameworks. They can be established under the mainstream local government legislation of a jurisdiction, through separate, specific legislation, or they can be ‘declared’ to be local governing bodies by the Australian Government Minister for Local Government, on advice from a state minister (see Chapter 4).

The variation in population size between an urban fringe council (such as Gosford City Council in New South Wales with 163 469 people) and a rural remote council (such as Bulloo Shire Council in Queensland with 468 people) can be seen in Table 1.3. This table provides a snapshot of a small selection of councils’ physical and financial diversity in 2007–08.

The population density of councils can also vary significantly. The City of Burnside in South Australia, for example, has an area of 27 square kilometres and a population density of 1592 residents per square kilometre, compared with Flinders Council, a rural remote council in Tasmania, with an area of 1 994 square kilometres and a population density of 0.44 residents per square kilometre.

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 Wiluna Council in Western Australia with a population of 969 and an area of 184 000 square kilometres. Wiluna Council received over $900 per capita in 2007–08 (Table 1.3). Some rural councils, such as Bulloo Council in Queensland, 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 Bulloo ($4 604.38) is more than 250 times that of the grant per capita for Brisbane City Council ($18.08). Conversely, rate income per capita for Devonport City Council ($1 116) is over 3.7 times that of Gosford City Council ($299). 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.

Local government structural reformIn March 2008, Queensland undertook a major structural reform in its system of local government. It reduced the number of councils from 157 to 73. Elections were held for the new councils in March 2008; the number of councillors decreased from 1286 to 553. The Queensland Government announced a $27.1 million funding package to defray the costs of establishing new councils. As the reform took place part way through 2007–08, the information in this report will largely refer to the number of councils in Queensland before the amalgamations.

The Northern Territory Government also announced major structural reform in local government, which would result in the entire Northern Territory, apart from three special purpose towns and two wharf precincts, being incorporated under a local government area. The reforms took effect on 1 July 2008, where the number of local governing bodies decreased from 61 to 16. As the Northern Territory reforms commenced in 2008–09, this report will refer to the number of Northern Territory councils before the amalgamations.

The envelope in the in back of this publication contains maps of the local government footprint in each jurisdiction as at 1 July 2008.

9


Tabl

e 1.

3: C

hara

cter

istic

s of

sel

ecte

d co

unci

ls, 2

007–

08

Coun

cil

Stat

eCl

assi

ficat

iona

Popu

latio

nAr

eaRo

ad le

ngth

Rate

in

com

eRa

te in

com

e pe

r cap

ita

2007

–08

finan

cial

ass

ista

nce

gran

t ent

itlem

ent

Gene

ral

purp

ose

Loca

l roa

d To

tal

Tota

l gr

ant p

er

capi

ta

no.

sq k

mkm

$’00

0$

$$

$$

Arm

adal

eW

AUR

M33

364

4 80

41

602

18 4

3134

8.55

1 44

1 71

51

374

981

2 81

6 69

643

.21

Bana

naQl

dRA

V14

596

15 7

553

324

12 1

0782

9.47

3 21

2 21

21

558

086

4 77

0 29

822

0.07

Bris

bane

bQl

dUC

C98

9 15

21

327

5 49

191

6 30

092

6.35

17 8

81 4

0811

764

886

29 6

46 2

9418

.08

Bullo

oQl

dRT

S46

873

805

4 65

42

538

5 42

3.59

2 15

4 85

21

039

038

3 19

3 89

04

604.

38

Burn

side

bSA

UDM

42 9

8627

234

21 3

4549

6.56

774

036

374

675

1 14

8 71

118

.01

Cape

lW

ARS

G10

517

554

450

2 48

323

6.09

725

364

1 34

4 64

42

070

008

68.9

7

Card

inia

Vic.

UFM

60 2

761

280

1 34

925

868

429.

1650

81 2

751

806

949

6 88

8 22

484

.30

Devo

npor

tTa

s.UR

S25

122

111

241

28 0

271

115.

6262

6 61

484

2 94

11

469

555

24.9

4

East

Gip

psla

ndVi

c.UR

M42

075

20 9

312

846

25 1

1459

6.89

7 52

6 11

83

917

726

11 4

43 8

4417

8.87

Flin

ders

Tas.

RAS

879

1 99

438

51

750

1 99

0.71

517

367

495

921

1 01

3 28

858

8.59

Forb

es S

hire

NSW

RAV

10 0

034

720

1 80

34

960

495.

852

533

970

1 47

4 62

14

008

591

253.

32

Gosf

ord

City

NSW

UFV

163

469

940

1 04

648

834

298.

736

401

006

1 78

4 58

38

185

589

39.1

6

Goyd

er R

egio

nal

SARA

M4

085

6 68

83

247

3 05

674

8.15

1 74

7 14

352

0 27

32

267

416

427.

70

Jabi

ruN

TUR

S1

174

1331

1 42

21

210.

8713

7 57

985

604

223

183

117.

19

Mar

rickv

ille

NSW

UDL

76 5

2416

190

32 3

1842

2.32

2 66

7 78

045

8 28

73

126

067

34.8

6

Wilu

naW

ART

S96

918

4 00

01

879

279

288.

1190

5 68

161

9 51

61

525

197

934.

66

Not

es:

a

Aust

ralia

n Cl

assi

ficat

ion

of L

ocal

Gov

ernm

ents

—se

e Ap

pend

ix F.

b

Th

ese

coun

cils

rece

ived

the

min

imum

per

cap

ita g

ener

al p

urpo

se g

rant

in 2

007–

08.

Sour

ce: D

eriv

ed fr

om D

epar

tmen

t of I

nfra

stru

ctur

e, T

rans

port

, Reg

iona

l Dev

elop

men

t and

Loc

al G

over

nmen

t unp

ublis

hed

data

.

10


Involvement in inter-governmental structuresLocal governments are actively involved in inter-governmental structures on a number of fronts, namely the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council and other ministerial councils as required.

Council of Australian GovernmentsCOAG is the peak inter-governmental forum in Australia comprising the Prime Minister, state premiers, territory chief ministers and the President of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). COAG’s role is to initiate, develop and monitor implementation of policy reforms of national significance and that require cooperative action by all Australian governments.

The issues COAG considers generally arise from international treaties that affect the states and territories, initiatives of one government that affect other governments, and ministerial council deliberations. Ministerial councils are regular meetings of federal, state and territory ministers sharing common responsibilities.

Over 40 commonwealth–state ministerial councils and forums currently facilitate 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’ CouncilThe Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council includes federal, state, territory and New Zealand local government and planning ministers, 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 spheres 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 monitoring and evaluating 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,

11


state, territory and New Zealand departments with responsibility for local government and planning matters, and a senior representative from ALGA.

Other ministerial councilsIn its 2001 review of ministerial councils, COAG agreed that 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 Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio, in addition to being a member of the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council, ALGA is also a member of the Regional Development Council and an observer on the Australian Transport Council.

National representation of local governmentA number of national groups represent the interests of local government and professionals working in the local government sector. Some of these groups are the ALGA and the Local Government Managers Australia.

Australian Local Government AssociationALGA is a federation of local governing body associations from each of Australia’s 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 COAG and membership of a number of ministerial councils.

Local Government Managers AustraliaLocal 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 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; its national office is in Melbourne, Victoria.

Local government financesShare of taxation revenue by sphere of governmentIn 2007–08, local government directly raised $10 116 million in taxation revenue—that is 2.9 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 (Table 1.4) that is exclusively raised through land rates. Local government taxation revenue increased 7.75 per cent from $9388 million in 2006–07 to $10 116 million in 2007–08, compared to an 8.94 per cent increase in taxation across all three spheres of government.

12


Compared with local government, the states and territories raised more than twice as much in taxes on property at $19 678 million. This included taxes on financial and capital transactions involving property of almost $14 392 million as well as land taxes of $4346 million.

Table 1.4: Share of taxation revenue by sphere of government and source of revenue, 2007–08

Revenue source

Federal State Local Total

% % % %

Taxes on income 59.78 0.00 0.00 59.78

Employers payroll taxes 0.11 4.59 0.00 4.70

Taxes on property 0.0004 6.00 2.99 8.91

Taxes on provision of goods and services 21.74 2.62 0.00 24.37

Taxes on use of goods and performance of activities 0.24 2.00 0.00 2.24

Total 81.87 15.22 2.99 100.00

Note: Figures have been roundedSource: ABS, Taxation Revenue, Table 1, cat. no. 5506.0.

Local government revenueThe differences between urban, rural and remote councils, in population size, rating base and the ability or willingness of councils to levy user charges all contribute to creating wide disparity between individual councils’ ability to raise revenue.

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 in 2007–08 can be obtained from Table 1.5 and Figure 1.1, significant variation in revenue raised between councils within the states and the Northern Territory remained.

Table 1.5: Local government revenue sources by jurisdiction, 2007–08

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

Taxation revenue $m 2 926 2 725 2 192 1 088 884 233 68 10 116

% 36.1 48.7 27.2 40.8 55.9 32.1 19.1 37.4

Grants and subsidies $m 686 579 580 208 192 67 91 2 403

% 8.5 10.4 7.2 7.8 12.1 9.2 25.6 8.9

Sales of goods and services $m 2 776 1 132 2 868 602 255 294 80 8 006

% 34.2 20.2 35.6 22.6 16.1 40.6 22.5 29.6

Interest income $m 355 111 194 105 29 26 10 830

% 4.4 2.0 2.4 3.9 1.8 3.6 2.8 3.1

Other $m 1 363 1 046 2 214 664 221 106 107 5 720

% 16.8 18.7 27.5 24.9 14.0 14.6 30.1 21.1

Total $m 8 107 5 592 8 048 2 668 1 581 725 356 27 076

% 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.Source: ABS, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no. 5512.0

13


Figure 1.1: Local government revenue by source, by jurisdiction, 2007–08

Source: ABS, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no. 5512.0.

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.

Rates

The tax levied by local government is rates on property. In 2007–08, 37 per cent of local government revenue came from rates nationally. The proportion of revenue from rates varied appreciably between jurisdictions, from a high of 55.9 per cent for South Australia to a low of 19.1 per cent for the Northern Territory. Nationally, local government rates increased by 7.8 per cent from 2006–07 to 2007–08.

On a per capita basis, rates revenue was the lowest for the Northern Territory at $309 and for the states, rates revenue per capita varied from $419 for New South Wales to $551 for South Australia (Table 1.6).

Table 1.6: Local government revenue, by source by jurisdiction, $ per capita, 2007–08

Revenue source

NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Average

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Taxation 419.97 514.38 512.22 502.96 551.88 467.68 309.23 481.09

Current grants and subsidies 98.46 109.29 135.53 96.15 119.87 134.48 413.82 114.28

Sale of goods and services 398.44 213.68 670.19 278.29 159.2 590.12 363.8 380.74

Interest 50.95 20.95 45.33 48.54 18.1 52.19 45.48 39.47

Other 195.63 197.45 517.36 306.95 137.97 212.77 486.58 272.03

Total 1163.6 1055.57 1880.64 1233.36 987.01 1455.24 1618.92 1287.66

Source: ABS, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no. 5512.0 and Demographic Statistics, cat. no. 3101.0

Other revenue

Interest income

Sale of goods & services

Grants and subsidies

Taxation revenue

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Average

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 the 2006–07 Local Government National Report for a comparison of land value assessments). New South Wales and Queensland have statewide requirements that rates be based on the unimproved value of the land. In Victoria, different valuation assessments are used depending on the type or primary use of the land.

Other revenue sources for local governing bodies

Local government received 29 per cent of its revenue in 2007–08 from sale of goods and services. Councils in Queensland and Tasmania received 35.6 and 40.6 per cent respectively of their revenue in 2007–08 from this source. This difference is likely to be because, in those states, local government is responsible for providing water and sewerage services.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), $2403 million in local government revenue came from current grants and subsidies in 2007–08 and represented 8.9 per cent of local government revenue (Table 1.5).

Nationally, local government raised 91.1 per cent of its revenue from its own sources other than current grants and subsidies. Councils in the Northern Territory are more reliant on government grants and subsidies than are councils in other jurisdictions as they raised only 74.4 per cent of their own revenue. For the remaining states, the proportion of revenue raised from own sources varied from 89.6 per cent for Victorian councils to 92.8 per cent for Queensland councils.

Local government expenditureLocal government expenditure is dominated by housing and community amenities (23.4%) followed by transport and communication (21%) and general public services (19.8%; Table 1.7).

State comparison of expenditure by purposeOn a per capita basis, total local government expenditure averaged $1140 and varied from $888 in South Australia to $1923 in the Northern Territory in 2007–08 (Table 1.8). The differences between jurisdictions on expenditure per capita for expenditure categories were, for example:

• For general public services, expenditure in Queensland was $439 per capita, closely followed by the Northern Territory at $432 per capita. These amounts are considerably highly than other jurisdictions with the next highest of $224 per capita in New South Wales and a national average of $225 per capita.

• Victoria’s expenditure on social security and welfare was $154 per capita which was considerably more than expenditure in the other jurisdictions—the national average was $67 per capita.

• Tasmania, Queensland and the Northern Territory recorded high per capita spending on housing and community amenities.

• Councils in Western Australia spent $238 per capita on recreation and culture compared with the national average of $162.

Spending on transport and communications averaged $239 per capita nationally with Queensland the highest spender at $332 per capita, followed by Western Australia at $322 per capita.

15


Table 1.7: Local government expenditure by purpose, by jurisdiction, 2007–08

Expenditure NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT Total

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

$m 2 4 8 3 14 0 0 31

% 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 0 0 0.1

Education $m 34 51 3 8 0 0 2 98

% 0.5 1 0 0.4 0 0 0.5 0.4

Fuel and energy $m 1 0 1 0 11 0 2 15

% 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0.5 0.1

General public services $m 1 567 658 1 881 266 183 91 95 4 742

% 21.1 12.8 28.4 11.7 12.9 13.6 22.5 19.8

Health $m 80 68 58 42 35 14 9 305

% 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.8 2.5 2.1 2.1 1.3

Housing and community amenities

$m 1 634 1 001 1 958 322 319 255 117 5 608

% 22 19.4 29.6 14.2 22.4 38.1 27.7 23.4

Mining, manufacturing and construction

$m 145 0 101 35 24 0 4 309

% 2 0 1.5 1.5 1.7 0 0.9 1.3

Other economic affairs $m 265 255 144 53 58 24 102 900

% 3.6 5 2.2 2.3 4.1 3.6 24.1 3.8

Public debt transactions

$m 139 42 181 20 32 9 1 423

% 1.9 0.8 2.7 0.9 2.2 1.3 0.2 1.8

Public order and safety $m 236 114 92 70 24 7 4 547

% 3.2 2.2 1.4 3.1 1.7 1 0.9 2.3

Recreation and culture $m 987 922 617 516 264 80 27 3 414

% 13.3 17.9 9.3 22.7 18.6 11.9 6.4 14.2

Social security and welfare

$m 333 816 49 103 78 22 12 1 412

% 4.5 15.8 0.7 4.5 5.5 3.3 2.8 5.9

Transport and communications

$m 1 426 1 022 1 423 697 289 150 38 5 045

% 19.2 19.8 21.5 30.7 20.3 22.4 9 21

Other $m 575 197 102 140 95 18 10 1 137

% 7.7 3.8 1.5 6.2 6.7 2.7 2.4 4.7

Total $m 7 423 5 151 6 619 2 274 1 423 670 423 23 983

% 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: ABS, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no. 5512.0

16


Table 1.8: Local government expenditure by purpose, by jurisdiction, $ per capita, 2007–08

Expenditure NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT Average

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

0.29 0.76 1.87 1.39 8.74 0.00 0.00 1.47

Education 4.88 9.63 0.70 3.70 0.00 0.00 9.10 4.66

Fuel and energy 0.14 0.00 0.23 0.00 6.87 0.00 9.10 0.71

General public services

224.91 124.21 439.55 122.97 114.25 182.66 432.01 225.52

Health 11.48 12.84 13.55 19.42 21.85 28.10 40.93 14.50


234.53 188.95 457.54 148.85 199.15 511.84 532.06 266.70


20.81 0.00 23.60 16.18 14.98 0.00 18.19 14.70

Other economic affairs

38.04 48.14 33.65 24.50 36.21 48.17 463.85 42.80


19.95 7.93 42.30 9.25 19.98 18.07 4.55 20.12

Public order and safety

33.87 21.52 21.50 32.36 14.98 14.05 18.19 26.01

Recreation and culture

141.66 174.04 144.18 238.54 164.81 160.58 122.78 162.36


47.80 154.03 11.45 47.61 48.70 44.16 54.57 67.15


204.67 192.92 332.52 322.21 180.42 301.08 172.81 239.93

Other 82.53 37.19 23.84 64.72 59.31 36.13 45.48 54.07

Total 1 065.42 972.33 1 546.71 1 051.22 888.38 1 344.84 1 923.60 1 140.56

Source: Derived from ABS, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no. 5512.0 and Demographic Statistics, cat. no. 3101.0

17


Figure 1.2: Local government expenditure by jurisdiction, 2007–08

Source: ABS, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no. 5512.0

Grant funding

Australian Government

The Australian Government provides considerable financial assistance to local government through financial assistance grants (see Appendix D), specific purpose payments and direct program funding.

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 2007–08 amounted to $556.6 million (Table 1.9). The main specific purpose payments that provide funding through the states to local government are the financial assistance grants. In 2007–08, the Australian Government provided around $1.78 billion in local government financial assistance grants to local governing bodies. These grants are administered through the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth). See Chapter 2 for more information on the means of distributing financial assistance grants.

Other



Recreation and culture

Public order and safety


Other economic affairs



Health

General public services

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18


Tabl

e 1.

9: E

stim

ated

spe

cific

pur

pose

pay

men

ts fr

om th

e Au

stra

lian

Gove

rnm

ent d

irect

to lo

cal g

over

nmen

t, by

juris

dict

ion,

200

7–08

Paym

ent t

itle

NSW

Vic.

Qld

WA

SATa

s.NT

ACT

Tota

l

$’00

0$’

000

$’00

0$’

000

$’00

0$’

000

$’00

0$’

000

$’00

0

Dire

ct p

aym

ents

—cu

rren

t

Child

ren’

s se

rvic

es12

215

13 4

454

992

1 86

91

222

1 81

35

074

040

630

Disa

bilit

y ser

vice

s19

862

370

80

00

00

1 52

9

Regu

latio

n Re

duct

ion

Ince

ntiv

e Fu

nd89

7824

314

420

430

500

Stre

ngth

enin

g Ta

sman

ia0

00

00

7 42

50

07

425

Wei

pa S

truct

ural

Adj

ustm

ent P

acka

ge0

02

200

00

00

02

200

Tota

l cur

rent

12 5

0214

146

8 14

31

883

1 26

49

238

5 07

830

52 2

84

Dire

ct p

aym

ents

—ca

pita

l

Ausl

ink

146

500

101

384

107

750

79 3

2735

436

17 2

648

479

049

6 14

0

Bert

Hin

kler

Hal

l of A

viat

ion

00

1 45

00

00

00

1 45

0

Blac

kbur

n La

ke S

anct

uary

01

800

00

00

00

1 80

0

Deve

lopm

ent o

f sew

erag

e sc

hem

es fo

r Boa

t Har

bour

and

Sis

ters

Be

ache

s0

00

00

00

00

Loca

l com

mun

ity s

port

ing

infra

stru

ctur

e90

00

00

00

00

900

Sout

h Au

stra

lian

Stat

e Aq

uatic

Cen

tre0

00

01

000

00

01

000

Vict

oria

n ro

ad p

roje

ct0

3 00

00

00

00

03

000

Tota

l cap

ital

147

400

106

184

109

200

79 3

2736

436

00

050

4 29

0

Tota

l dire

ct p

aym

ents

159

902

120

330

117

343

81 2

1037

700

26 5

0213

557

3055

6 57

4

Sour

ce: T

able

D6,

Bud

get P

aper

No.

3, 2

007–

08.

19


Tabl

e 1.

9: E

stim

ated

spe

cific

pur

pose

pay

men

ts fr

om th

e Au

stra

lian

Gove

rnm

ent d

irect

to lo

cal g

over

nmen

t, by

juris

dict

ion,

200

7–08

Paym

ent t

itle

NSW

Vic.

Qld

WA

SATa

s.NT

ACT

Tota

l

$’00

0$’

000

$’00

0$’

000

$’00

0$’

000

$’00

0$’

000

$’00

0

Dire

ct p

aym

ents

—cu

rren

t

Child

ren’

s se

rvic

es12

215

13 4

454

992

1 86

91

222

1 81

35

074

040

630

Disa

bilit

y ser

vice

s19

862

370

80

00

00

1 52

9

Regu

latio

n Re

duct

ion

Ince

ntiv

e Fu

nd89

7824

314

420

430

500

Stre

ngth

enin

g Ta

sman

ia0

00

00

7 42

50

07

425

Wei

pa S

truct

ural

Adj

ustm

ent P

acka

ge0

02

200

00

00

02

200

Tota

l cur

rent

12 5

0214

146

8 14

31

883

1 26

49

238

5 07

830

52 2

84

Dire

ct p

aym

ents

—ca

pita

l

Ausl

ink

146

500

101

384

107

750

79 3

2735

436

17 2

648

479

049

6 14

0

Bert

Hin

kler

Hal

l of A

viat

ion

00

1 45

00

00

00

1 45

0

Blac

kbur

n La

ke S

anct

uary

01

800

00

00

00

1 80

0

Deve

lopm

ent o

f sew

erag

e sc

hem

es fo

r Boa

t Har

bour

and

Sis

ters

Be

ache

s0

00

00

00

00

Loca

l com

mun

ity s

port

ing

infra

stru

ctur

e90

00

00

00

00

900

Sout

h Au

stra

lian

Stat

e Aq

uatic

Cen

tre0

00

01

000

00

01

000

Vict

oria

n ro

ad p

roje

ct0

3 00

00

00

00

03

000

Tota

l cap

ital

147

400

106

184

109

200

79 3

2736

436

00

050

4 29

0

Tota

l dire

ct p

aym

ents

159

902

120

330

117

343

81 2

1037

700

26 5

0213

557

3055

6 57

4

Sour

ce: T

able

D6,

Bud

get P

aper

No.

3, 2

007–

08.

State and territory fundingDuring 2006–07 the states and the Northern Territory offered a variety of grants to local government for specific purposes and services (Table 1.10). They also paid $1649 million in Australian Government financial assistance grants to local governing bodies. The state grants are directed to a variety of purposes, reflecting the different functions required of local governing bodies.

According to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data, the states provided $2437 million to local government out of their own funds in 2006–07. On a per capita basis, state grants varied considerably from $71.17 per capita in South Australia to $781.82 per capita in the Northern Territory.

Caution should be exercised when using the figures shown in Table 1.10 because the increase/decrease in state grants is sometimes greater than expected.

Table 1.10: Grants from states to local government, by purpose, 2006–07

Purpose NSW Vic.a Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total

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

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

– 2 1 1 1 – – 4

Education 5 26 1 1 – – - 32

Fuel and energy – – – – 3 – – 4

General public services 23 15 63 7 1 - 26 136

Health 6 7 3 2 2 2 3 25

Housing and community amenity 105 39 201 10 12 4 24 395


1 – 6 – – – 2 9

Public order and safety 34 3 38 13 – – 3 90

Recreation and culture 50 77 85 25 19 6 7 268

Social security and welfare 67 342 25 31 15 1 2 483


215 243 244 153 53 32 9 950

Other economic affairs 2 10 18 2 2 – 4 37

Other purposes 457 297 201 124 91 29 2 1 202

Total 967 1 060 886 368 199 74 82 3 637

Less Australian Government financial assistance grantsb

General purpose grants 388 288 229 116 88 28 12 1 149

Local road grants 150 107 97 79 28 27 12 500

Supplementary local road funding – – – – 13 – – 13

Net state grants 429 665 560 173 70 19 58 1 975

Net state grants per capita

62.58 128.74 135.53 83.13 44.42 38.64 272.88 96.28

Notes: a Data for Victoria includes commonwealth grants, as the Victorian Grants Commission source data do not permit a split

between commonwealth and state government grants revenue. b 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: ABS unpublished data; Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.

20


Assets and liabilitiesIn 2007–08, local government in Australia had a net worth of $248 742 million, with assets worth $261 575 million and liabilities worth $12 833 million (Table 1.11). Compared to 2006–07, local government assets grew by 14.5 per cent, while liabilities increased by 9.4 per cent.

At 30 June 2008, local government’s assets exceeded their liabilities, continuing the trend since 30 June 2000 of a net surplus position for local governments nationally. As at 30 June 2008 and on a state basis, councils in Queensland and South Australia had a net debt position while other states had a net surplus (Table 1.11).

21


Tabl

e 1.

11: L

ocal

gov

ernm

ent a

sset

s an

d lia

bilit

ies,

200

7–08

Asse

ts

NSW

Vic.

Qld

WA

SATa

s.NT

Tota

l

$m$m

$m$m

$m$m

$m$m

Fina

ncia

l Ass

ets

Cash

and

dep

osits

1 87

684

42

479

582

4914

110

36

074

Adva

nces

pai

d2

10

10

10

5

Inve

stm

ents

, loa

ns a

nd p

lace

men

ts3

954

869

438

938

420

212

846

915

Othe

r non

-equ

ity a

sset

s80

361

970

721

313

039

212

531

Equi

ty0

8832

40

6551

50

991

Tota

l6

634

2 42

03

948

1 73

466

490

820

816

515

Non

-fina

ncia

l Ass

ets

Land

and

fixe

d as

sets

88 3

5751

956

65 9

3514

611

14 1

716

460

1 42

224

2 91

2

Othe

r non

-fina

ncia

l ass

ets

992

670

191

170

010

422

2 14

8

Tota

l89

349

52 6

2666

125

14 7

8114

171

6 56

41

444

245

060

Tota

l95

983

55 0

4670

074

16 5

1514

834

7 47

21

652

261

575

Liab

ilitie

s

Depo

sits

hel

d18

611

56

3813

917

050

1

Adva

nces

rece

ived

236

35

381

00

417

Borr

owin

g2

225

619

3 04

10

128

142

116

538

Unfu

nded

sup

eran

nuat

ion

liabi

lity a

nd o

ther

em

ploy

ee e

ntitl

emen

ts98

943

343

013

479

5214

2 13

1

Othe

r pro

visi

ons

224

119

07

1617

138

4

Othe

r non

-equ

ity li

abili

ties

754

604

897

280

199

7948

2 86

1

Tota

l4

402

1 89

64

378

463

941

309

7412

833

Gove

rnm

ent fi

nanc

e st

atis

tics

new

wor

th91

582

53 1

5065

696

16 0

5113

893

7 16

41

578

248

742

Net d

ebt

–3 3

97–9

7413

3–1

479

179

–194

–176

–5 5

38

Net fi

nanc

ial w

orth

2 23

252

5–4

301

271

–277

599

134

3 68

2

Not

e: T

hese

figu

res

may

not

add

to to

tals

due

to ro

undi

ng

Sour

ce: A

BS, G

over

nmen

t Fin

ance

Sta

tistic

s, T

able

30,

cat

. no.

551

2.

22



23

Chapter 2 Financial assistance

grants to local government

2

24


Chapter 2 Financial assistance grants to local government

For 2007–08, the Australian Government provided $1783.0 million in financial assistance grants to 697 local governing bodies (including the Australian Capital Territory and NT Road Trust Account)—an average of around $85.50 per capita.

Australian Government financial assistance grants to local government comprise a general purpose grant and a local road grant. For 2007–08 the aggregate general purpose grant was $1 235.0 million while the aggregate local road grant was $548.0 million.

Both grants are paid to the states and territories on the 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 objectives of the general purpose grant include improving local governments’ capacity to provide their communities with an equitable level of services and 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 (Cwlth), which replaced the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986 (Cwlth) 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. Local road 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 2002 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration began an inquiry into local government. The committee released its report, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government, in October 2003 (Commonwealth of Australia 2003 – the Hawker Report). In October 2006 the Commonwealth Parliament unanimously adopted an Australian Government resolution recognising local government as an integral part of government in Australia.

25


Overview of current arrangementsIn 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 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth).

• 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, without undue delay, pass them on to local governing bodies as untied grants.

• 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 grantSection 8 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) 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.

The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) 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 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) (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.

26


OBJECTS OF THE ACT

Subsection 3(2) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) 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

• 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.

Determining entitlements for 2007–08 and 2008–09Calculation of the 2007–08 actual grant entitlement and 2008–09 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 2007–08 is explained in ‘Determining the final factor for 2007–08’.

In 2007–08, local government’s estimated financial assistance grant entitlement was $1763.4 million. This comprised $1221.4 million in general purpose grants and $542.0 million in local road grants (Table 2.1).

The 2007–08 final factor was calculated using the CPI for the year ending March 2008 and revised population growth figures to December 2006. This resulted in the 2007–08 actual entitlement being $1783.0 million, comprising $1235.0 million in general purpose grants and $548.0 million in local road grants.

As the 2007–08 final factor was greater than the 2007–08 estimated factor, the actual entitlement for 2007–08 was $19.6 million more than the 2007–08 estimated entitlement. This difference comprised $13.6 million in general purpose grants and $6.0 million in local road grants.

The estimated entitlement for 2008–09 is $1871.6 million comprising $1296.4 million in general purpose grants and $575.2 million in local road grants (Table 2.2). The actual cash the Australian Government paid to local government in 2008–09 was $1891.2 million. This consisted of the 2008–09 estimated entitlement of $1871.6 million plus the $19.6 million by which the 2007–08 actual entitlement exceeded the 2007–08 estimated entitlement (Table 2.2).

In addition to the 2007–08 grants, South Australian councils received additional funding of $13.59 million for local roads. The supplementary funding arrangements are 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 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.

27


Tabl

e 2.

1: C

alcu

latio

n of

fina

ncia

l ass

ista

nce

gran

ts a

ctua

l ent

itlem

ents

and

adj

ustm

ents

for 2

007–

08

2006

–07

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

07–0

8 fin

al fa

ctor

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

07–0

8 es

timat

ed

entit

lem

ent

2007

–08

adju

stm

ent

$$

$$

Gene

ral p

urpo

se1

168

277

369

x1.

0571

=1

234

986

007

less

1 22

1 43

3 98

9=

13 5

52 0

18

Loca

l roa

d51

8 39

9 04

9x

1.05

71=

547

999

635

less

541

986

205

=6

013

430

Tota

l1

686

676

418

x1.

0571

=1

782

985

642

less

1 76

3 42

0 19

5=

19 5

65 4

47

Gene

ral p

urpo

se31

Dec

200

6 po

pula

tion

NSW

385

938

812

6 85

4 06

740

6 05

0 35

9le

ss40

1 57

8 02

2=

4 47

2 33

7

Vic.

289

188

062

5 16

3 64

930

5 90

6 19

1le

ss30

2 60

5 21

0=

3 30

0 98

1

Qld

230

151

591

4 13

1 38

924

4 75

2 78

5le

ss24

2 06

6 11

3=

2 68

6 67

2

WA

115

836

527

2 08

1 30

312

3 30

1 07

5le

ss12

1 90

9 37

1=

1 39

1 70

4

SA88

633

988

1 57

5 38

993

329

591

less

92 3

10 1

59=

1 01

9 43

2

Tas.

27 7

66 0

3349

1 70

429

129

652

less

28 8

03 3

02

=32

6 35

0

NT

11 8

65 3

7721

2 51

912

590

104

less

12 4

51 8

90=

138

214

ACT

18 8

96 9

7933

6 37

219

926

250

less

19 7

09 9

22=

216

328

Tota

l1

168

277

369

20 8

46 6

081

234

986

007

less

1 22

1 43

3 98

9=

13 5

52 0

18

Loca

l roa

d

NSW

150

403

831

x1.

0571

=15

8 99

1 89

0le

ss15

7 24

7 20

5=

1 74

4 68

95

Vic.

106

875

134

x1.

0571

=11

2 97

7 70

4le

ss11

1 73

7 95

3=

1 23

9 75

1

Qld

97 1

28 9

89x

1.05

71=

102

675

054

less

101

548

358

=1

126

696

WA

79 2

63 9

76x

1.05

71=

83 7

89 9

49le

ss82

870

487

=91

9 46

2

SA28

489

537

x1.

0571

=30

116

290

less

29 7

85 8

11=

330

479

Cont

inue

d

28


2006

–07

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

07–0

8 fin

al fa

ctor

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

07–0

8 es

timat

ed

entit

lem

ent

2007

–08

adju

stm

ent

$$

$$

Tas.

27 4

71 4

86x

1.05

71=

29 0

40 1

08le

ss28

721

438

=31

8 66

9

NT

12 1

43 4

07x

1.05

71=

12 8

36 7

96le

ss12

695

932

=14

0 86

4

ACT

16 6

22 6

89x

1.05

71=

17 5

71 8

45le

ss17

379

022

=19

2 82

4

Tota

l51

8 39

9 04

9x

1.05

71=

547

999

635

less

541

986

205

=6

013

429

Tabl

e 2.

2: C

alcu

latio

n of

fina

ncia

l ass

ista

nce

gran

ts e

stim

ated

ent

itlem

ents

and

cas

h gr

ant p

aid

for 2

008–

09

2007

–08

actu

al

entit

lem

ent

2008

–09

estim

ated

fa

ctor

2008

–09

estim

ated

en

title

men

t20

08–0

9 ad

just

men

t20

08–0

9 ac

tual

gra

nt p

ayab

le

$$

$$

Gene

ral p

urpo

se1

234

986

007

x1.

0497

=1

296

364

811

plus

13 5

52 0

18=

1 30

9 91

6 82

9

Loca

l roa

d54

7 99

9 63

5x

1.04

97=

575

235

217

plus

6 01

3 42

9=

581

248

646

Tota

l1

782

985

642

x1.

0497

=1

763

420

195

plus

19 5

65 4

47=

1 89

1 16

5 47

5

Gene

ral p

urpo

se31

Dec

200

7 po

pula

tion

NSW

406

050

359

6 92

6 99

042

4 01

5 79

2pl

us4

472

337

=42

8 48

8 12

9

Vic.

305

906

191

5 24

6 07

932

1 12

3 65

4 pl

us3

300

981

=32

4 42

4 63

5

Qld

244

752

785

4 22

8 29

025

8 82

2 62

4 pl

us2

686

672

=26

1 50

9 29

6

WA

123

301

075

2 13

0 79

713

0 43

0 61

7pl

us1

391

704

=13

1 82

2 32

1

SA93

329

591

1 59

1 93

097

445

421

plus

1 01

9 43

2=

98 4

64 8

53

Tabl

e 2.

1 c

ontin

ued

Cont

inue

d

29


2007

–08

actu

al

entit

lem

ent

2008

–09

estim

ated

fa

ctor

2008

–09

estim

ated

en

title

men

t20

08–0

9 ad

just

men

t20

08–0

9 ac

tual

gra

nt p

ayab

le

$$

$$

Tas.

29 1

29 6

5249

5 77

230

347

259

plus

326

350

=30

673

609

NT

12 5

90 1

0421

7 55

913

317

249

plus

138

214

=13

455

463

ACT

19 9

26 2

5034

0 81

820

862

195

plus

216

328

=21

078

523

Tota

l1

234

986

007

21 1

78 2

351

296

364

811

plus

13 5

52 0

18=

1 30

9 91

6 82

9

Loca

l roa

d

NSW

158

991

890

x1.

0497

=16

6 89

3 78

7pl

us1

744

6895

=16

8 63

8 47

2

Vic.

112

977

704

x1.

0497

=11

8 59

2 69

6pl

us1

239

751

=11

9 83

2 44

7

Qld

102

675

054

x1.

0497

=10

7 77

8 00

5pl

us1

126

696

=10

8 90

4 70

1

WA

83 7

89 9

49x

1.04

97=

87 9

54 3

10pl

us91

9 46

2=

88 8

73 7

72

SA30

116

290

x1.

0497

=31

613

069

plus

330

479

=31

943

548

Tas.

29 0

40 1

08x

1.04

97=

30 4

83 4

01pl

us31

8 66

9=

30 8

02 0

70

NT

12 8

36 7

96x

1.04

97=

13 4

74 7

84pl

us14

0 86

4=

13 6

15 6

47

ACT

17 5

71 8

45x

1.04

97=

18 4

45 1

65pl

us19

2 82

4=

18 6

37 9

89

Tota

l54

7 99

9 63

5x

1.04

97=

575

235

217

plus

6 01

3 42

9=

581

248

646

30


DETERMINING THE FINAL FACTOR FOR 2007–08

Under section 8 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth), the final factor for 2007–08 is calculated as:

Final factor =Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2006

XCPI at March 2008

Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2005 CPI at March 2007

That is:

Final factor =20 846 372

X162.2

= 1.057120 556 499 155.6

The increase in the CPI over this period was 4.2 per cent.

VARIATIONS IN REPORTED GRANTS

At the beginning of each financial year, the quantum of the grant to local government is estimated 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.

Invariably 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 grantsThe Act specifies that the general purpose component of the grant is to be divided among the jurisdictions on a per capita basis. The distribution is based on the 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, 2002:25–6). 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 Federal Treasurer.

Table 2.3 shows the allocation of the actual entitlement for 2007–08 among jurisdictions while Table 2.4 shows the allocation of the estimated entitlements for 2008–09 among jurisdictions. Table 2.4 also shows the percentage change in the grants from 2007–08 to 2008–09.

31


Tabl

e 2.

3: A

lloca

tions

of g

ener

al p

urpo

se a

nd lo

cal r

oad

gran

ts a

mon

g ju

risdi

ctio

ns, 2

007–

08

Stat

e

Gene

ral p

urpo

se g

rant

Loca

l roa

d gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

$%

of t

otal

gr

ant p

ool

$ pe

r cap

ita$

% o

f tot

al

gran

t poo

l$

per c

apita

$%

of t

otal

gr

ant p

ool

$ pe

r cap

ita

NSW

406

050

359

32.8

859

.24

158

991

890

29.0

123

.20

565

042

249

31.6

982

.44

Vic.

305

906

191

24.7

759

.24

112

977

704

20.6

221

.88

418

883

895

23.4

981

.12

Qld

244

752

785

19.8

259

.24

102

675

054

18.7

424

.85

347

427

839

19.4

984

.09

WA

123

301

075

9.98

59.2

483

789

949

15.2

940

.26

207

091

024

11.6

199

.50

SA93

329

591

7.56

59.2

430

116

290

5.50

19.1

212

3 44

5 88

16.

9278

.36

Tas.

29 1

29 6

522.

3659

.24

29 0

40 1

085.

3059

.06

58 1

69 7

603.

2611

8.30

NT

12 5

90 1

041.

0259

.24

12 8

36 7

952.

3460

.40

25 4

26 8

991.

4311

9.65

ACT

19 9

26 2

501.

6159

.24

17 5

71 8

453.

2152

.24

37 4

98 0

952.

111

1.48

Tota

l1

234

986

007

100.

0059

.24

547

999

635

100.

0026

.29

1 78

2 98

5 64

210

0.00

85.5

3

Not

e: A

BS e

stim

ate

of ju

risdi

ctio

ns’ p

opul

atio

ns a

s at

31

Dece

mbe

r 200

6 us

ed.

Sour

ce: D

epar

tmen

t of I

nfra

stru

ctur

e, T

rans

port

, Reg

iona

l Dev

elop

men

t and

Loc

al G

over

nmen

t.

32


Tabl

e 2.

4: 2

008–

09 a

lloca

tion

of e

stim

ated

gra

nt e

ntitl

emen

t am

ong

juris

dict

ions

and

per

cent

age

chan

ge fr

om 2

007–

08 a

ctua

l gra

nt a

lloca

tion

Stat

e

Gene

ral p

urpo

se g

rant

Loca

l roa

d gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

$

% c

hang

e fr

om

2007

–08

actu

al

gran

t

% o

f to

tal

gran

t po

ol$

per

pers

on$

% c

hang

e fr

om

2007

–08

actu

al

gran

t

% o

f to

tal

gran

t po

ol$

per

pers

on$

% c

hang

e fr

om

2007

–08

actu

al

gran

t

% o

f to

tal

gran

t po

ol$

per p

erso

n

NSW

424

015

792

4.42

32.7

161

.21

166

893

787

4.97

29.0

124

.09

590

909

579

4.58

31.5

785

.31

Vic.

321

123

654

4.97

24.7

761

.21

118

592

696

4.97

20.6

222

.61

439

716

350

4.97

23.4

983

.82

Qld

258

822

624

5.75

19.9

761

.21

107

778

005

4.97

18.7

425

.49

366

600

629

5.52

19.5

986

.70

WA

130

430

617

5.78

10.0

661

.21

87 9

54 3

104.

9715

.29

41.2

921

8 38

4 92

75.

4511

.67

102.

49

SA97

445

421

4.41

7.52

61.2

131

613

069

4.97

5.50

19.8

612

9 05

8 49

04.

556.

9081

.07

Tas.

30 3

47 2

594.

182.

3461

.21

30 4

83 4

014.

975.

3061

.49

60 8

30 6

604.

573.

2512

2.70

NT

13 3

17 2

495.

781.

0361

.21

13 4

74 7

844.

972.

3461

.94

26 7

92 0

335.

371.

4312

3.15

ACT

20 8

62 1

954.

701.

6161

.21

18 4

45 1

654.

973.

2154

.12

39 3

07 3

604.

822.

1011

5.33

Tota

l1

296

364

811

4.97

100.

0061

.21

575

235

217

4.97

100.

0027

.16

1 87

1 60

0 02

84.

9710

0.00

88.3

7

Not

e: A

BS e

stim

ate

of ju

risdi

ctio

ns’ p

opul

atio

ns a

s at

31

Dece

mbe

r 200

7 us

ed.

Sour

ce: D

epar

tmen

t of I

nfra

stru

ctur

e, T

rans

port

, Reg

iona

l Dev

elop

men

t and

Loc

al G

over

nmen

t.

33


Quantum of financial assistance grants allocationsTable 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 2008–09

Year

General purpose grants Local road grants Total grants

$ $ $

1974–75 56 345 000 n/a 56 345 000

1975–76 79 978 000 n/a 79 978 000

1976–77 140 070 131 n/a 140 070 131

1977–78 165 327 608 n/a 165 327 608

1978–79 179 426 870 n/a 179 426 870

1979–80a 222 801 191 n/a 222 801 191

1980–81 302 226 347 n/a 302 226 347

1981–82 352 544 573 n/a 352 544 573

1982–83 426 518 330 n/a 426 518 330

1983–84 461 531 180 n/a 461 531 180

1984–85 488 831 365 n/a 488 831 365

1985–86 538 532 042 n/a 538 532 042

1986–87 590 427 808 n/a 590 427 808

1987–88 636 717 377 n/a 636 717 377

1988–89 652 500 000 n/a 652 500 000

1989–90 677 739 860 n/a 677 739 860

1990–91 699 291 988 n/a 699 291 988

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued

34


Year

General purpose grants Local road grants Total grants

$ $ $

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

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

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

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

2008–09e 1 296 364 811 575 235 217 1 871 600 028

Total 23 648 697 926 7 503 800 355 31 152 498 281

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 2008–09 the national grant allocation is the estimated entitlement.Source: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.

Principles for determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictionsThe Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) 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 in 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 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) (see ‘What is horizontal equalisation?’ and ‘What is the Minimum Grant?’). These principles are the:

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 for that jurisdiction, 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.

Table 2.5 continued

35


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 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth). 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 each council’s overall financial capacity. In assessing each council’s financial capacity, local road grants provided under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) 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.

36


WHAT IS HORIzONTAL EQuALISATION?

Horizontal equalisation would be achieved if every council in a state, by means of reasonable revenue-raising effort, were able to afford to provide a similar range and quality of services. The Australian Government pursues a policy of horizontal equalisation when it distributes goods and services tax revenue to state and territory governments.

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

• ensures each local governing body in a state is able to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not lower than the average standard of other local governing bodies in the state

• takes account of differences in the expenditure required to be incurred by local governing bodies in the performance of their functions and in their capacity to raise revenue.

Distribution of grants on the basis of horizontal equalisation is determined by estimating the costs each council would incur in providing a normal range and standard of services, and by estimating the revenue each council could obtain through the normal range and standard of rates and charges. The grant is then allocated to compensate for variations in expenditure and revenue to (ideally) bring all councils up to the same level of financial capacity.

This means councils that would incur higher relative costs in providing normal services, for example, in remote areas (where transport costs are higher), or areas with a higher proportion of elderly or pre-school aged people (where there will be more demand for specific services) will receive relatively more grant 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 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) 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.

One National Principle applies 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.

37


Determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictionsUnder sections 11 and 14 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) financial assistance grants can only be paid to jurisdictions (other than the Australian Capital Territory) that have established local government grants commissions (see ‘Local government grants commissions’). In the Australian Capital Territory, local government is integrated with the Territory Government and there is no role for a commission. The grants commissions make recommendations, in accordance with the National Principles, on the quantum of financial assistance grants allocated to individual councils.

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSIONS

Section 5 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) 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.

Section 11 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) requires 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 1976Queensland Part 3 of Chapter 3 of the Local Government Act 1993 Western Australia Local Government Grants Act 1978South Australia South Australian Local Government Grants Commission Act 1992Tasmania State Grants Commission Act 1976Northern Territory Local Government Grants Commission Act 1995

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 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) requires that the federal minister is satisfied that the state or territory has adopted the recommendations of its local government grants commission.

38


Section 15 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) requires that, as a condition for paying the grants to the states and the Northern Territory, the states and the Northern Territory must pay the grants to local government without undue delay and without conditions, thus giving 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, along with a certificate from the respective Auditor-General of each jurisdiction certifying that the statement is correct.

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 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) is that the first payment cannot be made before 15 August.

Bodies eligible to receive financial assistance grantsAll councils constituted under state and territory local government Acts are automatically local governing bodies. In addition, section 4(2) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) 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.

Six hundred and ninety six local governing bodies, including 36 declared local governing bodies made eligible under this provision, received grants in 2007–08 (Table 2.6).

Table 2.6: Distribution of local governing bodies, by type and jurisdiction, at 1 July 2007

Type NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NTb Totalc

Number of councils established by legislationa

152 79 157 140 68 29 35 660

Number declared 3 0 0 0 6 0 27 36

Total 155 79 157 140 74 29 62 696

Notes: a These are local governing bodies, eligible under section 4(2)(a) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995,

as they are constituted under state local government legislation. b Includes the Northern Territory Road Trust Account. c Excludes amalgamations that took place in Queensland in March 2008; they will be reported in the 2008–09 report.Source: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.

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 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) but receive the equivalent of financial assistance grant payments. For an explanation of the arrangements for these councils see ‘Financial assistance grants to Australia’s Territories’.

39


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS TO AuSTRALIA’S TERRITORIES

Under arrangements between the Australian Government and the New South Wales and Western Australian governments, the local government grants commissions in these states provide an annual assessment of the general purpose and local road grant for three of Australia’s territories. The New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission provides an assessment for the Jervis Bay Territory, and the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission does so for the Shires of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The commissions determine the grant allocations as if these areas were councils in New South Wales and Western Australia respectively. This is done on the basis that local government funding from the Australian Government for these territories should allow them to provide municipal services that align with similar communities in New South Wales and Western Australia.

On the basis of these assessments, the Australian Government provides funds from a separate Budget allocation to that provided under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth). The amounts provided in 2007–08 were:

• Jervis Bay Territory—$63 300 in general purpose grants

• Christmas Island Shire Council—$2 265 100 in general purpose grants and $299 242 in local road grants

• Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council—$1 413 516 in general purpose grants and $93 225 in local road grants.

Methods of local government grants commissionsThe respective local government grants commissions recommended allocation of the 2007–08 grants to councils in their jurisdiction in accordance with the National Principles according to their own methodologies.

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 the commissions’ assessments of councils’ road expenditure need.

These tasks require commissions to assess the capacity of councils in their jurisdictions to provide a variety of services and to raise revenue.

Local government grants commissions meet annually at a national conference to share insights and discuss common issues. The 2007 conference was held at Wollongong in New South Wales in October. The conference included presentations on land valuation services, national local road data collection, grant equalisation methodologies, and Northern Territory and Queensland local government structural reform.

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.

40


The 2008 meeting of executive officers was held in Canberra in February. The workshop discussed comparative methodology issues, application of the Amalgamation Principle, trends in minimum general purpose grant distribution, and local government population estimates.

A detailed description of each grants commission’s methodology is in Appendix B. In addition, 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 2007–08 is in Appendix C

INTERNET ADDRESSES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSIONS

Local government grants commission

Internet address

New South Wales http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_CommissionTribunalIndex.asp?areaindex=GCandindex=21

Victoria http://www.dvc.vic.gov.au/web20/dvclgv.nsf/allDocs/RWPDA3475ECD8376216CA25712E0016D1A8?OpenDocument

Queensland www.qlggc.qld.gov.au/

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

South Australia www.localgovt.sa.gov.au/about_us/south_australian_local_government_grants_commission

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

Northern Territory http://www.grantscommission.nt.gov.au/

Allocation of grants to councils in 2007–08The federal minister approved allocation of financial assistance grants to councils for 2007–08, as recommended by grants commissions through state and territory ministers. Appendix D contains the final grant entitlements for all councils in 2007–08 and the estimated entitlements for 2008–09.

Table 2.7 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 2.8 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 2.7 and Table 2.8 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 considerable scope for divergence within these categories remains, 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.

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_CommissionTribunalIndex.asp?areaindex=GCandindex=21

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_CommissionTribunalIndex.asp?areaindex=GCandindex=21

http://www.dvc.vic.gov.au/web20/dvclgv.nsf/allDocs/RWPDA3475ECD8376216CA25712E0016D1A8?OpenDocument

http://www.dvc.vic.gov.au/web20/dvclgv.nsf/allDocs/RWPDA3475ECD8376216CA25712E0016D1A8?OpenDocument

http://www.qlggc.qld.gov.au/

http://www.dlgrd.wa.gov.au/lggc/

http://www.localgovt.sa.gov.au/about_us/south_australian_local_government_grants_commission

http://www.localgovt.sa.gov.au/about_us/south_australian_local_government_grants_commission

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

http://www.grantscommission.nt.gov.au/

41


Table 2.7: Average general purpose grant per capita to councils, by state and ACLG category, 2007–08

Classification

State Average

NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NTa

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Urban Capital City (UCC) 22.71 18.03 18.08 18.04 18.01 17.87 19.71 18.67

Urban Developed Small (UDS) 17.84 n/a n/a 18.04 18.01 n/a n/a 18.00

Urban Developed Medium (UDM) 19.45 31.49 21.59 18.04 18.01 n/a n/a 19.66

Urban Developed Large (UDL) 21.67 21.46 n/a 18.04 18.01 n/a n/a 20.55

Urban Developed Very Large (UDV) 30.18 33.18 18.74 18.04 67.05 n/a n/a 31.67

Urban Regional Small (URS) 110.17 136.72 188.71 84.55 91.79 47.48 57.68 103.56

Urban Regional Medium (URM) 83.36 118.12 33.43 24.44 n/a 20.17 n/a 78.80

Urban Regional Large (URL) 71.69 94.70 26.65 n/a n/a n/a n/a 62.99

Urban Regional Very Large (URV) 61.77 69.12 20.44 n/a n/a n/a n/a 36.43

Urban Fringe Small (UFS) n/a 85.87 90.85 18.04 26.77 76.24 32.87 64.66

Urban Fringe Medium (UFM) 37.62 67.43 33.30 34.45 18.01 n/a n/a 42.84

Urban Fringe Large (UFL) 78.59 n/a n/a 18.04 109.36 n/a n/a 36.01

Urban Fringe Very Large (UFV) 36.57 50.54 21.93 18.04 41.26 n/a n/a 39.05

Rural Significant Growth (RSG) n/a n/a n/a 50.36 18.01 n/a n/a 47.06

Rural Agricultural Small (RAS) 536.75 n/a 1 054.63 514.08 499.45 31.63 n/a 576.55

Rural Agricultural Medium (RAM) 322.88 437.21 478.34 153.69 246.90 35.55 n/a 326.03

Rural Agricultural Large (RAL) 244.45 284.60 192.09 195.57 160.93 142.17 n/a 211.30

Rural Agricultural Very Large (RAV) 164.50 155.05 97.29 97.13 140.42 92.85 46.90 130.13

Rural Remote Extra Small (RTX) 421.29 n/a 3 870.48 4 125.32 499.77 n/a 150.73 1 456.41

Rural Remote Small (RTS) n/a n/a 1 354.99 1 026.13 n/a n/a 168.09 630.56

Rural Remote Medium (RTM) 792.12 n/a 906.65 730.75 401.66 n/a 174.51 604.26

Rural Remote Large (RTL) 404.12 n/a 628.56 379.96 235.91 n/a n/a 421.84

Average 59.27 60.09 60.42 60.12 60.03 59.58 64.07 59.90

Note: a Excludes Northern Territory Trust Fund. Source: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.

42


Table 2.8: Average local road grant per kilometre to councils, by state and ACLG category, 2007–08

Classification

State Average

NSW Vic. Qld WAa SAa Tas. NT

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Urban Capital City (UCC) 2 827.54 2 656.90 2 142.58 3 781.39 1 286.76 4 785.79 3 240.89 2 378.85

Urban Developed Small (UDS) 2 067.47 n/a n/a 1 807.10 1 756.35 n/a n/a 1 829.72

Urban Developed Medium (UDM) 2 335.27 1 351.78 2 348.34 1 761.33 1 619.47 n/a n/a 1 927.60

Urban Developed Large (UDL) 2 204.83 1 246.90 n/a 1 790.32 1 545.04 n/a n/a 1 637.24

Urban Developed Very Large (UDV) 2 191.97 1 335.30 2 005.76 1 703.46 3 514.06 n/a n/a 1 785.14

Urban Regional Small (URS) 1 113.59 805.68 1 843.10 1 057.90 641.71 2 374.68 3 021.06 1 009.05

Urban Regional Medium (URM) 1 332.24 963.59 930.84 1 188.67 n/a 2 992.60 n/a 1 190.38

Urban Regional Large (URL) 1 668.14 1 008.27 1 183.45 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 247.57

Urban Regional Very Large (URV) 1 813.95 1 224.25 1 483.45 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 510.82

Urban Fringe Small (UFS) n/a 1 017.15 633.30 1 433.86 429.67 1 909.81 3 045.37 775.74

Urban Fringe Medium (UFM) 1 528.75 1 278.50 980.91 1 393.29 677.56 n/a n/a 1 178.79

Urban Fringe Large (UFL) 1 502.00 n/a n/a 1 508.95 1 180.24 n/a n/a 1 465.51

Urban Fringe Very Large (UFV) 1 822.11 1 349.70 1 462.90 1 686.34 1 252.13 n/a n/a 1 527.45

Rural Significant Growth (RSG) n/a n/a n/a 1 189.78 446.18 n/a n/a 964.06

Rural Agricultural Small (RAS) 744.79 n/a 440.64 481.30 217.63 1 310.89 n/a 457.04

Rural Agricultural Medium (RAM) 789.39 673.54 417.38 668.50 222.86 1 552.72 n/a 526.74

Rural Agricultural Large (RAL) 820.33 503.12 491.60 800.16 219.72 1 879.74 n/a 639.82

Rural Agricultural Very Large (RAV) 879.12 814.69 555.90 516.68 290.94 1 798.94 2 559.03 738.86

Rural Remote Extra Small (RTX) n/a n/a 340.64 381.12 447.62 n/a 550.05 384.94

Rural Remote Small (RTS) n/a n/a 506.50 417.33 n/a n/a 652.90 524.71

Rural Remote Medium (RTM) 726.82 n/a 363.86 390.96 36.73 n/a 672.71 390.72

Rural Remote Large (RTL) 745.58 n/a 453.56 588.30 n/a n/a n/a 562.72

Northern Territory Trust fund n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 441.91 441.91

Average 1 100.23 881.21 658.27 668.84 387.90 2 041.91 906.23 803.24

Note: a Averages for all classifications in these states include special roads grants received by councils. Source: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.

43


Councils on the minimum grantCouncils 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 2007–08 was about $18.00, 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.

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 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) 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 there is less scope for non-minimum grant councils to receive further increases in their share of general purpose grants. This is shown in Figure 2.1, which charts for each jurisdiction the ratio of the general purpose grant per capita for non-minimum grant councils to that of minimum grant councils.

Figure 2.1: Ratio of general purpose grant per capita for non-minimum grant councils to minimum grant councils

Source: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1996–1997

1997–1998

1998–1999

1999–2000

2000–2001

2001–2002

2002–2003

2003–2004

2004–2005

2005–2006

2006–2007

2007–2008

Year

Rat

io

NSWVic.QldWASATas.NTAverage

1996–971997–981998–991999–2000

2000–012001–022002–032003–042004–052005–062006–072007–08

44


The proportion of the population covered by councils receiving the minimum grant varies widely between jurisdictions. In 2006–07, the proportion ranged from nil in the Northern Territory to 75 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.

In 2007–08, the proportion of the general purpose grant that went to councils on the minimum grant was almost 10 per cent nationally. It varied from 3 per cent in Tasmania to around 23 per cent in Western Australia. It is expected that over time jurisdictions would achieve more consistency in the ratio of the average per capita general purpose grant for non-minimum grant councils to that of minimum grant councils, if they 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 methodsLocal 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 Local Government (Financial Assistance) 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 (Table 2.9).

The need to review methodologies was reinforced by the 2001 Commonwealth Grants Commission review of the operations of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth). 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:xii).

Table 2.9: Status of most recent major methodology reviews, by state at 30 June 2008

State General purpose grants 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 implemented over four years from 2005–06

Completed in July 1999 and implemented from 2001–02

Qld Completed in December 2002 and implemented over four years 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 over four years from 2005–06

Completed in 2005–06 and implemented over three years from 2006–07

NT Review of methodology completed in 2004–05 and implemented over five years from 2005–06

None planned

Source: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.

45


Impact of grants commission capping policiesYear-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-to-year variations. For example, capping may constrain the maximum year-to-year increase in grants to 15 per cent and the maximum decrease to 6 per cent. Under this regime, a council that would otherwise have received a 7.5 per cent reduction in its grant compared to the previous year would have its reduction limited to 6 per cent.

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

Commissions estimate the unconstrained grants in conformity with the National Principles for allocating grants. For this reason, capping changes the allocation from those consistent with the National Principles, although usually the extent of the divergence is relatively small.

The Australian Government has accepted that phase-in arrangements, like capping to ensure reasonable stability of previous 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 grantsSince the Australian Government pays the grants to the states and territories as tied grants for passing on to councils as untied grants, the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) 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 2007–08 was made in accordance with the recommendations of the state and territory ministers and approved by the federal minister.

46



47

Chapter 3 Local government

efficiency and performance

3

48


Chapter 3 Local government efficiency and performance

The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) requires an annual report to Parliament on its operations, including an assessment, using comparable national data, of the performance of local government including its efficiency.

Little nationally comparable Australian data, upon which to base an assessment of local government’s overall performance, is available. The available data covers state or council initiatives and involves performance indicators, changes in local government structure, implementation of long-term financial and asset management plans, and council innovations to improve services or cut costs.

Recent reports on local government financial sustainability have highlighted concerns about the financial sustainability of some local governments. Broadly, the reports attribute this to suppression of rate increases, a major expansion in services, underinvestment in renewal of existing infrastructure, and sub-optimal financial and asset management. The reports show that local government can improve its performance by implementing long-term financial and asset management plans and by improving productivity.

Local Government structural reformAt 30 June 2008 Australia had 612 local governing bodies that receive funding through Australian Government Local Government Financial Assistance Grants (Table 3.1). This included 602 councils and 10 other local governing bodies—five declared Indigenous local governing bodies and the Outback Areas Development Trust in South Australia, Silverton and Tibooburra villages plus Lord Howe Island off the New South Wales coast, and LGANT Road Trust in the Northern Territory.

Local government in all states, except Western Australia, have undergone or are undergoing major structural reform. Amalgamations in the 1990s reduced the number of councils in Victoria from 210 to 79, in South Australia from 118 to 68 and in Tasmania from 46 to 29. In 2006, mergers in New South Wales cut the number of councils from 172 to 152. In Queensland structural reform, completed in March 2008, reduced the number of councils from 157 to 73 and the number of councillors from 1286 to 553. The Queensland Government offered a $27.1 million funding package to defray the cost of establishing the new councils.

In the Northern Territory, a new framework of municipal and shire councils, incorporating the whole of the Territory became operational on 1 July 2008, reducing the number of local government bodies from 61 to 16. The resulting local government framework is five municipal councils, eight shire councils and three former community government councils converted to shires. This restructure provides the potential for shires to increase their own-source revenue collection from previously unincorporated

49

Chapter 3 Local government efficiency and perform

ance

areas, increase revenue raising opportunities and deliver economies of scale. Resource sharing and the centralisation of administrative functions will further assist the shires’ budget outcomes; however, their revenue base will continue to remain heavily dependent on government funding, as the reduction of Indigenous disadvantage and improvement of infrastructure and delivery of services will need significant public funding.

Table 3.1: Number of local governments, by state, 1910–2008

State Councils 1910a Councils 1991a Councils 2001b Councils 2008c

NSW 324 176 172 152

Vic. 206 210 79 79

Qld 164 134 125 73

WA 147 138 142 140

SA 175 122 68 68

Tas. 51 46 29 29

NT n/a n/a 7 61d

Total 1 067 826 622 602

Sources: a Sproats, K 1996, ‘Comparison of agendas and processes in Australian Local Government’, a paper presented to the Local

Government in Queensland Centenary Conference, p. 5. b National Office of Local Government, from information provided by state local government associations and individual

councils (totals exclude Indigenous and other local governing bodies receiving federal financial assistance grants).c New South Wales’ total excludes Silverton and Tibooburra villages and Lord Howe Island. The South Australian total

excludes the five declared Indigenous local governing bodies and the Outback Areas Development Trust and Northern Territory excludes Trust Account.

d New Northern Territory framework to reduce councils to 16 on 1 July 2008.

Council financial sustainability and asset managementStudies into the long-term financial sustainability of local governmentRecent inquiries, commissioned by state local government associations, highlighted issues affecting the financial sustainability of local government including an expansion in the range of services provided by councils, demographic changes, population movements and a growing infrastructure renewal backlog. Population is shifting away from many inland areas leaving councils with a dwindling rate base. These councils and many others are experiencing shortages of skilled workers, such as civil engineers, town planners, building surveyors and environmental health officers. Councils on the coast and the city fringes are experiencing rapid population growth and an urgent need to upgrade infrastructure, which is not matched by timely revenue growth. Many councils have an infrastructure renewal backlog, the product of ageing infrastructure and a prolonged period of inadequate investment in asset renewal. This affects the long-term financial sustainability of many local governments.

Local government is asset rich but income poor. In 2007–08, local governments raised $27.1 billion in revenue, but they owned land and fixed assets worth $244 billion (ABS cat. no. 5512.0, 14 April 2009, Table 3). Over $50 billion of this was land and up to $194 billion was fixed infrastructure, much of it critical to citizens’ daily lives (see ‘Why does infrastructure renewal matter?’).

50


In 2006, the ALGA commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to undertake the first national study of the financial sustainability of local government. The report, National financial sustainability study of local government, extrapolating from the state local government association studies, estimated that local government had a national backlog in their infrastructure renewal work of about $14.5 billion. The study estimated there was an annual underspend on asset renewals of $1.1 billion creating a funding gap to clear the backlog and correct the underspend of about $2.16 billion a year.

WHAT IS INFRASTRuCTuRE RENEWAL?

Local governments should be planning and funding infrastructure on a lifecycle basis to minimise whole-of-life costs. The initial construction of infrastructure only accounts for about 20 per cent of its lifetime costs. The remaining 80 per cent of costs arise from operating, maintaining and renewing the infrastructure and ultimately disposing of it once it is superseded. The Municipal Association of Victoria has been working with council financial and asset managers to clarify definitions of asset maintenance and renewal. They have defined them as:

• Maintenance: Regular ongoing day-to-day work necessary to keep assets operational, for example, road patching.

• Operations: Regular activities to provide public health, safety and amenity, for example, street sweeping, grass mowing, street lighting.

• Renewal/refurbishment: Restores, rehabilitates, replaces existing asset to its original capacity, for example, road reseal, gravel re-sheets, bridge re-decking, building fit-out, etc.

• upgrade/improvements: Enhances the existing asset to provide higher levels of service, for example, widen a road seal.

• New: Creation of a new asset to meet additional service level requirements, for example, a new building.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers study found that data were only available in four states and that all reported underspending on asset renewal (Table 3.2). However, the states that had significantly reformed their local government sectors over the past decade—Victoria and South Australia—had comparatively low deficits.

51


ance

Table 3.2: Infrastructure backlog estimate, extrapolated from Access Economics and Municipal Association of Victoria results

Financial sustainability summary results

Backlog in infrastructure

renewals

underspend on existing infrastructure

renewals, per annum

Estimated funding gap,

per annum

Estimated funding gap, per council

per annum

unsustainable councils

$m $m $ma $m %

NSW (152 LGBs–AE) 6 300 500 900 5.9 25

Vic. (79 LGBs–MAV) 8 062 81 203 2.6 10

WA (142 LGBs–AE) 1 750 110 220 1.5 58

SA (68 LGBs–AE) 3 001 20 40 0.6 38

Notes: a To cover backlog and annual underspend; to be generated via savings or extra revenue/grants. AE = Access Economics; LGB = local governing bodies; MAV = Municipal Association of Victoria. Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers 2006, National financial sustainability study of local government, Table E2, Australian Local Government Association, available at <www.alga.asn.au/policy/finance/pwcreport/summary.php#Extrapolation>

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report suggested that councils had given priority to investing in new infrastructure without providing sufficient funds to renew infrastructure as it ages. The study proposed that the Australian Government provide an additional $200–$250 million a year nationally to councils to help them renew ageing local government community infrastructure.

The report drew on recent inquiries and studies sponsored by local government associations in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania to support its claims. These state reports claimed as many as 169 of Australia’s councils may be financially unviable—38 in New South Wales, 16 in Victoria, 83 in Western Australia, 26 in South Australia, and six in Tasmania. This is about one-quarter of Australia’s local governments. The reports also suggested that up to another half of the councils in these states might be financially vulnerable. Major themes emerging from the study were that many councils:

• faced rising community expectations, increasing responsibilities and compliance requirements but have modest revenue growth

• felt constrained in their revenue-raising capacity

• did 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

• did not focus sufficiently on the need for continuous improvement in their provision of services.

A consensus is emerging about some of the key measures that need to be taken to improve council finances in Australia. These include that councils should:

• adopt 10-year financial and asset management plans

• develop and publish service policies and standards and set rates and charges that are sufficient to sustain those services and standards in the long-term

• find efficiency savings and implement revenue measures to deliver an improvement in local government finances of about 8 per cent over about five years

• routinely review all council assets, dispose of those that are under-used and redirect funds to assets that are in high use and need renewal or rehabilitation

• make prudent use of debt to fund new and enhanced infrastructure

http://www.alga.asn.au/policy/finance/pwcreport/summary.php#Extrapolation

52


• routinely set targets to deliver continuous improvements and publish meaningful measures of council performance

• provide asset management training for councillors and key council personnel

• seek additional revenue from other spheres of government.

Since publication of the PricewaterhouseCoopers study, some states have taken the lead in reforming local government’s long-term financial sustainability and asset management. The results of councils in those jurisdictions have improved sharply.

Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia support for sustainable asset managementThe Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia’s National Asset Management Strategy Committee provides resources to help asset management practitioners implement sustainable management of community infrastructure. This is achieved through its ‘NAMS Plus’ training, which uses its International Infrastructure Management Manual and a suite of templates to help participants write their first Asset Management Plan. The training is offered at two levels—core and advanced. At 30 June 2008 approximately 227 of Australia’s 601 councils had participated in the program.

Table 3.3: Number of councils doing NAMS Plus to prepare their first asset management plan, 2007–08

Jurisdiction Number of councils Number of attendees

NSW 85 296

Vic. 12 25

Qld 24 124

WA 21 97

SA 69 150+

Tas. 15 63

NT 1 1

Total 227 756+

Source: Institute of Public Works Engineering, personal communication, 31 July 2009

Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council agreement on nationally consistent frameworksIn March 2007, the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council agreed to implement frameworks to improve the financial sustainability, asset management and financial reporting of local government. The Council endorsed three nationally consistent frameworks, namely:

• Criteria for Assessing Financial Sustainability

• Asset Planning and Management

• Financial Planning and Reporting.

Council endorsement of the frameworks led some states to issue asset management policy statements outlining minimum requirements for local government. The minimum requirements proposed were that

53


ance

council asset management plans be linked to long-term financial plans, rates and levels of service be developed in consultation with communities, and councils move toward greater clarity in management and governance arrangements.

The Council adopted a definition of financial sustainability, namely:

A council’s long-term financial performance and position is sustainable where planned long-term service and infrastructure levels and standards as prioritised through community engagement and consultation are met without unplanned increases in rates and charges or disruptive cuts to services.

In 2005, the South Australian Government introduced comprehensive legislative reform to mandate long-term financial and asset management in its councils and New South Wales and Queensland are introducing comparable legislation to implement reforms.

Review of Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council intergovernmental agreementIn April 2006, an intergovernmental agreement was signed to clarify how federal, state and territory and local governments can work together more effectively. Since then, most states have concluded complementary agreements with the local government sector to strengthen their relationships, to implement local government capacity-building programs, and to formalise financial relations. The agreement is due for review in April 2011.

Productivity Commission research report into local government revenue-raising capacity Local government considers its primary revenue base—rates and charges—is not growing fast enough to permit it to fulfil community needs and that other spheres of government should contribute extra revenue to support local government. The issue was raised during the hearings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration that produced the report, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government 2003.

As part of its response to that report, the Australian Government asked the Productivity Commission to examine local governments’ own-source revenue-raising capacity. The then Treasurer issued the terms of reference for the study in April 2007 and asked the Productivity Commission to examine the capacity of local government to raise revenue including:

• the capacity of different types of councils (for example, 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.

The Productivity Commission released its final report on 17 April 2008. Some key findings were:

• In 2005–06, local government revenue came mainly from rates (37%), sales of goods and services (29%), other revenue including developer contributions (14%), interest and dividend income (3%), federal grants (8.5%) and state grants (8.5%).

54


• In the 15 years to 2005–06, rate revenue fell from 1.03 per cent to 0.92 per cent of gross domestic product.

• On average, councils are raising 88 per cent of their assessed potential own-source revenue.

• A number of councils, particularly in capital city and urban developed areas have the potential to be financially self sufficient, without relying on grants. However, 87 per cent of rural councils and 95 per cent of remote councils rely on some level of grants to meet their current expenditure.

• Capital city and some remote local governments have very high fiscal capacities because of the concentration of business incomes and their relatively small resident populations.

• Some councils are highly grant dependent—for 20 per cent of councils, accounting for only 1 per cent of the population, grants represent 48 per cent or more of council revenue.

• The average rates incidence is higher for rural councils than for urban councils.

• For 50 per cent of households, the rates incidence is about 1.7 per cent or less of after-tax income.

• Rural and remote councils spend more per capita on average because they are unable to capture economies of scale, they must pay higher input costs, and they maintain more kilometres of roads per capita and many provide a more extensive mix of services.

• Over the four years to 2005–06, the national annual real average developer contribution growth rate was 8.2 per cent per new dwelling commenced; the highest growth was in Tasmania.

• Given the differences in the scope to raise additional revenue across different classes of council, a case exists to review provision of Australian Government general purpose grants to local governments.

• Rate pegging has dampened revenue raised from rates in New South Wales relative to other states.

• A case exists for periodic review of the restrictions and regulations imposed on local government by other spheres of government to assess both their rationales and their benefits and costs.

• Application of a set of principles to guide revenue raising and expenditure decisions can help optimise community wellbeing and existing cooperative mechanisms between governments and local government associations and could be used to promote best practice in this area.

The study found that councils have some potential to improve their financial self-sufficiency. Compared to best practice in the various categories of local government, on average, councils could lift their revenue raising effort by 12 per cent. If local communities were prepared to pay, some councils could make greater efforts to improve their financial independence. As well, the study found most states do not seriously impede local government revenue raising. However, in New South Wales rate capping and the partial (55 per cent) rebate of pensioner concessions appear to affect local government’s capacity to be financial sustainable.

State initiatives to improve council performanceState jurisdictions and state local government associations have provided information on recent initiatives to improve the financial sustainability of councils.

In New South Wales, the state government has launched a Local Government Reform Program, which aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government services. It incorporates a number of approaches, namely:

• encouraging greater cooperation between councils

• promoting better council practices

55


ance

• strengthening councils’ strategic focus and better integrated planning and reporting processes

• implementing an asset management framework, including long-term financial planning.

The New South Wales Government is encouraging councils to consider collaborative arrangements, such as strategic alliances, to deliver better services more efficiently for their communities. Twenty-one alliances complement the work of Regional Organisations of Councils and other forms of collaboration around the state. Councils have been able to achieve a range of financial savings, improve service standards and complete projects that would not otherwise have been achievable.

A Strategic Alliance Conference was convened in September 2007. A Strategic Alliance Network of 50 councils has been established to develop and share initiatives in collaboration. The New South Wales Department of Local Government has established a database of council resource-sharing initiatives.

The New South Wales Department of Local Government also conducts Promoting Better Practice reviews in local government to:

• generate a culture of continuous improvement and compliance

• provide an ‘early intervention’ option for councils experiencing operating problems

• promote good governance and ethical conduct principles

• identify and share innovation and good practice

• garner information to improve its legislative and policy work for the sector.

A departmental review team will evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of each council’s operations and provide feedback. The team will check compliance, examine appropriate practices, and ensure council has frameworks in place to monitor its performance. Reviews act as a ‘health check’, should provide confidence about what is being done and help councils focus on key priorities. In 2007–08, the department completed 22 such reviews, covering both city and country councils. In total, the department has undertaken 78 reviews, 65 of which are fully completed and 13 are partially completed. Another 12 reviews are scheduled for 2008–09. Most councils participating in reviews were found to be operating satisfactorily and were committed to implementing report recommendations.

Victoria’s local governments have undergone comprehensive reform. Council reforms have included amalgamations, introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, implementation of long-term financial and asset management plans, and introduction of best value principles to drive efficiency improvements in services. In 2004, reforms contained in the Road Management Act 2004 encouraged councils to develop and publish road management plans that specify affordable service standards for local roads, resulting in better management of the local road network.

On 14 May 2008, the Victorian Government and the Municipal Association of Victoria cemented relations between the two spheres of government with the signing of the Victorian State/Local Government Agreement.

56


The reforms are continuing. In 2007–08, the Victorian Government launched its $4.6 million Councils Reforming Business initiative that aims, over two years, to help councils improve their business practices, focusing on:

• smarter procurement practices

• greater use of shared services

• reduced costs to business through better practice law-making

• improving processes for affordable housing

• online permits for businesses.

The Municipal Association of Victoria added to these initiatives by:

• Brokering procurement deals for councils in software, demographic data, library services and material and public lighting.

• Expanding its single library management service called ‘Swift’. Fifteen library organisations representing 35 councils are now members of the consortium. In 2007–08, Swift processed more than 30 million transactions.

• Establishing the EasyBiz portal for businesses to seek regulatory approvals such as planning permits, registering animals, footpath displays, advertising permits and plans for food and health businesses. Thirty councils are members of this consortium.

• Brokering an agreement with Microsoft for all Victorian local governments, thereby achieving significant savings and added benefits. A consortium of 22 councils led by the Greater Geelong City Council implemented a deal to provide service infrastructure maintenance and support with savings of up to 45 per cent.

• Conducting a single electoral services tender on behalf of 49 councils delivering considerable savings and reducing workload.

The Municipal Association of Victoria introduced its Step Program to help councils achieve good practice in long-term asset management planning for key assets. All councils in Victoria have completed the basic asset management course; an advanced asset management course commenced in 2006–07. The advanced course helped councils predict the infrastructure renewal gap for every class of asset for the next 50 years, thereby enabling them to objectively prioritise infrastructure investments.

All 79 of Victoria’s councils now have financial plans covering a period of at least four years and almost all have basic or more advanced asset management plans for most major asset categories (Table 3.4).

57


ance

Table 3.4: Progress of Victoria’s councils in developing asset management plans, 2007–08

Number of councils with:

Roads and footpaths

Bridges Street lighting

Parks and gardens

Buildings recreational cultural entertainment

facilities

Stormwater drainage

No Plan 0 2 76 4 3 4

Minimal 0 1 – 5 2 10

Basic Plan 7 13 – 25 19 18

First Cut Plan 29 34 3 29 34 28

Plan Complete 43 29 – 16 21 19

Notes: No Plan = The Council does not have an Asset Management Plan. Minimal = Council has basic asset information in diverse asset registers, has commenced collecting condition information and has calculated its renewal requirements at a high level but has no comprehensive documentation.

Basic Plan = Basic information has been collated, assets registers are starting to become more integrated, condition information is more comprehensive, renewal calculations have greater integrity and information is being documented.

First Cut Plan = Simple asset management plan which documents the attributes of assets within the asset category, defines existing levels of service, determines maintenance, renewal and new/upgrade expenditure requirements into a 10–20 year time horizon, identifies the renewal gap, provides funding requirements for input into Long Term Financial Plan and sets out an improvement strategy.

Plan Complete = Comprehensive Asset Management Plan which includes ‘First Cut’ information but may also include demand and service forecasting, lifecycle analysis and management, risk assessments, capital works planning, asset disposal strategies and some community interaction when defining service levels.

Source: Municipal Association of Victoria, personal communication 6 April 2009

Over the last seven years, Victorian councils have narrowed the gap between what they spend and what they need to spend to renew their assets from about 40 per cent to about 30 per cent in 2008. According to the Municipal Association of Victoria, the size of the state-wide annual infrastructure renewal gap for councils has shrunk from about $300 million in 2005 to $190 million in 2008, probably due to rate increases and improvements in data coverage and accuracy. This means that while the backlog of infrastructure renewal is still growing at $190 million a year, it is growing at two-thirds the pace it was three years ago.

Victoria’s Auditor-General found that most councils are improving their finances: ‘the number of councils with underlying financial deficits in the operating result fell from 50 in 2002–03 to 36 in 2004–05, further to 20 in 2006–07 and then to 14 in 2007–08’. These findings are significant. They show that councils in Victoria are making good progress towards being more financially sustainable and keeping their infrastructure in a sound condition in the long-term.

Reform of the Queensland local government focused on four major elements, namely:

• structural reform

• legislative reform

• performance evaluation and reporting

• capacity building, including financial certainty and stability.

In 2007–08, the Queensland Government concluded its structural reforms and made progress with legislative reforms. It amended the Local Government Act 1993 to provide a new governance structure for Torres Strait Island and Northern Peninsula Area Regional councils, bringing all local governments under a single Act. The Queensland Department of Local Government, Sport and Recreation itself underwent reform and moved to regional locations closer to most local governments and the communities they serve.

58


Queensland is providing for implementation of the Nationally Consistent Frameworks for local government asset and financial management as part of its new performance evaluation and reporting framework.

The performance evaluation and reporting process will provide key indicators on the sustainability of infrastructure and financial sustainability of the council, which will enable comparisons to be made locally and nationally.

The Local Government Association of Queensland has taken steps to upgrade council skills in financial and asset management. Twenty-one students have graduated from its Diploma of Local Government Administration, focusing on financial and asset management and community engagement. And 80 per cent of Queensland Councils have participated in the Local Government Association of Queensland’s Backroom to the Boardroom and Local Government Asset initiatives. These initiatives emphasise the importance of accurate asset valuation and depreciation and the need for long-term financial and asset management plans and financially sustainable service level standards. This gives Queensland councils confidence in their asset management decision making processes.

The Queensland Roads Alliance between councils and the Queensland Department of Main Roads continues to deliver savings for local government. The Department of Main Roads and three councils in the Whitsunday Regional Road Group combined their road resurfacing needs into a single offer, making a 20 per cent saving for the three councils involved. A joint Department of Main Roads tender with South East Queensland councils for road lighting electricity also delivered significant savings.

Reform of local government in Western Australia is picking up pace. In 2007–08, the Department of Local Government and Regional Development made a concerted effort to improve council leadership and behavioural standards, workforce planning and financial and asset management. Key initiatives included:

• Workshops for new mayors and presidents and the launch of a chief executive officer support program to promote more effective leadership and governance.

• Continued compliance and complaints monitoring including establishment of a legislatively based panel to manage misconduct allegations in local government and support improved local governance.

• Skills shortage and careers activities to enhance local government effectiveness through improved skills and employment retention and provision of mentoring programs for women in local government.

• Development of guidelines to help local governments improve investment practices.

• Advice and support on financial management and interpretation of accounting standards to improve financial management in local government.

• Commencement of preparation of an accounting manual for local government to improve financial management in local government and improve the comparability and accuracy of data contributing to financial ratios. The manual will be an important tool in implementing the work of the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council on a national financial sustainability framework.

Approximately 40 local governments participated in the Western Australian Asset Management Improvement program during 2007–08. The program is a partnership between the Department of Local Government and Regional Development, Local Government Managers Australia (WA) and the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia. An alliance partnership for delivering the program was developed in early 2007 and the program was launched in March 2007. Through a series of four workshops with

59


ance

the consulting team, participating councils gain a stronger understanding of their assets and develop management plans that can then be linked to their strategic and long-term financial plans.

Good progress has also been made in streamlining building and development applications. Standardisation of building applications and electronic processing will reduce regulatory compliance costs for builders and processing costs for councils. Five of Western Australia’s largest home building companies joined with eight rapidly growing councils in developing the project, which was managed by the Western Australian Local Government Association. Emphasis has now moved to investigating electronic development assessment for planning applications.

In Western Australia, eight high growth councils partnered with the Western Australian Local Government Association to develop benchmarks and best practice processes for property rating. Rates contributed 39 per cent of total sector revenue in 2006. This project commenced during 2008 with an initial analysis of processes used and development of key performance indicators. This project will report during 2009.

The Western Australian property-rating project could have national applications. As mentioned above, the Productivity Commission foresaw benefit from developing a set of principles to guide revenue raising; expenditure decisions for councils and local government associations could be used to promote best practice in this area.

In South Australia, legislative reforms and an independent inquiry initiated by the Local Government Association in 2005 into the financial sustainability of local government in South Australia have led to significant improvements in the sector’s financial governance. The inquiry identified a pressing need for local government to address shortcomings in its financial policies and practices and emphasised the importance of long-term financial and asset management planning.

Amendments to the Local Government Act 1999 included requirements for councils to:

• prepare and adopt long-term financial plans and infrastructure and asset management plans

• establish audit committees

• adopt measures to strengthen the independence of external auditors

• adopt a consistent reporting format covering financial statements.

The reforms aimed to help councils achieve affordable service levels and management programs that minimise whole-of-life costs of assets.

During 2007–08, the Local Government Association of South Australia implemented its Financial Sustainability Program of training, information and support for councils covering:

• financial sustainability

• infrastructure and asset management planning

• role of audit committees

• improved and consistent financial reporting

• annual business plan preparation

• long-term financial plan preparation

• modern treasury management.

The Office for State/Local Government Relations, the Local Government Association of South Australia, and the Local Government Financial Management Group progressively applied the Local

60


Government and Planning Ministers’ Council nationally consistent financial and asset management planning frameworks.

Most councils have adopted a definition of financial sustainability very similar to that set out in the national frameworks and ‘financial sustainability’ has been formally adopted as a key longer-term objective in the strategic plans of many councils.

The Financial Management Group developed a standard set of seven financial indicators, which all councils have adopted to secure their long-term financial sustainability. The Financial Management Group and the Local Government Association of South Australia are helping councils set targets, or target ranges, as a goal for each indicator. Consistent with the national frameworks, these indicators highlight annual accrual operating results as well as capital spending on renewal and replacement of existing assets compared with the optimal level of such expenditure.

Throughout 2007–08, the Local Government Association of South Australia supported councils in their preparation of Infrastructure and Asset Management Plans. It entered into an alliance with the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia to adopt an internationally recognised approach for preparing asset management policies and plans and give surety to development of long-term financial plans. An updated long-term financial planning software product was released to councils in 2007–08 and was supported by training sessions. The Local Government Act 1999 required all councils to have adopted a long-term financial plan supported by an infrastructure and asset management plan by 30 November 2008.

In February 2007, 38 councils (representing 80 per cent of local government electricity purchased from the national grid) had entered 12-month contracts requiring 20 per cent of the supply purchased to be accredited Green Power. The additional cost of Green Power in total has largely been offset by overall savings in the bulk purchasing power of councils facilitated by Local Government Corporate Services and the South Australian Government.

In Tasmania the Local Government Association of Tasmania is working with the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia and Jeff Roorda & Associates to assess the benefits of and barriers to implementing a common framework for long-term financial planning and asset management planning for all councils in Tasmania. The project will use:

• the enhanced Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council national frameworks

• a template developed in South Australia for long-term financial plans

• the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia’s International Infrastructure Management Manual.

The Tasmanian Government’s partnership agreements will mark its tenth anniversary in December 2008. In 10 years, 44 agreements have been signed at the bilateral, regional, statewide and tri-partite levels. Agreements have lead to positive outcomes in road safety, education, community health, tourism, water and sewerage, infrastructure planning and weed management. An evaluation in 2008 recommended a more strategic, flexible, administratively straightforward and outcome-focused approach to the agreements. The recommendations are being implemented.

61


ance

The Premier’s Local Government Council comprises the Premier, the Minister for Local Government, the President of the Local Government Association of Tasmania, the Lord Mayor, and two mayors from each region across Tasmania. It made progress on issues such as:

• The Stronger Councils, Better Services initiative that aims to strengthen the financial and business sustainability, service delivery and governance of councils across the State.

• Development of a partnership agreement on action on climate change, which will result in Tasmania being the first state in Australia to have audited the carbon emissions of all its local governments and state government agencies. In its first year, the agreement will also guide joint activities on land use planning, community consultation and education about climate change.

During 2007–08 the Tasmanian Government implemented reforms of council water and sewerage services. Under the reforms three council-owned regional corporations (based on the northern, north-western and southern regions of the state) were created to deliver water and sewerage services. A fourth common services corporation, owned by the regional corporations, was established to provide common services for the three corporations. The state government expects the reforms to benefit environmental and public health outcomes and support the economic development of regional communities.

Local Government in the Northern Territory is undergoing major reform, not only in its structures (mentioned earlier) but also in its revenues, services and professionalism. The new structures will increase revenue raising opportunities and will provide economies of scale. Standardised shire business systems are being purchased to meet financial and administrative requirements and administrative functions will be co-located. There will be greater resource sharing between the shires such as in the purchasing and usage of heavy equipment and better access to technical expertise. The health of local communities will improve through better council roads, waste collection and environmental health services.

The new structures are also expected to provide better employment opportunities for communities, with the shires able to offer stable jobs for drivers, plant operators, labourers, office workers, service providers and program managers. Staff can expect professional training for jobs at the shires such as environmental health officers.

In the Australian Capital Territory, during 2007–08, a draft consultancy brief was prepared for development of the Roads ACT Asset Management Plan 2008–11. The Plan will outline the broad approach that Roads ACT will adopt to manage the condition and use of roads assets. It will also provide future directions for road use and network capacity, safety, recurrent maintenance and capital works programs for key roads assets. Tenders for the consultancy will be issued in 2008–09.

SummaryLocal government in Australia is making significant progress in implementing the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council financial and asset management frameworks. Councils need to more actively manage their assets to minimise life-cycle costs and embrace cost saving innovations. They also need to implement long-term financial and asset management plans that reflect service level standards that their communities support, can afford and for which they are prepared to pay.

62



63

Chapter 4 Local government

service provisions to Indigenous communities

4

64


Chapter 4 Local government service provision to Indigenous communities

Reporting requirementsThe Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) requires an assessment, based on comparable national data, of the delivery of local government services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The following provides a snapshot of activities undertaken in each state during 2007–08.

New South WalesThe New South Wales Department of Local Government continues to participate in the annual Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference and since 2000 has conducted surveys to collect data on a range of specific social justice initiatives New South Wales councils are undertaking, including those relating to Indigenous people. The most recent survey was issued to councils in 2008 about initiatives for 2006 and 2007. A report on the findings from the survey is anticipated in 2009.

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 the 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, which includes Indigenous people. Through this process, councils may identify issues and services they could be addressing relating to Indigenous communities. New South Wales councils are required to submit a current plan to the department every five years, with the next social plan due in November 2009.

The state government has developed a resource kit to help councils work more effectively with local Indigenous communities. Engaging With Local Aboriginal Communities: A Resource Kit For Local Government in New South Wales complements the updated publication Local Government in New South Wales: Issues and Information for Aboriginal Communities and includes strategies and resources that councils can use that will empower Indigenous communities to participate in council decision-making. It also includes examples of initiatives councils have developed in forming productive partnerships with Indigenous communities.

65

Chapter 4 Local government service provision to Indigenous com

munities

VictoriaThe Municipal Association of Victoria continues to coordinate its Local Government Indigenous Network. The statewide voluntary network of local government councillors and officers meets quarterly and advocates for development of positive relationships between councils and Indigenous communities. The network helps develop policy and activities that advance the status of Indigenous people in Victoria’s 79 municipalities. Opportunities are provided for councillors and council staff to share experiences and knowledge on Indigenous issues, about Indigenous projects and initiatives that improve linkages and services. In line with the COAG commitment to reconciliation, and endorsed by the Australian Local Government Association, the network supports provision of leadership and best practice in local government on Indigenous issues.

A growing number of Victoria’s individual local councils are actively involved in developing and supporting their own governance arrangements to facilitate engagement and community planning between councils and their Indigenous communities. This work is predominantly undertaken through inter-council Indigenous consultative committees, formal Indigenous committees and advisory groups that present opportunities to provide direct advice to councils on issues that affect Indigenous communities.

Thirty-eight new Local Indigenous Networks and eight Regional Indigenous Councils are being established across Victoria and representatives from those groups will join the Premier’s Aboriginal Advisory Council. These new representative structures reflect the Victorian Government’s commitment to improving outcomes for Indigenous Victorians by ensuring they have a voice in their local community, their region, and with all spheres of government.

Following introduction of the new Indigenous heritage legislation in May 2007, the Victorian Government provided funding for development of initiatives that aim to improve councils’ capability and capacity to deal with Indigenous heritage and planning issues, particularly rural and regional councils. Initiatives include establishment of an Indigenous planning internship program to increase Indigenous student participation in planning higher education courses and providing local government with trained Indigenous planners to further improve the quality of planning advice and Indigenous heritage expertise in rural and regional Victoria.

QueenslandDuring 2007–08, the Queensland Government, through the Community Governance Improvement Strategy, delivered a range of activities and programs to help Indigenous councils achieve sustainable good governance that enables effective service delivery. Key activities included implementing target intervention strategies in line with Auditor-General and Public Accounts Committee recommendations, such as appointing financial controllers for those Indigenous councils considered at high financial risk.

The Queensland Department of Local Government, Sport and Recreation complemented these intervention strategies with a range of activities to improve Indigenous councils’ financial management, accountability, and business systems and also provided assistance for longer-term divestment of enterprise and business activities by these councils. The Queensland Government anticipates that, as a result of these Community Governance Improvement Strategy activities, the future need for interventions will be reduced.

Significant support throughout 2007–08 was also provided for those 20 Indigenous councils that transitioned into the new Torres Strait Island and the Northern Peninsula Area Regional Councils.

66


Western AustraliaThe Local Government Advisory Board undertook a major inquiry into local government service delivery to Indigenous communities in early 2008. Local governments and other stakeholders contributed to this inquiry which was intended to underpin conclusion of bilateral negotiations between the state and federal governments concerning delivery of municipal services to the more than 270 discrete Indigenous communities in Western Australia. It is clear that the costs councils incur to deliver comparable levels of municipal services to remote Indigenous communities will not be met by the municipal services and Community Development Employment Project funding programs currently provided by the Australian Government.

Local governments in the Kimberley combined to initiate a feasibility study into formation of a regional council specifically to deliver services to remote Indigenous communities. This work is continuing.

South AustraliaProvision of municipal services to Indigenous communities on land held by the Aboriginal Lands Trust under the state government’s Aboriginal Trust Act 1966 has been reassessed following the Australian Government’s cessation of funding to the former Municipal Services funding program.

The state government and the Local Government Association of South Australia, have created a project reference group,1 which is developing legal understanding of responsibilities of local government involvement on Aboriginal Lands Trust land. The Local Government Association is now developing a form of contract that would enable a council, should it choose, to provide additional services to communities on Aboriginal Lands Trust land, subject to provision of appropriate funding and lawful permission to enter the land to provide agreed services.

The Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands were prescribed as a local governing body for the purposes of receiving local government financial assistance grants under regulations made by the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission Act 1992. Existing service delivery and governance arrangements are being reviewed with a view to strengthening the arrangements and achieving local government status under the local government legislative framework.

South Australia maintained a strategic and collaborative approach to promoting negotiated native title outcomes with a unique process involving the state government, claim group representation, the native title representative body, the Local Government Association of South Australia and peak bodies representing miners, farmers and fishers. In 2007–08, a revised program was established to support negotiations in 2008–09.

TasmaniaLocal government services to Indigenous communities in Tasmania are predominately delivered through mainstream local government service provision.

The partnership agreements program coordinated by the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Local Government Division also provides a mechanism for councils to engage and consult with the Indigenous community.

1 The Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs established the project reference group in 2007.

67


munities

The Glenorchy City Council’s current partnership agreement retains from its first agreement a provision for regular consultation with the Indigenous community. At this stage, this is the only provision of its kind in an existing agreement, although all councils are able to include such a statement if they believe it is warranted.

Northern TerritoryIn October 2006, the Northern Territory Minister for Local Government announced the Northern Territory Government’s reform program for local government. The reform resulted in a new framework of municipal and shire councils, incorporating the whole of the territory as of 1 July 2008 (New Local Government). The major reform of local government in the territory has reduced the number of local government bodies from 61 to 16 – five municipal councils, eight shire councils and three former community government councils that have been converted to shires.

This restructure provides increased potential for shire councils’ own-source revenue collection, increases revenue-raising opportunities and provides economies of scale. Resource sharing and centralisation of administrative functions will further ease the shires’ budget outcomes; however, their revenue base will continue to remain heavily dependent on government funding, as reduction of Indigenous disadvantage, improvement of infrastructure, and delivery of services all incur high costs.

Australian Capital TerritoryThe Australian Capital Territory implemented a number of whole-of-public-sector initiatives to improve service delivery to Indigenous communities in 2007–08.

In 2004 the territory government committed to establishing a democratically elected Indigenous representative body. In 2008 the ACT Legislative Assembly passed legislation to establish an Indigenous elected body. Elections were held in June and seven candidates were declared by July 2008. The elected body will operate over three-year terms and must consult with the territory’s traditional custodians, represented by the United Ngunnawal Elders Council.

The ACT Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services continued to administer Indigenous-specific programs and partnerships for those most at risk. At any one time, the team also supported between 35 and 40 families comprising up to 65 individual children and young people involved in care and protection services.

The department contributed to development of the territory’s Children and Young People Bill and operational aspects of a new youth justice centre. It also provided targeted assistance to Indigenous families and individuals through the:

• Community Support and Infrastructure Grants program

• Youth Homelessness Action Plan

• Youth Supported Accommodation and Assistance Program services

• Youth Services Program

• Indigenous Supported Accommodation Service.

Indigenous organisations and individuals were key focus groups for a number of government community initiatives, for example the Women’s Return to Work Grants, the Women’s Grants Programs, the annual Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Gathering, the Women’s Register, and the Office for Ageing Research Project on Social Isolation.

68


Under A New Way: The ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Family Wellbeing Plan 2006–2011, work continued on establishing a culturally-appropriate alcohol and drug rehabilitation service. In December 2007, the ACT Government committed $10.8 million to establish a residential facility for the new service. In 2007, ACT Health funded an Aboriginal midwifery access program, providing pre- and post-natal support and intervention, which helped achieve improved infant birth weights. In 2008 Therapy ACT began speech pathology services at the four Koori preschools, at Holt, Calwell, Ngunnawal and Wanniassa Hills.

In 2007 the ACT Government provided new funding for three new education programs, implemented in 2008, to support Indigenous Kindergarten to Year 4 students focus on literacy and numeracy, provide mentoring for high achieving high school students, and deliver professional and targeted development for school principals and deputy principals.

The Department of Justice and Community Safety continued to advance Indigenous justice outcomes by strengthening initiatives aimed at reducing Indigenous over-representation in the criminal justice system, improving access to justice services for Indigenous victims and offenders, and improving collaboration in service delivery for Indigenous people. The department funded the Aboriginal Justice Centre, an independent community-based association that provides case management and programs for those in contact with the criminal justice system and through consultation works to increase inter-agency cooperation and coordination.

Australian Government expenditure and progressFinancial assistance grants to Indigenous councils under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 In 2007–08, 90 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 Island 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 4.1 shows the distribution of Indigenous councils by state and the way in which they have become eligible for financial assistance grants.

69


munities

Table 4.1: Distribution of Indigenous councils, by eligibility type and state, at July 2007

StateEstablished under state local

government legislationEstablished under

separate state legislationDeclared local

governing bodiesTotal Indigenous

councils

Qld 2 32 0 34

WA 1 0 0 1

SA 0 2 3 5

NT 25 1 24 8

Total 43 3 27 90

Source: Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Local Government

For 2007–08, prior to the local government reforms, $32.8 million in financial assistance grants was provided to 90 councils. Of this, $23.5 million was in general purpose grants and $9.3 million was in local roads grants. The 2007–08 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 $1783.0 million for 2007–08 financial assistance grants funding for their Indigenous population. 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.

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:

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.

70


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.

National Awards for Local GovernmentThe National Awards for Local Government highlight excellent and innovative work local governments are undertaking to improve business practices within councils and service delivery to communities. In 2007–08 the National Awards included the category Strengthening Indigenous Communities, sponsored by the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, 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 for Indigenous people to engage and participate in local community business affairs. It also aims to highlight improved community governance and service delivery arrangements for Indigenous people.

The Brisbane City Council in Queensland won both the Category Award and the National Award for Innovation, for Stylin’ up—the Brisbane City Council 2026 Youth Visionary Project. The project is an Indigenous-owned cultural program with music and dance skills development workshops highlighting contemporary music. It was developed with and for young people from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds in Brisbane’s South West Communities with an emphasis on increasing skills in music, dance, writing, event staging, production or sport.

The event is an initiative of Brisbane City Council and the Indigenous community of Inala; and was developed by Elders, children, community leaders and government representatives. In 2007, the event attracted 18 000 attendees and participants, while engaging an additional 1500 young people in workshop programs from Brisbane’s South West corridor and 300 from regional communities.

Stylin’ Up is guided by three important themes:

• pride in self

• pride in community

• pride in culture.

The project’s phased approached promoted participation and pride among Indigenous youth and gave community Elders experience and a sense of ownership in planning and structuring the festival event. The judges commended the generational approach of the Elders working with youth on problem solving.

The Campbelltown City Council in New South Wales received a Strengthening Indigenous Communities Commendation for the Campbelltown Intergenerational Aboriginal Project, which is a partnership

71


munities

initiative between Campbelltown City Council and the Office for Ageing (New South Wales Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care).

The project aims to improve the wellbeing and quality of life of Indigenous men and women aged 45 years and over who live, work or use services in the Campbelltown local government area by:

• valuing the contributions of Indigenous men and women to the community

• promoting learning, respect and understanding across generations and within the wider community

• providing opportunities for Indigenous men and women to have their life stories documented for themselves and their families

• providing opportunities for older Indigenous men and women to come together and strengthen connections with younger people in their community.

The project has recorded life stories of older Indigenous men and women and provided opportunities for their stories to be published, used in visual arts activities, theatre performances and school education materials.

Life stories are used to build respect and intergenerational connections in Indigenous communities and reduce social isolation for older Indigenous people. The stories represent a history of a generation of New South Wales Indigenous people beyond the borders of cities and towns.

The project produced two publications:

• Tell Me My Mother—20 stories from Campbelltown’s Aboriginal women

• My Father, My Brother—20 stories from Campbelltown Aboriginal men.

Play scripts were developed from a number of these stories and were performed by local secondary school students.

72


73

Appendix BChapter 1 Local governance in Australia

73

Appendixes

74


Appendix ANational Principles for allocating general purpose and local road grants

According to section 3 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth), the Australian Government provides financial assistance grants to the states and self-governing territories for the purpose of improving:

• the financial capacity of local governing bodies

• the capacity of local governing bodies to provide their residents with an equitable level of services

• the certainty of funding for local governing bodies

• the efficiency and effectiveness of local governing bodies

• the provision, by local governing bodies, of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

The grants are provided to jurisdictions in the form of general purpose and local road grants. The intra-jurisdictional allocation of these grants to local governing bodies is made in accordance with recommendations of local government grants commissions with prior approval of the Australian Government Minister. 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 2003, the Australian Government agreed to propose an additional National Principle (see Chapter 6 of the 2004–05 Local Government National Report). The additional National

75

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 grants would not act as a disincentive to amalgamation of councils.

The additional National Principle was tabled in the House of Representatives on 27 February 2006 and the Senate on 28 February 2006. No disallowance motions were lodged; it therefore took effect from 1 July 2006. It is listed in Figure A.1 as the sixth National Principle, ‘Council Amalgamation’.

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

76


6. Council Amalgamation

Where two or more local governing bodies are amalgamated into a single body, the general purpose grant provided to the new body for each of the four years following amalgamation should be the total of the amounts that would have been provided to the former bodies in each of those years if they had remained separate entities.

B. IDENTIFIED LOCAL ROAD GRANTS

The National Principle relating to allocation of the amounts payable under section 12 of the Act (the identified road component of the financial assistance grants) among local governing bodies is as follows:

1. Identified road component

The identified road component of the financial assistance grants should be allocated to local governing bodies as far as practicable on the basis of the relative needs of each local governing body for roads expenditure and to preserve its road assets. In assessing road needs, relevant considerations include length, type and usage of roads in each local governing area.

Notes:1 Principles A1 and A3 reiterate principles that exist within the current legislation. Their inclusion in the National Principles

contributes to the balance and completeness of the National Principles and allows for clarification of their definitions. The effect of Principle A3 is to provide each local governing body with a guaranteed minimum grant.

2 This Principle 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.

77

Appendix B

Appendix BState methods for distributing financial assistance grants 2007–08

This appendix describes the method each local government grants commission used for allocating grants to councils in 2007–08. Descriptions of methods are based on information local government grants commissions supplied.

New South WalesThe 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 (Cwlth).

General purpose componentThe general purpose component of the grant attempts to equalise councils’ financial capacity. The Commission uses the direct assessment method. The approach taken considers cost disabilities in 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 neutral).

Expenditure allowances are calculated for 21 council services. These services are:

• aerodromes

• building control

• control of dogs and other animals

• cultural amenities

• fire control and emergency services

• general administration and governance

• general community services

• general health services

78


• library services

• maintenance of urban local roads, sealed rural local roads, and unsealed rural local roads

• noxious plant and pest control

• public cemeteries

• recreational services

• services for aged and disabled

• services for children

• stormwater drainage and national report flood mitigation

• street and gutter cleaning,

• street lighting

• town planning control.

An additional allowance is calculated for councils outside the Sydney statistical district that recognises their isolation.

The general formula for calculating expenditure allowances is:

No. of units x standard cost x disability factor

where:

• the number of units is the measure of use for the service for the council; for most services the number of units is the population; for others it may be the number of properties or the length of roads

• the standard cost represents the state average cost for each of the 21 selected services. The calculation is based on a state average of each council’s net cost, excluding extreme values, using selected items from Special Schedule 1 of councils’ 2005–06 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. For example, if it were estimated that it would cost a council 10 per cent more than the standard for town planning, because of population growth in the council area, the disability factor would be 10 per cent. Consistent with the effort neutral principle, the Commission does not compensate councils for cost differences that arise due to council policy decisions, management performance or accounting differences.

For each service the Commission has identified a number of variables that are considered to be the most significant in influencing a council’s expenditure on that particular service. These variables are termed ‘disabilities’. A council may have a disability due to inherent factors such as topography, climate, traffic, or duplication of services. In addition to disabilities the Commission identified, ‘other’ disabilities relating to individual councils may be determined. These may arise where unique circumstances have been identified as a result of council visits or special submissions.

79

Appendix B

The general approach for 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) x 100 x 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.

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 neutral’ requirement specified in the National Principles.

The Commission also calculates an allowance for additional costs associated with isolation. The isolation allowance is calculated using a regression analysis model based on the additional costs of isolation and distances from Sydney and major regional centres. Only councils outside the Sydney statistical division are included. Details of the formula are shown later in this section. An additional component to the isolation allowance is included which specifically recognises the additional industrial relations obligations of councils in western New South Wales.

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

80


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 individual councils’ rating policies (effort neutral).

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 Commonwealth 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 reduce the distortion caused to the revenue calculations as a result of the property values in the Sydney metropolitan area.

The objective approach to discounting revenue allowances reduces the extreme positives and negatives calculated, yet maintains the relativities between councils established in the initial calculation.

The 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 councils’ requirements for capital expenditure. In order to assess capital expenditure requirements the Commission would have to undertake a survey of each council’s infrastructure needs 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 had failed to adequately maintain their assets could be rewarded at the expense of those that did maintain them.

The issue of funding for local water and sewerage undertakings was examined during consultations between the Commission, the Local Government and Shires Associations, and local government generally. The consultations preceded development of the distribution principles required under the 1986 Commonwealth legislation.

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

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

• the level of funds available for other council services would be significantly diminished

• the distribution of funds to general purpose councils would be reduced and distorted

• other sources of funds and subsidies 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 neutral). Similarly, losses are not considered either.

81

Appendix B

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 levels of a council’s expenditure on a particular service do not affect grants. Use of a council’s expenditure is generally limited to determining a state standard cost for each selected service. The standard costs for these services are then applied to all councils in calculating their grants. What an individual council may actually spend on a service has 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 cannot provide additional services to its ratepayers. Therefore, the efficient council will benefit from its efficiency.

Council categories have no bearing on the grants. Categories simply provide a convenient way to group councils for analysis.

Effective from 1 July 2006, the National Principles embodied an amalgamation principle, which states:

Where two or more local governing bodies are amalgamated into a single body, the general purpose grant provided to the new body for each of the four years following amalgamation should be the total of the amounts that would have been provided to the former bodies in each of those years if they had remained separate entities.

Accordingly, grants to councils affected by boundary changes have been maintained at the previous year’s level if the outcome is a negative. The general purpose component grants for two councils, Clarence Valley and Yass Valley, have been protected by this arrangement.

82


Local road componentThe method of allocating the local road component is based on a simple formula developed by the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority. The formula uses councils’ proportion of the state’s population, local road length and bridge length. Details of the formula are shown under the heading of Principles, which appears later in this report.

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–

Ls )Nc Ns

where:

Ac = allowance for road length allowance

Nc = number of relevant properties for the council

Es = standard cost per kilometre

Lc = council’s relevant length of road per relevant propertyNc

Ls = standard relevant length of road per relevant propertyNs

Isolation allowances

Isolation allowances are calculated for all non-metropolitan councils based on the formula:

Ac = Pc x ([Dsc x K1] + [Dnc x K2] + Ic)

83

Appendix B

where:

Ac = the isolation allowance for each council

Pc = the adjusted population for each council

Dsc = the distance from each council’s administrative centre to Sydney

Dnc = the distance from each council’s administrative centre to the nearest major regional centre (a population centre of more than 20 000)

Ic = the additional per capita allowance due to industrial award obligations (if applicable)

K1 and K2 are constants derived from regression analysis

Specific purpose payments

Allowances for services are discounted where appropriate to recognise the contribution of specific purpose grants. The discount factor that generally applies is:

1 – Gc

(Nc x Es) + Ac

where:

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

Nc = number of units to be serviced by council

Es = standard expenditure per unit for the service

Ac = allowance for the council for the expenditure service

Revenue allowances

General

The general formula for calculating revenue allowances is:

Ac = Nc x ts x (Ts – Tc)

where:

Ac = revenue allowance for the council

Nc = number of properties (assessments)

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

Ts = standard value per property

Tc = council’s value per property

84


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 councilsSum of rateable values for all councils

Pensioner rebates allowances

The general formula for the allowance to recognise the differential impact of compulsory pensioner rates rebates is:

Ac = Rc x Nc x (Pc – Ps)

where:

Ac = the allowance for the council

Rc = the standardised rebate per property for the council

Nc = the number of residential properties

Pc = the proportion of eligible pensioner assessments for the council

Ps = the proportion of eligible pensioner assessments for all councils

The standardised rebate for the council (Rc) is:

Rc = 0.25 x Tc x ts

where:

Tc = the average value per residential property in the council

ts = the standard tax rate (rate-in-the dollar) for residential properties

The maximum value for Rc is set at $125. Tc and ts are calculated as for the revenue allowances except only residential properties are used.

Principles

General Purpose (Equalisation) Component

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

The agreed principles are:

1. General purpose grants to local governing bodies will be allocated as far as practicable on a full equalisation basis as defined in the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth); that is a basis which attempts to compensate local governing bodies for differences in expenditure required in the performance of their functions and in their capacity to raise revenue.

85

Appendix B

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.

Local road component

Financial assistance, which is made available as an identified local road component of local government financial assistance, shall be allocated so as to provide Indigenous communities equitable treatment in regard to their access and internal local road needs.

1. Urban [metropolitan] area

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

(a) the Sydney Statistical Division

(b) the Newcastle Statistical District

(c) the Wollongong Statistical District

2. Rural [non-metropolitan] area

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

3. Initial distribution

27.54 per cent to local roads in urban areas

72.46 per cent to local roads in rural areas

4. Local road grant in urban areas

Funds will be allocated:

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

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

(i) 60 per cent distributed on length of roads

(ii) 40 per cent distributed on population

5. Local road grant in rural areas

Funds will be allocated:

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

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

(i) 80 per cent distributed on length of roads

86


ii) 20 per cent distributed on population.

6. Data

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

Road length is 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 is 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 is 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.

VictoriaThe Victoria Grants Commission allocates general purpose and local roads grants in accordance with the national principles formulated under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth).

Methodology for general purpose grants For each council, a raw grant is obtained which is calculated by subtracting the council’s standardised revenue from its standardised expenditure.

The available general purpose grants pool is then allocated in proportion to each council’s raw grant, taking into account the minimum grant provision of the national distribution principles. Decreases in general purpose grant outcomes have been capped, which also affects the relationship between raw grants and actual grants.

Specific grants are allocated to a small number of councils each year in the form of natural disaster assistance. These grants are funded from the general purpose grants pool and so reduce the amount allocated on a formula basis. Details of natural disaster assistance grants allocated for 2007–08 are found 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. These expenditure functions include all council recurrent expenditure, except works undertaken on behalf of, and funded by, VicRoads.

The model’s structure is designed to ensure the gross standardised expenditure for each function is equal to the aggregate actual expenditure by councils. This ensures 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 2005–06 equalled $4.362 billion. Total gross standardised expenditure in the Commission’s allocation model for 2007–08 therefore also equalled $4.362 billion, with each expenditure function assuming the same share of both actual expenditure and standardised expenditure.

87

Appendix B

For each function, except Local Roads and Bridges, the Commission derives the gross standardised expenditure by multiplying the relevant unit of need (for example, population) by:

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

• a composite cost adjustor which takes account of factors that make service provision cost more or less for individual councils than the state average.

Major cost drivers (‘units of need’)

Table B.1 summarises the major cost drivers and average expenditures per unit for each expenditure function, except Local Roads and Bridges.

Table B.1: Average expenditures per unit for each expenditure function, except Local Roads and Bridges – Victoria

Expenditure function Major cost driver

Average expenditure per unit

$

Aged and Disabled Services Population > 60 years + Disability Pensioners + Carer’s Allowance Recipients

397.48

Business and Economic Services Population (adjusted) 94.95

Family and Community Services Population 102.32

Governance Population (adjusted) 41.36

Other Infrastructure Services Population (adjusted) 63.96

Recreation and Culture Population 181.83

Traffic and Street Management Population 85.82

Waste Management Number of dwellings 190.82

Source: Victoria Grants Commission

The Commission uses several different major cost drivers that it views as being the most significant determinant of a council’s expenditure need on a particular function. For three functions (Family and Community Services, Recreation and Culture, Traffic and Street Management) the major cost driver is the council’s population. For a fourth, (Aged and Disabled Services) it is the population aged over 60 years plus the number of people receiving a Disability Support Pension or a Carer’s Allowance, 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 reflect the high rates of vacant dwellings at the time the census was taken. Councils

88


with a vacancy rate exceeding the state average were assumed to have a population higher than the census-based estimate for the Governance function. For that function, councils with an actual population of less than 20 000 were deemed to have a population of 20 000.

Cost adjustors

The Commission uses several cost adjustors in various combinations in association with each function. These allow the Commission to take account of the particular characteristics of individual councils that affect the cost of service provision, on a comparable basis. Each cost adjustor has been based around a state-weighted average of 1.00 with a ratio of 1:2 between the minimum and maximum values to ensure that the relative importance of each expenditure function in the model is maintained.

The cost adjustors used in calculating the 2007–08 general purpose grants were:

• Aged Pensioners

• English Proficiency

• Environmental Risk

• Indigenous Population

• Kerbed Roads

• Population Less than 6 Years

• Population Density

• Population Dispersion

• Population Growth

• Regional Significance

• Remoteness

• Scale

• Socioeconomic

• Tourism.

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

For the 2007–08 allocations, the Commission made an adjustment to the calculation of standardised expenditure for the Aged and Disabled Services function. This change specifically recognises the relative impact on council expenditure of providing services to people with disabilities. The major cost driver or unit of need for this function is now the number of people in each municipality aged over 60 years plus the number of people receiving a Disability Support Pension or a Carer’s Allowance.

This change has resulted in some consequential changes to the way in which the cost adjustors used for this expenditure function are calculated.

Net standardised expenditure

Net standardised expenditure has been derived for each function by subtracting standardised grant support (calculated on an average per unit basis) from gross standardised expenditure. This ensures that other grant support is treated on an ‘inclusion’ basis.

89

Appendix B

Average grant revenue on a per unit basis (based on actual grants received by local government in 2005–06) is shown below:

Table B.2: Average grant revenue on a per unit basis, based on actual grants received by local government in 2005–06 – Victoria

Expenditure function Major cost driver

Average grants per unit

$

Aged and Disabled Services Population> 60 years + Disability Pensioners + Carer’s Allowance Recipients 177.37

Business and Economic Services Population (adjusted) 2.59

Family and Community Services Population 28.35

Governance Population (adjusted) 0.58

Other Infrastructure Services Population (adjusted) 1.79

Recreation and Culture Population 6.05

Traffic and Street Management Population 1.70

Waste Management Number of Dwellings 1.10


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 x average state wide expenditure per unit x cost adjustors

standardised grant revenue = unit of need x average state wide grant revenue per unit

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 generated by 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 for each council is calculated by subtracting other grant support (based on actual identified local roads grants and a proportion of Roads to Recovery grants) from gross standardised expenditure.

The total standardised expenditure for each council is the sum of the standardised expenditure calculated for each expenditure function.

90


Standardised revenue

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

Relative capacity to raise rate revenue, or standardised rate revenue, is calculated for each council by multiplying its valuation base (on a capital improved value basis) by the average rate across all Victorian councils. To ensure all councils are treated equally, payments some receive in lieu of rates for major facilities, such as power stations and airports, are added to their standardised revenue.

The Commission again constrained increases in each council’s assessed revenue capacity to improve stability in grant outcomes. The constraint for each council was set at the statewide average increase in standardised revenue, adjusted by the council’s own rate of population growth, to reflect growth in the property base.

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

For each functional area within a council, the Commission multiplies the relevant cost driver (such as population) by the state median revenue from user fees and charges.

For some functions, this is then modified by a series of ‘revenue adjustors’ to take account of differences between municipalities in their capacity to generate fees and charges, due to their characteristics.

Table B.3 shows the standard fees and charges the Commission used for each function (based on median actual revenues generated by local government in 2005–06), along with the revenue adjustors applied.

Table B.3: Standardised fees and charges per unit, 2007–08 – Victoria

Expenditure function Major driver (units) Revenue adjustors

Standard fees and charges per unit

$

Aged and Disabled ServicesPopulation > 60 + Disability Pensioners + Carer’ Allowance Recipients Household Income 62.86

Business and Economic Services Population Tourism + Value of Development 18.12

Family and Community Services Population Socioeconomic 9.53

Governance Population Nil 7.35

Local Roads and Bridges Population Nil 0.37

Other Infrastructure Services Population Nil 1.77

Recreation and Culture PopulationValuations (% commercial) 14.27

Traffic and Street Management Population Valuations (% Commercial) 3.38

Waste Management Number of dwellings Nil 18.48


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

91

Appendix B

Minimum grants

The available general purpose grants pool for Victorian councils for 2007–08 represented, on average, $59.32 per head of population (using Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates as at 30 June 2006). The minimum grant national distribution principle specifies that no council may receive a general purpose grant that is less than 30 per cent of its per capita average (or $17.83 for 2007–08).

Without the application of this principle, general purpose grants for 2007–08 for nine councils – Bayside, Boroondara, Glen Eira, Kingston, Melbourne, Manningham, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Yarra, together with the Docklands Authority – would have been below the $17.22 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 mindful that large movements in general purpose grants can have a significant impact on a council’s financial status. For the 2007–08 allocations, the Commission limited decreases to 8 per cent, compared with the estimated entitlement for 2006–07.

An alternative cap was also applied to ensure that a decrease in a council’s general purpose grant did not have a disproportionate impact on that council’s revenue base. In 2007–08, if a decrease in the general purpose grant of 8 per cent had exceeded 1.0 per cent of a council’s combined revenue from rates and financial assistance grants (‘untied revenue’), any decrease for 2007–08 would have been limited to 1.0 per cent of that council’s untied revenue.

The Commission has advised councils that the cap on maximum grant decreases will be 9 per cent for the 2008–09 allocations and 10 per cent for future years. The alternative cap of 1.0 per cent on untied revenue will continue to apply.

Grant decreases for 10 councils – Banyule, Darebin, Hobsons Bay, Maribyrnong, Monash, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Mornington Peninsula, Queenscliffe and Whitehorse – were limited to 8 per cent of their estimated entitlement for 2007–08. In none of these cases does this amount exceed 1.0 per cent of the council’s untied revenue base. Therefore, it was not necessary to apply the alternative cap.

The Commission has also acted to ensure that this capping is only subsidised by those councils with increasing grants.

As a result, two councils – Maroondah and Nillumbik – received an unchanged general purpose grant in 2007–08. The grants to those councils would have been less than the 2006–07 estimated entitlements had the full cost of capping been applied.

92


Estimated entitlements 2007–08

Table B.4 summarises the changes in estimated general purpose grant entitlements between 006–07 and 2007–08.

Table B.4: Changes in general purpose grant entitlements from 2006–07 to 2007–08 – Victoria

Change in general purpose grant No. of councils *

Increase of more than 10% 4

Increase of 5.0% to 10.0% 34

Increase of up to 5.0% 29

No change 0

Decrease of up to 8.0% 2

Decrease of 8.0% (capped) 10

Total 79

Note: *Analysis does not include the Docklands AuthoritySource: Victoria Grants Commission

Natural disaster assistance

The Commission provides funds from the general purpose grants pool to councils that have incurred expenditure resulting from natural disasters. Grants of up to $35 000 per council per eligible event are provided to assist with repairs and restoration work. Grants totalling $581 151 were allocated to 14 councils for 2007–08 (Table B.5).

Table B.5: Natural disaster assistance from general purpose grant funding, 2007–08 – Victoria

Council Event $

Ararat Shire Council Bushfires, windstorms – 2 events 57 344

Banyule City Council Thunderstorms – 2 events 51 186

Baw Baw Shire Council Windstorm 27 413

Central Goldfields Shire Council Storm 16 106

Indigo Shire Council Storms – 2 events 70 000

Manningham City Council Storms – 2 events 67 305

Mansfield Shire Council Windstorm 35 000

Moreland Council Windstorm 35 000

Murrindindi Shire Council Storm and wildfire – 2 events 70 000

Port Phillip Council Storm 35 000

South Gippsland Shire Council Snowstorm 11 552

Whitehorse City Council Windstorm 35 000

Wodonga Rural City Council Windstorms – 2 events 53 727

Yarriambiack Storm damage 16 518


93

Appendix B

Methodology for local roads funding The Commission’s formula for allocating local roads grants is based on each council’s road length (for all surface types) and traffic volumes, using average annual preservation costs for given traffic volume ranges. The methodology also includes a set of cost modifiers for freight loading, climate, materials, sub-grade conditions and strategic routes and takes account of the deck area of bridges on local roads.

The formula is designed to reflect the relative needs of Victorian councils in relation to local roads funding consistent with the National Principle relating to the allocation of local roads funding.

Traffic volume data

The allocation of local roads grants for 2007–08 was based on traffic volume data collected by all councils during the 12 months to June 2006. 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 128 563 kilometres of local roads as at 30 June 2006, a decrease of 365 kilometres or 0.3 per cent over the length reported 12 months earlier (Table B.6).

Table B.6: Changes in local road length from 2006–07 to 2007–08 – Victoria

Change in length of local roads No. of councils *

Increase of more than 5.0% 1



No change 24

Decrease of up to 1.0% 5

Decrease of 1.0% to 5.0% 3

Decrease of more than 5.0% 4

Total 79

Note: *Analysis does not include the Docklands Authority Source: Victoria Grants Commission

Asset preservation costs

Average annual costs for each traffic volume range are used in the allocation model to reflect the cost of local road maintenance and renewal. Initial average annual preservation costs were revised for the 2003–04 allocations and remained unchanged for the 2007–08 allocations (Table B.7)

94


Table B.7: Average annual costs used in allocating local road grants for 2007–08 – Victoria

Road type Daily traffic volume Standard annual asset preservation cost

Range $ per km

Kerbed < 500 2 700

500–< 1000 4 000

1000–< 5000 5 500

5000+ 9 000

Unkerbed Natural Surface 300

< 100 2 000

100–< 500 4 000

500–< 1000 4 900

1000+ 5 400

Bridges $ per sq metre

Concrete deck 40

Timber deck 80


Cost modifiers

The allocation model uses a series of five cost modifiers to reflect differences in circumstances between councils in relation to:

• the volume of freight generated by each council

• climate

• the availability of road making materials

• sub-grade conditions

• strategic routes.

Cost modifiers are applied to the average annual preservation costs for each traffic volume range for each council to reflect the level of need of the council relative to others. Relatively high cost modifiers add to the network cost calculated for each council, and so increase its local roads grant outcome.

No changes were made to the application of the cost modifiers used in allocating local roads grants for 2007–08

Grant calculations

The Commission calculates a total network cost for each council’s local road network. This represents the relative annual costs the council faces in maintaining its local road and bridge networks, based on average annual preservation costs and taking account of local conditions, using cost modifiers.

The network cost is calculated using traffic volume data for each council, standard asset preservation costs for traffic volume range and cost modifiers for freight generation, climate, material availability, sub-grade conditions and strategic routes. The deck area of bridges on local roads is included in the

95

Appendix B

network cost at a rate of $40 per square metre for concrete bridges and $80 per square metre for timber bridges.

Mathematically, the calculation of the network cost for a single traffic volume range for a council is expressed as:

Length of local road in category x Standard asset preservation cost for category x Overall cost factor**

**Overall cost factor is calculated by multiplying the 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 2007–08

Table B.8 provides a summary of the changes in local roads grants from 2006–07 to 2007–08.

Table B.8: Changes in local road grant entitlement from 2006–07 to 2007–08 – Victoria

Change in local roads grant No. of councils*

Increase of more than 10.0% 1



Decrease 4

Total 79

Note: *Analysis does not include the Docklands Authority Source: Victoria Grants Commission

In general, any significant change in a council’s local roads grant for 2007–08 was due to changed road length and traffic volume data the council supplied to the Commission.

QueenslandIdentified road grant The identified road grant component of the financial assistance grant is allocated as far as practicable on the basis of relative need of each local government for roads expenditure and to preserve its road assets.

In the 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:

• 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.

96


General purpose component The Commission complies with National Principles when developing and refining the methodology it uses to recommend distribution of the general purpose 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 2007–08 this amount was $17.88 per capita. The remaining 70 per cent of the general purpose pool is distributed according to relative need, applying the National Principle of Horizontal Fiscal 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 the Commission applies averages for revenue and expenditure to each local government, it 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, and other grants. Fees and charges are apportioned on a per capita basis, and garbage revenue is assigned per occupied urban property.

The new rating assessment formula the Commission adopted in April 2004 was used again in allocating the 2007–08 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 of the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission Methodology Review 2003.2 The rating formula is:

• 30 per cent weighting – a minimum rate ($400 for 2007–08) 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 broken across residential, commercial/industrial and rural land use categories.

The result of the two parts above is adjusted for a council’s Index of Economic Resources; one of the ABS’s Socio Economic Index for Areas (SElFA). For 2007–08 a maximum cap of 5 per cent increase in the rating assessment from the previous year was applied.

In accordance with the National Principle for Other Grant Support, grants relevant to the expenditure categories the Commission considered are included as revenue according to the actual amounts councils received rather than a state average. The Queensland Local Government Grants Commission included a further six grants, namely:

• identified road grant (100%)

• library grant (100%)

2 Further information on the change in the rating assessment formula is in Chapter 3 of this report and is available at <www.qlggc.qld.gov.au>.

http://www.qlggc.qld.gov.au

97

Appendix B

• road and drainage grant (50%)

• roads to recovery grant (50%)

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island operating grants (50%)

• minimum general purpose grant (100%).

Assessing expenditure

In assessing council expenditure, the Commission includes eight (non-roads) service categories, namely:

• Administration

• Building control and town planning

• Business and industry development Services

• Community amenities, recreation, culture and libraries

• Education, health, welfare and housing

• Garbage, septic and recycling

• Public order and safety

• Street lighting.

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.

98


Tabl

e B.

9: O

utlin

e of

exp

endi

ture

ass

essm

ent,

2007

–08,

Que

ensl

and

Serv

ices

exp

endi

ture

cat

egor

y20

07–0

8 un

it of

mea

sure

Serv

ices

cos

t adj

usto

rs

Loca

tion

Disp

ersi

on

Dem

ogra

phy

N-R

SESc

ale

Tour

ism

Grow

thur

ban

dens

ity

Age

I ndi

geno

us

Adm

inis

trat

ion

$347

,496

Ioca

tion

+ $1

71.5

3 pe

r pro

pert

y +

$172

.58

per c

apita

XX

XX

X

Build

ing

Cont

rol a

nd T

own

Plan

ning

$118

.48

per r

esid

entia

l Pro

pert

yX

XX

X

Busi

ness

and

Indu

stry

Dev

elop

men

t$3

2.88

per

cap

itaX

XX

X

Com

mun

ity A

men

ities

Rec

reat

ion

Cultu

re a

nd L

ibra

ries

$23,

167

loca

tion

+ $8

8.16

per

cap

itaX

XX

XX

XX

X

Educ

atio

n, H

ealth

Wel

fare

and

Ho

usin

g$3

8.91

per

cap

itaX

XX

XX

X

Garb

age/

Sept

ic/

Recy

clin

g$5

9.14

per

urb

an c

apita

XX

XX

X

Publ

ic O

rder

and

Saf

ety

$22.

26 p

er c

apita

XX

XX

XX

X

Stre

et L

ight

ing

$19.

85 p

er u

rban

cap

itaX

XX

X

Not

e: N

-RSE

= n

on-re

side

nt s

ervi

ce e

xpen

ditu

re

Sour

ce: Q

ueen

slan

d Lo

cal G

over

nmen

t Gra

nts

Com

mis

sion

99

Appendix B

Actual expenditure

Additionally, the Commission considers each local government’s actual expenditure or effort positive expenditure in the categories of Environmental Protection and 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 to 250 vehicles per day is assumed to be a sealed 4/8 road regardless of what is actually on the ground.

Allowances are given for heavy vehicles, and for the provision and barging of plant and material to islands. The allowances are:

• 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.

100


Tabl

e B.

10: R

ural

road

s st

anda

rds

and

cost

adj

usto

rs, Q

ueen

slan

d

Stan

dard

Traf

fic v

olum

e ra

nge

(adj

uste

d ve

hicl

es p

er d

ay)

Base

cos

t Cl

imat

eSo

il su

bgra

deLo

calit

y on

-cos

tTe

rrai

n

$ pe

r km

Favo

urab

le

(Th.

–50

)Ad

vers

e (T

h.

+100

)M

R re

activ

e<

0.1

pers

on

per s

q km

< 1.

0 pe

rson

pe

r sq

kmun

dHi

llyM

ntns

Unfo

rmed

Unfo

rmed

25

0–

+25%

–+5

%+1

0%+2

%+5

%–

Form

ed

< 40

500

–+2

0%–

+5%

+10%

+2%

+5%

–

Pave

d40

–150

2 30

0–

+15%

+10%

+5%

+10%

+2%

+5%

–

Seal

ed 4

/815

0–25

03

000

–10%

+15%

+10%

+2.5

%+5

%+2

%+5

%+1

0%

6/8

250–

1 00

04

000

–7.5

%+1

0%+1

0%+2

.5%

+2.5

%+2

%+5

%+1

0%

7/10

1 00

0–3

000

6 35

0–7

.5%

+10%

+10%

+2.5

%+2

.5%

+2%

+5%

+10%

8/12

> 3

000

8 40

0–7

.5%

+10%

+10%

+2.5

%+2

.5%

+2%

+5%

+10%

Sour

ce: Q

ueen

slan

d Lo

cal G

over

nmen

t Gra

nts

Com

mis

sion

Tabl

e B.

11: u

rban

road

s st

anda

rds

and

cost

adj

usto

rs, Q

ueen

slan

d

Traf

fic v

olum

e ra

nge

(adj

uste

d ve

hicl

es

per d

ay)

Base

cos

t Cl

imat

e So

il su

bgra

de

Loca

lity

on-c

ost

Terr

ain

$ pe

r km

Favo

urab

Ie

(Th.

–50

)Ad

vers

e (T

h. +

100)

MR

reac

tive

< 1.

0 pe

rson

per

sq

km<

0.1

pers

on p

er s

q km

und

Hilly

Mnt

ns

< 50

0 6

048

–7.5

%+1

0%+5

%+2

.5%

+2.5

%–

+2%

+5%

500–

1 00

0 11

232

–7.5

%+1

0%+5

%+2

.5%

+2.5

%–

+2%

+5%

1 00

0–5

000

20 1

60–7

.5%

+10%

+10%

+2.5

%+2

.5%

–+2

%+5

%

5 00

0–10

000

33

120

–7.5

%+1

0%+1

0%+2

.5%

+2.5

%–

+2%

+5%

> 10

000

51

840

–7.5

%+1

0%+1

0%+2

.5%

+2.5

%–

+2%

+5%

Sour

ce: Q

ueen

slan

d Lo

cal G

over

nmen

t Gra

nts

Com

mis

sion

101

Appendix B

Cost adjustors

Cost adjustors are indices applied to expenditure or revenue categories to account for factors outside a council’s control that affect its ability to provide services (see Table B.11).

Averaging

The Commission introduced averaging steps to increase confidence in the results obtained due to previous concerns about data limitations in the calculation methods for roads and rates.

Regression

The first averaging step applies regression analysis to the results produced by the base methodology. Regression is a statistical tool for developing averages based on more than one variable. The Commission decided to average the outcomes of the methodology against population and road length. This ensures the outcomes from the methodology reduce the possibility of wide variations occurring between councils and allows comparability based on population and road length.

Old methodology

The results of averaging with the regression analysis are then averaged with the methodology previously used to assess roads expenditure. This step helps reduce 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 over 90 per cent of councils, but a small number of councils produce anomalous results. It is for these councils that adjustments may be made based on Commission judgement.

Adjustments for 2007–08 were:

Rural regional centre adjustment

In the commission’s judgment, more consistent and likely general purpose grants for Dalby compared to other similar rural regional councils would be:

• Dalby $88.58 per capita (population 10 536)

In 2007–08 no other regional centre adjustments were made.

Aboriginal and Island Councils (including Aurukun and Mornington Island Councils)

Given the general level of increased grants to these 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.

102


Broadsound, Maryborough and Perry Shire Councils

The commission limited the reduction of grants to the councils of Broadsound, Maryborough and Perry 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.

Johnstone and Mareeba Shire Councils

The commission granted adjustments to the Johnstone and Mareeba shire councils due to the impact of Cyclone Larry.

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 that will receive their un-phased grant entitlement. The 2006–07 allocations were the final year of the phase-in of the new methodology; the 2007–08 allocations were based entirely on the methodology without adjustments for phase-in; and 2007–08 was the last year that Step 3 of the methodology was used. This was foreshadowed in the January 2003 report.

Western AustraliaThe Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission (WALGGC) uses the balanced budget method for allocating general purpose funding and an asset preservation model for allocating the identified local road funding component.

The ‘balanced budget’ approach to horizontal equalisation, which applies to all 140 local governments in Western Australia, was based on the formula:

assessed expenditure need – assessed revenue capacity = assessed equalisation requirement

Calculation of assessed revenue capacity, is based on standardised mathematical formulae, and involves assessing each local government’s revenue-raising capacity in the categories of:

• Residential and Commercial/Industrial Rates

• Agricultural Rates

• Pastoral Rates

• Mining Rates

• Recreation and Culture Charges

• Building Charges

• Investment Earnings

• Other Revenue.

Assessed expenditure need, is based on standardised mathematical formulae, involving assessment of each local government’s operating expenditures in the provision of core services and facilities under the ‘standard’ categories of:

• Governance

• Law, Order and Public Safety

103

Appendix B

• Education, Health and Welfare

• Community Amenities

• Recreation and Culture

• Building Control

• Transport.

The 2007–08 grants were based on a four-year average of preliminary equalisation requirements of local governments, consistent with the averaging the WALGGC has used since 2002–03. In using a four-year average, the WALGGC uses the equalisation requirement for the last six years (from 2001–02), and drops the highest and lowest of the six figures out of the average to lessen the impact of aberrations. This method of averaging provides more long-term stability in grant outcomes.

In reviewing the grant allocations derived from the final model, the WALGGC again decided to limit any decreases to an individual local government to a maximum of 15 per cent. The only local governments to benefit from the application of this limit are the City of Albany, the Shire of Coolgardie, the Shire of Chapman Valley, the Shire of Leonora, the City of Kalgoorlie–Boulder, the Shire of Mullewa, and the Shire of Williams. In the 2007–08 grant determinations, 31 local governments received the minimum grant entitlement.

Methodology refinements for 2007–08Refinements made to the methodology, as a result of the WALGGC’s ongoing research programs, public hearing visit programs, and consideration of local government submission claims, are briefly described below.

The major influence in calculating expenditure ‘standards’ was population. The WALGGC used the latest (30 June 2006) ABS estimated residential population data. Other key drivers used in the balanced budget approach were a range of ‘disability factors’, given relative weightings to calculate local governments’ additional expenditure assessments for provision of services.

Consistent with previous years the WALGGC adopted revenue standards for Agricultural rates, Building Control charges, Investment earnings, Mining rates, Other revenue, Pastoral rates, Recreation and Culture charges, and Residential and Commercial/Industrial rates.

A change was made to the Law, Order and Public Safety expenditure standard. In previous years, four different categories were used to assess local government expenditure, based on varying levels of protected dwellings across different areas of Western Australia. Since introduction of the Emergency Services Levy, the cost of fire prevention for local government has become standardised across the state and the WALGGC felt it was appropriate to modify the standard in a way that assesses all local governments using a single equation. A number of options were presented to the WALGGC for all the revised Law, Order and Public Safety standards and an equation using a combination of population and dwellings data was selected as it provided the best correlation to actual expenditure.

The WALGGC made no significant changes in the methods of calculating the remaining expenditure standards; however, some minor changes were:

• One of the National Principles recognises that special purpose grants meet some local governments’ expenditure needs. For the 2007–08 allocations, the total assessed expenditure was discounted by the state average percentage representing special purpose grants over total expenditure, consistent with the treatment in the previous year.

104


• Once again, a broad range of disability factors has been applied. A number of factors – heritage, drainage, jetties, and boat ramps – were reviewed to reflect current information.

• Minor amendments were made to a number of factors, including the Medical Facilities allowance and the Public Toilet allowance. In general, these amendments affected only a small number of local governments.

• The Location factor was updated, with adjustments to the business travel components, to reflect more competitive business environments and higher costs of transportation for local government. This factor remains the most significant of all the WALGGC’s disability factors.

Local road grant fundingUnder the current principles, 7 per cent of federal funds provided for local roads are allocated for special projects (one-third for roads servicing Indigenous communities and two-thirds for bridges). The remaining 93 per cent is distributed in accordance with road preservation needs determined by the WALGGC’s Asset Preservation Model (Table B.12). The model assesses the average annual costs of maintaining each local government’s road network and has the capacity to equalise road standards through applying minimum standards. These standards help local governments that have not been able to develop their road systems to the same standard as more affluent local governments.

The principles of the Asset Preservation Model, such as minimum standards and reconstruction standards, have been retained.

Four local governments received a decrease in their grants with the maximum decrease being 6.7 per cent. Nine local governments received an increase of more than 10 per cent with the maximum being 30 per cent.

Table B.12: Local road funding allocation, 2007–08, Western Australia

Allocation $

Roads Servicing Indigenous Communities 1 918 290

Bridges 3 836 578

Distributed according to the Asset Preservation Model 77 115 619

Total 82 870 487

Source: Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission

Special Projects – Roads Servicing Indigenous Communities

The Indigenous Roads Committee3 advises the WALGGC on procedures for determining allocation of federal road funds for roads servicing remote Indigenous communities, and recommends the allocations each year.

The Committee has established funding criteria based on factors including the number of Indigenous people serviced by a road, the distance of a community from a sealed road, the condition of the road,

3 The Indigenous Roads Committee is made up of representatives from the Western Australian Local Government Association; Main Roads WA; the Department of Indigenous Affairs; the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination; the Department of Local Government and Regional Development; and the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission.

105

Appendix B

the proportion of traffic servicing Indigenous communities and the availability of alternative access. These criteria have provided a rational method of assessing priorities in developing a five-year program. Table B.13 shows the special projects funds for Indigenous access roads in 2007–08.

Table B.13: Special projects funds for Indigenous access roads 2007–08 – Western Australia

Special projects funds $

Commonwealth funds from WALGGC 1 918 290

State funds from Main Roads 959 145

Total 2 877 435

Source: Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission

Special Projects – Bridges

A Bridge Committee4 guides the WALGGC’s policy for allocating funds for bridges. The Committee is informed by the knowledge that some 370 local government bridges are in poor condition, and that their preservation must be given a high priority.

The Special Project funds for bridges are allocated only to preservation type projects, recognising that some of these projects may include upgrading, and that preservation includes replacement when the existing bridge has reached the end of its economic life. Main Roads WA contributes one-third of the cost of all projects funded under the Special Projects program (Table B.14).

Table B.14: Special projects funds for bridge works 2007–08 – Western Australia

Special projects funds $

Financial assistance grants 3 836 578

State funds from Main Roads WA 1 918 289

Total 5 754 867

Source: Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission

The Bridge Committee receives recommendations from Main Roads WA on the priorities of projects under consideration. Main Roads WA has an ongoing program of inspecting and evaluating the condition of local government bridges and has the expertise to assess priorities and make recommendations on remedial measures. As part of the process, local governments make applications to the WALGGC for bridge funding each year.

Methodology reviewThe WALGGC commenced a methodology review during 2007–08, with a view to simplifying and achieving greater transparency of the grants determination process. A consultation strategy was developed to help the WALGGC obtain the views of local governments on a wide range of issues relating to the current methodology. The WALGGC is aiming to complete the review in time for the 2009–10 grant determinations.

4 The Bridge Committee is made up of representatives from the Western Australian Local Government Association; Main Roads WA; and the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission.

106


South AustraliaGeneral purpose grantThe methodology used to assess the general-purpose component of the local government financial assistance grants is intended to achieve an allocation of grants to local governing bodies in the state consistent with the National Principles. The 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 the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth).

The South Australian Local Government Grants Commission applies a direct assessment approach to the calculations. This involves separate estimation of a component revenue grant and a component expenditure grant for each council, which are aggregated to determine each council’s overall equalisation need.

Available funds are distributed in accordance with the relativities established through this process and adjustments are made as necessary to ensure the per capita minimum entitlement is met for each council. For local governing bodies outside the incorporated areas (the Outback Areas Community Development Trust and five Aboriginal Communities) allocations are made on a per capita basis.

The Commission uses standard formula as a basis for both the revenue and expenditure component grants.

Formulae

General financial assistance

The formula for calculating the raw revenue grants can be expressed as:

Similarly, the formula for calculating the raw expenditure grants can be expressed as:

where:

Subscripts of s or c are used to describe whether it applies to the state or a particular council.

G = council’s calculated relative need assessment

P = population

U = unit of measure. Some units of measure are multiplied by a weight.

S = standard, be it cost or revenue =

RRI = Revenue Relativity Index.

CRI = Cost Relativity Index (previously known as the disability factor).

RRIs and CRIs are centred around 1.00. If more than one CRI exists for any function they are multiplied together to give an overall CRI for that function.

107

Appendix B

In the revenue calculations for both residential and rural assessments, the Commission has calculated a revenue relativity index based on the ABS Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Index of Economic Resources. Where no revenue relativity index exists the RRIc = 1.0. Currently in all expenditure calculations, except roads and storm water, no disability factors are applied and consequently CRIc = 1.0.

The raw grants, calculated for all functions using the above formulae, both on the revenue and expenditure sides, are then totalled to give each council’s total raw grant figure. Any council whose raw calculation per head is less than the per capita figure, ($17.81 for 2007–08), 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 2007–08 grants, the Commission constrained changes to councils to between zero and 15 per cent. It then undertook an iterative process until the full allocation was 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.

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

108


Commission assesses expenditure needs and a component expenditure grant for each of a range of functions and these are aggregated to give a total component expenditure grant for each council.

The methodology compares each council per capita against the state average. This enables the comparison to be consistent and to compare like with like.

A main driver or unit of measure is identified for each function. This is divided into the total expenditure on the function for the state as a whole to determine the average or standard cost for the particular function. For example, in the case of the expenditure function built-up sealed roads, ‘kilometres of built-up sealed roads’ is the unit of measure.

Using this example, the length of built-up sealed roads per capita for each council is compared with the state’s length of built-up sealed road per capita. The difference –be it positive, negative or zero – is then multiplied by the average cost per kilometre for construction and maintenance of built-up sealed roads for the state as a whole (standard cost). This in turn is multiplied back by the council’s population to give the component expenditure grant for the function.

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; for example, to reconstruct or maintain a kilometre of road. Accordingly, the methodology allows for a cost relativity index (CRI), to be determined for each expenditure function for each council. Indices are centred around 1.0, and are used to inflate or deflate the component grant for each council. In the case of roads, 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 (except the newly revised road lengths) are averaged over three years.

Table B.15 details the approach taken to expenditure functions included in the methodology.

Table B.15: Expenditure functions, standard cost and units of measure – South Australia

Expenditure Function Standard Cost units of Measure

Waste Management Reported expenditures 1 Number of residential properties

Aged Care Services Reported expenditures 1 Population aged 65+ per ABS Census and estimated resident population

Services to Families and Children Reported expenditures 1 Population aged 0–14 yrs per ABS Census and estimated resident population

Health Inspection Reported expenditures 1 Establishments to inspect

Libraries Set at 1.00. Number of library visitors

Sport and Recreation Reported expenditures 1 Population aged 5–49 years per ABS Census and estimated resident population

Sealed Roads – Built-Up 5 Reported expenditures 1 Kilometres of built-up sealed road as reported in GIR

Sealed Roads – Non-built-up 5 Reported expenditures 1 Kilometres of non-built-up sealed road as reported in GIR

Sealed Roads – Footpaths etc Set at 1.00. Kilometres of built-up sealed road as reported in GIR

Unsealed Roads – Built-up 5 Reported expenditures 1 Kilometres of built-up unsealed road as reported in GIR

Unsealed Roads – Non-built-up 5 Reported expenditures 1 Kilometres of non-built-up unsealed road as reported in GIR

Unformed Roads 5 Reported expenditures 1 Kilometres of unformed road as reported in GIR

109

Appendix B

Expenditure Function Standard Cost units of Measure

Stormwater Drainage Maintenance 2, 3

Reported expenditures 1 Number of urban properties 4

Community Support Set at 1.00. 3 year average population SEIFA Advantage/Disadvantage CRI

Jetties and Wharves Set at 1.00. Number of Jetties and Wharves

Public Order and Safety Set at 1.00. Total number of properties

Planning and Building Control Reported expenditures 1 Number of new developments and additions

Bridges Set at 1.00. Number of bridges

Other Needs Assessment7 Set at 1.00. Based on Commission determined relative expenditure needs in a number of areas 6

Notes: 1 Council’s expenditures reported in the Commission’s Supplementary returns.2 Includes both construction and maintenance activities.3 The Commission has also decided, for these functions, to use CRIs based on the results of a previous consultancy by BC

Tonkin and Associates.4 Urban properties = sum [residential properties, commercial properties, industrial properties, exempt residential properties,

exempt commercial properties, exempt industrial properties].5 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. 6 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 (ABS).• 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 Indigenous people – identified by the proportion of the

population identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.• Unemployment – identified by the proportion of the population unemployed.• Capital City status – gives recognition to such things as the ability of the council to raise revenue from sources other

than rates (i.e. car parking and from the Wingfield dump) and their extraordinary expenditure need (i.e. due to the requirement that they maintain the entire road network within the City) and due to the daily influx of non-resident population.

7 This final factor Other Needs Assessment (also known as Function 50) originates from awareness by the Commission that there are many non-quantifiable factors, which may influence a council’s expenditure, and that it is not always possible to determine objectively the extent to which a council’s expenditure is affected by these factors. The Commission is aware that many factors may influence a council’s expenditure and that it is not always possible to determine objectively the extent to which a council’s expenditure is affected by inherent or special factors. Therefore, in determining units of measure and cost relativity indices, the Commission must exercise its judgement based on experience, the evidence submitted to the Commission, and the knowledge it has gained during visits to council areas and as a result of discussions with elected members and staff.

Source: South Australian Local Government Grants Commission

Calculated standards by function

The Commission uses Table B.16 to enable it to calculate a council’s raw grant for each given function. To do this it calculates each council’s unit of measure per capita, compares it with the similar figure from the table and then multiplies the difference by the standard from the table and its own population. If CRIs are applicable they must be included as a multiplier against the council’s unit of measure per capita.

It must be stressed that this 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.

110


Table B.16: Expenditure functions, standard cost, units of measure and aggregate units of measure – South Australiaa

FunctionStandard

($)unit of measure

per capitaTotal units of

measure unit of measure

Expenditure functions

Aged care services 80.17 0.15268 234 518 Population aged more than 65 years

Bridges 2 775.61 0.00051 780 Number of bridges

Community support 17.21 0.99986 1 535 742 Three-year average population (SEIFA Advantage/Disadvantage CRI)

Health inspection 282.52 0.01435 22 041 Establishments to inspect

Jetties and wharves 6 947.26 0.00007 107 Number of jetties and wharves

Libraries 4.84 7.36201 11 307 767 Number of visitors

Other special needs 1.00 26.25692 40 329 600 Total of dollars attributed

Planning and building control 603.40 0.03583 55 036 Number of new developments and additions

Public order and safety 12.49 0.56095 861 601 Total number of properties

Roads – unformed 184.88 0.00587 9 013 Kilometres of natural surfaced unformed

Sealed roads – built-up 8 097.85 0.00652 10 011 Kilometres of sealed built-up

Sealed roads – footpaths, etc. 7 869.52 0.00652 10 011 Kilometres of sealed built-up

Sealed roads – non-built-up 8 097.85 0.00443 6 804 Kilometres of sealed non-built-up

Services to families and children

38.49 0.18371 282 167 Population aged 0 to 14 years

Sport and recreation 117.89 0.60777 933 516 Population aged 5 to 49 years

Stormwater drainage – maintenance

41.89 0.44232 679 388 Number of urban, industrial and commercial properties including exempt

Unsealed roads – built-up 1 202.56 0.00052 805 Kilometres of formed and surfaced and natural surfaced formed built-up

Unsealed roads – non-built-up 1 202.56 0.03105 47 688 Kilometres of formed and surfaced and natural surfaced formed non-built-up

Waste management 121.17 0.40933 628 714 Number of residential properties

Revenue functions

Rates – commercial 0.0059 12 398 19 046 019 921 Valuation of commercial

Rates – industrial 0.0084 2 033 3 123 737 250 Valuation of commercial

Rates – other 0.0026 6 442 9 896 073 878 Valuation of other

Rates – residential 0.0032 106 824 157 438 836 815 Valuation of residential

Rates – rural 0.0028 17 457 27 180 936 066 Valuation of rural

Subsidies 1.00 23.03475 35 380 485 Total of subsidies

Note: a Total population = 1 554 656 Source: South Australia Local Government Grants Commission

111

Appendix B

Aggregated revenue and expenditure grants

Component grants for all revenue categories and expenditure functions, calculated for each council using the method outlined above, are aggregated to give each council’s total raw grant figure.

Where the raw grant calculation per head of population for a council is less than the per capita minimum established as set out in the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth), ($17.81 for 2007–08), the grant is adjusted to bring it up to the per capita minimum entitlement. The balance of the allocated amount, less allocation to other local governing bodies outside the incorporated areas, is then apportioned to the remaining councils based on their calculated proportion of the raw grant.

Commission determined limits may then be applied to minimise the impact on councils’ budgetary processes. In calculating the 2007–08 grants, the Commission constrained changes to councils to between zero and 15 per cent. It then undertook an iterative process until the full allocation was determined.

Identified local road grantIn South Australia, the identified local road grants pool is divided into formula grants (85%) and special local road grants (15%).

The formula component is divided between metropolitan and non-metropolitan councils on the basis of an equal weighting of road length and population.

In the metropolitan area, the Commission again determines allocations to individual councils by an equal weighting of population and road length. In the non-metropolitan area, it makes allocations 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, which 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 a prescribed 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, with particular emphasis on those functions at present undertaken by local councils elsewhere in the state.

Due to the lack of comparable data, the Commission is not able to calculate the grant to the Trust in the same way as grants to other local governing bodies; rather, a per capita grant has been established. The 2007–08 per capita grant was $233.33.

Indigenous Communities

Since 1994–95 the Commission has allocated grants to five Indigenous communities recognised as local governing authorities for the purposes of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth). 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 way as grants to other local governing bodies. Initially, the Commission used the services of a consultant,

112


Alan Morton, of Morton Consulting Services, who completed a study on the expenditure needs of the communities and their revenue-raising capacities. Comparisons were made with communities in other states and per capita grants were established.

Grants have gradually been increased since the initial study. For 2007–08, the per capita grant varied from $341.45 for Nepabunna to $552.21 for Yalata Community Council.

TasmaniaGeneral purpose componentThe Tasmanian State Local Government Grants Commission introduced a revised equalisation model in 2005–06 in response to the 2001 Commonwealth Grants Commission review into the operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth). The Tasmanian State Local Government Grants Commission resolved to phase in the revised model distribution over four years against the last distribution determined by the previous model. Therefore, for 2007–08, the general-purpose distribution is three years into the phase-in and is determined on the basis of a 25 per cent weighting for the previous distribution method, plus a 75 per cent weighting of the revised distribution.

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 ‘requirement’ necessary to provide services to a common standard with all other councils, and council revenue ‘capacity’ is based on the statewide average rate per dollar.

Each council’s expenditure requirement is calculated as follows:

• the expenditure required to provide a common range of services, given that council’s unique cost conditions (standardised expenditure), plus

• any allowances made in respect of the cost of providing services which are not adequately captured as standardised expenditure, plus

• the Budget Result Term, which is a per capita allocation of the difference between all statewide sources of revenue, including the grant pool, and all statewide revenue requirements. The inclusion of the Budget Result Term enables a balanced budget at the state level.

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 municipality’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

113

Appendix B

• 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.

A full explanation of the operation of the model follows.

Calculation of standardised revenue

Each council’s standardised revenue is determined by multiplying the rateable assessed annual value (AAV) of properties in the municipality by the average revenue per dollar of AAV as calculated by the Commission. The Commission uses AAV data, adjustment factors and exempt AAV information supplied by the Office of the Valuer-General, and rate revenue information obtained from the Local Government Division’s Consolidated Data Collection. An adjustment is made to account for the value of properties that are partially exempt from rates, that is, liable for service charges only.

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.

The total revenue from all sources, which the Commission has determined should be included in the model, is summed and divided by the total AAV (as modified by the Valuer-General’s adjustment factors) to arrive at a state average revenue per dollar of AAV. This is multiplied by each council’s adjusted AAV to arrive at the council’s standardised revenue.

The final standardised revenue measure used in the base grant assessments is the relevant three-year average standardised revenue for each council.

Calculation of standardised expenditure

In general, the Commission works on the principle that the cost of providing council services varies in proportion to the number of residents. Therefore, to determine standard expenditures ‘required’ to provide services, the Commission multiplies state average expenditures per capita by the number of residents in each municipality.

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 through application of council-specific cost adjustors, which represent these unavoidable cost pressures, to standard expenditures to determine standardised expenditures for each council.

The Commission applies this method of estimating standardised expenditure 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.17.

114


Table B.17: Description of non-road expenditure functions, Tasmania

Expenditure function 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

Law, order and public safety

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

Planning and community amenities

Planning and building services, street lighting, public conveniences, shopping malls, cemeteries and crematoria

Recreation and culture Public halls and civic centres, swimming pools, parks and playing grounds, sports assistance and promotion; libraries and other cultural services

Sewerage Provision of sewerage services

Waste management and the environment

Household and other garbage services, urban stormwater drainage, street cleaning, flood mitigation and other protection of the environment

Water Provision of water services

Source: Tasmanian State Grants Commission

Application of council-specific cost adjustors

Cost adjustors are used to reflect the inherent relative cost advantages or disadvantages councils face in providing services. A range of adjustors has been developed to account for differences between councils in the demand for a service as well as variations in the per unit cost of supplying that service.

An adjustor is calculated for each municipality by comparing its demand or supply disadvantage with the state average. Councils that demonstrate the average level of advantage/disadvantage for each expenditure category are assigned a cost adjustor of 1.00. All other councils are compared to the average councils to determine their relative cost adjustors, which are always less than one if the council is assessed to enjoy a cost advantage and greater than one if the council is assessed to suffer a cost disadvantage.

The Commission has recognised and adopted a method to quantify the following cost adjustors:

• Absentee population

• Climate

• Daytripper tourism

• Dispersion

• Equivalent tenements (Sewerage)

• Equivalent tenements (Water)

• Isolation

• Population decline

• Regional responsibility

• Scale (Administration)

• Scale (Other)

115

Appendix B

• Unemployment

• Worker influx.

The Commission’s application of cost adjustors to each expenditure category is detailed in Table B.18.

Table B.18: Application of cost adjustors to expenditure standards – Tasmania

Expenditure category Cost adjustors

Education, health housing and welfare

Population decline, Unemployment

General administration Absentee population, Isolation, Population decline, Scale (Administration)

Law order and public safety Dispersion, Population decline, Daytripper tourism, Unemployment

Other No cost adjustors applied to Other expenditure

Planning and community amenities

Absentee population, Climate, Dispersion, Isolation, Population decline, Scale (Other), Daytripper tourism, Worker influx

Recreation and culture Absentee population, Climate, Dispersion, Isolation, Population decline, Regional responsibility, Scale (Other), Daytripper tourism, Worker influx

Sewerage Absentee population, Climate, Dispersion, Equivalent tenements (Sewerage), Isolation, Population decline, Scale (Other)

Waste management and the environment

Absentee population, Climate, Dispersion, Population decline, Scale (Other), Daytripper tourism, Worker influx

Water Absentee population, Climate, Dispersion, Equivalent tenements (Water), Isolation, Population decline, Scale (Other)


An outline of the approach the Commission has developed to quantify each cost adjustor follows.

Absentee population

The Commission makes an allowance for the additional population, which is not captured in the Census statistics, but which nevertheless must be serviced. Specific reference is made to those municipalities that have a significant number of holiday residences. Calculation of this cost adjustor is based on the proportion of unoccupied dwellings in each municipality at the time of the 2001 Census.

The Commission has continued to make an adjustment to raw data determining the absentee population cost adjustor, in order to recognise the situation faced by West Coast Council where mineworkers reside outside the municipality between shifts. It was accepted that the existing statistics do not adequately reflect this phenomenon, and an additional 800 dwellings are added to the unoccupied dwelling data used for the West Coast Council, to compensate.

Climate

The climate cost adjustor recognises additional costs arising from climatic factors, such as excessive ‘downtime’ of outdoor work due to rain, as well as increased maintenance costs on council infrastructure through adverse weather. Calculation of the climate cost adjustor is based on the total annual rainfall in each municipality’s administrative centre, as indicated by Bureau of Meteorology data. Cost adjustors greater than 1.00 occur only for those centres recording greater than 1000 millimetres of precipitation per year.

116


Daytripper 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 daytrippers who make use of council facilities are recognised as causing an increase in council costs. Data on the number of daytrippers visiting each municipality are sourced from Tourism Research Australia (formerly the Bureau of Tourism Research), and form the basis for calculating this cost adjustor. The Commission no longer uses estimates of overnight stays or bed numbers as part of the calculation.

Dispersion

The dispersion cost adjustor relates to the additional costs incurred in servicing a widely scattered population within a municipality. 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 according to:

• the number of population centres in each municipality

• the population-weighted distance between those centres and the municipality’s administrative centre

• the dwelling-weighted distance between those centres and the municipality’s administrative centre.

Equivalent tenements

Use of population numbers to estimate standard water and sewerage expenditure does not recognise expenditures incurred in providing water and sewerage services to non-residential establishments. The Commission has therefore developed a cost adjustor to recognise the cost of providing these services to commercial properties. This has been done by dividing the total assessed annual 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 supplying necessary construction and maintenance materials.

The cost adjustor is calculated according to a weighted sum of distances between each municipality’s main centre, the relevant regional centres and Hobart, being the main focus for administrative and political activities within the state.

In calculating the Isolation cost adjustor, the air travel component of the kilometre distances from King Island to Burnie and from Flinders Island to Launceston are inflated by 100 per cent to reflect the additional expense of travelling by air.

Population decline

The Commission recognises that councils face certain disadvantages as a result of fluctuations in population levels. Managing such fluctuations typically requires planning horizons of several years or more. Some councils are faced with excess capacity in certain service areas when subject to rapid population decline. This confronts councils with proportionally higher expenditure burdens per capita,

117

Appendix B

mainly due to certain costs which are largely fixed and therefore do not reduce in line with declining population.

The cost adjustors for population decline are determined by comparing the average annual rate of population decline for a particular municipality over a five-year period, against the average rate of population decline for all councils experiencing a decline over that five-year period.

Regional responsibility

A cost adjustor is applied to the relevant expenditures of those municipalities that provide particular services not only for its own residents but also for the residents of surrounding municipalities. Formerly, this cost adjustor applied to general administration, planning and community amenities, and recreation and culture, but it now has application only to the latter expenditure category. The extent of cost adjustment is based on Commission judgement.

Scale

The cost adjustor accounts for the diseconomies of scale that smaller councils face in providing some services. Diseconomies occur where the cost per capita of a certain activity is greater for councils with a smaller population than for those with a larger one. For example, each council requires a general manager whether the municipal population is 1000 or 100 000. The cost per capita 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.

Unemployment

The Commission has calculated a cost adjustor reflecting the level of unemployment within a municipality, using data on unemployment rates and labour force numbers from the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. This cost adjustor has been calculated to capture the additional costs that councils incur by virtue of having a higher than average proportion of unemployed working-age residents. For example, additional expenditure might be incurred in providing welfare programs as a result of the need to cater for unemployed residents.

Worker influx

This cost adjustor reflects the additional costs imposed on those municipalities that have significant daily net influxes of non-resident workers.

Determination of this cost adjustor involves estimating, from 2001 Census data provided by the ABS, both the number of residents working outside the municipality and the number of non-residents working within the municipality. The difference, or the net worker inflow, is then used to derive a cost adjustor that relates to actual total population.

Allocation of expenditure allowances

Expenditure allowances are included in the measure of a council’s expenditure requirement where the cost of providing a service is not adequately captured in standardised expenditure. Calculated standardised expenditure may fail to adequately reflect the relative cost of providing a service if the service is not provided by all councils, or if there is inadequate data upon which to base calculation of a cost adjustor to reflect cost differences between councils in providing the service.

118


For 2007–08, expenditure allowances totalling $210 000 were allocated to councils, representing less than 0.05 per cent of the total expenditure requirement across all councils (Table B.19). The quantum of allowances is based on established cost benchmarks or on information sourced directly from affected councils.

Table B.19: Expenditure allowances allocated to councils, 2007–08 – Tasmania

Allowance description Allowance ($) Recipient councils

Provision of services in support of general practitioners

20 000 per GP

Central Highlands (x2)

Glamorgan Spring Bay (x2)

Huon Valley (x1)

Tasman (x1)

Provision of airport services 35 000 per airport

Flinders

King Island

Provision of services to Cape Barren Island

20 000 Flinders


Allowances allocated in previous years, in respect of communication costs associated with location, have been discontinued given that these costs are recognised through the expenditure reallocation associated with the dispersion cost adjustor.

An allowance in respect of the cost of maintaining and operating airport facilities was introduced in 2005–06 following deletion of the scale-low cost adjustor, which was previously applied to Flinders and King Island councils in recognition of these costs.

Calculation of standardised roads expenditure

The Commission uses an asset preservation model to assess standardised road expenditure. This model, known as the Roads Preservation Model, is also used to determine the distribution of Identified Local Road Funds (ILRF) grants.

Standardised roads expenditure for each council is determined by applying the ILRF distribution proportions indicated by the Roads Preservation Model to the total of all councils’ actual roads expenditures.

To accord with the National Principle, while ensuring that the grant distribution reflects the particular mix of road and bridge assets maintained by Tasmanian councils, ILRF grants are distributed in the following manner:

• Road preservation component – 90 per cent of funds – based on the relative road expenditure needs of each council as determined using the Roads Preservation Model.

• Bridge expenditure component – 10 per cent of funds – based on relative bridge deck areas (including all concrete and wooden bridges, and culverts over three metres total span).

Determination of roads preservation component

The Roads Preservation Model assesses the total asset preservation requirement for each council in four road classes: urban sealed, urban unsealed, rural sealed and rural unsealed roads.

119

Appendix B

Councils report road lengths for each of the four road classes through the Consolidated Data Collection. Performance standards and specific costs relating to maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction tasks are applied for each road class.

Application of performance standards and specific costs to each council’s reported road length provides a measure of unadjusted cost for each road type.

To the unadjusted cost for each road type, the Commission applies cost adjustors – rainfall, terrain, traffic and remoteness – to provide a measure of costs adjusted to account for ‘disabilities’ assessed. Cost adjustors calculated for each cost element are applied to all maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction tasks.

Rainfall cost adjustor

The cost adjustor for rainfall provides a measure of the relative cost advantage or disadvantage associated with the rainfall incidence on each council’s road network.

The rainfall cost adjustor is calculated from road rainfall data provided by the Geographic Information System (GIS) operated by the Department of Primary Industries and Water. The GIS provides, for each council and each road class, a measure of road lengths subject to total rainfall bands of less than 600 millimetres per annum, 600 to 1000 millimetres per annum, and greater than 1000 millimetres per annum. The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia group recommended the rainfall thresholds.

Road lengths within the rainfall bands are weighted by cost factors to provide an overall rainfall cost adjustor for each road type.

Terrain cost adjustor

The cost adjustor for terrain provides a measure of the relative cost advantage or disadvantage associated with the various terrains on which councils’ road networks are built.

The cost adjustor is calculated from terrain data provided by the Department of Primary Industries and Water’s GIS. The GIS provides, for each council and road class, a measure of road lengths built on terrain in the slope bands of less than 0.5 degrees, 0.5 to 9.0 degrees, and greater than 9.0 degrees. The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia group recommended the terrain bands.

Road lengths within these terrain bands are weighted by cost factors to provide an overall terrain cost adjustor for each road type.

Traffic cost adjustor

The cost adjustor for traffic provides a measure of the relative cost disadvantage associated with heavy vehicle traffic that affects each council’s road network.

The cost adjustor is calculated from data provided by the Major Freight Demanders Survey undertaken by the Department of Industry, Energy and Resources. The Major Freight Demanders Survey is a survey of the largest 120 freight demanders in Tasmania, and provides detailed road length and tonnage data associated with the actual routes used to transport freight to those demanders.

Categorising each identified route into the four road classes disaggregates the Major Freight Demanders Survey tonnage and kilometre data. Relative positions for each council are established by dividing each council’s total tonne per kilometres by its road length for each road type. The traffic cost adjustor for each road class is calculated by ranging these relative positions between certain limits.

Remoteness cost adjustor

The model adjusts costs equally in all road classes by a cost adjustor calculated to account for remoteness. The cost adjustor provides a measure of the relative cost disadvantages associated

120


with distance from suppliers of road-making materials, because cartage costs are a significant cost component of all road works.

The remoteness cost adjustor is calculated from distances recorded between a central point in each council’s road network and one of the four major centres of Burnie, Devonport, Launceston or Hobart, whichever is the closer, where the largest road materials suppliers are located. The ‘non-land’ component of distances from Flinders Island and King Island to their respective regional centres is inflated by 50 per cent in recognition of the higher cost of transport to the two island councils.

Identified Local Road Funds distribution shares

Under the Commission’s revised methodology, 90 per cent of ILRF are allocated on the basis of each council’s share of the assessed roads expenditure, as calculated by the Roads Preservation Model. The remaining 10 per cent is distributed on the basis of each council’s share of total bridge deck areas. For 2007–08, 60 per cent of the ILRF were distributed in accordance with this method. The remaining 40 per cent is distributed according to the shares shown in the 2005–06 Modified Mulholland Model.

Northern TerritoryThe Northern Territory Grants Commission’s methodology conforms to the requirement for horizontal equalisation as set out in section 6(3) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth).

The 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 population increases and decreases, where they occur, 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 methodologyIn 2005, the Commission corrected a number of inconsistencies in its methodology that the Commonwealth Grants Commission had identified. These corrections included the manner in which the cost adjustors were applied, introduction of a budget term, and elimination of an economy of scale factor.

As well, 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.

In 2007–08 the Commission continued to apply its revised methodology.

121

Appendix B

Population

The Commission has where possible used the latest ABS estimated residential population figures. Where no estimated residential population figures are available, the Commission uses figures obtained from local government by annual survey.

Revenue-raising capacity

As the ownership of the land upon which many communities are located is vested in Land Trusts established under the Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cwlth), it is not, for all intents and purposes, feasible to use a land valuation system solely as the means for assessing revenue-raising capacity.

The advent of actual accurate financial data enabled the Commission to dispense with using average annual incomes, which had been used since 1992, for establishing a 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 territory operational subsidy, Roads to Recovery, library and local roads grants are considered in the methodology. In the case of recipients of the 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 Territory, this approach provides a reasonable indication of a council’s revenue-raising capacity.

Expenditure needs

Assessment of standard expenditure is based on the territory average per capita expenditure within the expenditure categories to which cost adjustors reflecting the assessed disadvantage of each local government 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 a hypothetical spread across categories to establish the total standardised expenditure for each local governing body.

In assessing the previous allocations up to and including the assessment for 2005–06, the Commission took into account six expenditure categories. As a result of the methodology review, the Commission resolved that the nine ABS expenditure categories be applied. Consequently, for the 2007–08 assessment the nine categories were used.

Cost adjustors

The Commission uses cost adjustors to reflect a local government’s demographic, geographic location, external access and the area over which it is required to provide local government services. All of these influence the cost of service delivery.

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 result in total standardised expenditure equal to total actual expenditure, or ‘natural weighting’.

122


Natural weighting is achieved in the Commission’s methodology by rescaling cost adjustors around 1.0 to ensure the 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 governments. This approach requires that grants be based on a three-year average of the preliminary assessed equalisation requirement.

To arrive at the average, the Commission uses the assessments of need for the year under consideration plus the assessments for each of the preceding four years. It then drops the highest and the lowest of the five assessments out of the average.

Minimum grants

For most local governments, the assessed expenditure needs exceed the assessed revenue capacity meaning there is an assessed need. In one particular case, assessed revenue-raising capacity is greater than assessed expenditure need meaning there is no assessed need. However, as the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) requires that local governments cannot get less than 30 per cent of what they would have been allocated had the funding been distributed solely based on population, this local government still receives a grant (referred to as the minimum grant). Changes to the methodology mean the largest of the municipal councils and around 18 of the very small councils are potentially minimum grant councils.

Formula

Revenue component

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 capital

Interest = actual

State income by revenue category 2005–06 = actual state local government gross income

Actual state local government gross income 2005–06 = $86 228 213

Other grant support = Northern Territory operational subsidy 2006–07, 50 per cent, Roads to Recovery grant; and 2006–07 50 per cent, library grant 2006–07 + roads grant 2006–07

Budget term = population x per capita amount

Total local government revenue 2007–08 = $146 978 213

123

Appendix B

Expenditure component

Total local government expenditure of $146 978 213 is apportioned over each expenditure component (Table B.20).

Table B.20: Application of cost adjustors to expenditure functions, 2007–08 – Northern Territory

Expenditure function Measures Amount ($)

Economic affairs Community population/territory population x Economic Affairs expenditure x (isolation works + dispersion + growth)

23 957 365

Education Community population/territory population x Education expenditure x (isolation administration + aboriginality + growth)

1 541 938

Environmental protection

Community population/territory population x Environmental Protection expenditure x (isolation works + dispersion + growth)

11 654 941

General public services Community population/territory population x NT General Public Services expenditure x (isolation Administration + dispersion + aboriginality)

40 765 178

Health Community population/territory population x Health expenditure x (isolation administration + aboriginality + growth)

5 184 037


Community population/territory population x Housing and Community Amenities expenditure x (isolation works + dispersion + aboriginality + growth)

31 727 944

Public order and safety Community population/territory population x Public Order and Safety expenditure x (isolation works + dispersion + aboriginality + growth)

2 078 260

Recreation, culture and religion

Community population/territory population x Recreation, Culture and Religion expenditure x (isolation administration + isolation works + growth)

21 747 200

Social protection Community population/territory population x Social Protection expenditure x (isolation administration + aboriginality + growth)

8 321 350

Source: Northern Territory Grants Commission

Local road component

To determine the local road grant the Commission applies a weighting to each council by road length and surface type. These weightings are:

• 10 x kerbed and sealed road + 8 x sealed road + 4 x gravel road + 1 x formed road + 0.4 x unformed road + 2 x cycle paths.

Australian Capital TerritoryThe Australian Capital Territory requires no distribution of grants because the ACT Government directly exercises local government functions.

124


Appendix CComparison 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 2007–08.

Local road componentThe 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 90 per cent of funds on an asset preservation model with the remaining 10 per cent of funds allocated according to relative bridge deck area.

125

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 states. 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 2007–08.

Table C.1: Features of local government grants commission models for assessing local road need, 2007–08

Jurisdiction 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 90% of the road grant is based on an asset preservation model with 10% of the grant allocated on the basis of bridge deck area.

NT Allocation is based on weights applied to road length and surface type.

The minimum allocation for a council is $10 000.

Source: Compiled using information provided by local government grants commissions

General purpose componentIn 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 main 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.

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

126


grant with the remaining grants allocated, as far as practicable, on a horizontal equalisation basis. This practice usually results in commissions adopting a three-step procedure to determine general purpose grant allocations, namely:

• 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 basisThe 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 and is based on the expenditure undertaken and revenue obtained by all councils in the jurisdiction.

If a council is operating at the average standard it would, under a horizontal equalisation approach, 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, namely:

• 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.

127

Appendix C

Table C.2 shows the differences in the distribution models that commissions use.

Table C.2: Differences in the distribution models grants commissions use for the general purpose component for 2006–07 allocations

Jurisdiction Model used

NSW Direct Assessment Model

Vic. Balanced Budget Model

Assistance for natural disaster relief taken out of the pool

Qld Balanced Budget Model

WA Balanced Budget Mode

SA Direct Assessment Model

For the Outback Areas Community Development Trust and five Indigenous Communities allocations are made on a per capita basis

Tas. Balanced Budget model

NT Balanced Budget model

Source: Table 11-1 in Commonwealth Grants Commission Working Papers updated for subsequent changes with information provided by local government grants commissions.

Balanced Budget Model

The commissions in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory use the balanced budget approach. Their models are based on making an assessment of each council’s costs of providing services and its capacity to raise revenue, including its capacity to obtain other grant assistance.

Horizontal equalisation, as defined in the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth), is about identifying advantaged and disadvantaged councils and bringing all the disadvantaged councils up to the financial position of a council operating at the average standard. This means the task of the commissions is to calculate, for each disadvantaged council, the level of general purpose grants it requires to balance its assessed costs and assessed revenues.

This type of distribution model can be specified as:

general purpose grant equals assessed costs of providing services

plus assessed average operating surplus/deficit

less assessed revenue

less actual receipt of other grant assistance

Direct Assessment Model

The commissions in New South Wales and South Australia use the direct assessment approach. Their models are based on making an assessment of the level of advantage or disadvantage in each area of expenditure and revenue and summing these assessments over all areas of expenditure and revenue for all councils.

128


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 advantage or disadvantage for each area of expenditure and revenue, including for other grant assistance.

Horizontal equalisation, as defined in the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth), is about identifying advantaged and disadvantaged councils and bringing all the disadvantaged councils up to the financial position of a council operating at the average standard. Thus, the task is to calculate the level of general purpose grants that would balance a disadvantaged council’s assessed expenditures and assessed revenues. This type of distribution model can be specified as:

general purpose grant equals an equal per capita share of general purpose grants

plus expenditure needs

plus revenue needs

plus other grant assistance needs

The balanced budget and direct assessment models will produce identical assessments of financial capacity for each council if the assessed average operating surplus or deficit is included in the balanced budget model.

Scope of equalisationThe scope of equalisation is about the sources of revenue raised and the types of expenditure activities that a commission includes when determining 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

Jurisdiction

NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT

Expenditure

Administration Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Agency arrangements No Yes No No No Yes No

Building control Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Capital No No No No Yes No No

Community amenities Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Debt servicing No Yes No No No Yes No

Depreciation No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

Education, health and welfare Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Electricity No No No No No No No

Entrepreneurial activity No No No No No Yes No

Garbage No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Law, order and public safety Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Recreation and culture Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sewerage No No No No No Yes No

129

Appendix C

Transport:

airports

local roads

other transport

public transport

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Water No No No No No Yes No

Revenue

Airport charges No No Yes No No Yes No

Garbage charges No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

Operation subsidies No No No No Yes Yes Yes

Other user charges No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Parking fees and fines No No Yes No No No Yes

Rate revenue Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sewerage charges No No No No No Yes No

Water charges No No No No No Yes No

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 use for assessing local road needs when allocating general purpose grants in 2007–08 are discussed below.

New South Wales used 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 all increase expenditure allowances for each council. New South Wales 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 that of 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 as 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

130


loading, climate, drainage, materials, terrain and wet days. The data for all factors (apart from location) are based on councils’ own estimates.

Queensland uses a different model for assessing roads needs in the general purpose model. Queensland’s asset preservation model uses costs to maintain a council’s road network, including bridges and hydraulics, in average condition. It takes into account traffic volume (including heavy vehicles), type of construction, and cost adjusters, such as climate, soil, terrain and location.

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, namely:

• 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. South Australia has developed cost relativity indices for each road category, to determine why it costs one council more than another to reconstruct or maintain one 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 bridge maintenance into account by converting the bridge length into an equivalent road length in 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:

• cycle path – 2.0

• formed – 1.0

• gravel – 4.0

• sealed – 8.0

• sealed, kerbed and guttered – 10.0

• unformed – 0.4

131

Appendix C

Revenue assessmentsSources 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.

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 each council’s relative revenue-raising capacity. 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.

When assessing rates revenue in 2007–08, Victoria applied an average statewide rate in the dollar to capital improved values, averaged over two years. An assessment of councils’ relative capacity to generate revenue from user fees and changes was also applied.

Own-source revenue for family services, heritage, culture and recreation, and traffic management were taken into account indirectly in the assessment. These are included on the expenditure side of the method and are treated as negative expenditure functions.

Queensland used 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 ($400 for 2007–08). The result of these two parts is adjusted for a council’s Index of Economic Resources, one of ABS’s SEIFA. For 2007–08 a maximum cap of 5 per cent increase in the rating assessment from the previous year was applied.

Indigenous councils were 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 rate revenue capacity of urban properties is estimated as the sum of two components, namely:

• 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), the number of agricultural properties and area of agricultural land. Pastoral rate capacity is based on unimproved capital values averaged over three years. Mining rate capacity is estimated with reference to mining unimproved capital value and a per assessment component.

Western Australia assesses revenue capacity for recreation and culture, and building control fees and charges, and for revenues in other categories, revenues are netted out from expenditure.

132


South Australia estimates a statewide average rate in the dollar and applies it to the difference between each council’s improved capital values per capita and the state’s improved capital value per capita for five land use categories – commercial, industrial, other, residential, and rural.

To overcome fluctuations in the base data, valuations, rate revenue and population are averaged over three years.

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, and 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 Indigenous communities, or a relatively few more-densely settled municipalities. Land trusts own the land in most Indigenous communities and no possibility exists of determining distinct properties and values for assessing rate revenue-raising capacity. For this reason, statistics of personal income are used in estimating some council’s revenue-raising capacity, 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 2006–07 revenue categories of domestic waste and interest income were introduced.

Expenditure assessmentsIn addition to expenditure on roads, local governments’ main expenditures are on general public services (including the organisation and general and financial administration of councils), recreation facilities, and sanitation and protection of the environment, (including disposal of sewerage, storm water 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 these expenditure needs. In addition, nine cost adjusters (disability factors) are applied, including for Indigenous descent where an additional 50 per cent per capita in each category is allowed.

133

Appendix C

Western Australia assesses seven expenditure categories and 18 disabilities. It defines standard expenditure as a minimum amount specific to each category, and sometimes to a class within each category, and amounts per unit of service (usually population). Needs are defined as the product of the standard, the units of service, disabilities and discounts for needs met by special purpose grants.

South Australia assesses 13 expenditure categories in addition to road needs. Under the direct assessment method the available grant is initially allocated to councils in proportion to their population and positive or negative adjustments are calculated for each category. These adjustments are for factors outside the council’s control. 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 applying 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 capita, and the compounded disabilities, less grants received. A flag fall of $70 000 is allowed for general administration.

Other grant support National PrincipleThe 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 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 that state grants commissions included when allocating general purpose grants in 2007–08.

134


Table C.4: Grants treated by inclusion in general purpose grant allocations for 2007–08, by jurisdiction

Jurisdiction 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 Victorian 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 per cent 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 because of the grant received.

NT Local road grant, library 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 communitiesThe 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 stated that this National Principle goes further. It said:

assessments [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 (Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001, p. 27).

Councils in New South Wales with 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 Governance and Family and Community Services expenditure assessments.

In Queensland, most of the larger geographically discrete Indigenous communities are located within the 32 Indigenous councils or the Shires of Aurukun and Mornington Island. Indigenous councils are assessed as having zero rating capacity as the land in their areas is not rateable. In 2007–08, 50 per

135

Appendix C

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 capita is increased by 50 per cent in relevant expenditure categories.

Western Australia includes two disability factors – socioeconomic disadvantage and population dispersion – in its expenditure assessments. In addition, 16 councils receive an allowance that recognises the additional costs of providing environmental health services (such as 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, recognised Indigenous communities exist both within and outside mainstream councils. The needs of Indigenous communities within mainstream councils are recognised 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 a lack of comparable 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 that, after comparing communities in other jurisdictions, determined a per capita funding level for each community. For 2007–08 the per capita grant varied from $341.45 for Nepabunna to $552.21 for Yalata Community Council.

Tasmania makes no special allowance for Indigenous people as there are 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.

In the Northern Territory, Indigenous councils make up 85 per cent of the local governing bodies. The additional cost of providing services to Indigenous people is incorporated through inclusion of the proportion of the population that is Indigenous for each council in the expenditure assessments.

Factoring back and satisfying the Minimum Grant PrincipleOnce 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.

Two situations 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

• has not ensured that the total assessed revenue and expenditure across all councils in the jurisdiction equals the total actual revenue and expenditure for all councils in the jurisdiction, or

• has not used a budget result term for each council when applying the balanced budget approach.

136


This situation would not arise if commissions adopted the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s approach 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, namely:

• the proportional method – each council’s raw grant is reduced by the same proportion so the total of the grant equals the available grant

• the equalisation ratio method – each council’s grant is reduced such that all councils can afford to fund the same proportion of their expenditure need with their total income (assessed revenue capacity plus other grant support and general purpose grant).

137

Appendix D

Appendix DDistribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies in 2007–08

Table D.1 shows the distribution of local government financial assistance grants and some basic information, such as population, area (sq km) and road length (km) for each local governing body in Australia.

For the financial assistance grants, the table shows the actual total grant entitlement for 2007–08 and the estimated total grant entitlement for 2008–09. For each of these years, the components of the financial assistance grants (the general purpose grant and the local road grant) are also given.

The councils are listed alphabetically by state and territory. The Australian Classification of Local Governments (ACLG) category for each council is listed in the second column. An explanation of the ACLG is provided in Appendix F.

To facilitate comparison, the general purpose grant per capita and the local road grant per kilometre are provided for 2007–08. Additional comparative information on grants received is provided in this report as follows:

• Table 2.7 provides the average general purpose grant per capita for councils, grouped by ACLG and by state.

• Table 2.8 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 for 2007–08 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 jurisdictions because of different data sources for population used by the Australian Government to calculate the state share of general purpose grants and those used by the local government grants commissions for allocations 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.

138


Tabl

e D.

1: D

istr

ibut

ion

of fi

nanc

ial a

ssis

tanc

e gr

ants

to lo

cal g

over

ning

bod

ies

by c

lass

ifica

tion

and

popu

latio

n, 2

006–

07 a

nd 2

007–

08

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

New

South

Wale

s

Albu

ryUR

M47

694

313

476

4 31

7 67

398

2 26

35

299

936

90.5

32

063.

584

541

919

1 05

3 19

95

595

118

Arm

idal

e Du

mar

esq

URS

24 7

494

235

931

2 53

5 22

81

034

094

3 56

9 32

210

2.44

1 11

0.73

2 66

4 63

71

081

534

3 74

6 17

1

Ashfi

eld

Mun

icip

alUD

M40

262

891

970

099

234

081

1 20

4 18

024

.09

2 57

2.32

1 02

1 56

324

9 35

91

270

922

Aubu

rnUD

M66

286

3220

31

855

700

445

878

2 30

1 57

828

.00

2 19

6.44

2 03

0 04

848

1 16

02

511

208

Balli

naUR

M40

090

485

557

2 11

3 99

193

2 64

83

046

639

52.7

31

674.

412

101

985

987

451

3 08

9 43

6

Balra

nald

RAM

2 72

721

700

1 32

21

285

199

965

183

2 25

0 38

247

1.29

730.

091

367

777

1 00

9 86

42

377

641

Bank

stow

nUD

V17

9 71

977

542

4 13

8 90

51

211

381

5 35

0 28

623

.03

2 23

5.02

4 52

7 76

71

263

759

5 79

1 52

6

Bath

urst

Reg

iona

lUR

M37

508

3 82

01

176

3 47

3 34

41

408

151

4 88

1 49

592

.60

1 19

7.41

3 77

1 93

21

478

327

5 25

0 25

9

Baul

kham

Hill

sUF

V16

2 32

640

181

82

896

378

1 44

8 62

74

345

005

17.8

4#

1 77

0.94

3 10

2 81

01

540

620

4 64

3 43

0

Bega

Val

ley

URM

32 6

376

278

1 16

83

989

900

1 43

6 17

75

426

077

122.

251

229.

604

335

723

1 50

2 59

45

838

317

Belli

ngen

RAV

12 8

101

602

490

1 97

3 02

263

6 79

52

609

817

154.

021

299.

582

076

871

673

156

2 75

0 02

7

Berr

igan

RAL

8 54

12

067

1 25

32

231

758

1 00

0 57

43

232

332

261.

3079

8.54

2 40

7 01

41

050

643

3 45

7 65

7

Blac

ktow

nUD

V28

7 63

424

01

140

13 5

05 1

402

296

931

15 8

02 0

7146

.95

2 01

4.85

13 7

59 6

512

401

587

16 1

61 2

38

Blan

dRA

L6

562

8 56

02

928

2 60

5 70

92

163

080

4 76

8 78

939

7.09

738.

762

741

288

2 26

3 89

85

005

186

Blay

ney

RAL

6 89

41

525

686

1 22

0 95

561

2 26

61

833

221

177.

1089

2.52

1 27

6 05

964

1 72

51

917

784

Blue

Mou

ntai

nsUF

L75

770

1 43

271

95

954

500

1 07

9 94

17

034

441

78.5

91

502.

006

159

897

1 13

3 41

87

293

315

Boga

nRA

M3

113

14 6

091

411

1 35

0 72

31

076

467

2 42

7 19

043

3.90

762.

911

418

224

1 12

2 34

22

540

566

Bom

bala

RAM

2 53

83

944

629

830

940

527

996

1 35

8 93

632

7.40

839.

4289

3 79

755

3 61

91

447

416

Boor

owa

RAM

2 50

52

579

639

620

844

500

745

1 12

1 58

924

7.84

783.

6466

3 90

252

1 98

21

185

884

139

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Bota

ny B

ayUD

M37

415

2289

797

292

219

811

1 01

7 10

321

.31

2 46

9.79

792

764

230

487

1 02

3 25

1

Bour

keRA

M3

876

41 6

791

891

1 92

9 08

11

408

611

3 33

7 69

249

7.70

744.

901

990

955

1 45

8 40

63

449

361

Brew

arrin

aRA

M2

201

19 1

891

264

1 21

8 90

994

9 04

12

167

950

553.

8075

0.82

1 26

6 02

899

2 40

92

258

437

Brok

en H

illUR

S20

223

170

211

3 52

1 05

139

7 70

53

918

756

174.

111

884.

863

770

535

416

916

4 18

7 45

1

Burw

ood

UDM

31 3

877

8256

0 03

819

3 92

675

3 96

417

.84

#2

364.

9560

6 80

220

7 22

781

4 02

9

Byro

nUR

M30

898

567

516

1 42

0 04

987

4 75

62

294

805

45.9

61

695.

261

411

984

914

859

2 32

6 84

3

Cabo

nne

RAV

12 8

436

026

1 81

91

881

995

1 53

1 33

33

413

328

146.

5484

1.85

1 96

2 40

71

603

873

3 56

6 28

0

Cam

den

UFM

52 4

5920

133

51

395

371

607

534

2 00

2 90

526

.60

1 81

3.53

1 38

7 44

663

8 08

72

025

533

Cam

pbel

ltow

nUF

V14

8 96

931

261

47

401

756

1 26

9 72

68

671

482

49.6

92

067.

967

538

046

1 32

5 26

38

863

309

Cana

da B

ayUD

M68

955

2018

61

230

363

439

798

1 67

0 16

117

.84

#2

364.

511

304

069

464

411

1 76

8 48

0

Cant

erbu

ryUD

V13

5 96

934

313

3 76

8 20

583

1 33

14

599

536

27.7

12

656.

014

063

115

873

260

4 93

6 37

5

Carr

atho

olRA

M3

264

18 9

402

300

1 71

8 09

31

687

832

3 40

5 92

552

6.38

733.

841

791

990

1 76

2 19

13

554

181

Cent

ral D

arlin

gRT

M2

412

53 5

091

602

1 91

1 39

41

164

358

3 07

5 75

279

2.45

726.

821

980

626

1 21

3 37

63

194

002

Cess

nock

URM

48 7

441

966

875

4 40

2 51

31

257

372

5 65

9 88

590

.32

1 43

7.00

4 57

5 88

61

318

605

5 89

4 49

1

Clar

ence

Val

ley

URM

50 1

0210

441

2 08

76

636

257

2 41

1 91

09

048

167

132.

451

155.

686

785

423

2 52

9 53

79

314

960

Coba

rRT

L5

023

45 6

091

675

2 02

9 90

21

248

854

3 27

8 75

640

4.12

745.

582

170

521

1 31

3 29

33

483

814

Coffs

Har

bour

URM

68 3

151

175

714

4 46

8 87

61

468

620

5 93

7 49

665

.42

2 05

6.89

4 50

3 75

91

545

259

6 04

9 01

8

Cona

rgo

RAS

1 77

68

751

1 28

497

3 24

794

4 93

81

918

185

548.

0073

5.93

1 05

9 32

898

8 54

52

047

873

Cool

amon

RAM

4 18

42

432

1 27

51

438

045

951

455

2 38

9 50

034

3.70

746.

241

495

584

995

667

2 49

1 25

1

Coom

a–M

onar

oRA

L9

824

5 22

893

31

950

481

831

863

2 78

2 34

419

8.54

891.

602

094

652

875

404

2 97

0 05

6

Coon

ambl

eRA

M4

699

9 92

61

392

1 52

3 83

31

085

206

2 60

9 03

932

4.29

779.

601

600

463

1 13

0 13

52

730

598

140


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Coot

amun

dra

RAL

7 64

51

524

561

1 46

5 86

653

7 38

72

003

253

191.

7495

7.91

1 57

7 40

956

7 42

62

144

835

Coro

wa

RAV

11 2

892

324

1 29

62

291

481

1 07

7 42

93

368

910

202.

9883

1.35

2 42

4 57

81

129

722

3 55

4 30

0

Cow

raRA

V13

260

2 81

01

224

2 19

4 38

71

082

598

3 27

6 98

516

5.49

884.

482

344

977

1 11

8 69

83

463

675

Deni

liqui

nUR

S8

137

130

141

1 60

0 79

420

7 77

41

808

568

196.

731

473.

571

732

917

211

595

1 94

4 51

2

Dubb

oUR

M39

500

3 42

81

172

4 17

9 69

81

351

574

5 53

1 27

210

5.82

1 15

3.22

4 43

7 32

51

421

824

5 85

9 14

9

Dung

ogRA

L8

461

2 25

159

41

113

732

660

288

1 77

4 02

013

1.63

1 11

1.60

1 15

4 27

269

0 63

91

844

911

Euro

boda

llaUR

M36

613

3 42

289

84

254

755

1 18

3 57

35

438

328

116.

211

318.

014

320

204

1 24

5 82

35

566

027

Fairfi

eld

UDV

188

074

102

605

8 22

8 66

61

322

296

9 55

0 96

243

.75

2 18

5.61

8 49

9 34

41

377

674

9 87

7 01

8

Forb

esRA

V10

003

4 72

01

803

2 53

3 97

01

474

621

4 00

8 59

125

3.32

817.

872

654

781

1 53

9 67

14

194

452

Gilg

andr

aRA

M4

699

4 83

61

247

1 28

6 55

398

2 99

82

269

551

273.

7978

8.29

1 34

8 65

61

027

797

2 37

6 45

3

Glen

Inne

s Se

vern

RAL

8 78

35

487

1 06

51

902

209

994

565

2 89

6 77

421

6.58

933.

862

030

818

1 04

2 15

43

072

972

Glou

cest

erRA

M4

949

2 95

263

991

5 04

266

7 75

51

582

797

184.

891

045.

0099

5 25

569

9 38

61

694

641

Gosf

ord

UFV

163

469

940

1 04

66

401

006

1 78

4 58

38

185

589

39.1

61

706.

106

374

038

1 86

2 48

68

236

524

Goul

burn

Mul

war

eeUR

S27

308

3 22

01

093

2 62

8 84

81

192

412

3 82

1 26

096

.27

1 09

0.95

2 72

3 07

11

256

391

3 97

9 46

2

Grea

t Lak

esUR

M35

068

3 37

595

54

335

195

1 22

0 34

35

555

538

123.

621

277.

854

417

056

1 27

7 23

55

694

291

Grea

ter H

ume

RAV

10 5

855

746

1 77

22

484

035

1 46

9 51

33

953

548

234.

6882

9.30

2 71

7 41

71

532

939

4 25

0 35

6

Grea

ter T

aree

URM

47 1

103

732

1 57

43

880

376

1 92

6 69

35

807

069

82.3

71

224.

074

018

071

2 02

1 41

86

039

489

Griffi

thUR

S25

441

1 64

01

171

2 01

6 08

21

146

409

3 16

2 49

179

.25

979.

002

205

498

1 19

5 40

03

400

898

Gund

agai

RAM

3 77

42

458

687

812

543

602

964

1 41

5 50

721

5.30

877.

6886

1 05

663

1 17

01

492

226

Gunn

edah

RAV

12 1

294

994

1 34

22

041

557

1 15

0 74

03

192

297

168.

3285

7.48

2 17

0 09

21

203

796

3 37

3 88

8

Guyr

aRA

M4

478

4 39

586

51

067

903

702

993

1 77

0 89

623

8.48

812.

711

111

587

738

153

1 84

9 74

0

141

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Gwyd

irRA

L5

536

9 45

31

898

1 63

9 03

61

475

660

3 11

4 69

629

6.07

777.

481

697

542

1 54

2 65

53

240

197

Hard

enRA

M3

799

1 86

990

21

216

002

713

297

1 92

9 29

932

0.08

790.

791

209

096

654

821

1 86

3 91

7

Haw

kesb

ury

UFM

63 7

322

776

889

2 94

1 99

21

331

167

4 27

3 15

946

.16

1 49

7.38

2 92

5 28

31

395

240

4 32

0 52

3

Hay

RAM

3 52

011

328

777

1 27

0 86

159

6 84

61

867

707

361.

0476

8.14

1 37

4 69

562

4 22

71

998

922

Holro

ydUD

L94

269

4031

52

339

263

688

940

3 02

8 20

324

.81

2 18

7.11

2 55

9 04

372

2 22

23

281

265

Horn

sby

UFV

157

269

462

619

2 80

6 14

71

208

242

4 01

4 38

917

.84

#1

951.

932

922

930

1 26

4 79

04

187

720

Hunt

ers

Hill

UDS

13 9

126

6124

8 23

211

5 88

536

4 11

717

.84

#1

899.

7525

9 10

112

1 44

138

0 54

2

Hurs

tvill

eUD

L76

623

2320

91

367

182

479

382

1 84

6 56

417

.84

#2

293.

691

434

533

503

495

1 93

8 02

8

Inve

rell

RAV

15 9

498

606

1 77

02

763

823

1 51

6 75

24

280

575

173.

2985

6.92

2 92

3 97

11

591

298

4 51

5 26

9

Jeril

derie

RAS

1 87

73

375

998

846

958

746

907

1 59

3 86

545

1.23

748.

4090

9 18

577

9 17

41

688

359

June

eRA

L6

009

2 03

182

01

387

419

669

716

2 05

7 13

523

0.89

816.

731

440

889

702

085

2 14

2 97

4

Kem

psey

URS

28 7

6333

791

026

3 22

0 05

01

334

673

4 55

4 72

311

1.95

1 30

0.85

3 33

8 97

11

393

249

4 73

2 22

0

Kiam

aUR

S20

382

258

228

821

192

362

055

1 18

3 24

740

.29

1 58

7.96

816

528

379

884

1 19

6 41

2

Koga

rah

UDM

56 7

3616

169

1 01

2 34

037

0 53

41

382

874

17.8

4#

2 19

2.51

1 03

1 54

438

3 50

01

415

044

Ku-ri

ng-g

aiUD

L10

8 39

585

441

1 93

4 09

085

2 48

32

786

573

17.8

4#

1 93

3.07

1 97

2 32

588

4 67

22

856

997

Kyog

leRA

L9

642

3 58

91

083

1 89

0 14

81

234

353

3 12

4 50

119

6.03

1 13

9.75

2 03

3 40

01

289

261

3 32

2 66

1

Lach

lan

RAL

7 35

514

973

3 24

53

085

839

2 41

3 39

15

499

230

419.

5674

3.73

3 21

0 62

32

672

699

5 88

3 32

2

Lake

Mac

quar

ieUR

V18

9 59

664

31

235

11 0

25 8

852

082

652

13 1

08 5

3758

.15

1 68

6.36

11 5

81 0

452

197

690

13 7

78 7

35

Lane

Cov

eUD

M32

375

1095

577

668

209

866

787

534

17.8

4#

2 20

9.12

591

789

217

771

809

560

Leet

onRA

V12

088

1 16

787

52

011

249

767

789

2 77

9 03

816

6.38

877.

472

200

211

799

423

2 99

9 63

4

Leic

hhar

dtUD

M51

660

1013

61

018

322

327

877

1 34

6 19

919

.71

2 41

0.86

1 02

9 93

634

2 68

51

372

621

142


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Lism

ore

URM

44 0

321

290

1 07

54

174

488

1 46

2 52

65

637

014

94.8

11

360.

494

376

801

1 57

4 94

55

951

746

Lith

gow

URS

20 9

814

567

771

2 72

1 85

683

0 62

53

552

481

129.

731

077.

332

893

044

966

083

3 85

9 12

7

Live

rpoo

lUF

V17

2 05

030

575

05

822

524

1 47

2 27

07

294

794

33.8

41

963.

035

789

456

1 55

0 45

17

339

907

Live

rpoo

l Pla

ins

Shire

RAL

7 87

75

086

1 20

01

540

587

1 01

4 12

12

554

708

195.

5884

5.10

1 63

6 34

01

060

845

2 69

7 18

5

Lock

hart

RAM

3 54

62

895

1 48

31

491

880

1 17

3 96

02

665

840

420.

7279

1.61

1 55

5 23

81

225

036

2 78

0 27

4

Lord

How

e Is

land

(Bd)

RTX

339

160

142

938

014

2 93

842

1.65

0.00

149

240

014

9 24

0

Mai

tland

URM

62 5

9639

258

24

635

499

919

413

5 55

4 91

274

.05

1 57

9.75

4 87

5 78

998

0 36

65

856

155

Man

lyUD

M39

214

1410

369

9 69

624

1 00

794

0 70

317

.84

#2

339.

8773

2 68

625

5 15

898

7 84

4

Mar

rickv

ille

UDL

76 5

2416

190

2 66

7 78

045

8 28

73

126

067

34.8

62

412.

042

652

629

476

963

3 12

9 59

2

Mid

-Wes

tern

Reg

iona

lUR

S22

260

8 73

71

907

2 97

2 70

71

726

603

4 69

9 31

013

3.54

905.

403

182

229

1 83

1 08

85

013

317

Mor

ee P

lain

sRA

V15

991

17 9

282

638

2 35

9 23

02

145

398

4 50

4 62

814

7.53

813.

272

580

886

2 22

7 51

84

808

404

Mos

man

UDS

28 4

149

8550

6 99

118

5 96

569

2 95

617

.84

#2

187.

8251

9 86

319

3 07

571

2 93

8

Mur

ray

RAL

6 99

84

345

1 35

81

560

753

1 12

1 96

42

682

717

223.

0382

6.19

1 70

7 39

01

176

238

2 88

3 62

8

Mur

rum

bidg

eeRA

M2

632

3 50

559

075

4 52

645

0 20

31

204

729

286.

6776

3.06

825

416

470

515

1 29

5 93

1

Mus

wellb

rook

RAV

15 2

363

406

578

2 00

2 33

566

2 67

52

665

010

131.

421

146.

502

133

123

705

262

2 83

8 38

5

Nam

bucc

aRA

V18

886

1 49

364

72

092

088

874

792

2 96

6 88

011

0.77

1 35

2.07

2 17

8 23

691

5 85

33

094

089

Nar

rabr

iRA

V14

181

13 0

312

114

2 76

8 02

71

710

687

4 47

8 71

419

5.19

809.

223

013

359

1 78

1 92

14

795

280

Nar

rand

era

RAL

6 58

84

117

1 46

11

913

421

1 13

2 05

23

045

473

290.

4477

4.85

1 99

9 29

21

181

027

3 18

0 31

9

Nar

rom

ine

RAL

7 05

95

264

1 33

71

917

704

1 03

8 95

42

956

658

271.

6777

7.08

2 01

9 15

81

083

218

3 10

2 37

6

New

cast

leUR

V14

7 54

518

773

910

076

823

1 39

0 29

511

467

118

68.3

01

881.

3210

208

230

1 46

3 99

811

672

228

Nor

th S

ydne

yUD

M61

802

1014

31

102

732

358

699

1 46

1 43

117

.84

#2

508.

381

160

457

377

422

1 53

7 87

9

143

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Ober

onRA

L5

503

3 62

791

01

090

568

750

869

1 84

1 43

719

8.18

825.

131

126

488

782

171

1 90

8 65

9

Oran

geUR

M37

982

285

395

3 00

5 49

477

4 23

03

779

724

79.1

31

960.

083

203

771

806

206

4 00

9 97

7

Pale

rang

RAV

11 8

175

134

1 02

11

378

017

956

973

2 33

4 99

011

6.61

937.

291

415

067

1 02

4 13

42

439

201

Park

esRA

V15

099

5 95

81

778

2 80

7 07

81

455

021

4 26

2 09

918

5.91

818.

352

988

081

1 52

1 33

04

509

411

Parr

amat

taUD

V15

5 09

861

507

4 89

1 49

11

187

756

6 07

9 24

731

.54

2 34

2.71

5 35

1 06

01

233

794

6 58

4 85

4

Penr

ithUF

V17

7 54

440

595

68

401

108

1 70

5 04

510

106

153

47.3

21

783.

528

809

562

1 79

0 53

810

600

100

Pitt

wat

erUD

M57

944

9023

71

033

894

467

906

1 50

1 80

017

.84

#1

974.

291

051

100

482

915

1 53

4 01

5

Port

Mac

quar

ie–

Hast

ings

URL

71 0

843

686

1 20

44

834

349

1 96

1 68

56

796

034

68.0

11

629.

315

142

172

2 07

4 02

77

216

199

Port

Ste

phen

sUR

M63

650

859

598

3 54

8 23

689

2 28

64

440

522

55.7

51

492.

123

646

180

942

789

4 58

8 96

9

Quea

nbey

anUR

M37

848

172

253

2 07

2 08

265

2 44

12

724

523

54.7

52

578.

822

162

151

701

211

2 86

3 36

2

Rand

wic

kUD

V12

7 94

836

271

2 28

2 97

371

7 23

13

000

204

17.8

4#

2 64

6.61

2 37

1 71

374

9 65

53

121

368

Rich

mon

d Va

lley

URS

21 2

673

051

998

2 81

2 03

11

127

319

3 93

9 35

013

2.23

1 12

9.58

2 92

8 37

31

195

636

4 12

4 00

9

Rock

dale

UDL

96 4

0928

262

1 72

0 22

461

4 66

22

334

886

17.8

4#

2 34

6.04

1 81

0 98

664

6 78

12

457

767

Ryde

UDL

100

351

4031

31

790

561

692

611

2 48

3 17

217

.84

#2

212.

811

894

804

730

477

2 62

5 28

1

Shel

lhar

bour

URM

63 6

4214

733

33

185

654

619

375

3 80

5 02

950

.06

1 85

9.98

3 36

4 92

167

1 81

64

036

737

Shoa

lhav

enUR

L94

181

4 53

11

517

7 06

5 99

32

375

592

9 44

1 58

575

.03

1 56

5.98

7 02

5 86

32

475

118

9 50

0 98

1

Silv

erto

n Vi

llage

RTX

570

023

976

023

976

420.

630.

0025

023

025

023

Sing

leto

nUR

S22

538

4 89

672

91

815

507

892

060

2 70

7 56

780

.55

1 22

3.68

1 89

5 28

194

3 46

32

838

744

Snow

y Riv

erRA

L7

359

6 02

973

61

681

898

648

048

2 32

9 94

622

8.55

880.

501

834

941

687

373

2 52

2 31

4

Stra

thfie

ldUD

M32

529

1486

580

415

205

175

785

590

17.8

4#

2 38

5.76

638

564

220

974

859

538

144


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Suth

erla

ndUD

V21

4 03

033

477

93

818

932

1 57

6 92

55

395

857

17.8

4#

2 02

4.29

3 95

0 24

41

645

557

5 59

5 80

1

Sydn

eyUC

C15

1 92

027

300

3 45

0 44

984

8 26

34

298

712

22.7

12

827.

543

774

628

941

147

4 71

5 77

5

Tam

wort

h Re

gion

alUR

M55

063

9 71

32

920

5 90

3 84

73

001

657

8 90

5 50

410

7.22

1 02

7.96

6 03

5 56

33

187

280

9 22

2 84

3

Tem

ora

Shire

RAL

6 40

02

802

1 13

41

448

579

905

799

2 35

4 37

822

6.34

798.

761

531

667

942

767

2 47

4 43

4

Tent

erfie

ldRA

L6

909

7 33

21

500

1 96

7 52

91

260

588

3 22

8 11

728

4.78

840.

392

107

675

1 28

5 51

23

393

187

Tibo

obur

ra V

illag

eRT

X12

80

053

841

053

841

420.

630.

0056

192

056

192

Tum

baru

mba

RAM

3 63

24

392

473

990

160

433

863

1 42

4 02

327

2.62

917.

261

064

211

454

992

1 51

9 20

3

Tum

utRA

V11

388

4 56

656

21

881

923

597

861

2 47

9 78

416

5.25

1 06

3.81

2 03

5 72

662

5 10

32

660

829

Twee

dUR

L81

886

1 30

91

062

5 81

6 81

71

973

309

7 79

0 12

671

.04

1 85

8.11

6 02

4 41

22

109

196

8 13

3 60

8

Uppe

r Hun

ter

RAV

13 5

528

071

1 57

52

044

967

1 41

9 09

93

464

066

150.

9090

1.02

2 12

9 46

91

485

267

3 61

4 73

6

Uppe

r Lac

hlan

RAL

7 40

57

102

1 65

81

495

008

1 34

7 65

62

842

664

201.

8981

2.82

1 61

8 51

71

420

175

3 03

8 69

2

Ural

laRA

L6

126

3 23

081

71

096

903

710

540

1 80

7 44

317

9.06

869.

691

151

046

741

684

1 89

2 73

0

Uran

aRA

S1

387

3 35

788

184

7 47

765

6 28

31

503

760

611.

0174

4.93

883

602

684

044

1 56

7 64

6

Wag

ga W

agga

URM

58 8

024

825

1 99

95

538

474

2 31

9 93

17

858

405

94.1

91

160.

555

922

715

2 46

4 20

98

386

924

Wak

ool

RAM

4 82

27

520

1 27

41

545

760

1 07

6 51

12

622

271

320.

5684

4.99

1 66

4 53

61

121

546

2 78

6 08

2

Wal

cha

RAM

3 30

76

267

774

746

392

652

323

1 39

8 71

522

5.70

842.

7976

6 49

868

2 40

01

448

898

Wal

gett

RAL

8 04

722

336

1 95

02

466

247

1 55

2 46

44

018

711

306.

4879

6.14

2 64

4 97

71

612

217

4 25

7 19

4

War

ren

RAM

3 25

210

760

960

947

356

758

814

1 70

6 17

029

1.31

790.

431

003

793

788

418

1 79

2 21

1

War

ringa

hUD

V14

1 13

314

947

32

518

232

1 00

4 95

63

523

188

17.8

4#

2 12

4.64

2 60

2 20

91

048

133

3 65

0 34

2

War

rum

bung

leRA

V10

466

12 3

802

276

2 98

1 76

11

811

169

4 79

2 93

028

4.90

795.

773

158

780

1 88

9 26

35

048

043

Wav

erle

yUD

M62

194

911

31

630

123

327

185

1 95

7 30

826

.21

2 89

5.44

1 62

0 86

535

0 73

81

971

603

145

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Wed

din

RAM

3 84

73

410

968

1 17

2 89

574

3 68

91

916

584

304.

8976

8.27

1 24

7 50

777

7 36

02

024

867

Wel

lingt

onRA

L8

618

4 11

31

245

1 89

0 73

61

016

520

2 90

7 25

621

9.39

816.

481

991

936

1 05

9 26

13

051

197

Wen

twor

thRA

L7

405

26 2

691

941

2 29

8 05

71

485

485

3 78

3 54

231

0.34

765.

322

431

167

1 55

1 64

13

982

808

Will

ough

byUD

M65

029

2220

21

160

311

444

558

1 60

4 86

917

.84

#2

200.

781

262

852

475

298

1 73

8 15

0

Win

geca

rrib

eeUR

M44

912

2 68

999

12

391

389

1 29

9 32

53

690

714

53.2

51

311.

132

377

807

1 35

9 87

63

737

683

Wol

lond

illy

UFM

41 9

772

557

700

1 61

3 68

81

002

609

2 61

6 29

738

.44

1 43

2.30

1 60

4 52

31

054

043

2 65

8 56

6

Wol

long

ong

URV

192

131

684

921

11 5

90 9

971

778

431

13 3

69 4

2860

.33

1 93

0.98

11 8

18 6

271

795

761

13 6

14 3

88

Woo

llahr

a M

unic

ipal

UDM

53 0

3312

132

946

267

317

960

1 26

4 22

717

.84

#2

408.

7999

6 99

333

4 73

71

331

730

Wyo

ngUF

V14

4 29

774

61

000

7 44

1 92

61

685

196

9 12

7 12

251

.57

1 68

5.20

7 61

6 57

81

769

169

9 38

5 74

7

Yass

Val

ley

RAV

13 0

753

999

1 06

71

481

652

962

642

2 44

4 29

411

3.32

902.

191

504

923

1 00

0 56

92

505

492

Youn

gRA

V12

126

2 69

41

069

1 82

0 37

594

6 26

52

766

640

150.

1288

5.19

1 94

4 28

299

7 90

82

942

190

Vict

oria

Alpi

ne (S

)RA

V13

427

4 78

780

02

026

816

888

556

2 91

5 37

215

0.95

1 11

0.70

2 09

4 25

493

4 89

53

029

149

Arar

at (R

C)UR

S11

424

4 21

02

246

2 45

5 49

01

710

316

4 16

5 80

621

4.94

761.

492

587

225

1 79

7 06

74

384

292

Balla

rat (

C)UR

L90

303

740

1 27

57

603

061

1 53

5 00

99

138

070

84.1

91

203.

937

805

404

1 61

5 12

09

420

524

Bany

ule

(C)

UDL

117

930

6255

73

225

133

777

304

4 00

2 43

727

.35

1 39

5.52

3 20

5 90

176

3 37

33

969

274

Bass

Coa

st (S

)UF

S30

191

864

1 04

03

119

328

1 08

2 77

74

202

105

103.

321

041.

133

366

790

1 13

6 86

04

503

650

Baw

Baw

(S)

URM

39 7

654

028

1 78

24

531

985

2 16

1 48

26

693

467

113.

971

212.

954

510

212

2 19

6 32

46

706

536

Bays

ide

(C)

UDL

89 8

5237

353

1 61

9 63

239

2 42

32

012

055

18.0

3#

1 11

1.68

1 71

7 57

441

2 19

62

129

770

Bena

llaRA

V14

134

2 35

21

340

1 90

1 96

71

077

951

2 97

9 91

813

4.57

804.

441

979

449

1 13

0 18

13

109

630

Boro

onda

ra (C

)UD

V15

8 87

860

578

2 86

3 86

467

6 56

83

540

432

18.0

3#

1 17

0.53

3 03

3 29

970

9 35

03

742

649

146


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Brim

bank

(C)

UDV

177

807

123

830

9 86

2 04

31

203

526

11 0

65 5

6955

.46

1 45

0.03

10 4

17 5

651

282

266

11 6

99 8

31

Bulo

ke (S

)RA

L6

981

8 00

45

168

2 34

5 10

21

658

656

4 00

3 75

833

5.93

320.

952

511

791

1 73

9 02

24

250

813

Cam

pasp

e (C

)UR

M38

261

4 51

94

077

5 24

4 74

23

185

423

8 43

0 16

513

7.08

781.

325

462

008

3 35

6 82

38

818

831

Card

inia

(S)

UFM

60 2

761

280

1 34

95

081

275

1 80

6 94

96

888

224

84.3

01

339.

475

139

772

1 98

3 08

57

122

857

Case

y (C)

UFV

223

424

410

1 28

811

994

063

1 59

2 38

813

586

451

53.6

81

236.

3312

724

865

1 65

1 19

514

376

060

Cent

ral G

oldfi

elds

(S)

RAV

13 0

411

534

1 11

91

902

068

810

293

2 71

2 36

114

5.85

724.

122

006

457

850

603

2 85

7 06

0

Cola

c–Ot

way

(S)

URS

21 8

023

433

1 67

02

689

874

1 97

3 80

44

663

678

123.

381

181.

922

866

411

2 07

2 77

74

939

188

Cora

ngam

ite (S

)RA

V17

344

4 40

42

723

2 80

1 99

62

581

136

5 38

3 13

216

1.55

947.

902

957

845

2 70

5 59

45

663

439

Dare

bin

(C)

UDV

129

114

5350

84

065

670

724

015

4 78

9 68

531

.49

1 42

5.23

3 91

8 80

475

7 03

04

675

834

East

Gip

psla

nd (S

)UR

M42

075

20 9

312

846

7 52

6 11

83

917

726

11 4

43 8

4417

8.87

1 37

6.57

7 91

3 99

93

905

086

11 8

19 0

85

Fran

ksto

n (C

)UD

L12

2 24

713

066

46

710

441

935

536

7 64

5 97

754

.89

1 40

8.94

7 07

5 89

898

5 10

38

061

001

Gann

awar

ra (S

)RA

V11

851

3 73

22

281

2 25

5 39

31

458

875

3 71

4 26

819

0.31

639.

582

361

126

1 52

9 56

13

890

687

Glen

Eira

(C)

UDV

123

567

3942

72

227

364

457

496

2 68

4 86

018

.03

#1

071.

422

427

232

479

663

2 90

6 89

5

Glen

elg

(S)

URS

20 3

376

210

2 62

72

981

718

2 52

3 26

75

504

985

146.

6296

0.51

3 24

4 97

92

658

537

5 90

3 51

6

Gold

en P

lain

s (S

)RA

V17

255

2 70

41

831

2 40

0 36

91

570

135

3 97

0 50

413

9.11

857.

532

488

947

1 64

7 02

94

135

976

Grea

ter B

endi

go (C

)UR

L97

774

2 99

92

964

9 68

4 42

12

368

412

12 0

52 8

3399

.05

799.

0610

113

036

2 53

3 58

812

646

624

Grea

ter D

ande

nong

(C)

UDV

128

745

129

625

7 45

4 65

31

033

211

8 48

7 86

457

.90

1 65

3.14

8 76

7 91

81

084

864

9 85

2 78

2

Grea

ter G

eelo

ng (C

)UR

V20

7 51

51

247

2 02

614

344

231

2 48

0 34

016

824

571

69.1

21

224.

2514

748

941

2 58

1 32

617

330

267

Grea

ter S

hepp

arto

n (C

)UR

M61

420

2 42

22

463

6 27

6 95

32

287

181

8 56

4 13

410

2.20

928.

626

395

158

2 42

0 18

18

815

339

Hepb

urn

(S)

RAV

14 9

591

470

1 29

92

140

019

1 08

3 81

53

223

834

143.

0683

4.35

2 19

5 41

01

151

561

3 34

6 97

1

Hind

mar

sh (S

)RA

L6

316

7 55

03

254

1 94

6 84

91

269

489

3 21

6 33

830

8.24

390.

132

089

391

1 33

4 60

73

423

998

147

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Hobs

on’s

Bay

(C)

UDL

83 5

0264

425

2 33

0 21

654

1 75

42

871

970

27.9

11

274.

722

097

615

568

004

2 66

5 61

9

Hors

ham

(RC)

URS

19 5

284

249

2 94

82

662

237

1 61

4 08

24

276

319

136.

3354

7.52

2 82

4 26

81

670

954

4 49

5 22

2

Hum

e (C

)UF

V15

5 82

950

498

07

441

741

1 40

4 02

98

845

770

47.7

61

432.

688

280

721

1 48

9 62

39

770

344

Indi

go (S

)RA

V15

487

2 04

41

860

2 19

0 49

41

290

300

3 48

0 79

414

1.44

693.

712

255

610

1 37

3 64

53

629

255

King

ston

(C)

UDV

137

751

9158

22

483

038

905

282

3 38

8 32

018

.03

#1

555.

472

619

827

949

145

3 56

8 97

2

Knox

(C)

UDV

150

444

114

706

6 23

6 97

084

4 40

07

081

370

41.4

61

196.

036

391

913

889

059

7 28

0 97

2

Latro

be (C

)UR

L71

073

1 42

61

458

7 25

4 36

81

840

718

9 09

5 08

610

2.07

1 26

2.50

8 09

8 22

31

956

765

10 0

54 9

88

Lodd

on (S

)RA

L8

351

6 69

44

706

3 05

9 20

42

601

600

5 66

0 80

436

6.33

552.

833

240

254

2 70

3 19

55

943

449

Mac

edon

Ran

ges

(S)

URM

41 5

861

747

1 50

33

647

127

1 58

3 78

75

230

914

87.7

01

053.

753

689

116

1 66

9 07

25

358

188

Man

ning

ham

(C)

UDL

113

825

113

589

2 11

9 79

863

9 00

52

758

803

18.6

21

084.

902

155

255

669

967

2 82

5 22

2

Man

sfiel

dRA

L7

460

3 84

384

31

494

078

752

799

2 24

6 87

720

0.28

893.

001

584

259

790

019

2 37

4 27

8

Mar

ibyr

nong

(C)

UDM

62 9

8631

273

1 98

3 24

436

9 03

72

352

281

31.4

91

351.

782

260

777

386

917

2 64

7 69

4

Mar

oond

ah (C

)UD

L10

1 22

961

478

3 30

1 31

760

6 07

83

907

395

32.6

11

267.

953

505

806

635

078

4 14

0 88

4

Mel

bour

ne (C

)UC

C67

193

3619

51

211

192

518

096

1 72

9 28

818

.03

#2

656.

901

588

813

578

722

2 16

7 53

5

Mel

ton

(S)

UFM

83 0

0252

776

36

836

481

936

392

7 77

2 87

382

.37

1 22

7.25

7 37

3 49

61

002

644

8 37

6 14

0

Mild

ura

(RC)

URM

52 9

7222

087

5 11

47

165

566

2 87

4 43

210

039

998

135.

2756

2.07

7 39

5 33

22

947

396

10 3

42 7

28

Mitc

hell

(S)

URS

33 1

442

862

1 39

03

692

373

1 40

3 88

85

096

261

111.

401

009.

993

854

531

1 47

4 17

45

328

705

Moi

ra (S

)UR

S28

671

4 04

53

573

4 27

5 03

42

623

003

6 89

8 03

714

9.11

734.

124

535

990

2 76

8 85

97

304

849

Mon

ash

(C)

UDV

162

838

8172

52

981

642

854

103

3 83

5 74

518

.31

1 17

8.07

3 17

3 73

992

1 62

54

095

364

Moo

nee

Valle

y (C)

UDL

109

248

4442

22

114

695

545

464

2 66

0 15

919

.36

1 29

2.57

1 99

4 82

654

1 81

22

536

638

Moo

rabo

ol (S

)UR

S27

150

2 11

01

439

3 00

3 73

71

441

606

4 44

5 34

311

0.63

1 00

1.81

3 12

4 47

61

512

462

4 63

6 93

8

148


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Mor

elan

d (C

)UD

V13

6 59

651

516

4 55

8 25

569

4 47

65

252

731

33.3

71

345.

884

279

297

728

126

5 00

7 42

3

Mor

ning

ton

Peni

nsul

a (S

)UF

L14

1 77

772

31

674

3 71

6 35

61

895

927

5 61

2 28

326

.21

1 13

2.57

3 34

5 39

11

987

616

5 33

3 00

7

Mou

nt A

lexa

nder

(S)

RAV

17 3

391

529

1 24

02

074

815

1 10

7 82

43

182

639

119.

6689

3.41

2 28

3 92

31

169

806

3 45

3 72

9

Moy

ne (S

)RA

V16

060

5 47

83

473

2 57

6 83

62

992

435

5 56

9 27

116

0.45

861.

632

844

901

3 27

0 67

86

115

579

Mur

rindi

ndi (

S)RA

V14

367

3 87

31

187

2 09

5 23

61

327

432

3 42

2 66

814

5.84

1 11

8.31

2 13

5 11

11

388

301

3 52

3 41

2

Nillu

mbi

k (S

)UF

M61

090

433

803

1 86

3 23

498

3 48

32

846

717

30.5

01

224.

761

738

827

972

114

2 71

0 94

1

Nor

ther

n Gr

ampi

ans

(S)

RAV

12 5

265

728

3 41

22

845

912

1 99

3 17

94

839

091

227.

2058

4.17

3 07

6 33

32

089

754

5 16

6 08

7

Port

Phi

llip

(C)

UDL

84 1

3621

211

1 55

1 98

031

2 57

31

864

553

18.4

51

481.

391

701

472

327

718

2 02

9 19

0

Pyre

nees

(S)

RAL

6 57

63

433

2 03

22

061

421

1 65

0 70

43

712

125

313.

4881

2.35

2 26

1 53

91

730

685

3 99

2 22

4

Quee

nscl

iffe

(B)

URS

3 23

09

4512

6 22

545

215

171

440

39.0

81

004.

7814

9 83

548

156

197

991

Sout

h Gi

ppsl

and

(S)

URS

27 4

403

295

2 08

53

779

091

2 59

9 94

46

379

035

137.

721

246.

983

945

498

2 72

5 47

76

670

975

Sout

hern

Gra

mpi

ans

(S)

RAV

16 8

316

652

2 66

02

963

425

2 36

8 73

45

332

159

176.

0789

0.50

3 20

4 48

02

484

398

5 68

8 87

8

Ston

ning

ton

(C)

UDL

90 5

8726

257

1 63

2 88

131

5 99

81

948

879

18.0

3#

1 22

9.56

1 78

0 87

233

1 30

92

112

181

Stra

thbo

gie

(S)

RAL

9 72

23

302

2 19

02

013

843

1 56

8 40

73

582

250

207.

1471

6.17

2 13

3 54

71

637

616

3 77

1 16

3

Surf

Coa

st (S

)RS

G24

195

1 55

31

016

1 55

1 02

91

008

476

2 55

9 50

564

.11

992.

591

641

389

1 07

8 49

72

719

886

Swan

Hill

(RC)

URS

21 6

116

116

3 49

63

280

763

1 53

0 39

44

811

157

151.

8143

7.76

3 48

5 83

11

606

222

5 09

2 05

3

Towo

ng (S

)RA

L6

181

6 67

31

258

1 75

3 97

11

141

392

2 89

5 36

328

3.77

907.

311

913

873

1 19

6 76

13

110

634

Wan

gara

tta

(RC)

URS

26 9

593

639

1 94

13

204

275

1 71

9 63

84

923

913

118.

8688

5.95

3 51

0 01

31

796

789

5 30

6 80

2

War

rnam

bool

(C)

URS

31 5

6912

129

32

468

564

502

291

2 97

0 85

578

.20

1 71

4.30

2 64

0 54

054

1 61

63

182

156

Wel

lingt

on (S

)UR

M42

147

10 9

893

166

5 65

5 86

53

648

092

9 30

3 95

713

4.19

1 15

2.27

6 07

5 10

83

816

683

9 89

1 79

1

149

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Wes

t Wim

mer

a (S

)RA

L4

697

9 10

72

764

2 05

3 56

51

861

678

3 91

5 24

343

7.21

673.

542

224

555

1 98

8 20

34

212

758

Whi

teho

rse

(C)

UDV

145

137

6460

03

439

042

665

801

4 10

4 84

323

.70

1 10

9.67

3 06

3 90

969

8 06

13

761

970

Whi

ttles

ea (C

)UF

L13

0 17

149

077

96

929

291

1 03

9 56

67

968

857

53.2

31

334.

497

378

117

1 15

4 58

88

532

705

Wod

onga

URM

35 2

8043

344

63

190

133

675

435

3 86

5 56

890

.42

1 51

4.43

3 22

5 29

971

2 04

53

937

344

Wyn

dham

(C)

UFL

122

574

542

901

7 85

8 55

01

148

187

9 00

6 73

764

.11

1 27

4.35

8 15

2 20

41

189

023

9 34

1 22

7

Yarr

a (C

)UD

M70

573

2021

51

272

118

325

070

1 59

7 18

818

.03

#1

511.

951

384

835

338

829

1 72

3 66

4

Yarr

a Ra

nges

(S)

UFV

142

701

2 47

01

757

8 38

0 16

12

879

337

11 2

59 4

9858

.73

1 63

8.78

9 05

1 02

93

074

926

12 1

25 9

55

Yarr

iam

biac

k (S

)RA

L7

853

7 31

04

808

2 24

2 16

41

562

102

3 80

4 26

628

5.52

324.

902

323

418

1 60

4 69

53

928

113

Quee

nsla

nd

Aram

acRT

S74

023

361

1 17

11

706

397

507

402

2 21

3 79

92

305.

9443

3.31

00

0

Athe

rton

RAV

11 5

7462

348

286

7 51

731

5 09

11

182

608

74.9

565

3.72

00

0

Auru

kun

UFS

1 16

87

383

183

903

951

89 2

0499

3 15

577

3.93

487.

451

137

776

92 4

651

230

241

Badu

Isla

ndUR

S78

610

5349

5 88

130

051

525

932

630.

8956

7.00

00

0

Balo

nne

RAL

5 66

831

144

2 31

92

333

368

1 04

4 41

03

377

778

411.

6745

0.37

2 65

3 91

81

078

841

3 73

2 75

9

Bam

aga

UFS

937

6758

567

399

33 6

0960

1 00

860

5.55

579.

470

00

Bana

naRA

V14

596

15 7

553

324

3 21

2 21

21

558

086

4 77

0 29

822

0.07

468.

744

478

012

2 12

6 06

36

604

075

Barc

aldi

neRT

M1

711

8 44

376

71

722

338

343

893

2 06

6 23

11

006.

6344

8.36

5 19

3 33

41

428

425

6 62

1 75

9

Barc

ooRT

S46

561

974

1 54

61

654

879

665

072

2 31

9 95

13

558.

8843

0.19

1 88

2 22

169

0 75

22

572

973

Bauh

inia

RAM

2 26

923

641

1 49

71

745

196

661

117

2 40

6 31

376

9.15

441.

630

00

Beau

dese

rtUF

M61

592

2 85

41

579

2 19

9 36

31

254

728

3 45

4 09

135

.71

794.

630

00

Bely

ando

RAV

11 0

2230

281

1 68

72

332

549

824

731

3 15

7 28

021

1.63

488.

870

00

150


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Bend

emer

eRA

S1

002

3 92

872

71

257

601

320

165

1 57

7 76

61

255.

0944

0.39

00

0

Bigg

ende

nRA

S1

577

1 31

647

11

046

680

216

134

1 26

2 81

466

3.72

458.

880

00

Blac

kall

RTM

1 60

816

384

1 11

11

664

552

489

933

2 15

4 48

51

035.

1744

0.98

00

0

Blac

kall–

Tam

bo*

––

––

––

––

2 77

3 66

994

1 43

73

715

106

Boig

u Is

land

UFS

295

6754

345

924

25 9

4137

1 86

51

172.

6248

0.39

00

0

Boon

ahRA

L8

669

1 92

289

783

2 41

746

4 96

41

297

381

96.0

251

8.35

00

0

Boor

inga

RAS

1 83

527

826

2 11

52

850

638

921

266

3 77

1 90

41

553.

4843

5.59

00

0

Boul

iaRT

S55

561

093

141

636

957

570

619

2 20

7 57

62

949.

4740

758

.50

1 86

1 83

659

2 31

32

454

149

Bowe

nRA

V12

625

21 1

771

323

1 44

7 35

068

4 26

62

131

616

114.

6451

7.21

00

0

Bris

bane

UCC

989

152

1 32

75

491

17 8

81 4

0811

764

886

29 6

46 2

9418

.08

#2

142.

5818

842

874

12 2

65 4

8931

108

363

Broa

dsou

ndRA

L6

858

18 5

461

195

1 33

6 05

457

5 07

61

911

130

194.

8248

1.24

00

0

Bullo

oRT

S46

873

805

4 65

42

154

852

1 03

9 03

83

193

890

4 60

4.38

223.

262

450

878

1 18

6 83

53

637

713

Bund

aber

gUR

M47

451

9636

71

364

761

603

454

1 96

8 21

528

.76

1 64

4.29

5 11

5 55

32

169

889

7 28

5 44

2

Bung

ilRA

S1

970

13 3

382

144

1 89

4 18

693

4 80

22

828

988

961.

5243

6.01

00

0

Burd

ekin

RAV

18 9

115

053

1 16

11

338

515

674

223

2 01

2 73

870

.78

580.

731

493

081

692

626

2 18

5 70

7

Burk

eRT

S49

641

990

918

1 52

7 10

340

0 83

01

927

933

3 07

8.84

436.

631

736

891

413

174

2 15

0 06

5

Burn

ett

UFS

27 8

562

004

1 14

91

328

327

753

318

2 08

1 64

547

.69

655.

630

00

Cabo

oltu

reUR

V13

4 82

01

225

1 63

83

059

591

1 96

9 43

75

029

028

22.6

91

202.

340

00

Cairn

sUR

V13

2 76

51

850

1 21

82

830

103

1 77

0 59

74

600

700

21.3

21

453.

693

369

615

2 14

9 08

55

518

700

Calli

ope

RAV

17 0

396

547

1 18

81

532

053

668

131

2 20

0 18

489

.91

562.

400

00

Calo

undr

aUR

L92

309

1 09

497

52

022

131

1 28

5 82

83

307

959

21.9

11

318.

800

00

151

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Cam

booy

aRA

L5

935

631

458

827

939

251

612

1 07

9 55

113

9.50

549.

370

00

Card

well

RAV

11 4

103

062

552

704

695

343

334

1 04

8 02

961

.76

621.

980

00

Carp

enta

riaRT

M2

341

68 3

352

387

2 24

4 49

877

5 47

33

019

971

958.

7832

4.87

2 55

2 83

988

2 18

33

435

022

Cass

owar

y Coa

st*

––

––

––

––

1 73

5 30

882

3 58

02

558

888

Cent

ral H

ighl

ands

*–

––

––

––

–6

028

309

2 47

8 84

38

507

152

Char

ters

Tow

ers

URS

8 84

742

160

1 22

4 21

115

1 67

91

375

890

138.

3894

7.99

4 56

3 27

82

081

777

6 64

5 05

5

Cher

bour

gUR

S1

250

3170

80 0

8241

685

121

767

64.0

759

5.50

241

144

43 2

5928

4 40

3

Chin

chill

aRA

L6

316

8 70

12

835

2 58

2 16

31

271

108

3 85

3 27

140

8.83

448.

360

00

Clift

onRA

M2

560

867

600

1 02

4 90

428

0 38

81

305

292

400.

3546

7.31

00

0

Clon

curr

yRA

M3

890

48 1

121

733

2 03

9 94

377

7 10

92

817

052

524.

4144

8.42

2 32

0 18

380

2 89

13

123

074

Cook

RAM

4 15

711

7 08

42

452

3 61

6 59

21

087

020

4 70

3 61

287

0.00

443.

324

113

426

1 16

4 78

15

278

207

Cool

oola

UFM

37 5

132

967

1 40

01

757

033

951

510

2 70

8 54

346

.84

679.

650

00

Crow

’s N

est

RAV

12 9

501

631

951

914

508

528

529

1 44

3 03

770

.62

555.

760

00

Croy

don

RTX

295

29 5

8153

11

270

325

362

902

1 63

3 22

74

306.

1968

3.43

1 44

4 83

737

7 11

91

821

956

Dalb

yUR

S10

536

4816

876

6 06

817

0 82

993

6 89

772

.71

1 01

6.84

11 7

63 2

684

118

075

15 8

81 3

43

Dalry

mpl

eRA

M3

483

68 3

464

256

3 24

1 02

31

851

762

5 09

2 78

593

0.53

435.

090

00

Daua

n Is

land

URS

120

45

366

454

3 26

636

9 72

03

053.

7865

3.20

00

0

Diam

antin

aRT

X30

594

832

1 15

83

041

741

497

752

3 53

9 49

39

972.

9242

9.84

3 45

9 60

451

7 59

23

977

196

Doom

adge

eUF

S1

236

1 51

012

741

4 99

265

912

480

904

335.

7551

8.99

568

110

68 0

0163

6 11

1

Doug

las

RAV

11 7

712

456

368

576

911

267

874

844

785

49.0

172

7.92

00

0

Duar

inga

RAL

6 83

818

143

1 31

91

182

303

628

069

1 81

0 37

217

2.90

476.

170

00

152


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Each

amRA

L6

262

1 12

744

31

259

748

248

281

1 50

8 02

920

1.17

560.

450

00

Eids

vold

RAS

926

4 80

91

084

1 12

3 54

947

1 97

41

595

523

1 21

3.34

435.

400

00

Emer

ald

RAV

13 8

4210

365

944

1 05

5 43

566

3 84

51

719

280

76.2

570

3.23

00

0

Erub

Isla

ndUR

S32

06

1237

8 50

18

313

386

814

1 18

2.82

692.

750

00

Esk

RAV

15 8

673

934

1 29

41

124

066

702

343

1 82

6 40

970

.84

542.

770

00

Ethe

ridge

RTM

1 04

139

309

1 48

41

833

597

644

144

2 47

7 74

11

761.

3843

4.06

2 08

5 49

066

8 39

52

753

885

Fitz

roy

RAV

10 6

055

905

1 16

91

663

638

599

434

2 26

3 07

215

6.87

512.

780

00

Flin

ders

RTM

1 96

241

538

2 27

32

239

062

989

856

3 22

8 91

81

141.

2143

5.48

2 54

6 65

61

028

737

3 57

5 39

3

Fras

er C

oast

*–

––

––

––

–4

639

645

1 82

4 86

16

464

506

Gatto

nRA

V16

751

1 57

987

292

4 37

353

0 33

61

454

709

55.1

860

8.18

00

0

Gayn

dah

RAM

2 92

82

709

674

1 16

5 41

031

5 60

81

481

018

398.

0246

8.26

00

0

Glad

ston

eUR

S29

288

163

232

985

373

375

133

1 36

0 50

633

.64

1 61

6.95

4 22

1 18

81

642

756

5 86

3 94

4

Gold

Coa

stUR

V49

7 56

81

407

3 40

98

994

786

5 92

6 94

014

921

726

18.0

8#

1 73

8.62

8 86

2 38

55

745

776

14 6

08 1

61

Goon

diw

indi

URS

5 06

215

6786

5 32

176

295

941

616

170.

941

138.

734

909

709

1 25

2 53

16

162

240

Gym

pie

*–

––

––

––

–3

674

613

1 47

9 63

65

154

249

Ham

mon

d Is

land

UFS

208

176

343

319

4 52

234

7 84

11

650.

5775

3.67

00

0

Herb

erto

nRA

L5

498

9 60

489

82

153

990

435

427

2 58

9 41

739

1.78

484.

890

00

Herv

ey B

ayUF

M54

457

2 35

738

81

587

302

832

030

2 41

9 33

229

.15

2 14

4.41

00

0

Hinc

hinb

rook

RAV

12 2

652

811

718

828

251

422

325

1 25

0 57

667

.53

588.

2092

6 40

143

8 96

81

365

369

Hope

vale

UFS

914

1 10

018

536

6 95

087

667

454

617

401.

4847

3.88

545

611

90 5

9263

6 20

3

153

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Iam

a Is

land

URS

363

15

360

395

4 91

336

5 30

899

2.82

982.

600

00

Ilfra

com

beRT

X35

56

576

339

902

580

148

216

1 05

0 79

62

542.

4843

7.22

00

0

Ingl

ewoo

dRA

M2

672

5 87

987

41

443

272

398

669

1 84

1 94

154

0.15

456.

140

00

Injin

oo (C

owal

Ck)

UFS

446

795

265

377

381

117

449

494

830

846.

1544

3.20

00

0

Ipsw

ich

URV

145

411

1 20

41

532

3 46

5 07

22

023

858

5 48

8 93

023

.83

1 32

1.06

3 51

3 84

31

984

619

5 49

8 46

2

Isaa

c*

––

––

––

––

4 70

9 58

01

690

968

6 40

0 54

8

Isis

RAL

6 38

71

701

707

991

490

362

373

1 35

3 86

315

5.24

512.

550

00

Isis

ford

RTX

306

10 5

0188

31

231

436

380

237

1 61

1 67

34

024.

3043

0.62

00

0

Jeric

hoRT

M1

112

21 8

731

200

1 65

3 01

752

3 29

92

176

316

1 48

6.53

436.

080

00

John

ston

eRA

V19

168

1 63

964

999

3 32

945

7 83

51

451

164

51.8

270

5.45

00

0

Jond

arya

nRA

V14

650

1 91

095

291

1 65

954

4 60

41

456

263

62.2

357

2.06

00

0

Kilc

oyRA

M3

628

1 44

549

864

9 30

324

6 98

389

6 28

617

8.97

495.

950

00

Kilk

ivan

RAM

3 35

33

264

744

1 28

0 65

434

9 43

91

630

093

381.

9446

9.68

00

0

King

aroy

RAV

12 8

852

422

1 15

41

374

149

614

491

1 98

8 64

010

6.65

532.

490

00

Kola

nRA

M4

659

2 65

072

71

321

065

354

471

1 67

5 53

628

3.55

487.

580

00

Kow

anya

ma

UFS

1 05

42

520

208

474

782

98 7

9757

3 57

945

0.46

474.

9971

0 58

310

3 30

281

3 88

5

Kubi

n Is

land

UFS

226

152

2141

2 57

011

102

423

672

1 82

5.53

528.

670

00

Laid

ley

RAV

14 4

8170

162

679

7 78

940

3 61

81

201

407

55.0

964

4.76

00

0

Livi

ngst

one

UFS

29 4

6011

775

1 40

21

352

787

876

542

2 22

9 32

945

.92

625.

210

00

Lock

hart

Riv

erUF

S64

23

597

323

477

899

110

123

588

022

744.

3934

0.94

661

655

124

970

786

625

154


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Lock

yer V

alle

y*

––

––

––

––

1 75

9 97

697

8 24

32

738

219

Loga

nUD

V17

6 85

525

11

055

3 31

3 65

42

116

078

5 42

9 73

218

.74

2 00

5.76

5 75

8 81

03

459

260

9 21

8 07

0

Long

reac

hRT

L3

951

23 5

611

709

2 79

8 83

876

7 55

43

566

392

708.

3944

9.12

5 04

1 16

61

360

584

6 40

1 75

0

Mab

uiag

Isla

ndUR

S24

06

936

2 99

16

106

369

097

1 51

2.46

678.

440

00

Mac

kay

UFL

84 8

562

897

1 71

02

379

190

1 52

9 76

03

908

950

28.0

489

4.60

4 14

0 53

02

177

468

6 31

7 99

8

Map

oon

Abor

igin

al

Coun

cil

UFS

214

1 84

035

439

055

16 9

7245

6 02

72

051.

6648

4.91

572

687

18 1

1959

0 80

6

Mar

eeba

RAV

19 0

7053

645

1 98

61

713

495

1 02

8 27

02

741

765

89.8

551

7.76

00

0

Mar

ooch

yUR

V14

9 23

21

163

1 84

33

017

140

1 97

7 35

74

994

497

20.2

21

072.

900

00

Mar

ybor

ough

UFS

25 9

191

234

213

938

037

398

365

1 33

6 40

236

.19

1 87

0.26

00

0

McK

inla

yRT

M1

017

40 8

851

893

2 18

3 82

481

8 56

23

002

386

2 14

7.32

432.

422

483

830

850

679

3 33

4 50

9

Mer

Isla

ndUR

S46

27

535

0 60

16

486

357

087

758.

881

297.

200

00

Mill

mer

ran

RAM

3 53

74

521

1 14

21

453

782

521

345

1 97

5 12

741

1.02

456.

520

00

Mira

niRA

L5

585

3 28

043

71

037

298

239

342

1 27

6 64

018

5.73

547.

690

00

Miri

am V

ale

RAM

5 76

33

778

1 13

51

613

068

476

490

2 08

9 55

827

9.90

419.

810

00

Mon

toRA

M2

523

4 32

289

71

596

447

496

720

2 09

3 16

763

2.76

553.

760

00

Mor

eton

Bay

*–

––

––

––

–7

252

414

4 63

2 11

411

884

528

Mor

ning

ton

Isla

ndUF

S1

044

1 23

156

086

9 01

024

9 15

01

118

160

832.

3944

4.91

1 28

4 36

225

9 85

71

544

219

Mou

nt Is

aUF

S21

421

43 3

4344

51

800

908

1 09

1 87

82

892

786

84.0

72

453.

662

048

310

1 13

2 09

03

180

400

Mou

nt M

orga

nRA

M2

979

492

2 08

394

2 09

110

3 94

81

046

039

316.

2449

.90

00

0

Mun

dubb

era

RAM

2 31

14

193

1 75

51

575

542

361

218

1 93

6 76

068

1.76

205.

820

00

155

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Mur

gon

RAM

3 87

569

527

01

131

250

198

381

1 32

9 63

129

1.94

734.

740

00

Mur

illa

RAM

2 78

36

074

1 15

02

070

987

517

707

2 58

8 69

474

4.16

450.

180

00

Mur

weh

RTL

4 99

540

740

2 67

32

894

316

1 18

9 24

54

083

561

579.

4444

4.91

3 29

1 92

61

235

388

4 52

7 31

4

Nan

ango

RAL

8 81

41

735

846

1 47

2 39

144

4 53

41

916

925

167.

0552

5.45

00

0

Nap

ranu

mUR

S81

36

2027

8 90

916

201

295

110

343.

0681

0.05

454

629

17 9

0747

2 53

6

Neb

oRA

M2

190

10 0

3545

793

9 78

821

5 92

21

155

710

429.

1347

2.48

00

0

New

Map

oon

UFS

360

9416

321

970

10 2

2733

2 19

789

4.36

639.

190

00

Noo

saUR

M48

660

869

1 06

11

406

844

911

594

2 31

8 43

828

.91

859.

180

00

Nor

th B

urne

tt*

––

––

––

––

7 42

9 49

62

163

711

9 59

3 20

7

Nor

ther

n Pe

nins

ula

Area

*–

––

––

––

–2

013

862

182

300

2 19

6 16

2

Palm

Isla

ndUR

S2

378

7139

307

742

39 9

1234

7 65

412

9.41

1 02

3.38

511

280

38 3

9954

9 67

9

Paro

oRT

M2

124

47 7

272

210

2 29

0 72

096

4 45

83

255

178

1 07

8.49

436.

412

605

411

1 00

2 19

13

607

602

Peak

Dow

nsRA

M3

389

8 12

789

31

915

854

412

572

2 32

8 42

656

5.32

462.

010

00

Perr

yRA

S44

72

359

506

762

242

199

084

961

326

1 70

5.24

393.

450

00

Pine

Riv

ers

URV

148

529

750

1 19

03

114

844

1 90

7 06

05

021

904

20.9

71

602.

570

00

Pitt

swor

thRA

M5

030

1 09

089

964

0 75

932

9 76

397

0 52

212

7.39

366.

810

00

Porm

pura

awUR

S63

14

360

570

377

659

249

535

627

194

598.

5143

7.78

571

362

259

688

831

050

Poru

ma

Isla

ndUR

S17

50

435

7 28

03

229

360

509

2 04

1.60

807.

250

00

Quilp

ieRT

M1

079

67 6

132

525

2 41

1 43

51

089

236

3 50

0 67

12

234.

8843

1.38

2 74

2 70

91

132

355

3 87

5 06

4

Redc

liffe

UDM

53 6

5738

263

1 15

8 47

361

7 61

41

776

087

21.5

92

348.

340

00

156


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Redl

and

URV

132

179

537

992

2 62

2 80

21

668

497

4 29

1 29

919

.84

1 68

1.95

2 98

3 11

21

726

977

4 71

0 08

9

Rich

mon

dRT

M1

151

26 6

021

385

1 59

9 41

148

6 95

62

086

367

1 38

9.58

351.

591

819

132

554

005

2 37

3 13

7

Rock

ham

pton

URM

60 7

3018

950

11

839

728

785

751

2 62

5 47

930

.29

1 56

8.37

5 92

5 55

82

497

899

8 42

3 45

7

Rom

aUR

S6

887

7825

41

241

661

140

487

1 38

2 14

818

0.29

553.

109

047

808

3 22

5 74

212

273

550

Rosa

lieRA

L9

397

2 20

01

370

1 64

2 03

367

3 95

82

315

991

174.

7449

1.94

00

0

Saib

ai Is

land

UFS

368

104

740

0 65

26

457

407

109

1 08

8.73

922.

430

00

Sarin

aRA

L10

316

1 44

438

763

5 08

126

2 43

489

7 51

561

.56

678.

120

00

Scen

ic R

im*

––

––

––

––

1 79

8 08

01

197

849

2 99

5 92

9

Seis

ia Is

land

URS

144

27

335

313

4 34

833

9 66

12

328.

5662

1.14

00

0

Som

erse

t*

––

––

––

––

1 81

2 30

898

8 95

02

801

258

Sout

h Bu

rnet

t*

––

––

––

––

5 98

0 44

31

777

851

7 75

8 29

4

Sout

hern

Dow

ns*

––

––

––

––

4 67

8 47

91

719

676

6 39

8 15

5

St P

aul’s

Isla

ndUF

S23

918

1136

5 72

49

302

375

026

1 53

0.23

845.

640

00

Stan

thor

peRA

V10

596

2 69

71

057

1 82

3 15

455

1 48

52

374

639

172.

0652

1.75

00

0

Suns

hine

Coa

st*

––

––

––

––

6 37

5 35

54

449

477

10 8

24 8

32

Tabl

elan

ds*

––

––

––

––

6 12

6 38

02

119

869

8 24

6 24

9

Tam

boRT

S64

014

105

550

1 04

9 52

341

6 41

71

465

940

1 63

9.88

757.

120

00

Tara

RAM

3 93

811

680

1 78

33

367

948

799

057

4 16

7 00

585

5.24

448.

150

00

Taro

omRA

M2

539

18 6

452

049

2 11

1 77

889

9 56

03

011

338

831.

7443

9.02

00

0

Thur

ingo

wa

UFM

61 6

551

867

571

1 62

2 84

582

4 54

62

447

391

26.3

21

444.

040

00

Tiar

oRA

M5

396

2 18

769

21

454

565

346

367

1 80

0 93

226

9.56

500.

530

00

157

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Toow

oom

baUD

L97

284

117

643

1 95

2 62

71

180

959

3 13

3 58

620

.07

1 83

6.64

9 57

3 91

34

511

920

14 0

85 8

33

Torr

esRT

L3

827

1 85

752

1 68

8 56

458

298

1 74

6 86

244

1.22

1 12

1.12

1 88

9 75

457

585

1 94

7 33

9

Torr

es S

trai

t Isl

and

*–

––

––

––

–5

731

320

140

647

5 87

1 96

7

Tow

nsvi

lleUR

L10

3 40

41

869

908

2 85

8 91

51

361

600

4 22

0 51

527

.65

1 49

9.56

4 43

2 56

42

272

599

6 70

5 16

3

Ugar

Isla

ndUR

S57

02

331

589

1 39

133

2 98

05

817.

3569

5.50

00

0

Umag

ico

UFS

288

5315

368

529

9 12

337

7 65

21

279.

6160

8.20

00

0

Wag

gam

baRA

M3

075

13 4

001

641

2 49

5 62

773

0 24

63

225

873

811.

5944

5.00

00

0

Wam

boRA

L5

446

5 71

31

735

1 78

1 17

179

2 74

22

573

913

327.

0645

6.91

00

0

War

rabe

r Isl

and

URS

239

15

378

377

4 38

738

2 76

41

583.

1787

7.40

00

0

War

roo

RAS

1 06

713

659

1 29

41

609

325

601

081

2 21

0 40

61

508.

2746

4.51

00

0

War

wic

kUF

S22

124

4 42

32

073

2 75

4 80

41

094

223

3 84

9 02

712

4.52

527.

850

00

Whi

tsun

day

RAV

18 1

202

679

504

819

378

386

000

1 20

5 37

845

.22

765.

872

316

500

1 11

8 58

33

435

083

Win

ton

RTM

1 51

953

935

5 06

43

298

977

1 10

8 12

34

407

100

2 17

1.81

218.

823

752

179

1 15

1 73

14

903

910

Won

dai

RAM

4 55

93

578

943

1 87

4 15

944

5 92

32

320

082

411.

0947

2.88

00

0

Woo

coo

RAM

3 35

22

006

554

1 11

8 03

026

8 03

61

386

066

333.

5448

3.82

00

0

Woo

rabi

nda

UFS

1 03

538

880

71 2

6043

891

115

151

68.8

554

8.64

218

941

44 5

9326

3 53

4

Wuj

al W

ujal

URS

379

1120

92 1

6612

115

104

281

243.

1860

5.75

200

259

12 4

2221

2 68

1

Yarr

abah

UFS

2 32

215

650

218

779

43 2

3026

2 00

994

.22

864.

6041

0 45

647

671

458

127

York

e Is

land

URS

336

28

357

919

6 58

236

4 50

11

065.

2482

2.75

00

0

Wes

tern

Aus

tral

ia

Alba

ny (C

)UR

M33

364

4 80

41

602

1 44

1 71

51

374

981

2 81

6 69

643

.21

858.

291

526

732

1 49

2 24

13

018

973

158


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Arm

adal

e (C

)UF

M52

879

545

560

1 89

0 31

281

0 74

92

701

061

35.7

51

447.

772

001

557

837

450

2 83

9 00

7

Ashb

urto

n (S

)RT

L6

034

105

647

2 19

02

778

166

1 05

5 73

53

833

901

460.

4248

2.07

2 94

1 18

61

088

896

4 03

0 08

2

Augu

sta–

Mar

gare

t Ri

ver (

S)RS

G12

000

2 37

083

921

6 43

571

4 72

193

1 15

618

.04

#85

1.87

211

089

801

069

1 01

2 15

8

Bass

ende

an (T

)UD

S13

994

1193

252

400

171

386

423

786

18.0

4#

1 84

2.86

264

196

178

007

442

203

Bays

wat

er (C

)UD

M57

298

3334

41

033

443

610

417

1 64

3 86

018

.04

#1

774.

471

098

183

637

338

1 73

5 52

1

Belm

ont (

C)UD

M31

832

4022

157

4 13

140

1 68

297

5 81

318

.04

#1

817.

5760

4 68

842

9 86

21

034

550

Beve

rley (

S)RA

S1

583

2 31

068

650

3 97

441

0 42

691

4 40

031

8.37

598.

2953

3 58

338

3 46

791

7 05

0

Bodd

ingt

on (S

)RA

S1

391

1 93

226

021

9 99

519

0 18

241

0 17

715

8.16

731.

4723

2 93

019

1 39

042

4 32

0

Boyu

p Br

ook

(S)

RAS

1 49

72

838

1 02

824

9 56

551

4 31

676

3 88

116

6.71

500.

3126

4 25

253

5 57

979

9 83

1

Brid

geto

wn–

Gree

nbus

hes

(S)

RAM

3 96

61

691

710

726

597

511

623

1 23

8 22

018

3.21

720.

6076

9 28

754

0 22

81

309

515

Broo

kton

(S)

RAS

1 05

41

626

535

358

392

260

420

618

812

340.

0348

6.77

379

452

271

242

650

694

Broo

me

(S)

RTL

14 7

0656

000

835

2 28

1 75

980

4 71

53

086

474

155.

1696

3.73

2 41

5 80

775

9 06

43

174

871

Broo

meh

ill–T

ambe

llup

*–

––

––

––

–73

0 70

950

2 26

91

232

978

Broo

meh

ill (S

)RA

S52

61

376

459

261

585

225

169

486

754

497.

3149

0.56

00

0

Bruc

e Ro

ck (S

)RA

S93

02

772

1 17

588

6 97

963

2 85

91

519

838

953.

7453

8.60

939

088

654

749

1 59

3 83

7

Bunb

ury (

C)UR

M32

499

6130

758

6 16

165

2 05

91

238

220

18.0

4#

2 12

3.97

587

890

701

700

1 28

9 59

0

Buss

elto

n (S

)RS

G28

649

1 45

498

951

6 72

196

5 57

91

482

300

18.0

4#

976.

3251

0 99

91

523

160

2 03

4 15

9

Cam

brid

ge (T

)UD

S25

136

2217

345

3 36

030

3 76

175

7 12

118

.04

#1

755.

8447

1 97

731

4 33

478

6 31

1

Cann

ing

(C)

UDL

80 4

6365

505

1 45

1 25

395

8 24

52

409

498

18.0

4#

1 89

7.51

1 54

2 39

998

1 93

42

524

333

159

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Cape

l (S)

RSG

10 5

1755

445

072

5 36

41

344

644

2 07

0 00

868

.97

2 98

8.10

767

979

457

113

1 22

5 09

2

Carn

amah

(S)

RAS

671

2 83

464

052

1 76

730

8 42

083

0 18

777

7.60

481.

9155

2 42

633

1 42

188

3 84

7

Carn

arvo

n (S

)RA

L6

199

53 0

001

522

2 50

6 74

984

9 81

83

356

567

404.

3855

8.36

2 65

3 98

588

5 82

93

539

814

Chap

man

Val

ley (

S)RA

S1

017

4 00

792

418

4 93

041

8 47

560

3 40

518

1.84

452.

9019

5 83

541

4 30

861

0 14

3

Chitt

erin

g (S

)RA

M3

653

1 18

839

840

2 33

031

9 81

272

2 14

211

0.14

803.

5542

5 96

633

0 86

475

6 83

0

Clar

emon

t (T)

UDS

9 16

45

4716

5 28

481

246

246

530

18.0

4#

1 72

8.64

177

177

84 0

6426

1 24

1

Cock

burn

(C)

UFL

78 7

6813

868

51

420

682

1 00

3 06

72

423

749

18.0

4#

1 46

4.33

1 50

3 65

61

037

447

2 54

1 10

3

Colli

e (S

)RA

L8

705

1 68

541

31

448

335

587

081

2 03

5 41

616

6.38

1 42

1.50

1 53

3 41

562

8 54

52

161

960

Cool

gard

ie (S

)UR

S3

700

30 4

0079

532

4 30

735

3 17

867

7 48

587

.65

444.

2534

3 43

136

5 38

870

8 81

9

Coor

ow (S

)RA

S1

221

4 13

787

657

4 87

943

8 07

61

012

955

470.

8350

0.09

608

658

453

221

1 06

1 87

9

Corr

igin

(S)

RAS

1 16

53

095

1 09

266

4 24

253

3 28

61

197

528

570.

1648

8.36

703

266

543

286

1 24

6 55

2

Cotte

sloe

(T)

UDS

7 67

34

4713

8 39

280

087

218

479

18.0

4#

1 70

3.98

146

573

83 6

4523

0 21

8

Cran

broo

k (S

)RA

S1

015

3 39

01

013

353

639

545

519

899

158

348.

4153

8.52

374

420

541

189

915

609

Cuba

lling

(S)

RAS

760

1 25

055

346

0 96

969

9 23

51

160

204

606.

541

264.

4448

8 05

128

0 73

676

8 78

7

Cue

(S)

RTX

338

13 7

1674

169

6 17

828

1 43

897

7 61

62

059.

7037

9.81

737

080

364

017

1 10

1 09

7

Cund

erdi

n (S

)RA

S1

260

1 87

277

854

3 02

840

0 19

494

3 22

243

0.97

514.

3957

4 96

542

2 76

399

7 72

8

Dalw

allin

u (S

)RA

S1

467

7 18

71

910

812

536

897

905

1 71

0 44

155

3.88

470.

1186

0 27

593

4 45

41

794

729

Dand

arag

an (S

)RA

M2

991

6 93

41

231

443

490

779

168

1 22

2 65

814

8.27

632.

9646

9 56

580

6 10

61

275

671

Dard

anup

(S)

RSG

11 0

8451

836

160

2 93

932

8 42

893

1 36

754

.40

909.

7763

8 43

134

1 48

497

9 91

5

Denm

ark

(S)

RAL

5 33

71

842

623

562

944

361

996

924

940

105.

4858

1.05

596

024

373

113

969

137

160


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Derb

y–W

est K

imbe

rley

(S)

RTL

8 80

010

2 70

61

807

4 25

4 55

281

2 66

55

067

217

483.

4744

9.73

4 50

4 37

694

1 51

75

445

893

Donn

ybro

ok–B

alin

gup

(S)

RAL

5 01

01

541

651

727

254

484

797

1 21

2 05

114

5.16

744.

7076

9 98

071

6 40

01

486

380

Dowe

rin (S

)RA

S79

01

867

939

498

951

428

218

927

169

631.

5845

6.04

528

275

446

261

974

536

Dum

bley

ung

(S)

RAS

660

2 55

398

453

9 48

845

7 79

799

7 28

581

7.41

465.

2457

1 18

647

8 86

71

050

053

Dund

as (S

)RT

M1

070

92 7

2562

479

5 35

836

5 94

91

161

307

743.

3358

6.46

842

041

378

598

1 22

0 63

9

East

Fre

man

tle (T

)UD

S6

932

337

125

028

58 5

7618

3 60

418

.04

#1

583.

1413

1 54

060

601

192

141

East

Pilb

ara

(S)

RTL

5 80

037

8 53

33

056

2 79

8 21

61

708

719

4 50

6 93

548

2.45

559.

142

962

348

1 81

2 26

44

774

612

Espe

ranc

e (S

)RA

V13

089

42 4

504

154

1 27

1 38

42

146

306

3 41

7 69

097

.13

516.

681

346

268

2 35

7 22

03

703

488

Exm

outh

(S)

RTM

2 24

55

764

287

1 05

5 18

130

3 96

51

359

146

470.

011

059.

111

117

143

314

472

1 43

1 61

5

Frem

antle

(C)

UDS

26 3

2018

167

474

715

310

993

785

708

18.0

4#

1 86

2.23

497

564

321

646

819

210

Gera

ldto

n–Gr

eeno

ugh

(C)

URS

33 0

4015

582

52

372

776

974

875

3 34

7 65

171

.82

1 18

1.67

2 51

2 27

31

059

985

3 57

2 25

8

Ging

in (S

)RA

M4

606

3 32

583

256

3 96

268

7 43

51

251

397

122.

4482

6.24

597

094

686

343

1 28

3 43

7

Gnow

ange

rup

(S)

RAS

1 37

15

000

1 01

036

3 55

148

6 50

085

0 05

126

5.17

481.

6838

4 93

450

8 91

389

3 84

7

Goom

allin

g (S

)RA

S98

31

845

587

270

567

284

859

555

426

275.

2548

5.28

286

475

296

730

583

205

Gosn

ells

(C)

UFL

94 6

851

748

648

1 70

7 76

51

077

647

2 78

5 41

218

.04

#1

663.

041

810

014

1 18

5 91

12

995

925

Halls

Cre

ek (S

)RT

L4

587

142

908

1 25

53

257

885

750

184

4 00

8 06

971

0.24

597.

763

449

058

825

541

4 27

4 59

9

Harv

ey (S

)RS

G20

601

1 76

682

194

5 70

692

4 96

81

870

674

45.9

11

126.

641

001

311

758

592

1 75

9 90

3

Irwin

(S)

RAM

3 35

02

223

430

316

123

254

455

570

578

94.3

759

1.76

334

720

263

225

597

945

Jerr

amun

gup

(S)

RAS

1 10

06

540

1 09

332

3 86

946

6 84

979

0 71

829

4.43

427.

1334

2 89

648

7 05

282

9 94

8

161

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Joon

dalu

p (C

)UF

V15

7 79

310

397

42

845

999

1 64

2 49

94

488

498

18.0

4#

1 68

6.34

2 92

1 11

11

778

640

4 69

9 75

1

Kala

mun

da (S

)UF

M51

778

349

553

933

883

759

031

1 69

2 91

418

.04

#1

372.

5797

2 94

278

6 05

81

759

000

Kalg

oorli

e/Bo

ulde

r (C)

URS

29 1

5295

229

1 33

386

9 67

11

317

602

2 18

7 27

329

.83

988.

4592

0 95

51

374

263

2 29

5 21

8

Kata

nnin

g (S

)RA

M4

160

1 52

368

192

4 55

344

3 14

71

367

700

222.

2565

0.73

978

878

413

144

1 39

2 02

2

Kelle

rber

rin (S

)RA

S1

165

1 85

293

977

5 48

044

6 65

01

222

130

665.

6547

5.67

821

029

483

471

1 30

4 50

0

Kent

(S)

RAS

524

6 55

21

305

273

247

518

332

791

579

521.

4639

7.19

289

303

542

015

831

318

Kojo

nup

(S)

RAM

2 09

42

937

1 12

641

3 39

253

8 70

995

2 10

119

7.42

478.

4343

7 68

31

151

535

1 58

9 21

8

Kond

inin

(S)

RAS

995

7 34

01

335

473

312

569

997

1 04

3 30

947

5.69

426.

9650

1 11

958

9 65

41

090

773

Koor

da (S

)RA

S43

02

662

1 08

882

4 87

253

8 70

51

363

577

1 91

8.31

495.

1387

3 32

255

7 81

71

431

139

Kulin

(S)

RAS

888

4 79

01

437

441

346

626

863

1 06

8 20

949

7.01

436.

2346

7 27

564

8 53

01

115

805

Kwin

ana

(T)

UFS

24 4

2711

828

844

0 57

241

2 95

185

3 52

318

.04

#1

433.

8646

6 57

047

6 38

494

2 95

4

Lake

Gra

ce (S

)RA

S1

450

9 24

52

260

528

670

963

687

1 49

2 35

736

4.60

426.

4155

9 72

91

002

105

1 56

1 83

4

Lave

rton

(S)

RTM

1 20

418

3 19

83

023

965

819

609

511

1 57

5 33

080

2.18

201.

621

022

567

720

464

1 74

3 03

1

Leon

ora

(S)

RTM

1 83

031

743

1 33

235

6 21

153

7 26

089

3 47

119

4.65

403.

3537

7 21

755

5 55

693

2 77

3

Man

dura

h (C

)UR

M65

273

179

710

1 17

7 28

21

086

074

2 26

3 35

618

.04

#1

529.

681

125

312

1 21

8 72

52

344

037

Man

jimup

(S)

RAL

9 55

06

894

1 28

21

560

693

1 30

9 82

02

870

513

163.

421

021.

701

652

383

1 39

9 95

83

052

341

Mee

kath

arra

(S)

RTM

1 51

499

973

2 52

71

449

696

840

003

2 28

9 69

995

7.53

332.

411

534

854

878

417

2 41

3 27

1

Mel

ville

(C)

UDL

97 5

9753

528

1 76

0 28

789

1 15

42

651

441

18.0

4#

1 68

7.79

1 85

2 84

492

2 50

32

775

347

Men

zies

(S)

RTX

366

71 6

802

087

1 05

8 49

973

5 12

71

793

626

2 89

2.07

352.

241

120

580

760

069

1 88

0 64

9

Mer

redi

n (S

)RA

M3

455

3 37

21

282

920

136

674

965

1 59

5 10

126

6.32

526.

4997

4 19

569

8 83

21

673

027

162


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Min

gene

w (S

)RA

S51

01

927

454

224

898

250

281

475

179

440.

9855

1.28

238

145

261

989

500

134

Moo

ra (S

)RA

M2

470

3 78

893

743

0 26

651

8 44

694

8 71

217

4.20

553.

3045

5 56

553

6 18

599

1 75

0

Mor

awa

(S)

RAS

827

3 52

894

160

0 85

144

2 80

21

043

653

726.

5447

0.57

636

153

465

527

1 10

1 68

0

Mos

man

Par

k (T

)UD

S8

595

443

155

022

68 5

7622

3 59

818

.04

#1

594.

7916

5 26

670

807

236

073

Mou

nt M

agne

t (S)

RTS

707

13 8

7770

796

1 70

338

6 46

81

348

171

1 36

0.26

546.

631

018

182

399

814

1 41

7 99

6

Mou

nt M

arsh

all (

S)RA

S58

410

134

1 71

983

7 19

374

1 70

11

578

894

1 43

3.55

431.

4788

6 37

776

7 38

11

653

758

Muk

inbu

din

(S)

RAS

628

3 41

490

565

5 86

242

1 21

81

077

080

1 04

4.37

465.

4369

4 38

343

7 62

71

132

010

Mul

lew

a (S

)RA

S1

013

10 7

071

178

211

100

483

642

694

742

208.

3941

0.56

223

549

551

386

774

935

Mun

darin

g (S

)UF

M35

680

644

568

2 01

0 99

277

2 34

72

783

339

56.3

61

359.

772

129

381

798

392

2 92

7 77

3

Mur

chis

on (S

)RT

X14

143

800

1 87

21

538

948

628

624

2 16

7 57

210

914

.52

335.

801

629

270

657

552

2 28

6 82

2

Mur

ray (

S)RS

G12

346

1 81

368

51

188

753

606

358

1 79

5 11

196

.29

885.

191

258

628

627

843

1 88

6 47

1

Nan

nup

(S)

RAS

1 23

02

953

426

527

348

371

629

898

977

428.

7487

2.37

558

330

357

628

915

958

Nar

embe

en (S

)RA

S89

03

821

1 41

370

5 27

663

9 97

71

345

253

792.

4445

2.92

746

710

666

360

1 41

3 07

0

Nar

rogi

n (S

)RA

S73

41

618

724

377

030

350

048

727

078

513.

6648

3.49

399

184

346

125

745

309

Nar

rogi

n (T

)UR

S4

332

1167

756

417

128

293

884

710

174.

611

914.

8280

0 83

913

2 72

793

3 56

6

Ned

land

s (C

)UD

S21

992

2114

039

6 65

424

0 00

763

6 66

118

.04

#1

714.

3440

6 04

924

8 69

865

4 74

7

Nga

anya

tjarr

aku

(S)

RTM

1 77

615

9 94

81

317

2 42

1 40

290

4 93

63

326

338

1 36

3.40

687.

122

563

575

950

598

3 51

4 17

3

Nor

tham

(S)

RAM

9 92

31

443

721

1 56

0 24

285

1 10

72

411

349

157.

231

180.

451

651

946

640

384

2 29

2 33

0

Nor

tham

pton

(S)

RAM

3 30

213

513

1 04

247

0 79

753

2 73

91

003

536

142.

5851

1.27

498

532

551

142

1 04

9 67

4

Nung

arin

(S)

RAS

254

1 14

550

655

8 19

623

3 20

079

1 39

62

197.

6246

0.87

590

981

243

006

833

987

Pepp

erm

int G

rove

(S)

UDS

1 68

82

930

445

16 2

7546

720

18.0

4#

1 80

8.33

30 8

8316

992

47 8

75

163

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Pere

njor

i (S)

RAS

548

8 21

41

423

596

995

579

268

1 17

6 26

31

089.

4140

7.08

632

068

624

166

1 25

6 23

4

Pert

h (C

)UC

C13

439

996

242

390

363

013

605

403

18.0

4#

3 78

1.39

250

594

327

881

578

475

Ping

elly

(S)

RAS

1 11

71

223

566

478

987

286

517

765

504

428.

8250

6.21

507

125

318

421

825

546

Plan

tage

net (

S)RA

M4

708

4 79

21

300

381

125

658

584

1 03

9 70

980

.95

506.

6040

3 56

770

1 50

31

105

070

Port

Hed

land

(T)

URS

12 4

9911

844

663

1 78

9 94

462

3 09

92

413

043

143.

2193

9.82

1 89

4 88

859

1 49

72

486

385

Quai

radi

ng (S

)RA

S1

008

1 62

989

165

0 55

544

6 92

71

097

482

645.

3950

1.60

688

775

462

407

1 15

1 18

2

Rave

nsth

orpe

(S)

RAS

1 52

112

872

1 25

753

9 59

750

3 18

71

042

784

354.

7640

0.31

571

322

547

371

1 11

8 69

3

Rock

ingh

am (C

)UF

L89

629

261

760

1 61

6 57

41

167

528

2 78

4 10

218

.04

#1

536.

221

703

986

1 20

8 95

92

912

945

Roeb

ourn

e (S

)UR

S15

799

15 1

9658

02

217

057

1 11

2 80

13

329

858

140.

331

918.

622

347

426

641

036

2 98

8 46

2

Sand

ston

e (S

)RT

X15

028

218

1 14

71

040

788

527

594

1 56

8 38

26

938.

5945

9.98

1 10

1 91

754

5 83

11

647

748

Serp

entin

e–Ja

rrah

dale

(S

)RS

G13

209

905

498

1 26

2 94

863

9 47

01

902

418

95.6

11

284.

081

337

145

716

697

2 05

3 84

2

Shar

k Ba

y (S)

RTS

994

25 0

0060

487

2 39

132

5 29

01

197

681

877.

6653

8.56

923

643

337

110

1 26

0 75

3

Sout

h Pe

rth

(C)

UDM

38 6

3120

191

696

760

319

470

1 01

6 23

018

.04

#1

672.

6277

2 48

233

3 94

21

106

424

Stirl

ing

(C)

UDV

183

897

100

1 01

73

316

818

1 73

2 42

25

049

240

18.0

4#

1 70

3.46

3 51

3 49

81

803

020

5 31

6 51

8

Subi

aco

(C)

UDS

16 6

497

8930

0 28

618

0 90

648

1 19

218

.04

#2

032.

6533

1 40

618

8 30

651

9 71

2

Swan

(S)

UFL

96 2

121

029

1 16

21

735

307

1 63

8 86

53

374

172

18.0

4#

1 41

0.38

1 86

9 19

61

750

894

3 62

0 09

0

Tam

bellu

p (S

)RA

S67

61

437

503

428

592

396

643

825

235

634.

0178

8.55

00

0

Tam

min

(S)

RAS

427

1 08

750

546

9 24

523

4 53

170

3 77

61

098.

9346

4.42

496

809

242

595

739

404

Thre

e Sp

rings

(S)

RAS

721

2 62

969

535

9 88

653

2 37

089

2 25

649

9.15

766.

0038

1 06

235

3 48

573

4 54

7

Tood

yay (

S)RA

M4

384

1 68

362

260

3 03

268

1 81

01

284

842

137.

551

096.

1663

8 46

251

6 49

91

154

961

164


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Tray

ning

(S)

RAS

334

1 63

276

459

8 83

936

7 15

396

5 99

21

792.

9348

0.57

634

019

382

522

1 01

6 54

1

Uppe

r Gas

coyn

e (S

)RT

X36

346

602

1 83

41

592

144

729

317

2 32

1 46

14

386.

0739

7.66

1 68

5 64

068

5 42

12

371

061

Vict

oria

Par

k (T

)UD

S29

391

1816

053

0 10

427

5 83

580

5 93

918

.04

#1

723.

9756

0 22

229

9 49

285

9 71

4

Vict

oria

Pla

ins

(S)

RAS

894

2 56

380

420

7 03

440

0 45

360

7 48

723

1.58

498.

0821

9 22

140

7 54

962

6 77

0

Vinc

ent (

T)UD

S27

062

1013

448

8 09

827

0 64

475

8 74

218

.04

#2

019.

7355

9 62

729

7 53

185

7 15

8

Wag

in (S

)RA

S1

770

1 95

078

655

8 05

639

9 62

495

7 68

031

5.29

508.

4359

0 84

255

6 89

21

147

734

Wan

derin

g (S

)RA

S33

31

955

355

143

945

172

545

316

490

432.

2748

6.04

152

409

204

509

356

918

Wan

nero

o (C

)UF

L11

5 13

668

81

086

2 07

6 62

51

663

255

3 73

9 88

018

.04

#1

531.

542

320

622

1 72

2 10

04

042

722

War

oona

(S)

RAM

3 66

383

533

156

6 81

328

8 29

085

5 10

315

4.74

870.

9760

0 11

330

9 78

290

9 89

5

Wes

t Art

hur (

S)RA

S86

72

850

858

234

468

399

602

634

070

270.

4446

5.74

248

243

1 34

7 78

91

596

032

Wes

toni

a (S

)RA

S21

93

268

882

417

982

398

163

816

145

1 90

8.59

451.

4344

2 53

741

4 73

385

7 27

0

Wic

kepi

n (S

)RA

S67

81

989

873

558

660

414

759

973

419

823.

9847

5.10

591

481

432

024

1 02

3 50

5

Will

iam

s (S

)RA

S80

62

295

491

59 7

9923

8 80

629

8 60

574

.19

486.

3763

325

245

875

309

200

Wilu

na (S

)RT

S96

918

4 00

01

879

905

681

619

516

1 52

5 19

793

4.66

329.

7195

8 86

263

4 23

31

593

095

Won

gan–

Balli

du (S

)RA

S1

420

3 35

01

321

683

871

631

425

1 31

5 29

648

1.60

477.

9972

4 04

965

7 43

31

381

482

Woo

dani

lling

(S)

RAS

384

1 12

649

431

0 21

522

9 51

553

9 73

080

7.85

464.

6132

8 43

724

5 45

357

3 89

0

Wya

lkat

chem

(S)

RAS

616

1 74

372

158

1 77

234

9 06

893

0 84

094

4.44

484.

1461

5 95

136

3 43

597

9 38

6

Wyn

dham

–Eas

t Ki

mbe

rley (

S)RT

L7

772

121

189

1 07

92

753

363

881

569

3 63

4 93

235

4.27

817.

022

915

094

925

294

3 84

0 38

8

Yalg

oo (S

)RT

X32

733

258

1 18

81

024

613

478

036

1 50

2 64

93

133.

3740

2.39

1 08

4 80

852

3 67

31

608

481

Yilg

arn

(S)

RAS

1 45

030

720

2 71

338

0 93

892

2 49

01

303

428

262.

7234

0.03

403

373

969

925

1 37

3 29

8

165

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

York

(S)

RAM

3 40

02

010

673

517

505

492

973

1 01

0 47

815

2.21

732.

5054

7 89

71

027

612

1 57

5 50

9

Sout

h Au

stra

lia

Adel

aide

(C)

UCC

15 2

9915

130

275

484

167

279

442

763

18.0

1#

1 28

6.76

342

709

299

287

641

996

Adel

aide

Hill

sUF

M39

048

792

1 08

870

3 12

573

7 18

91

440

314

18.0

1#

677.

5673

2 29

970

7 67

31

439

972

Alex

andr

ina

UFS

20 9

491

826

1 32

339

1 34

540

8 27

379

9 61

818

.68

308.

6040

6 38

043

4 90

884

1 28

8

Anan

gu P

itjan

tjatja

raRT

M2

266

523

088

910

158

113

412

1 02

3 57

040

1.66

36.7

395

5 39

211

8 81

91

074

211

Baro

ssa

UFS

21 0

6089

196

137

9 22

134

6 46

272

5 68

318

.01

#36

0.52

402

321

365

925

768

246

Baru

nga

Wes

t (DC

)RA

M2

584

1 58

11

053

238

712

162

297

401

009

92.3

815

4.13

262

584

169

946

432

530

Berr

i and

Bar

mer

aRA

V11

325

507

413

1 66

1 85

017

7 30

51

839

155

146.

7442

9.31

1 82

8 03

518

3 18

02

011

215

Burn

side

(C)

UDM

42 9

8627

234

774

036

374

675

1 14

8 71

118

.01

#1

601.

1880

9 73

439

1 98

61

201

720

Cam

pbel

ltow

n (C

)UD

M47

525

2425

285

5 76

740

9 78

91

265

556

18.0

1#

1 62

6.15

890

895

427

593

1 31

8 48

8

Cedu

na (D

C)RA

M3

490

5 43

31

710

1 58

2 85

334

2 46

61

925

319

453.

5420

0.27

1 74

1 13

935

6 60

02

097

739

Char

les

Stur

t (C)

UDL

103

942

5656

51

871

651

905

726

2 77

7 37

718

.01

#1

603.

051

927

361

1 23

9 61

53

166

976

Clar

e an

d Gi

lber

t Val

leys

RAL

8 32

91

886

1 82

429

0 79

229

5 08

958

5 88

134

.91

161.

7831

9 87

259

8 88

991

8 76

1

Clev

e (D

C)RA

S1

897

4 48

81

395

707

708

276

038

983

746

373.

0719

7.88

778

479

289

574

1 06

8 05

3

Coob

er P

edy (

DC)

URS

2 07

678

421

749

435

39 5

9778

9 03

236

1.00

94.0

577

6 85

139

597

816

448

Coor

ong

(DC)

RAL

5 72

48

863

1 88

41

733

341

737

101

2 47

0 44

230

2.82

391.

241

906

675

537

236

2 44

3 91

1

Copp

er C

oast

(DC)

RAV

11 8

9977

693

31

248

883

229

112

1 47

7 99

510

4.96

245.

561

373

772

240

691

1 61

4 46

3

Ellis

ton

(DC)

RAS

1 11

16

678

1 14

756

6 72

631

5 51

388

2 23

951

0.10

275.

0862

3 39

933

0 94

495

4 34

3

Flin

ders

Ran

ges

RAS

1 70

94

106

1 26

182

7 12

523

1 45

41

058

579

483.

9818

3.55

909

837

243

175

1 15

3 01

2

Fran

klin

Har

bour

(DC)

RAS

1 34

03

278

935

682

361

198

000

880

361

509.

2221

1.76

750

598

207

019

957

617

166


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Gaw

ler (

M)

UFS

19 7

2641

179

881

935

303

536

1 18

5 47

144

.71

1 69

5.73

873

116

231

975

1 10

5 09

1

Gera

rdRT

X89

010

35 5

2115

111

50 6

3239

9.11

1 51

1.10

37 2

8615

831

53 1

17

Goyd

erRA

M4

085

6 68

83

247

1 74

7 14

352

0 27

32

267

416

427.

7016

0.23

1 92

1 85

754

6 44

92

468

306

Gran

t (DC

)RA

L8

134

1 92

41

597

783

425

263

572

1 04

6 99

796

.31

165.

0476

7 75

742

7 23

21

194

989

Hold

fast

Bay

(C)

UDM

34 7

0214

172

624

868

290

449

915

317

18.0

1#

1 68

8.66

646

433

301

998

948

431

Kang

aroo

Isla

ndRA

M4

602

4 43

21

362

1 40

7 43

830

7 75

11

715

189

305.

8322

5.96

1 39

3 36

491

9 62

42

312

988

Karo

onda

–Eas

t Mur

ray

(DC)

RAS

1 15

44

409

1 29

884

1 58

926

2 46

51

104

054

729.

2820

2.21

925

747

275

196

1 20

0 94

3

Kim

ba (D

C)RA

S1

146

3 96

61

714

662

144

714

621

1 37

6 76

557

7.79

416.

9372

8 35

869

4 44

71

422

805

King

ston

(DC)

RAM

2 32

13

351

734

445

762

192

836

638

598

192.

0626

2.72

490

338

202

780

693

118

Le H

unte

(DC)

RAS

1 39

05

369

1 70

21

048

239

304

546

1 35

2 78

575

4.13

178.

930

00

Ligh

tRA

V12

296

1 27

31

446

221

410

645

171

866

581

18.0

1#

446.

1824

2 80

232

0 27

656

3 07

8

Lowe

r Eyr

e Pe

nins

ula

(DC)

RAM

4 45

64

756

1 36

727

9 52

545

3 24

773

2 77

262

.73

331.

5630

7 47

832

5 80

763

3 28

5

Loxt

on W

aike

rie (D

C)RA

V12

083

7 96

42

315

2 29

0 94

197

5 99

93

266

940

189.

6042

1.60

2 52

0 03

51

190

440

3 71

0 47

5

Mal

lala

(DC)

RAL

7 95

893

295

473

6 97

519

0 35

892

7 33

392

.61

199.

5481

0 67

220

1 92

01

012

592

Mar

alin

gaRT

X13

70

147

74 2

2040

577

114

797

541.

7527

6.03

77 9

0842

511

120

419

Mar

ion

(C)

UDL

81 5

8156

467

1 46

9 00

472

8 11

52

197

119

18.0

1#

1 55

9.13

1 51

7 12

575

7 69

22

274

817

Mid

Mur

ray

RAL

8 42

06

252

3 37

92

210

337

502

562

2 71

2 89

926

2.51

148.

732

431

371

523

896

2 95

5 26

7

Mitc

ham

(C)

UDM

62 4

1576

392

1 12

3 88

758

0 34

21

704

229

18.0

1#

1 48

0.46

1 19

4 02

961

2 24

11

806

270

Mou

nt B

arke

r (DC

)UR

S26

685

593

718

574

753

381

473

956

226

21.5

453

1.30

569

005

410

898

979

903

Mou

nt G

ambi

er (C

)UR

S24

043

2719

11

309

083

291

127

1 60

0 21

054

.45

1 52

4.23

1 43

9 99

130

5 50

51

745

496

167

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Mou

nt R

emar

kabl

e (D

C)RA

M2

828

3 41

22

063

1 13

7 20

228

1 51

61

418

718

402.

1213

6.46

1 25

0 92

229

5 38

91

546

311

Mur

ray B

ridge

RAV

18 1

941

824

970

2 44

6 57

034

5 91

62

792

486

134.

4735

6.61

2 59

8 88

036

2 93

92

961

819

Nar

acoo

rte

Luci

ndal

eRA

L8

273

4 53

01

613

1 43

0 46

337

4 85

61

805

319

172.

9123

2.40

1 57

3 50

977

3 44

92

346

958

Nep

abun

naRT

X66

010

22 7

8515

044

37 8

2934

5.23

1 50

4.40

23 9

1715

761

39 6

78

Nor

ther

n Ar

eas

RAM

4 59

72

974

2 19

784

5 20

786

4 33

91

709

546

183.

8639

3.42

929

728

676

110

1 60

5 83

8

Nor

wood

Pay

neha

m a

nd

St P

eter

s (C

)UD

M34

165

1515

761

5 19

927

7 13

589

2 33

418

.01

#1

765.

1965

6 28

529

3 39

894

9 68

3

Onka

parin

gaUF

V15

6 03

751

91

417

6 43

7 66

41

774

265

8 21

1 92

941

.26

1 25

2.13

6 37

3 28

71

841

105

8 21

4 39

2

Orro

roo/

Carr

ieto

n (D

C)RA

S93

53

306

1 62

858

0 17

819

7 13

277

7 31

062

0.51

121.

0963

8 19

620

6 47

984

4 67

5

Outb

ack

Area

s Co

mm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Tr

ust

RTL

4 88

20

01

151

695

01

151

695

235.

910.

001

208

934

01

208

934

Pete

rbor

ough

(DC)

RAS

1 81

03

006

1 23

01

001

963

190

036

1 19

1 99

955

3.57

154.

501

102

160

200

645

1 30

2 80

5

Play

ford

(C)

UFL

72 3

0434

475

37

907

443

888

718

8 79

6 16

110

9.36

1 18

0.24

7 82

8 36

993

1 10

08

759

469

Port

Ade

laid

e En

field

(C)

UDL

105

386

9465

71

897

653

979

664

2 87

7 31

718

.01

#1

491.

121

992

047

1 02

6 59

63

018

643

Port

Aug

usta

(C)

URS

13 8

971

189

408

2 96

4 57

322

3 75

73

188

330

213.

3254

8.42

2 93

4 92

723

4 27

73

169

204

Port

Lin

coln

(C)

URS

14 7

4032

157

719

738

182

191

901

929

48.8

31

160.

4571

9 73

818

2 19

190

1 92

9

Port

Piri

eRA

V17

488

1 78

31

171

3 64

4 68

033

8 59

03

983

270

208.

4128

9.15

3 60

8 23

335

4 35

33

962

586

Pros

pect

(C)

UDS

19 2

748

8734

7 06

115

4 83

750

1 89

818

.01

#1

779.

7437

5 53

116

5 33

554

0 86

6

Renm

ark

Parin

ga (D

C)RA

L9

848

900

490

1 68

8 23

417

8 70

71

866

941

171.

4336

4.71

1 84

8 36

918

5 47

52

033

844

Robe

(DC)

RAS

1 41

01

098

435

25 3

8983

902

109

291

18.0

1#

192.

8826

882

88 0

6511

4 94

7

Roxb

y Dow

ns (M

)UR

S3

645

110

3465

634

48 0

1111

3 64

518

.01

#1

412.

0980

866

57 8

9713

8 76

3

Salis

bury

(C)

UDV

123

252

158

728

8 26

4 03

42

558

234

10 8

22 2

6867

.05

3 51

4.06

8 18

1 39

41

168

576

9 34

9 97

0

168


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Sout

hern

Mal

lee

(DC)

RAM

2 18

75

702

1 32

978

1 65

431

0 85

61

092

510

357.

4123

3.90

859

819

325

697

1 18

5 51

6

Stre

aky B

ay (D

C)RA

M2

072

6 24

11

721

961

112

353

919

1 31

5 03

146

3.86

205.

651

057

223

371

629

1 42

8 85

2

Tatia

ra (D

C)RA

L7

047

6 52

61

931

1 38

7 78

866

2 23

92

050

027

196.

9334

2.95

1 52

6 56

645

7 59

11

984

157

Tea

Tree

Gul

ly (C

)UD

L10

0 00

595

582

1 80

0 75

989

5 27

62

696

035

18.0

1#

1 53

8.27

1 83

6 95

61

149

931

2 98

6 88

7

Tum

by B

ay (D

C)RA

M2

721

2 67

01

107

404

270

203

578

607

848

148.

5718

3.90

444

697

211

854

656

551

Unle

y (C)

UDM

36 5

9114

164

658

883

293

602

952

485

18.0

1#

1 79

0.26

703

019

1 05

0 90

41

753

923

Vict

or H

arbo

r (C)

URS

12 5

2838

637

322

5 58

818

6 80

941

2 39

718

.01

#50

0.83

236

363

195

686

432

049

Wak

efiel

dRA

L6

580

3 46

22

680

1 05

4 40

138

8 31

51

442

716

160.

2414

4.89

1 15

9 84

140

6 03

21

565

873

Wal

kerv

ille

(M)

UDS

7 11

44

3512

8 09

959

438

187

537

18.0

1#

1 69

8.23

134

427

62 3

0419

6 73

1

Wat

tle R

ange

RAV

12 3

523

947

2 45

61

090

193

829

969

1 92

0 16

288

.26

337.

941

199

212

885

654

2 08

4 86

6

Wes

t Tor

rens

(C)

UDM

53 1

0037

290

956

155

463

940

1 42

0 09

518

.01

#1

599.

791

012

831

488

487

1 50

1 31

8

Why

alla

(C)

URS

21 2

111

035

271

4 29

7 70

629

8 16

14

595

867

202.

621

100.

234

254

728

324

113

4 57

8 84

1

Wud

inna

(DC)

*–

––

––

––

–1

153

063

317

967

1 47

1 03

0

Yala

taRT

X22

92

6412

7 85

332

669

160

522

558.

3151

0.45

134

207

34 2

2616

8 43

3

Yank

alill

a (D

C)RA

M4

193

757

539

78 6

9811

4 09

019

2 78

818

.77

211.

6786

567

121

441

208

008

York

e Pe

nins

ula

(DC)

RAV

11 7

135

928

3 88

496

4 29

463

5 67

11

599

965

82.3

316

3.66

1 06

0 72

466

1 03

81

721

762

Tasm

ania

Brea

k O’

Day (

M)

RAL

6 33

43

521

546

1 16

7 92

41

205

558

2 37

3 48

218

4.39

2 20

7.98

1 13

7 89

81

211

585

2 34

9 48

3

Brig

hton

(M)

URS

14 0

2717

116

11

107

908

381

442

1 48

9 35

078

.98

2 36

9.20

1 15

3 43

541

4 99

61

568

431

Burn

ie (C

)UR

S19

335

610

335

932

898

926

827

1 85

9 72

548

.25

2 76

6.65

911

578

997

837

1 90

9 41

5

Cent

ral C

oast

(M)

URS

21 2

3993

166

51

874

227

1 43

4 18

63

308

413

88.2

42

156.

671

963

714

1 60

5 91

53

569

629

169

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Cent

ral H

ighl

ands

(M)

RAM

2 29

77

976

752

651

484

1 02

2 81

31

674

297

283.

621

360.

1261

7 15

21

019

128

1 63

6 28

0

Circ

ular

Hea

d (M

)RA

L8

051

4 89

178

71

181

283

1 37

7 63

42

558

917

146.

731

750.

491

192

888

1 36

0 54

42

553

432

Clar

ence

(C)

URM

51 0

7237

744

71

109

074

1 11

5 83

72

224

911

21.7

22

496.

2898

6 98

41

252

816

2 23

9 80

0

Derw

ent V

alle

y (M

)RA

L9

688

4 10

333

086

2 30

258

6 27

21

448

574

89.0

11

776.

5895

7 69

358

9 53

31

547

226

Devo

npor

t (C)

URS

25 1

2211

124

162

6 61

484

2 94

11

469

555

24.9

43

497.

6856

2 12

288

6 30

71

448

429

Dors

et (M

)RA

L7

045

3 22

373

91

169

489

1 41

8 65

32

588

142

166.

001

919.

691

266

737

1 44

9 01

22

715

749

Flin

ders

(M)

RAS

879

1 99

438

551

7 36

749

5 92

11

013

288

588.

591

288.

1148

5 96

751

8 58

61

004

553

Geor

ge T

own

(M)

RAL

6 69

565

327

387

1 51

658

5 59

81

457

114

130.

172

145.

0592

1 84

964

5 33

21

567

181

Glam

orga

n–Sp

ring

Bay

(M)

RAM

4 35

62

587

343

442

183

679

753

1 12

1 93

610

1.51

1 98

1.79

393

506

782

046

1 17

5 55

2

Glen

orch

y (C)

URM

44 9

0012

130

280

4 16

71

110

853

1 91

5 02

017

.91

3 67

8.32

816

595

1 19

8 19

32

014

788

Hoba

rt (C

)UC

C48

808

7829

687

2 33

81

416

593

2 28

8 93

117

.87

#4

785.

7991

7 53

91

503

807

2 42

1 34

6

Huon

Val

ley (

M)

RAV

14 7

495

497

757

1 55

8 88

51

161

435

2 72

0 32

010

5.69

1 53

4.26

1 78

2 37

71

121

959

2 90

4 33

6

Kent

ish

(M)

RAL

5 88

81

155

485

995

735

838

910

1 83

4 64

516

9.11

1 72

9.71

1 15

7 84

888

4 98

82

042

836

King

Isla

nd (M

)RA

S1

580

1 09

443

646

6 05

458

0 31

91

046

373

294.

971

331.

0144

9 36

160

0 04

71

049

408

King

boro

ugh

(M)

URS

32 0

5771

952

576

6 05

299

0 61

51

756

667

23.9

01

886.

8968

1 72

31

035

906

1 71

7 62

9

Latro

be (M

)RA

L9

083

600

282

609

116

540

723

1 14

9 83

967

.06

1 91

7.46

649

287

626

329

1 27

5 61

6

Laun

cest

on (C

)UR

M65

051

1 41

173

91

334

706

2 22

6 30

33

561

009

20.5

23

012.

591

198

245

2 36

4 21

03

562

455

Mea

nder

Val

ley (

M)

RAV

18 7

353

320

845

1 50

5 99

01

655

771

3 16

1 76

180

.38

1 95

9.49

1 66

9 13

21

772

959

3 44

2 09

1

Nor

ther

n M

idla

nds

(M)

RAV

12 3

135

126

980

1 38

8 63

81

779

377

3 16

8 01

511

2.78

1 81

5.69

1 43

1 10

31

912

523

3 34

3 62

6

Sore

ll (M

)RA

V11

758

583

409

744

857

717

955

1 46

2 81

263

.35

1 75

5.39

857

819

756

907

1 61

4 72

6

Sout

hern

Mid

land

s (M

)RA

L5

717

2 61

180

31

156

281

1 27

0 02

42

426

305

202.

251

581.

601

376

035

1 17

9 23

02

555

265

Tasm

an (M

)RA

M2

257

659

207

371

691

319

070

690

761

164.

681

541.

4034

5 22

531

1 65

865

6 88

3

170


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

War

atah

–Wyn

yard

(M)

RAV

13 4

793

526

526

1 39

7 36

31

012

317

2 40

9 68

010

3.67

1 92

4.56

1 61

3 07

41

057

402

2 67

0 47

6

Wes

t Coa

st (M

)RA

L4

923

9 57

417

51

003

633

485

082

1 48

8 71

520

3.87

2 77

1.90

1 10

2 12

348

6 34

41

588

467

Wes

t Tam

ar (M

)UF

S21

510

690

451

1 63

9 87

786

1 32

62

501

203

76.2

41

909.

811

748

250

937

302

2 68

5 55

2

Nort

hern

Ter

ritor

y

Aher

reng

e (A

rung

a)RT

X47

00

4210

6 45

629

875

136

331

226.

5071

1.31

00

0

Ali C

urun

gRT

S48

50

152

75 5

8561

153

136

738

155.

8540

2.32

00

0

Alic

e Sp

rings

URS

28 9

2932

725

31

008

048

794

956

1 80

3 00

434

.85

3 14

2.12

874

491

821

993

1 69

6 48

4

Alpu

rrur

ulam

RTS

741

100

3313

1 02

443

837

174

861

176.

821

328.

390

00

Amoo

ngun

aRT

X35

30

738

838

11 8

2950

667

110.

021

689.

860

00

Angu

rugu

RTS

1 37

72

204

205

842

161

933

367

775

149.

4979

3.79

00

0

Anm

atje

reRT

M1

254

3 63

120

624

5 29

411

9 91

736

5 21

119

5.61

582.

120

00

Aput

ula

RTX

243

066

39 5

9432

726

72 3

2016

2.94

495.

850

00

Arey

onga

RTX

232

088

37 5

2345

495

83 0

1816

1.74

516.

990

00

Arlta

rlpilt

aRT

X31

912

4751

650

9 10

660

756

161.

9119

3.74

00

0

Bark

ly*

––

––

––

––

1 62

8 52

940

6 47

32

035

002

Bely

uen

RTX

246

4184

31 5

1927

027

58 5

4612

8.13

321.

7515

902

27 9

4543

847

Borr

oloo

laRT

S96

113

2515

3 35

471

104

224

458

159.

582

844.

160

00

Cent

ral D

eser

t*

––

––

––

––

916

032

729

469

1 64

5 50

1

Coom

alie

RTM

1 67

81

500

164

165

245

312

264

477

509

98.4

81

904.

0534

055

331

015

365

070

Cox

Peni

nsul

aRT

X37

26

1227

103

41 5

2468

627

72.8

63

460.

330

00

Dagu

ragu

RTS

732

4336

119

586

78 8

5819

8 44

416

3.37

2 19

0.50

00

0

Darw

inUC

C70

245

144

468

1 38

4 83

81

516

738

2 90

1 57

619

.71

#3

240.

891

439

956

1 60

7 65

03

047

606

East

Arn

hem

*–

––

––

––

–2

058

093

871

573

2 92

9 66

6

171

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Ellio

tt Di

stric

tRT

S55

93

4883

413

46 7

0513

0 11

814

9.22

973.

020

00

Galiw

inku

RTM

1 96

50

352

355

334

179

332

534

666

180.

8350

9.47

00

0

Gapu

wiy

akRT

S1

154

035

820

2 69

515

4 15

035

6 84

517

5.65

430.

590

00

Ikun

tjiRT

X17

40

125

29 1

2039

227

68 3

4716

7.36

313.

820

00

Iman

paRT

X20

80

2033

802

24 8

6958

671

162.

511

243.

450

00

Jabi

ru (T

)UR

S1

174

1331

137

579

85 6

0422

3 18

311

7.19

2 76

1.42

00

0

Jilkm

ingg

anRT

X30

26

1629

887

26 2

4356

130

98.9

61

640.

190

00

Kaltu

katja

raRT

X38

10

342

67 5

5690

680

158

236

177.

3126

5.15

00

0

Kath

erin

eUR

S9

122

531

180

797

594

506

486

1 30

4 08

087

.44

2 81

3.81

630

723

538

268

1 16

8 99

1

Kunb

arlla

njnj

aRT

S1

475

530

672

216

128

478

855

694

983

146.

5371

2.58

00

0

Laja

man

uRT

M1

022

7 31

331

516

9 67

310

0 30

726

9 98

016

6.02

318.

430

00

Litc

hfiel

dRA

V16

469

3 10

072

777

2 32

91

860

412

2 63

2 74

146

.90

2 55

9.03

347

478

1 98

3 78

12

331

259

Ltye

ntye

Pur

te (S

anta

Te

resa

)RT

S58

01

242

118

87 3

0389

153

176

456

150.

5275

5.53

00

0

Mac

Donn

ell

*–

––

––

––

–1

013

114

690

969

1 70

4 08

3

Man

ingr

ida

RTM

2 65

80

317

433

046

215

109

648

155

162.

9267

8.58

00

0

Mar

ngar

rRT

X35

13

1235

462

24 0

7559

537

101.

032

006.

250

00

Mat

aran

kaRT

X24

723

314

20 4

7826

741

47 2

1982

.91

1 91

0.07

00

0

Mili

ngim

biRT

S1

458

053

247

030

59 1

5430

6 18

416

9.43

1 11

6.11

00

0

Min

jilan

gRT

X30

30

7337

571

74 5

0111

2 07

212

4.00

1 02

0.56

00

0

Nau

iyu

Nam

biyu

RTS

596

4314

577

694

165

416

243

110

130.

361

140.

800

00

172


Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Nga

nmar

riyan

ga

(Pal

umpa

)RT

X44

20

155

73 7

0178

030

151

731

166.

7450

3.42

00

0

Nta

riaRT

S63

30

305

100

507

78 8

9517

9 40

215

8.78

258.

670

00

Num

bulw

ar–N

umbu

rindi

RTS

1 27

445

0030

223

7 82

412

9 69

136

7 51

518

6.68

429.

440

00

Nyir

rang

gulu

ng M

ardr

ulk

RTS

1 18

428

700

441

238

733

340

790

579

523

201.

6377

2.77

00

0

Nyir

ripi

RTX

319

043

151

730

109

838

161

568

162.

1625

4.84

00

0

Palm

erst

onUF

S24

280

5618

079

8 10

454

8 16

61

346

270

32.8

73

045.

3764

7 35

559

6 68

51

244

040

Papu

nya

RTX

383

021

462

843

56 5

1511

9 35

816

4.08

264.

090

00

Pepp

imen

arti

RTX

199

012

048

563

158

080

206

643

244.

041

317.

330

00

Pine

Cre

ekRT

S40

540

055

40 5

9311

5 75

415

6 34

710

0.23

2 10

4.62

00

0

Ram

ingi

ning

RTS

731

014

513

3 14

511

2 74

824

5 89

318

2.14

777.

570

00

Tapa

tjatja

kaRT

X31

812

5540

459

22 8

1263

271

127.

2341

4.76

1 34

6 32

281

7 10

62

163

428

Tenn

ant C

reek

(T)

URS

3 47

325

4551

9 49

015

0 67

167

0 16

114

9.58

3 34

8.24

00

0

Tham

arru

rrRT

M2

856

3 45

030

552

4 75

433

1 62

085

6 37

418

3.74

1 08

7.28

00

0

Tim

ber C

reek

RTX

300

1618

037

525

217

242

254

767

125.

081

206.

900

00

Tiw

i Isl

ands

RTM

2 65

97

984

925

483

572

726

482

1 21

0 05

418

1.86

785.

3925

4 17

875

1 19

01

005

368

Trus

t Acc

ount

ZZZ

00

2 14

30

947

008

947

008

0.00

441.

910

984

948

984

948

Umba

kum

baRT

S52

80

137

88 6

6499

829

188

493

167.

9272

8.68

00

0

Urap

untja

RTS

971

030

123

2 43

260

863

293

295

239.

3720

2.20

00

0

Vict

oria

–Dal

y*

––

––

––

––

1 15

1 98

71

296

217

2 44

8 20

4

173

Appendix D

Coun

cil n

ame

ACLG

ca

t

Popu

latio

nCo

unci

l ar

eaTo

tal

road

le

ngth

2007

–08

actu

al e

ntitl

emen

t20

08–0

9 es

timat

ed e

ntitl

emen

t

Gene

ral

purp

ose

gran

t

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

ntGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

#Ro

ads

gran

tGe

nera

l pu

rpos

e gr

ant

Road

s gr

ant

Tota

l gra

nt

NoSq

km

Km$

$$

$ pe

r cap

ita$

per k

m$

$$

Wag

ait

*–

––

––

––

–11

874

47 5

2859

402

Wal

ange

ri–N

gum

pink

uRT

X58

038

610

890

888

60 9

4115

1 82

915

6.70

564.

270

00

Wal

lace

Roc

khol

eRT

X11

15

2319

157

17 3

4036

497

172.

5975

3.91

00

0

Wal

ungu

rru

RTS

438

030

885

034

131

395

216

429

194.

1442

6.61

00

0

War

ruw

iRT

X39

60

6472

431

85 9

3515

8 36

618

2.91

1 34

2.73

00

0

Wat

iyaw

anu

(Mt L

iebi

g)RT

X24

878

7341

255

28 8

4470

099

166.

3539

5.12

00

0

Yirr

kala

/Dha

nbul

RTS

1 15

70

5517

4 80

061

476

236

276

151.

081

117.

7594

7 16

097

1 97

41

919

134

Yuel

amu

RTX

303

020

650

581

77 9

9212

8 57

316

6.93

378.

600

00

Yuen

dum

uRT

M1

374

22 1

4290

726

4 75

328

8 31

655

3 06

919

2.69

317.

880

00

Yugu

l Man

giRT

M2

098

12 2

6917

742

3 37

319

4 16

161

7 53

420

1.80

1 09

6.95

00

0

Key t

o sy

mbo

ls in

Tabl

e D.

1

C =

Ci

ty

S =

Sh

ire

DC

=

Dist

rict C

ounc

il CG

=

Co

mm

unity

Gov

ernm

ent

M

=

Mun

icip

al

T =

To

wn

B =

Bo

roug

h RC

=

Re

gion

al C

ity

R =

Re

gion

al

Bd

=

Boar

d

174


Appendix ERanking of local governing bodies on a relative needs basis 2007–08

Councils often compare the grant they receive with the grants of other councils in their state and assume that, if another council gets a similar sized grant, 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 the local road grants to councils, local government grants commissions implicitly determine a ranking for each council in their state on the basis of relative needs. A comparison of councils on the basis of relative needs is preferred to a comparison on the basis of the actual grant they receive. In this appendix, the grant per capita is used as the basis for comparing relative need for the general purpose grants. For local road grants, allocation of grants for each council is divided by their length of local roads to obtain a relative expenditure needs measure. In Tables E.1 to E.7, councils within a state are sorted on the value of:

• the general purpose grant per capita

• the local road grants per kilometre.

For each council, the table gives the ranking obtained for both grants. Each council’s ACLG 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 their financial assistance grants with those other councils in their state received. For instance, Appendix D shows that in Victoria, Banyule City Council received $3 225 133 in general purpose grants for 2007–08 while Frankston City Council received $6 710 441. Banyule’s grant was $27.35 per capita while Frankston’s grant was $54.89 per capita. This suggests that while the two councils have similar populations and similar locations, the Victorian Grants Commission has assessed Frankston City as having the greater relative need. In Table E.2, Frankston is shown to rank 54 among Victoria’s councils for general purpose grants while Banyule is ranked 66.

175

Appendix E

Key to symbols used in Tables E.1 to E.7 (see Appendix F for a full explanation).

RAL Rural Agricultural Large

RAM Rural Agricultural Medium

RAS Rural Agricultural Small

RAV Rural Agricultural Very Large

RSG Rural Significant Growth

RTL Rural Remote Large

RTM Rural Remote Medium

RTS Rural Remote Small

RTX Rural Remote Extra Small

UCC Urban Capital City

UDL Urban Developed Large

UDM Urban Developed Medium

UDS Urban Developed Small

UDV Urban Developed Very Large

UFL Urban Fringe Large

UFM Urban Fringe Medium

UFS Urban Fringe Small

UFV Urban Fringe Very Large

URL Urban Regional Large

URM Urban Regional Medium

URS Urban Regional Small

URV Urban Regional Very Large

176


Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08

Councils ranked by funding per capita Council ranked by funding per kilometre

Rank Council name Classification

GP grant


Roads grant

$ per capita $ per km

1 Central Darling Shire RTM 792.45 1 Waverley UDM 2 895.44

2 Urana Shire RAS 611.01 2 Sydney City UCC 2 827.54

3 Brewarrina Shire RAM 553.80 3 Canterbury City UDV 2 656.01

4 Conargo Shire RAS 548.00 4 Randwick City UDV 2 646.61

5 Carrathool Shire RAM 526.38 5 Queanbeyan City URM 2 578.82

6 Bourke Shire RAM 497.70 6 Ashfield Municipal UDM 2 572.32

7 Balranald Shire RAM 471.29 7 North Sydney UDM 2 508.38

8 Jerilderie Shire RAS 451.23 8 Botany Bay City UDM 2 469.79

9 Bogan Shire RAM 433.90 9 Marrickville UDL 2 412.04

10 Lord Howe Island (Bd) RTX 421.65 10 Leichhardt Municipal UDM 2 410.86

11 Lockhart Shire RAM 420.72 11 Woollahra Municipal UDM 2 408.79

12 Tibooburra Village RTX 420.63 12 Strathfield Municipal UDM 2 385.76

13 Silverton Village RTX 420.63 13 Burwood UDM 2 364.95

14 Lachlan Shire RAL 419.56 14 Canada Bay City UDM 2 364.51

15 Cobar Shire RTL 404.12 15 Rockdale City UDL 2 346.04

16 Bland Shire RAL 397.09 16 Parramatta City UDV 2 342.71

17 Hay Shire RAM 361.04 17 Manly UDM 2 339.87

18 Coolamon Shire RAM 343.70 18 Hurstville City UDL 2 293.69

19 Bombala RAM 327.40 19 Bankstown City UDV 2 235.02

20 Coonamble Shire RAM 324.29 20 Ryde City UDL 2 212.81

21 Wakool Shire RAM 320.56 21 Lane Cove Municipal UDM 2 209.12

22 Harden Shire RAM 320.08 22 Willoughby City UDM 2 200.78

23 Wentworth Shire RAL 310.34 23 Auburn UDM 2 196.44

24 Walgett Shire RAL 306.48 24 Kogarah Municipal UDM 2 192.51

25 Weddin Shire RAM 304.89 25 Mosman Municipal UDS 2 187.82

26 Gwydir Shire RAL 296.07 26 Holroyd City UDL 2 187.11

27 Warren Shire RAM 291.31 27 Fairfield City UDV 2 185.61

28 Narrandera Shire RAL 290.44 28 Warringah UDV 2 124.64

29 Murrumbidgee Shire RAM 286.67 29 Campbelltown City UFV 2 067.96

30 Warrumbungle Shire RAV 284.90 30 Albury City URM 2 063.58

31 Tenterfield Shire RAL 284.78 31 Coffs Harbour City URM 2 056.89

32 Gilgandra Shire RAM 273.79 32 Sutherland Shire UDV 2 024.29

177

Appendix E



GP grant


Roads grant


33 Tumbarumba Shire RAM 272.62 33 Blacktown City UDV 2 014.85

34 Narromine Shire RAL 271.67 34 Pittwater UDM 1 974.29

35 Berrigan Shire RAL 261.30 35 Liverpool City UFV 1 963.03

36 Forbes Shire RAL 253.32 36 Orange City URM 1 960.08

37 Boorowa RAM 247.84 37 Hornsby Shire UFV 1 951.93

38 Guyra Shire RAM 238.48 38 Ku-ring-gai UDL 1 933.07

39 Greater Hume Shire RAV 234.68 39 Wollongong City URV 1 930.98

40 Junee Shire RAL 230.89 40 Hunters Hill Municipal

UDS 1 899.75

41 Snowy River Shire RAL 228.55 41 Broken Hill City URS 1 884.86

42 Temora Shire RAL 226.34 42 Newcastle City URV 1 881.32

43 Walcha RAM 225.70 43 Shellharbour City URM 1 859.98

44 Murray Shire RAL 223.03 44 Tweed Shire URL 1 858.11

45 Wellington RAL 219.39 45 Camden UFM 1 813.53

46 Glen Innes Severn RAL 216.58 46 Penrith City UFV 1 783.52

47 Gundagai Shire RAM 215.30 47 Baulkham Hills Shire UFV 1 770.94

48 Corowa Shire RAV 202.98 48 Gosford City UFV 1 706.10

49 Upper Lachlan Shire RAL 201.89 49 Byron Shire URM 1 695.26

50 Cooma–Monaro Shire RAL 198.54 50 Lake Macquarie City URV 1 686.36

51 Oberon RAL 198.18 51 Wyong Shire UFV 1 685.20

52 Deniliquin URS 196.73 52 Ballina Shire URM 1 674.41

53 Kyogle RAL 196.03 53 Port Macquarie–Hastings

URL 1 629.31

54 Liverpool Plains Shire RAL 195.58 54 Kiama Municipal URS 1 587.96

55 Narrabri Shire RAV 195.19 55 Maitland City URM 1 579.75

56 Cootamundra Shire RAL 191.74 56 Shoalhaven City URL 1 565.98

57 Parkes Shire RAV 185.91 57 Blue Mountains City UFL 1 502.00

58 Gloucester Shire RAM 184.89 58 Hawkesbury City UFM 1 497.38

59 Uralla Shire RAL 179.06 59 Port Stephens URM 1 492.12

60 Blayney Shire RAL 177.10 60 Deniliquin URS 1 473.57

61 Broken Hill City URS 174.11 61 Cessnock City URM 1 437.00

62 Inverell Shire RAV 173.29 62 Wollondilly Shire UFM 1 432.30

63 Gunnedah Shire RAV 168.32 63 Lismore City URM 1 360.49

64 Leeton Shire RAV 166.38 64 Nambucca Shire RAV 1 352.07

65 Cowra Shire RAV 165.49 65 Eurobodalla Shire URM 1 318.01

66 Tumut Shire RAV 165.25 66 Wingecarribee Shire URM 1 311.13

178




GP grant


Roads grant


67 Bellingen Shire RAV 154.02 67 Kempsey Shire URS 1 300.85

68 Upper Hunter Shire RAV 150.90 68 Bellingen Shire RAV 1 299.58

69 Young Shire RAV 150.12 69 Great Lakes URM 1 277.85

70 Moree Plains Shire RAV 147.53 70 Bega Valley Shire URM 1 229.60

71 Cabonne Shire RAV 146.54 71 Greater Taree City URM 1 224.07

72 Mid-Western Regional URS 133.54 72 Singleton Shire URS 1 223.68

73 Clarence Valley URM 132.45 73 Bathurst Regional URM 1 197.41

74 Richmond Valley URS 132.23 74 Wagga Wagga City URM 1 160.55

75 Dungog Shire RAL 131.63 75 Clarence Valley URM 1 155.68

76 Muswellbrook Shire RAV 131.42 76 Dubbo City URM 1 153.22

77 Lithgow City URS 129.73 77 Muswellbrook Shire RAV 1 146.50

78 Great Lakes URM 123.62 78 Kyogle RAL 1 139.75

79 Bega Valley Shire URM 122.25 79 Richmond Valley URS 1 129.58

80 Palerang RAV 116.61 80 Dungog Shire RAL 1 111.60

81 Eurobodalla Shire URM 116.21 81 Armidale Dumaresq URS 1 110.73

82 Yass Valley RAV 113.32 82 Goulburn Mulwaree URS 1 090.95

83 Kempsey Shire URS 111.95 83 Lithgow City URS 1 077.33

84 Nambucca Shire RAV 110.77 84 Tumut Shire RAV 1 063.81

85 Tamworth Regional URM 107.22 85 Gloucester Shire RAM 1 045.00

86 Dubbo City URM 105.82 State average 1 042.53

87 Armidale Dumaresq URS 102.44 86 Tamworth Regional URM 1 027.96

88 Goulburn Mulwaree URS 96.27 87 Griffith City URS 979.00

89 Lismore City URM 94.81 88 Cootamundra Shire RAL 957.91

90 Wagga Wagga City URM 94.19 89 Palerang RAV 937.29

91 Bathurst Regional URM 92.60 90 Glen Innes Severn RAL 933.86

92 Albury City URM 90.53 91 Tumbarumba Shire RAM 917.26

93 Cessnock City URM 90.32 92 Mid-Western Regional

URS 905.40

94 Greater Taree City URM 82.37 93 Yass Valley RAV 902.19

95 Singleton Shire URS 80.55 94 Upper Hunter Shire RAV 901.02

96 Griffith City URS 79.25 95 Blayney Shire RAL 892.52

97 Orange City URM 79.13 96 Cooma–Monaro Shire

RAL 891.60

98 Blue Mountains City UFL 78.59 97 Young Shire RAV 885.19

179

Appendix E



GP grant


Roads grant


99 Shoalhaven City URL 75.03 98 Cowra Shire RAV 884.48

100 Maitland City URM 74.05 99 Snowy River Shire RAL 880.50

101 Tweed Shire URL 71.04 100 Gundagai Shire RAM 877.68

102 Newcastle City URV 68.30 101 Leeton Shire RAV 877.47

103 Port Macquarie–Hastings

URL 68.01 102 Uralla Shire RAL 869.69

104 Coffs Harbour City URM 65.42 103 Gunnedah Shire RAV 857.48

105 Wollongong City URV 60.33 104 Inverell Shire RAV 856.92

106 Lake Macquarie City URV 58.15 105 Liverpool Plains Shire

RAL 845.10

State average 56.98 106 Wakool Shire RAM 844.99

107 Port Stephens URM 55.75 107 Walcha RAM 842.79

108 Queanbeyan City URM 54.75 108 Cabonne Shire RAV 841.85

109 Wingecarribee Shire URM 53.25 109 Tenterfield Shire RAL 840.39

110 Ballina Shire URM 52.73 110 Bombala RAM 839.42

111 Wyong Shire UFV 51.57 111 Corowa Shire RAV 831.35

112 Shellharbour City URM 50.06 112 Greater Hume Shire RAV 829.30

113 Campbelltown City UFV 49.69 113 Murray Shire RAL 826.19

114 Penrith City UFV 47.32 114 Oberon RAL 825.13

115 Blacktown City UDV 46.95 115 Parkes Shire RAV 818.35

116 Hawkesbury City UFM 46.16 116 Forbes Shire RAL 817.87

117 Byron Shire URM 45.96 117 Junee Shire RAL 816.73

118 Fairfield City UDV 43.75 118 Wellington RAL 816.48

119 Kiama Municipal URS 40.29 119 Moree Plains Shire RAV 813.27

120 Gosford City UFV 39.16 120 Upper Lachlan Shire RAL 812.82

121 Wollondilly Shire UFM 38.44 121 Guyra Shire RAM 812.71

122 Marrickville UDL 34.86 122 Narrabri Shire RAV 809.22

123 Liverpool City UFV 33.84 123 Temora Shire RAL 798.76

124 Parramatta City UDV 31.54 124 Berrigan Shire RAL 798.54

125 Auburn UDM 28.00 125 Walgett Shire RAL 796.14

126 Canterbury City UDV 27.71 126 Warrumbungle Shire RAV 795.77

127 Camden UFM 26.60 127 Lockhart Shire RAM 791.61

128 Waverley UDM 26.21 128 Harden Shire RAM 790.79

129 Holroyd City UDL 24.81 129 Warren Shire RAM 790.43

180




GP grant


Roads grant


130 Ashfield Municipal UDM 24.09 130 Gilgandra Shire RAM 788.29

131 Bankstown City UDV 23.03 131 Boorowa RAM 783.64

132 Sydney City UCC 22.71 132 Coonamble Shire RAM 779.60

133 Botany Bay City UDM 21.31 133 Gwydir Shire RAL 777.48

134 Leichhardt Municipal UDM 19.71 134 Narromine Shire RAL 777.08

135 Lane Cove Municipal UDM 17.84 135 Narrandera Shire RAL 774.85

135 Manly UDM 17.84 136 Weddin Shire RAM 768.27

135 Hunters Hill Municipal UDS 17.84 137 Hay Shire RAM 768.14

135 Strathfield Municipal UDM 17.84 138 Wentworth Shire RAL 765.32

135 Mosman Municipal UDS 17.84 139 Murrumbidgee Shire RAM 763.06

135 Burwood UDM 17.84 140 Bogan Shire RAM 762.91

135 Kogarah Municipal UDM 17.84 141 Brewarrina Shire RAM 750.82

135 Pittwater UDM 17.84 142 Jerilderie Shire RAS 748.40

135 Woollahra Municipal UDM 17.84 143 Coolamon Shire RAM 746.24

135 Canada Bay City UDM 17.84 144 Cobar Shire RTL 745.58

135 North Sydney UDM 17.84 145 Urana Shire RAS 744.93

135 Ku-ring-gai UDL 17.84 146 Bourke Shire RAM 744.90

135 Rockdale City UDL 17.84 147 Lachlan Shire RAL 743.73

135 Ryde City UDL 17.84 148 Bland Shire RAL 738.76

135 Willoughby City UDM 17.84 149 Conargo Shire RAS 735.93

135 Hornsby Shire UFV 17.84 150 Carrathool Shire RAM 733.84

135 Sutherland Shire UDV 17.84 151 Balranald Shire RAM 730.09

135 Randwick City UDV 17.84 152 Central Darling Shire RTM 726.82

135 Hurstville City UDL 17.84 153 Lord Howe Island (Bd)

RTX 0.00

135 Warringah UDV 17.84 153 Silverton Village RTX 0.00

135 Baulkham Hills Shire UFV 17.84 153 Tibooburra Village RTX 0.00

181

Appendix E

Table E.2: Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08



GP grant


Roads grant


1 West Wimmera (S) RAL 437.21 1 Melbourne (C) UCC 2 656.90

2 Loddon (S) RAL 366.33 2 Warrnambool (C) URS 1 714.30

3 Buloke (S) RAL 335.93 3 Greater Dandenong (C) UDV 1 653.14

4 Pyrenees (S) RAL 313.48 4 Yarra Ranges (S) UFV 1 638.78

5 Hindmarsh (S) RAL 308.24 5 Kingston (C) UDV 1 555.47

6 Yarriambiack (S) RAL 285.52 6 Wodonga City URM 1 514.43

7 Towong (S) RAL 283.77 7 Yarra (C) UDM 1 511.95

8 Northern Grampians (S) RAV 227.20 8 Port Phillip (C) UDL 1 481.39

9 Ararat (RC) URS 214.94 9 Brimbank (C) UDV 1 450.03

10 Strathbogie (S) RAL 207.14 10 Hume (C) UFV 1 432.68

11 Mansfield RAL 200.28 11 Darebin (C) UDV 1 425.23

12 Gannawarra (S) RAV 190.31 12 Frankston (C) UDL 1 408.94

13 East Gippsland (S) URM 178.87 13 Banyule (C) UDL 1 395.52

14 Southern Grampians (S) RAV 176.07 14 East Gippsland (S) URM 1 376.57

15 Corangamite (S) RAV 161.55 15 Maribyrnong (C) UDM 1 351.78

16 Moyne (S) RAV 160.45 16 Moreland (C) UDV 1 345.88

17 Swan Hill (RC) URS 151.81 17 Cardinia (S) UFM 1 339.47

18 Alpine (S) RAV 150.95 18 Whittlesea (C) UFL 1 334.49

19 Moira (S) URS 149.11 19 Moonee Valley (C) UDL 1 292.57

20 Glenelg (S) URS 146.62 20 Hobson’s Bay (C) UDL 1 274.72

21 Central Goldfields (S) RAV 145.85 21 Wyndham (C) UFL 1 274.35

22 Murrindindi (S) RAV 145.84 22 Maroondah (C) UDL 1 267.95

23 Hepburn (S) RAV 143.06 23 Latrobe (C) URL 1 262.50

24 Indigo (S) RAV 141.44 24 South Gippsland (S) URS 1 246.98

25 Golden Plains (S) RAV 139.11 25 Casey (C) UFV 1 236.33

26 South Gippsland (S) URS 137.72 26 Stonnington (C) UDL 1 229.56

27 Campaspe (C) URM 137.08 27 Melton (S) UFM 1 227.25

28 Horsham (RC) URS 136.33 28 Nillumbik (S) UFM 1 224.76

29 Mildura (RC) URM 135.27 29 Greater Geelong (C) URV 1 224.25

30 Benalla RAV 134.57 30 Baw Baw (S) URM 1 212.95

31 Wellington (S) URM 134.19 31 Ballarat (C) URL 1 203.93

32 Colac–Otway (S) URS 123.38 32 Knox (C) UDV 1 196.03

182




GP grant


Roads grant


33 Mount Alexander (S) RAV 119.66 33 Colac–Otway (S) URS 1 181.92

34 Wangaratta (RC) URS 118.86 34 Monash (C) UDV 1 178.07

35 Baw Baw (S) URM 113.97 35 Boroondara (C) UDV 1 170.53

36 Mitchell (S) URS 111.40 36 Wellington (S) URM 1 152.27

37 Moorabool (S) URS 110.63 37 Mornington Peninsula (S)

UFL 1 132.57

38 Bass Coast (S) UFS 103.32 38 Murrindindi (S) RAV 1 118.31

39 Greater Shepparton (C) URM 102.20 39 Bayside (C) UDL 1 111.68

40 Latrobe (C) URL 102.07 40 Alpine (S) RAV 1 110.70

41 Greater Bendigo (C) URL 99.05 41 Whitehorse (C) UDV 1 109.67

42 Wodonga City URM 90.42 42 Manningham (C) UDL 1 084.90

43 Macedon Ranges (S) URM 87.70 43 Glen Eira (C) UDV 1 071.42

44 Cardinia (S) UFM 84.30 44 Macedon Ranges (S) URM 1 053.75

45 Ballarat (C) URL 84.19 45 Bass Coast (S) UFS 1 041.13

46 Melton (S) UFM 82.37 46 Mitchell (S) URS 1 009.99

47 Warrnambool (C) URS 78.20 47 Queenscliffe (B) URS 1 004.78

48 Greater Geelong (C) URV 69.12 48 Moorabool (S) URS 1 001.81

49 Wyndham (C) UFL 64.11 49 Surf Coast (S) RSG 992.59

50 Surf Coast (S) RSG 64.11 50 Glenelg (S) URS 960.51

51 Yarra Ranges (S) UFV 58.73 51 Corangamite (S) RAV 947.90

52 Greater Dandenong (C) UDV 57.90 52 Greater Shepparton (C)

URM 928.62

State average 57.59 53 Towong (S) RAL 907.31

53 Brimbank (C) UDV 55.46 54 Mount Alexander (S) RAV 893.41

54 Frankston (C) UDL 54.89 55 Mansfield RAL 893.00

55 Casey (C) UFV 53.68 56 Southern Grampians (S)

RAV 890.50

56 Whittlesea (C) UFL 53.23 57 Wangaratta (RC) URS 885.95

57 Hume (C) UFV 47.76 58 Moyne (S) RAV 861.63

58 Knox (C) UDV 41.46 59 Golden Plains (S) RAV 857.53

59 Queenscliffe (B) URS 39.08 State average 836.10

60 Moreland (C) UDV 33.37 60 Hepburn (S) RAV 834.35

61 Maroondah (C) UDL 32.61 61 Pyrenees (S) RAL 812.35

62 Darebin (C) UDV 31.49 62 Benalla RAV 804.44

63 Maribyrnong (C) UDM 31.49 63 Greater Bendigo (C) URL 799.06

183

Appendix E



GP grant


Roads grant


64 Nillumbik (S) UFM 30.50 64 Campaspe (C) URM 781.32

65 Hobson’s Bay (C) UDL 27.91 65 Ararat (RC) URS 761.49

66 Banyule (C) UDL 27.35 66 Moira (S) URS 734.12

67 Mornington Peninsula (S) UFL 26.21 67 Central Goldfields (S) RAV 724.12

68 Whitehorse (C) UDV 23.70 68 Strathbogie (S) RAL 716.17

69 Moonee Valley (C) UDL 19.36 69 Indigo (S) RAV 693.71

70 Manningham (C) UDL 18.62 70 West Wimmera (S) RAL 673.54

71 Port Phillip (C) UDL 18.45 71 Gannawarra (S) RAV 639.58

72 Monash (C) UDV 18.31 72 Northern Grampians (S) RAV 584.17

73 Melbourne (C) UCC 18.03 73 Mildura (RC) URM 562.07

73 Yarra (C) UDM 18.03 74 Loddon (S) RAL 552.83

73 Glen Eira (C) UDV 18.03 75 Horsham (RC) URS 547.52

73 Stonnington (C) UDL 18.03 76 Swan Hill (RC) URS 437.76

73 Boroondara (C) UDV 18.03 77 Hindmarsh (S) RAL 390.13

73 Kingston (C) UDV 18.03 78 Yarriambiack (S) RAL 324.90

73 Bayside (C) UDL 18.03 79 Buloke (S) RAL 320.95

Table E.3: Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08



GP grant


Roads grant


1 Diamantina RTX 9 972.92 1 Boulia RTS 40 758.50

2 Ugar Island URS 5 817.35 2 Mount Isa UFS 2 453.66

3 Bulloo RTS 4 604.38 3 Redcliffe UDM 2 348.34

4 Croydon RTX 4 306.19 4 Hervey Bay UFM 2 144.41

5 Isisford RTX 4 024.30 5 Brisbane UCC 2 142.58

6 Barcoo RTS 3 558.88 6 Logan UDV 2 005.76

7 Burke RTS 3 078.84 7 Maryborough UFS 1 870.26

8 Dauan Island URS 3 053.78 8 Toowoomba UDL 1 836.64

9 Boulia RTS 2 949.47 9 Gold Coast URV 1 738.62

10 Ilfracombe RTX 2 542.48 10 Redland URV 1 681.95

184




GP grant


Roads grant


11 Seisia Island URS 2 328.56 11 Bundaberg URM 1 644.29

12 Aramac RTS 2 305.94 12 Gladstone URS 1 616.95

13 Quilpie RTM 2 234.88 13 Pine Rivers URV 1 602.57

14 Winton RTM 2 171.81 14 Rockhampton URM 1 568.37

15 McKinlay RTM 2 147.32 15 Townsville URL 1 499.56

16 Mapoon Aboriginal Council

UFS 2 051.66 16 Cairns URV 1 453.69

17 Poruma Island URS 2 041.60 17 Thuringowa UFM 1 444.04

18 Kubin Island UFS 1 825.53 18 Ipswich URV 1 321.06

19 Etheridge RTM 1 761.38 19 Caloundra URL 1 318.80

20 Perry RAS 1 705.24 20 Mer Island URS 1 297.20

21 Hammond Island UFS 1 650.57 21 Caboolture URV 1 202.34

22 Tambo RTS 1 639.88 22 Goondiwindi URS 1 138.73

23 Warraber Island URS 1 583.17 23 Torres RTL 1 121.12

24 Booringa RAS 1 553.48 24 Maroochy URV 1 072.90

25 St Paul’s Island UFS 1 530.23 25 Palm Island URS 1 023.38

26 Mabuiag Island URS 1 512.46 26 Dalby URS 1 016.84

27 Warroo RAS 1 508.27 27 Iama Island URS 982.60

28 Jericho RTM 1 486.53 28 Charters Towers URS 947.99

29 Richmond RTM 1 389.58 29 Saibai Island UFS 922.43

30 Umagico UFS 1 279.61 30 Mackay UFL 894.60

31 Bendemere RAS 1 255.09 31 Warraber Island URS 877.40

32 Eidsvold RAS 1 213.34 32 Yarrabah UFS 864.60

33 Erub Island URS 1 182.82 33 Noosa URM 859.18

34 Boigu Island UFS 1 172.62 34 St Paul’s Island UFS 845.64

35 Flinders RTM 1 141.21 35 Yorke Island URS 822.75

36 Saibai Island UFS 1 088.73 36 Napranum URS 810.05

37 Paroo RTM 1 078.49 37 Poruma Island URS 807.25

38 Yorke Island URS 1 065.24 38 Beaudesert UFM 794.63

39 Blackall RTM 1 035.17 39 Whitsunday RAV 765.87

40 Barcaldine RTM 1 006.63 40 Tambo RTS 757.12

185

Appendix E



GP grant


Roads grant


41 Iama Island URS 992.82 41 Hammond Island UFS 753.67

42 Bungil RAS 961.52 42 Murgon RAM 734.74

43 Carpentaria RTM 958.78 43 Douglas RAV 727.92

44 Dalrymple RAM 930.53 44 Johnstone RAV 705.45

45 New Mapoon UFS 894.36 45 Emerald RAV 703.23

46 Cook RAM 870.00 46 Ugar Island URS 695.50

47 Tara RAM 855.24 47 Erub Island URS 692.75

48 Injinoo (Cowal Ck) UFS 846.15 48 Croydon RTX 683.43

49 Mornington Island UFS 832.39 49 Cooloola UFM 679.65

50 Taroom RAM 831.74 50 Mabuiag Island URS 678.44

51 Waggamba RAM 811.59 51 Sarina RAL 678.12

52 Aurukun UFS 773.93 State average 658.27

53 Bauhinia RAM 769.15 52 Burnett UFS 655.63

54 Mer Island URS 758.88 53 Atherton RAV 653.72

55 Lockhart River UFS 744.39 54 Dauan Island URS 653.20

56 Murilla RAM 744.16 55 Laidley RAV 644.76

57 Longreach RTL 708.39 56 New Mapoon UFS 639.19

58 Mundubbera RAM 681.76 57 Livingstone UFS 625.21

59 Biggenden RAS 663.72 58 Cardwell RAV 621.98

60 Monto RAM 632.76 59 Seisia Island URS 621.14

61 Badu Island URS 630.89 60 Umagico UFS 608.20

62 Bamaga UFS 605.55 61 Gatton RAV 608.18

63 Pormpuraaw URS 598.51 62 Wujal Wujal URS 605.75

64 Murweh RTL 579.44 63 Cherbourg URS 595.50

65 Peak Downs RAM 565.32 64 Hinchinbrook RAV 588.20

66 Inglewood RAM 540.15 65 Burdekin RAV 580.73

67 Cloncurry RAM 524.41 66 Bamaga UFS 579.47

68 Kowanyama UFS 450.46 67 Jondaryan RAV 572.06

69 Torres RTL 441.22 68 Badu Island URS 567.00

70 Nebo RAM 429.13 69 Calliope RAV 562.40

71 Balonne RAL 411.67 70 Eacham RAL 560.45

186




GP grant


Roads grant


72 Wondai RAM 411.09 71 Crow’s Nest RAV 555.76

73 Millmerran RAM 411.02 72 Monto RAM 553.76

74 Chinchilla RAL 408.83 73 Roma URS 553.10

75 Hopevale UFS 401.48 74 Cambooya RAL 549.37

76 Clifton RAM 400.35 75 Woorabinda UFS 548.64

77 Gayndah RAM 398.02 76 Mirani RAL 547.69

78 Herberton RAL 391.78 77 Esk RAV 542.77

79 Kilkivan RAM 381.94 78 Kingaroy RAV 532.49

80 Napranum URS 343.06 79 Kubin Island UFS 528.67

81 Doomadgee UFS 335.75 80 Warwick UFS 527.85

82 Woocoo RAM 333.54 81 Nanango RAL 525.45

83 Wambo RAL 327.06 82 Stanthorpe RAV 521.75

84 Mount Morgan RAM 316.24 83 Doomadgee UFS 518.99

85 Murgon RAM 291.94 84 Boonah RAL 518.35

86 Kolan RAM 283.55 85 Mareeba RAV 517.76

87 Miriam Vale RAM 279.90 86 Bowen RAV 517.21

88 Tiaro RAM 269.56 87 Fitzroy RAV 512.78

89 Wujal Wujal URS 243.18 88 Isis RAL 512.55

90 Banana RAV 220.07 89 Tiaro RAM 500.53

91 Belyando RAV 211.63 90 Kilcoy RAM 495.95

92 Eacham RAL 201.17 91 Rosalie RAL 491.94

93 Broadsound RAL 194.82 92 Belyando RAV 488.87

94 Mirani RAL 185.73 93 Kolan RAM 487.58

95 Roma URS 180.29 94 Aurukun UFS 487.45

96 Kilcoy RAM 178.97 95 Mapoon Aboriginal Council

UFS 484.91

97 Rosalie RAL 174.74 96 Herberton RAL 484.89

98 Duaringa RAL 172.90 97 Woocoo RAM 483.82

99 Stanthorpe RAV 172.06 98 Broadsound RAL 481.24

100 Goondiwindi URS 170.94 99 Boigu Island UFS 480.39

101 Nanango RAL 167.05 100 Duaringa RAL 476.17

187

Appendix E



GP grant


Roads grant


102 Fitzroy RAV 156.87 101 Kowanyama UFS 474.99

103 Isis RAL 155.24 102 Hopevale UFS 473.88

104 Cambooya RAL 139.50 103 Wondai RAM 472.88

105 Charters Towers URS 138.38 104 Nebo RAM 472.48

106 Palm Island URS 129.41 105 Kilkivan RAM 469.68

107 Pittsworth RAM 127.39 106 Banana RAV 468.74

108 Warwick UFS 124.52 107 Gayndah RAM 468.26

109 Bowen RAV 114.64 108 Clifton RAM 467.31

110 Kingaroy RAV 106.65 109 Warroo RAS 464.51

111 Boonah RAL 96.02 110 Peak Downs RAM 462.01

112 Yarrabah UFS 94.22 111 Biggenden RAS 458.88

113 Calliope RAV 89.91 112 Wambo RAL 456.91

114 Mareeba RAV 89.85 113 Millmerran RAM 456.52

115 Mount Isa UFS 84.07 114 Inglewood RAM 456.14

116 Emerald RAV 76.25 115 Balonne RAL 450.37

117 Atherton RAV 74.95 116 Murilla RAM 450.18

118 Dalby URS 72.71 117 Longreach RTL 449.12

119 Esk RAV 70.84 118 Cloncurry RAM 448.42

120 Burdekin RAV 70.78 119 Chinchilla RAL 448.36

121 Crow’s Nest RAV 70.62 120 Barcaldine RTM 448.36

122 Woorabinda UFS 68.85 121 Tara RAM 448.15

123 Hinchinbrook RAV 67.53 122 Waggamba RAM 445.00

124 Cherbourg URS 64.07 123 Mornington Island UFS 444.91

125 Jondaryan RAV 62.23 124 Murweh RTL 444.91

126 Cardwell RAV 61.76 125 Cook RAM 443.32

127 Sarina RAL 61.56 126 Injinoo (Cowal Ck) UFS 443.20

State average 60.42 127 Bauhinia RAM 441.63

128 Gatton RAV 55.18 128 Blackall RTM 440.98

129 Laidley RAV 55.09 129 Bendemere RAS 440.39

130 Johnstone RAV 51.82 130 Taroom RAM 439.02

131 Douglas RAV 49.01 131 Pormpuraaw URS 437.78

132 Burnett UFS 47.69 132 Ilfracombe RTX 437.22

133 Cooloola UFM 46.84 133 Burke RTS 436.63

188




GP grant


Roads grant


134 Livingstone UFS 45.92 134 Paroo RTM 436.41

135 Whitsunday RAV 45.22 135 Jericho RTM 436.08

136 Maryborough UFS 36.19 136 Bungil RAS 436.01

137 Beaudesert UFM 35.71 137 Booringa RAS 435.59

138 Gladstone URS 33.64 138 Flinders RTM 435.48

139 Rockhampton URM 30.29 139 Eidsvold RAS 435.40

140 Hervey Bay UFM 29.15 140 Dalrymple RAM 435.09

141 Noosa URM 28.91 141 Etheridge RTM 434.06

142 Bundaberg URM 28.76 142 Aramac RTS 433.31

143 Mackay UFL 28.04 143 McKinlay RTM 432.42

144 Townsville URL 27.65 144 Quilpie RTM 431.38

145 Thuringowa UFM 26.32 145 Isisford RTX 430.62

146 Ipswich URV 23.83 146 Barcoo RTS 430.19

147 Caboolture URV 22.69 147 Diamantina RTX 429.84

148 Caloundra URL 21.91 148 Miriam Vale RAM 419.81

149 Redcliffe UDM 21.59 149 Perry RAS 393.45

150 Cairns URV 21.32 150 Pittsworth RAM 366.81

151 Pine Rivers URV 20.97 151 Richmond RTM 351.59

152 Maroochy URV 20.22 152 Lockhart River UFS 340.94

153 Toowoomba UDL 20.07 153 Carpentaria RTM 324.87

154 Redland URV 19.84 154 Bulloo RTS 223.26

155 Logan UDV 18.74 155 Winton RTM 218.82

156 Brisbane UCC 18.08 156 Mundubbera RAM 205.82

156 Gold Coast URV 18.08 157 Mount Morgan RAM 49.90

189

Appendix E

Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08



GP grant


Roads grant


1 Murchison (S) RTX 10 914.52 1 Perth (C) UCC 3 781.39

2 Sandstone (S) RTX 6 938.59 2 Capel (S) RSG 2 988.10

3 Upper Gascoyne (S) RTX 4 386.07 3 Bunbury (C) URM 2 123.97

4 Yalgoo (S) RTX 3 133.37 4 Subiaco (C) UDS 2 032.65

5 Menzies (S) RTX 2 892.07 5 Vincent (T) UDS 2 019.73

6 Nungarin (S) RAS 2 197.62 6 Roebourne (S) URS 1 918.62

7 Cue (S) RTX 2 059.70 7 Narrogin (T) URS 1 914.82

8 Koorda (S) RAS 1 918.31 8 Canning (C) UDL 1 897.51

9 Westonia (S) RAS 1 908.59 9 Fremantle (C) UDS 1 862.23

10 Trayning (S) RAS 1 792.93 10 Bassendean (T) UDS 1 842.86

11 Mount Marshall (S) RAS 1 433.55 11 Belmont (C) UDM 1 817.57

12 Ngaanyatjarraku (S) RTM 1 363.40 12 Peppermint Grove (S) UDS 1 808.33

13 Mount Magnet (S) RTS 1 360.26 13 Bayswater (C) UDM 1 774.47

14 Tammin (S) RAS 1 098.93 14 Cambridge (T) UDS 1 755.84

15 Perenjori (S) RAS 1 089.41 15 Claremont (T) UDS 1 728.64

16 Mukinbudin (S) RAS 1 044.37 16 Victoria Park (T) UDS 1 723.97

17 Meekatharra (S) RTM 957.53 17 Nedlands (C) UDS 1 714.34

18 Bruce Rock (S) RAS 953.74 18 Cottesloe (T) UDS 1 703.98

19 Wyalkatchem (S) RAS 944.44 19 Stirling (C) UDV 1 703.46

20 Wiluna (S) RTS 934.66 20 Melville (C) UDL 1 687.79

21 Shark Bay (S) RTS 877.66 21 Joondalup (C) UFV 1 686.34

22 Wickepin (S) RAS 823.98 22 South Perth (C) UDM 1 672.62

23 Dumbleyung (S) RAS 817.41 23 Gosnells (C) UFL 1 663.04

24 Woodanilling (S) RAS 807.85 24 Mosman Park (T) UDS 1 594.79

25 Laverton (S) RTM 802.18 25 East Fremantle (T) UDS 1 583.14

26 Narembeen (S) RAS 792.44 26 Rockingham (C) UFL 1 536.22

27 Carnamah (S) RAS 777.60 27 Wanneroo (C) UFL 1 531.54

28 Dundas (S) RTM 743.33 28 Mandurah (C) URM 1 529.68

29 Morawa (S) RAS 726.54 29 Cockburn (C) UFL 1 464.33

30 Halls Creek (S) RTL 710.24 30 Armadale (C) UFM 1 447.77

31 Kellerberrin (S) RAS 665.65 31 Kwinana (T) UFS 1 433.86

32 Quairading (S) RAS 645.39 32 Collie (S) RAL 1 421.50

190




GP grant


Roads grant


33 Tambellup (S) RAS 634.01 33 Swan (S) UFL 1 410.38

34 Dowerin (S) RAS 631.58 34 Kalamunda (S) UFM 1 372.57

35 Cuballing (S) RAS 606.54 35 Mundaring (S) UFM 1 359.77

36 Corrigin (S) RAS 570.16 36 Serpentine–Jarrahdale (S)

RSG 1 284.08

37 Dalwallinu (S) RAS 553.88 37 Cuballing (S) RAS 1 264.44

38 Kent (S) RAS 521.46 38 Geraldton–Greenough (C)

URS 1 181.67

39 Narrogin (S) RAS 513.66 39 Northam (S) RAM 1 180.45

40 Three Springs (S) RAS 499.15 40 Harvey (S) RSG 1 126.64

41 Broomehill (S) RAS 497.31 41 Toodyay (S) RAM 1 096.16

42 Kulin (S) RAS 497.01 42 Exmouth (S) RTM 1 059.11

43 Derby–West Kimberley (S)

RTL 483.47 43 Manjimup (S) RAL 1 021.70

44 East Pilbara (S) RTL 482.45 44 Kalgoorlie/Boulder (C) URS 988.45

45 Wongan–Ballidu (S) RAS 481.60 45 Busselton (S) RSG 976.32

46 Kondinin (S) RAS 475.69 46 Broome (S) RTL 963.73

47 Coorow (S) RAS 470.83 47 Port Hedland (T) URS 939.82

48 Exmouth (S) RTM 470.01 48 Dardanup (S) RSG 909.77

49 Ashburton (S) RTL 460.42 49 Murray (S) RSG 885.19

50 Mingenew (S) RAS 440.98 50 Nannup (S) RAS 872.37

51 Wandering (S) RAS 432.27 51 Waroona (S) RAM 870.97

52 Cunderdin (S) RAS 430.97 52 Albany (C) URM 858.29

53 Pingelly (S) RAS 428.82 53 Augusta–Margaret River (S)

RSG 851.87

54 Nannup (S) RAS 428.74 54 Gingin (S) RAM 826.24

55 Carnarvon (S) RAL 404.38 55 Wyndham–East Kimberley (S)

RTL 817.02

56 Lake Grace (S) RAS 364.60 56 Chittering (S) RAM 803.55

57 Ravensthorpe (S) RAS 354.76 57 Tambellup (S) RAS 788.55

58 Wyndham–East Kimberley (S)

RTL 354.27 58 Three Springs (S) RAS 766.00

59 Cranbrook (S) RAS 348.41 59 Donnybrook–Balingup (S)

RAM 744.70

60 Brookton (S) RAS 340.03 60 York (S) RAM 732.50

191

Appendix E



GP grant


Roads grant


61 Beverley (S) RAS 318.37 61 Boddington (S) RAS 731.47

62 Wagin (S) RAS 315.29 62 Bridgetown–Greenbushes (S)

RAM 720.60

63 Jerramungup (S) RAS 294.43 63 Ngaanyatjarraku (S) RTM 687.12

64 Goomalling (S) RAS 275.25 State average 668.84

65 West Arthur (S) RAS 270.44 64 Katanning (S) RAM 650.73

66 Merredin (S) RAM 266.32 65 Dandaragan (S) RAM 632.96

67 Gnowangerup (S) RAS 265.17 66 Beverley (S) RAS 598.29

68 Yilgarn (S) RAS 262.72 67 Halls Creek (S) RTL 597.76

69 Victoria Plains (S) RAS 231.58 68 Irwin (S) RAM 591.76

70 Katanning (S) RAM 222.25 69 Dundas (S) RTM 586.46

71 Mullewa (S) RAS 208.39 70 Denmark (S) RAL 581.05

72 Kojonup (S) RAM 197.42 71 East Pilbara (S) RTL 559.14

73 Leonora (S) RTM 194.65 72 Carnarvon (S) RAL 558.36

74 Bridgetown–Greenbushes (S)

RAM 183.21 73 Moora (S) RAM 553.30

75 Chapman Valley (S) RAS 181.84 74 Mingenew (S) RAS 551.28

76 Narrogin (T) URS 174.61 75 Mount Magnet (S) RTS 546.63

77 Moora (S) RAM 174.20 76 Bruce Rock (S) RAS 538.60

78 Boyup Brook (S) RAS 166.71 77 Shark Bay (S) RTS 538.56

79 Collie (S) RAL 166.38 78 Cranbrook (S) RAS 538.52

80 Manjimup (S) RAL 163.42 79 Merredin (S) RAM 526.49

81 Boddington (S) RAS 158.16 80 Esperance (S) RAV 516.68

82 Northam (S) RAM 157.23 81 Cunderdin (S) RAS 514.39

83 Broome (S) RTL 155.16 82 Northampton (S) RAM 511.27

84 Waroona (S) RAM 154.74 83 Wagin (S) RAS 508.43

85 York (S) RAM 152.21 84 Plantagenet (S) RAM 506.60

86 Dandaragan (S) RAM 148.27 85 Pingelly (S) RAS 506.21

87 Donnybrook–Balingup (S)

RAM 145.16 86 Quairading (S) RAS 501.60

88 Port Hedland (T) URS 143.21 87 Boyup Brook (S) RAS 500.31

89 Northampton (S) RAM 142.58 88 Coorow (S) RAS 500.09

90 Roebourne (S) URS 140.33 89 Victoria Plains (S) RAS 498.08

192




GP grant


Roads grant


91 Toodyay (S) RAM 137.55 90 Koorda (S) RAS 495.13

92 Gingin (S) RAM 122.44 91 Broomehill (S) RAS 490.56

93 Chittering (S) RAM 110.14 92 Corrigin (S) RAS 488.36

94 Denmark (S) RAL 105.48 93 Brookton (S) RAS 486.77

95 Esperance (S) RAV 97.13 94 Williams (S) RAS 486.37

96 Murray (S) RSG 96.29 95 Wandering (S) RAS 486.04

97 Serpentine–Jarrahdale (S)

RSG 95.61 96 Goomalling (S) RAS 485.28

98 Irwin (S) RAM 94.37 97 Wyalkatchem (S) RAS 484.14

99 Coolgardie (S) URS 87.65 98 Narrogin (S) RAS 483.49

100 Plantagenet (S) RAM 80.95 99 Ashburton (S) RTL 482.07

101 Williams (S) RAS 74.19 100 Carnamah (S) RAS 481.91

102 Geraldton–Greenough (C)

URS 71.82 101 Gnowangerup (S) RAS 481.68

103 Capel (S) RSG 68.97 102 Trayning (S) RAS 480.57

State average 60.12 103 Kojonup (S) RAM 478.43

104 Mundaring (S) UFM 56.36 104 Wongan–Ballidu (S) RAS 477.99

105 Dardanup (S) RSG 54.40 105 Kellerberrin (S) RAS 475.67

106 Harvey (S) RSG 45.91 106 Wickepin (S) RAS 475.10

107 Albany (C) URM 43.21 107 Morawa (S) RAS 470.57

108 Armadale (C) UFM 35.75 108 Dalwallinu (S) RAS 470.11

109 Kalgoorlie/Boulder (C) URS 29.83 109 West Arthur (S) RAS 465.74

110 East Fremantle (T) UDS 18.04 110 Mukinbudin (S) RAS 465.43

110 Perth (C) UCC 18.04 111 Dumbleyung (S) RAS 465.24

110 Bassendean (T) UDS 18.04 112 Woodanilling (S) RAS 464.61

110 Mosman Park (T) UDS 18.04 113 Tammin (S) RAS 464.42

110 South Perth (C) UDM 18.04 114 Nungarin (S) RAS 460.87

110 Kalamunda (S) UFM 18.04 115 Sandstone (S) RTX 459.98

110 Vincent (T) UDS 18.04 116 Dowerin (S) RAS 456.04

110 Nedlands (C) UDS 18.04 117 Narembeen (S) RAS 452.92

110 Swan (S) UFL 18.04 118 Chapman Valley (S) RAS 452.90

110 Belmont (C) UDM 18.04 119 Westonia (S) RAS 451.43

110 Fremantle (C) UDS 18.04 120 Derby–West Kimberley (S)

RTL 449.73

193

Appendix E



GP grant


Roads grant


110 Bayswater (C) UDM 18.04 121 Coolgardie (S) URS 444.25

110 Cockburn (C) UFL 18.04 122 Kulin (S) RAS 436.23

110 Rockingham (C) UFL 18.04 123 Mount Marshall (S) RAS 431.47

110 Cambridge (T) UDS 18.04 124 Jerramungup (S) RAS 427.13

110 Melville (C) UDL 18.04 125 Kondinin (S) RAS 426.96

110 Joondalup (C) UFV 18.04 126 Lake Grace (S) RAS 426.41

110 Stirling (C) UDV 18.04 127 Mullewa (S) RAS 410.56

110 Wanneroo (C) UFL 18.04 128 Perenjori (S) RAS 407.08

110 Subiaco (C) UDS 18.04 129 Leonora (S) RTM 403.35

110 Mandurah (C) URM 18.04 130 Yalgoo (S) RTX 402.39

110 Gosnells (C) UFL 18.04 131 Ravensthorpe (S) RAS 400.31

110 Bunbury (C) URM 18.04 132 Upper Gascoyne (S) RTX 397.66

110 Canning (C) UDL 18.04 133 Kent (S) RAS 397.19

110 Kwinana (T) UFS 18.04 134 Cue (S) RTX 379.81

110 Victoria Park (T) UDS 18.04 135 Menzies (S) RTX 352.24

110 Busselton (S) RSG 18.04 136 Yilgarn (S) RAS 340.03

110 Augusta–Margaret River (S)

RSG 18.04 137 Murchison (S) RTX 335.80

110 Cottesloe (T) UDS 18.04 138 Meekatharra (S) RTM 332.41

110 Claremont (T) UDS 18.04 139 Wiluna (S) RTS 329.71

110 Peppermint Grove (S) UDS 18.04 140 Laverton (S) RTM 201.62

Table E.5: South Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08



GP grant


Roads grant


1 Le Hunte (DC) RAS 754.13 1 Salisbury (C) UDV 3 514.06

2 Karoonda–East Murray (DC)

RAS 729.28 2 Unley (C) UDM 1 790.26

3 Orroroo/Carrieton (DC) RAS 620.51 3 Prospect (C) UDS 1 779.74

194




GP grant


Roads grant


4 Kimba (DC) RAS 577.79 4 Norwood Payneham and St Peters (C)

UDM 1 765.19

5 Yalata RTX 558.31 5 Walkerville (M) UDS 1 698.23

6 Peterborough (DC) RAS 553.57 6 Gawler (M) UFS 1 695.73

7 Maralinga RTX 541.75 7 Holdfast Bay (C) UDM 1 688.66

8 Elliston (DC) RAS 510.10 8 Campbelltown (C) UDM 1 626.15

9 Franklin Harbour (DC) RAS 509.22 9 Charles Sturt (C) UDL 1 603.05

10 Flinders Ranges RAS 483.98 10 Burnside (C) UDM 1 601.18

11 Streaky Bay (DC) RAM 463.86 11 West Torrens (C) UDM 1 599.79

12 Ceduna (DC) RAM 453.54 12 Marion (C) UDL 1 559.13

13 Goyder Regional Council

RAM 427.70 13 Tea Tree Gully (C) UDL 1 538.27

14 Mount Remarkable (DC)

RAM 402.12 14 Mount Gambier (C) URS 1 524.23

15 Anangu Pitjantjatjara RTM 401.66 15 Gerard RTX 1 511.10

16 Gerard RTX 399.11 16 Nepabunna RTX 1 504.40

17 Cleve (DC) RAS 373.07 17 Port Adelaide Enfield (C)

UDL 1 491.12

18 Coober Pedy (DC) URS 361.00 18 Mitcham (C) UDM 1 480.46

19 Southern Mallee (DC) RAM 357.41 19 Roxby Downs (M) URS 1 412.09

20 Nepabunna RTX 345.23 20 Adelaide (C) UCC 1 286.76

21 Kangaroo Island RAM 305.83 21 Onkaparinga (C) UFV 1 252.13

22 Coorong (DC) RAL 302.82 22 Playford (C) UFL 1 180.24

23 Mid Murray RAL 262.51 23 Port Lincoln (C) URS 1 160.45

24 Outback Areas Community Development Trust

RTL 235.91 24 Whyalla (C) URS 1 100.23

25 Port Augusta (C) URS 213.32 25 Adelaide Hills UFM 677.56

26 Port Pirie Regional Council

RAV 208.41 26 Port Augusta (C) URS 548.42

27 Whyalla (C) URS 202.62 27 Mount Barker (DC) URS 531.30

28 Tatiara (DC) RAL 196.93 28 Yalata RTX 510.45

29 Kingston (DC) RAM 192.06 29 Victor Harbor (C) URS 500.83

195

Appendix E



GP grant


Roads grant


30 Loxton Waikerie (DC) RAV 189.60 30 Light Regional Council

RAV 446.18

31 Northern Areas RAM 183.86 31 Berri and Barmera RAV 429.31

32 Naracoorte Lucindale RAL 172.91 32 Loxton Waikerie (DC) RAV 421.60

33 Renmark Paringa (DC) RAL 171.43 33 Kimba (DC) RAS 416.93

34 Wakefield Regional Council

RAL 160.24 34 Northern Areas RAM 393.42

35 Tumby Bay (DC) RAM 148.57 35 Coorong (DC) RAL 391.24

36 Berri and Barmera RAV 146.74 State average 387.90

37 Murray Bridge (RC) RAV 134.47 36 Renmark Paringa (DC)

RAL 364.71

38 Playford (C) UFL 109.36 37 Barossa UFS 360.52

39 Copper Coast (DC) RAV 104.96 38 Murray Bridge (RC) RAV 356.61

40 Grant (DC) RAL 96.31 39 Tatiara (DC) RAL 342.95

41 Mallala (DC) RAL 92.61 40 Wattle Range RAV 337.94

42 Barunga West (DC) RAM 92.38 41 Lower Eyre Peninsula (DC)

RAM 331.56

43 Wattle Range RAV 88.26 42 Alexandrina UFS 308.60

44 Yorke Peninsula (DC) RAV 82.33 43 Port Pirie Regional Council

RAV 289.15

45 Salisbury (C) UDV 67.05 44 Maralinga RTX 276.03

46 Lower Eyre Peninsula (DC)

RAM 62.73 45 Elliston (DC) RAS 275.08

State average 60.03 46 Kingston (DC) RAM 262.72

47 Mount Gambier (C) URS 54.45 47 Copper Coast (DC) RAV 245.56

48 Port Lincoln (C) URS 48.83 48 Southern Mallee (DC) RAM 233.90

49 Gawler (M) UFS 44.71 49 Naracoorte Lucindale

RAL 232.40

50 Onkaparinga © UFV 41.26 50 Kangaroo Island RAM 225.96

51 Clare and Gilbert Valleys

RAL 34.91 51 Franklin Harbour (DC)

RAS 211.76

52 Mount Barker (DC) URS 21.54 52 Yankalilla (DC) RAM 211.67

53 Yankalilla (DC) RAM 18.77 53 Streaky Bay (DC) RAM 205.65

54 Alexandrina UFS 18.68 54 Karoonda–East Murray (DC)

RAS 202.21

196




GP grant


Roads grant


55 Victor Harbor (C) URS 18.01 55 Ceduna (DC) RAM 200.27

55 Norwood Payneham and St Peters (C)

UDM 18.01 56 Mallala (DC) RAL 199.54

55 Burnside (C) UDM 18.01 57 Cleve (DC) RAS 197.88

55 Unley (C) UDM 18.01 58 Robe (DC) RAS 192.88

55 Barossa UFS 18.01 59 Tumby Bay (DC) RAM 183.90

55 Prospect (C) UDS 18.01 60 Flinders Ranges RAS 183.55

55 Marion (C) UDL 18.01 61 Le Hunte (DC) RAS 178.93

55 Port Adelaide Enfield (C)

UDL 18.01 62 Grant (DC) RAL 165.04

55 Tea Tree Gully (C) UDL 18.01 63 Yorke Peninsula (DC) RAV 163.66

55 Charles Sturt (C) UDL 18.01 64 Clare and Gilbert Valleys

RAL 161.78

55 West Torrens (C) UDM 18.01 65 Goyder Regional Council

RAM 160.23

55 Holdfast Bay (C) UDM 18.01 66 Peterborough (DC) RAS 154.50

55 Adelaide Hills UFM 18.01 67 Barunga West (DC) RAM 154.13

55 Mitcham (C) UDM 18.01 68 Mid Murray RAL 148.73

55 Campbelltown (C) UDM 18.01 69 Wakefield Regional Council

RAL 144.89

55 Light Regional Council RAV 18.01 70 Mount Remarkable (DC)

RAM 136.46

55 Adelaide (C) UCC 18.01 71 Orroroo/Carrieton (DC)

RAS 121.09

55 Walkerville (M) UDS 18.01 72 Coober Pedy (DC) URS 94.05

55 Roxby Downs (M) URS 18.01 73 Anangu Pitjantjatjara RTM 36.73

55 Robe (DC) RAS 18.01 74 Outback Areas Community Development Trust

RTL 0.00

197

Appendix E

Table E.6: Tasmanian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08



GP grant


Roads grant


1 Flinders (M) RAS 588.59 1 Hobart (C) UCC 4 785.79

2 King Island (M) RAS 294.97 2 Glenorchy (C) URM 3 678.32

3 Central Highlands (M) RAM 283.62 3 Devonport (C) URS 3 497.68

4 West Coast (M) RAL 203.87 4 Launceston (C) URM 3 012.59

5 Southern Midlands (M) RAL 202.25 5 West Coast (M) RAL 2 771.90

6 Break O’Day (M) RAL 184.39 6 Burnie (C) URS 2 766.65

7 Kentish (M) RAL 169.11 7 Clarence (C) URM 2 496.28

8 Dorset (M) RAL 166.00 8 Brighton (M) URS 2 369.20

9 Tasman (M) RAM 164.68 9 Break O’Day (M) RAL 2 207.98

10 Circular Head (M) RAL 146.73 10 Central Coast (M) URS 2 156.67

11 George Town (M) RAL 130.17 11 George Town (M) RAL 2 145.05

12 Northern Midlands (M) RAV 112.78 State average 2 041.91

13 Huon Valley (M) RAV 105.69 12 Glamorgan–Spring Bay (M)

RAM 1 981.79

14 Waratah–Wynyard (M) RAV 103.67 13 Meander Valley (M) RAV 1 959.49

15 Glamorgan–Spring Bay (M)

RAM 101.51 14 Waratah–Wynyard (M)

RAV 1 924.56

16 Derwent Valley (M) RAL 89.01 15 Dorset (M) RAL 1 919.69

17 Central Coast (M) URS 88.24 16 Latrobe (M) RAL 1 917.46

18 Meander Valley (M) RAV 80.38 17 West Tamar (M) UFS 1 909.81

19 Brighton (M) URS 78.98 18 Kingborough (M) URS 1 886.89

20 West Tamar (M) UFS 76.24 19 Northern Midlands (M) RAV 1 815.69

21 Latrobe (M) RAL 67.06 20 Derwent Valley (M) RAL 1 776.58

22 Sorell (M) RAV 63.35 21 Sorell (M) RAV 1 755.39

State average 59.58 22 Circular Head (M) RAL 1 750.49

23 Burnie (C) URS 48.25 23 Kentish (M) RAL 1 729.71

24 Devonport (C) URS 24.94 24 Southern Midlands (M) RAL 1 581.60

25 Kingborough (M) URS 23.90 25 Tasman (M) RAM 1 541.40

26 Clarence (C) URM 21.72 26 Huon Valley (M) RAV 1 534.26

27 Launceston (C) URM 20.52 27 Central Highlands (M) RAM 1 360.12

28 Glenorchy (C) URM 17.91 28 King Island (M) RAS 1 331.01

29 Hobart (C) UCC 17.87 29 Flinders (M) RAS 1 288.11

198


Table E.7: Northern Territory councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2007–08


Rank Council name Classification GP grant Rank Council name ClassificationRoads grant


1 Peppimenarti RTX 244.04 1 Cox Peninsula RTX 3 460.33

2 Urapuntja RTS 239.37 2 Tennant Creek (T) URS 3 348.24

3 Aherrenge (Arunga) RTX 226.50 3 Darwin (C) UCC 3 240.89

4 Yugul Mangi RTM 201.80 4 Alice Springs (T) URS 3 142.12

5 Nyirranggulung Mardrulk

RTS 201.63 5 Palmerston (T) UFS 3 045.37

6 Anmatjere RTM 195.61 6 Borroloola RTS 2 844.16

7 Walungurru RTS 194.14 7 Katherine (T) URS 2 813.81

8 Yuendumu RTM 192.69 8 Jabiru (T) URS 2 761.42

9 Numbulwar–Numburindi

RTS 186.68 9 Litchfield (S) RAV 2 559.03

10 Thamarrurr RTM 183.74 10 Daguragu RTS 2 190.50

11 Warruwi RTX 182.91 11 Pine Creek RTS 2 104.62

12 Ramingining RTS 182.14 12 Marngarr RTX 2 006.25

13 Tiwi Islands RTM 181.86 13 Mataranka RTX 1 910.07

14 Galiwinku RTM 180.83 14 Coomalie (CGC) RTM 1 904.05

15 Kaltukatjara RTX 177.31 15 Amoonguna RTX 1 689.86

16 Alpurrurulam RTS 176.82 16 Jilkminggan RTX 1 640.19

17 Gapuwiyak RTS 175.65 17 Warruwi RTX 1 342.73

18 Wallace Rockhole RTX 172.59 18 Alpurrurulam RTS 1 328.39

19 Milingimbi RTS 169.43 19 Peppimenarti RTX 1 317.33

20 Umbakumba RTS 167.92 20 Imanpa RTX 1 243.45

21 Ikuntji RTX 167.36 21 Timber Creek RTX 1 206.90

22 Yuelamu RTX 166.93 22 Nauiyu Nambiyu RTS 1 140.80

23 Nganmarriyanga (Palumpa)

RTX 166.74 23 Yirrkala/Dhanbul RTS 1 117.75

24 Watiyawanu (Mt Liebig) RTX 166.35 24 Milingimbi RTS 1 116.11

25 Lajamanu RTM 166.02 25 Yugul Mangi RTM 1 096.95

26 Papunya RTX 164.08 26 Thamarrurr RTM 1 087.28

27 Daguragu RTS 163.37 27 Minjilang RTX 1 020.56

28 Aputula RTX 162.94 28 Elliott District RTS 973.02

29 Maningrida RTM 162.92 State average 906.23

30 Imanpa RTX 162.51 29 Angurugu RTS 793.79

199

Appendix E




31 Nyirripi RTX 162.16 30 Tiwi Islands RTM 785.39

32 Arltarlpilta RTX 161.91 31 Ramingining RTS 777.57

33 Areyonga RTX 161.74 32 Nyirranggulung Mardrulk

RTS 772.77

34 Borroloola RTS 159.58 33 Ltyentye Purte (Santa Teresa)

RTS 755.53

35 Ntaria RTS 158.78 34 Wallace Rockhole RTX 753.91

36 Walingeri–Ngumpinku RTX 156.70 35 Umbakumba RTS 728.68

37 Ali Curung RTS 155.85 36 Kunbarllanjnja RTS 712.58

38 Yirrkala/Dhanbul RTS 151.08 37 Aherrenge (Arunga) RTX 711.31

39 Ltyentye Purte (Santa Teresa)

RTS 150.52 38 Maningrida RTM 678.58

40 Tennant Creek (T) URS 149.58 39 Anmatjere RTM 582.12

41 Angurugu RTS 149.49 40 Walingeri–Ngumpinku

RTX 564.27

42 Elliott District RTS 149.22 41 Areyonga RTX 516.99

43 Kunbarllanjnja RTS 146.53 42 Galiwinku RTM 509.47

44 Nauiyu Nambiyu RTS 130.36 43 Nganmarriyanga (Palumpa)

RTX 503.42

45 Belyuen RTX 128.13 44 Aputula RTX 495.85

46 Tapatjatjaka RTX 127.23 45 Trust Account ZZZ 441.91

47 Timber Creek RTX 125.08 46 Gapuwiyak RTS 430.59

48 Minjilang RTX 124.00 47 Numbulwar–Numburindi

RTS 429.44

49 Jabiru (T) URS 117.19 48 Walungurru RTS 426.61

50 Amoonguna RTX 110.02 49 Tapatjatjaka RTX 414.76

51 Marngarr RTX 101.03 50 Ali Curung RTS 402.32

52 Pine Creek RTS 100.23 51 Watiyawanu (Mt Liebig)

RTX 395.12

53 Jilkminggan RTX 98.96 52 Yuelamu RTX 378.60

54 Coomalie (CGC) RTM 98.48 53 Belyuen RTX 321.75

55 Katherine (T) URS 87.44 54 Lajamanu RTM 318.43

56 Mataranka RTX 82.91 55 Yuendumu RTM 317.88

57 Cox Peninsula RTX 72.86 56 Ikuntji RTX 313.82

State average 64.07 57 Kaltukatjara RTX 265.15

200





58 Litchfield (S) RAV 46.90 58 Papunya RTX 264.09

59 Alice Springs (T) URS 34.85 59 Ntaria RTS 258.67

60 Palmerston (T) UFS 32.87 60 Nyirripi RTX 254.84

61 Darwin (C) UCC 19.71 61 Urapuntja RTS 202.20

62 Trust Account ZZZ 0.00 62 Arltarlpilta RTX 193.74

201

Appendix F

Appendix FAustralian 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 (Cwlth). Therefore, bodies, declared by the federal minister on the advice of the state minister to be local governing bodies for the purposes of the Act, are included in the ACLG.

These include community councils. However, county councils, voluntary regional organisations of councils and the Australian Capital Territory are excluded. The classification system generally involves three steps. Each step allocates a prefix (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 be taken as a starting point for enquiring into grant outcomes. This divergence can occur because of factors including isolation, population distribution, local economic performance, daily or seasonal population changes, the age profile of the population and geographic differences. The allocation of the general purpose grant between states on an equal per capita basis and the local road grant on a fixed shares basis can also cause divergence.

To ensure the ACLG is kept up to date, at the end of each financial year local government grants commissions advise of any changes in the classification of councils in their state.

Table F.2 provides details of the number of local governing bodies at June 2008, by ACLG category and by state. As there were changes to the ACLG reported for local governing bodies in 2007–08, Table F.3 gives changes to local governing body classifications and reasons for the change.

202


Local government grants commissions do not take the ACLG classification of a council into account when determining the level of general purpose grant.

Further details of the classification system can be found in the original report on the ACLG (Department of Housing and Regional Development 1994).

Table F.1: Structure of the classification system

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Identifiers Category

uRBAN (u)

Population more than 20 000

OR

If population less than 20 000 EITHER Population density more than 30 persons per sq km

OR

90 per cent or more of the local governing body population is urban

CAPITAL CITY (CC) Not applicable UCC

METROPOLITAN DEVELOPED (D)

Part of an urban centre of more than 1 000 000 or population density more than 600/sq km

SMALL (S)

MEDIUM (M)

LARGE (L)

VERY LARGE (V)

up to 30 000

30 001–70 000

70 001–120 000

more than 120 000

UDS

UDM

UDL

UDV

REGIONAL TOWNS/CITY (R)

Part of an urban centre with population less than 1 000 000 and predominantly urban in nature

SMALL (S)

MEDIUM (M)

LARGE (L)

VERY LARGE (V)

up to 30 000

30 001–70 000

70 001–120 000

more than 120 000

URS

URM

URL

URV

FRINGE (F)

A developing LGA on the margin of a developed or regional urban centre

SMALL (S)

MEDIUM (M)

LARGE (L)

VERY LARGE (V)

up to 30 000

30 001–70 000

70 001–120 000

more than 120 000

UFS

UFM

UFL

UFV

RuRAL (R)

A local governing body with population less than 20 000

AND

Population density less than 30 persons per sq km

AND

Less than 90 per cent of local governing body population is urban

SIGNIFICANT GROWTH (SG)

Average annual population growth more than 3 per cent, population more than 5 000 and not remote

Not applicable RSG

AGRICULTURAL (A) SMALL (S)

MEDIUM (M)

LARGE (L)

VERY LARGE (V)

up to 2000

2001–5000

5001–10 000

10 001–20 000

RAS

RAM

RAL

RAV

REMOTE (T) EXTRA SMALL (X)

SMALL (S)

MEDIUM (M)

LARGE (L)

up to 400

401–1000

1001–3000

3001–20 000

RTX

RTS

RTM

RTL

203

Appendix F

Table F.2: ACLG category listing of local governments by state, July 2008

State NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT Total

Urban Capital City (UCC) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Urban Development Small (UDS) 2 0 0 12 2 0 0 16

Urban Development Medium (UDM) 15 2 1 3 7 0 0 28

Urban Development Large (UDL) 6 9 1 2 4 0 0 22

Urban Development Very Large (UDV) 8 10 1 1 1 0 0 21

Urban Regional Small (URS) 11 12 21 6 8 5 4 67

Urban Regional Medium (URM) 21 8 3 3 0 3 0 38

Urban Regional Large (URL) 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 8

Urban Regional Very Large (URV) 3 1 7 0 0 0 0 11

Urban Fringe Small (UFS) 0 1 23 1 3 1 1 30

Urban Fringe Medium (UFM) 3 3 4 3 1 0 0 14

Urban Fringe Large (UFL) 1 3 1 5 1 0 0 11

Urban Fringe Very Large (UFV) 7 3 0 1 1 0 0 12

Rural Significant Growth (RSG) 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 8

Rural Agricultural Small (RAS) 3 0 7 53 10 2 0 75

Rural Agricultural Medium (RAM) 22 0 26 15 12 3 0 78

Rural Agricultural Large (RAL) 24 9 14 5 9 9 0 70

Rural Agricultural Very Large (RAV) 20 13 21 1 8 5 1 69

Rural Remote Extra Small (RTX) 3 0 4 6 4 0 25 42

Rural Remote Small (RTS) 0 0 6 3 0 0 20 29

Rural Remote Medium (RTM) 1 0 11 6 1 0 9 28

Rural Remote Large (RTL) 1 0 3 6 1 0 0 11

Total 155 79 157 140 74 29 61 695

Notes a NT Total excludes Roads Trust Account

a

204


Table F.3: Changes in ACLG category for 2007–08: reasons for change by state, July 2008

Council name Classification Reason for change

New South Wales

Forbes Shire RAL 2

Victoria

Docklands Authority UDS 1

Western Australia

Greenough (S) RSG 1

Northam (T) URS 1

Donnybrook–Balingup (S) RAL 2

Northern Territory

Binjari RTX 1

Milyakburra RTX 1

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

205

Appendix G

Appendix GProgress in improving efficiency of local government

Effective and efficient operation of local government is crucial because local government delivers key economic, social and environmental services to its communities.

This appendix incorporates reports from all state departments and some local government associations on activities in 2007–08 towards meeting these aims. It includes progress reports on developing performance indicators, reforming legislation, and implementing other microeconomic reforms.

New South WalesDepartment of Local Government

Local government reform program overview

An 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 includes the approaches of:

• encouraging greater cooperation between councils

• promoting better council practices

• strengthening councils’ strategic focus and better integrating planning and reporting processes

• implementing an asset management framework, including long-term financial planning.

Cooperation through resource sharing and strategic alliances

While the New South Wales Government supports councils wishing to pursue voluntary amalgamation where there are clear benefits, it is also encouraging councils to consider other collaborative arrangements such as strategic alliances where they can achieve better service outcomes and more efficient service delivery for their communities.

There are now 21 alliances complementing the work of Regional Organisations of Councils and other forms of collaboration around the state. As well as alliances advising that they are helping councils to achieve a range of financial savings, councils have advised they are able to improve their service standards and complete projects that would not otherwise have been achievable.

206


Strategic Alliance Network

The Strategic Alliance Network was established following the first Strategic Alliance Conference in May 2006. A second conference was convened in September 2007. The Network consists of 50 councils committed to developing and sharing initiatives in collaboration.

The network is supported by an Executive Committee consisting of representatives from the New South Wales Local Government and Shires Associations, Local Government Managers Australia, Cabonne Shire Council, Coffs Harbour City Council, Fairfield City Council, Hunters Hill Council, Lithgow City Council, Wellington Council, Holroyd City Council, representatives of Regional Organisations of Councils, and Rous Water County Council.

The emphasis of the Executive Committee during 2007–08 has been continuing the development of a strategic framework for council collaboration. This culminated in the release by the Minister for Local Government at the 2007 Strategic Alliance Conference of Collaboration and Partnerships between Councils: A guidance paper. For 2008–09 the Network will be preparing additional resources in the areas of workforce relations and benefits realisation.

Examples of collaboration and partnership arrangements

Existing partnerships continue to grow and explore new ways of building capacity in the local government sector. Examples of such partnerships include:

• The Central Tablelands Strategic Alliance – a partnership between Lithgow City, Oberon and Mid Western Councils – aims to maximise the use of resources available through joint purchasing and leasing, common information technology systems, common employment arrangements, sharing of staff, and skills exchange. The alliance is also undertaking joint regional planning in land use planning, tourism and economic development.

• The Wellington–Blayney–Cabonne Strategic Alliance is a partnership that has recently employed a project officer to identify and drive further joint capacity building initiatives.

• The Goulburn Mulwaree, Palerang and Upper Lachlan Councils Strategic Alliance aims to reduce duplication in back office services.

• The New England Strategic Alliance is a partnership that continues to build expertise through specialisation in key council business areas.

• The Bathurst, Dubbo and Orange Councils Strategic Alliance aims to address a range of issues, including joint internal audit and environmental planning.

Councils also continue to share resources and work collaboratively on a range of specific projects. Such collaborations include:

• The Georges River Combined Councils Committee (comprising Wollondilly, Campbelltown, Liverpool, Fairfield, Bankstown, Kogarah, Rockdale, Hurstville and Sutherland Councils) joint venture with NSW Maritime to monitor the health of the river, to halt pollution and regulate boat users.

• The Regional Illegal Dumping Squad, comprising Penrith, Bankstown, Baulkham Hills, Fairfield, Holroyd and Liverpool Councils, and the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change.

• The Central West Salinity and Water Quality Alliance, comprising Bathurst, Bogan, Cabonne, Coonamble, Dubbo, Gilgandra, Narromine, Orange, Warren, Warrumbungle and Wellington Councils, and the Central West Catchment Authority.

207

Appendix G

• The Cooks River Foreshore Working Party Group, comprising Bankstown, Burwood, Canterbury, City of Sydney, Marrickville, Rockdale and Strathfield Councils, and the NSW Department of Planning, the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority, Sydney Water and RailCorp.

• The Coffs Coast Waste Service, comprising Coffs Harbour, Bellingen and Nambucca Councils.

• The Newcastle Airport, comprising Newcastle and Port Stephens councils.

• The Ashfield, Canada Bay and Strathfield councils Road Maintenance Service Level Agreement.

• The Northern Regional Food Surveillance Group, comprising Moree Plains, Narrabri, Gunnedah, Gwydir, Tamworth Regional, Inverell, Uralla, Walcha, Armidale Dumaresq, Guyra, Glenn Innes Severn and Tenterfield councils.

• The Wingecarribee and Shellharbour councils joint payroll service.

City–rural relationships are becoming an increasingly common form of partnership between councils. There are now more than 24 of these partnerships. Many are reviewing the way they work with each other and moving beyond the original concept of cultural exchange, into areas aimed at building expertise in governance and core aspects of council business. Some councils have formed more than one partnership and a number of regional councils are forming partnerships with smaller rural councils. Examples of this type of partnership include:

• Coffs Harbour City Council–Kyogle Shire Council

• Shoalhaven City Council–Coolamon Shire Council

• Hornsby Shire Council–Leeton Shire and Tumut Councils

• Ryde Council–Central Darling Shire Council

• Penrith City Council–Blue Mountains City and Lachlan Shire Councils.

Database on council resource sharing

The department has been collecting information from councils on resource sharing initiatives in which they are currently involved. All councils in New South Wales are involved in at least one type of collaborative arrangement; that is, a county council, a Regional Organisation of Councils, a strategic alliance, or some other type of arrangement.

The department intends to update this database in 2009 and is working with the Local Government and Shires Associations, Local Government Managers Australia and the Strategic Alliance Network to develop ways to share this information, build relevant skills, and promote further council collaboration.

Integrated Planning and Reporting

The department, in consultation with the New South Wales local government sector, is developing a new planning and reporting system for local government. The new system will replace the former Management Plan, Social Plan and State of the Environment Report with an integrated system that includes a requirement to prepare a long-term Community Strategic Plan.

The department has completed a review of 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 new system will recognise that communities do not exist in isolation – they are part of a larger natural, social, economic and political environment that influences and shapes their future direction.

208


The new system will encourage councils to draw their various plans together, to understand how they interact and to get the maximum leverage from their efforts by planning for the future in consultation with local, regional and state service providers. The local government sector has indicated widespread support for the new system. It is expected that an exposure draft Bill and detailed guidelines and manual will be released for public consultation by December 2008. The department plans to introduce a Bill to amend the Local Government Act 1993 in the 2009 Budget session of Parliament.

The department plans to introduce the new system in three groups of councils over a three-year period; the first group is expected to commence in 2010–11. Councils will choose to which group they belong to allow for the differing capacities of councils to be ready to implement the system. All councils will be operating under the new system from the start of the next local government electoral term in September 2012.

Asset management planning measures

In May 2007, the department released the ‘Asset Management Planning for New South Wales Local Government’ position paper for discussion. The paper explored development of a new asset management framework for New South Wales councils. It included the following recommendations:

1. Strategic long-term asset management and financial plans to be included as essential components of an integrated planning and reporting framework across New South Wales local government.

2. Legislative amendments requiring long-term strategic asset management planning to be introduced into the Local Government Act 1993.

3. Councils to adopt asset management planning systems and practices that are consistent with the National Local Government Financial Sustainability Frameworks, and where applicable and practical, the International Infrastructure Management Manual.

4. A basic (core) approach to asset management planning to be the agreed minimum level for all New South Wales councils.

5. An asset management improvement program to be implemented to progressively raise asset management planning to a level appropriate for each council.

6. Legislative amendments requiring 10 year financial planning to be introduced into the Local Government Act 1993.

7. An industry-wide capacity-building program, including a range of training tools, templates and guidelines, to be introduced.

Submissions on the paper overwhelmingly supported the intent of the paper and its recommendations.

The New South Wales Government endorsed the frameworks in 2008. The frameworks have informed development of the asset management and long-term financial planning components of the department’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Project.

Local government performance indicators

The department’s 2006–07 Comparative Information on New South Wales Local Government Councils marks the seventeenth year the report has been produced. It contains 23 performance indicators.

209

Appendix G

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

During 2007 the department reviewed the Comparative Information report. The purpose of the review was primarily to reduce red tape, to reduce duplication of providing, collecting and/or publishing information, and to streamline the publication.

The review found that some data being published was also being collected and published by other relevant state departments. This unnecessary duplication adversely affects local government, as councils expend resources to provide similar or identical data to multiple departments. As a result of the review, published information relating to libraries, waste and recycling, and planning and development, have become the responsibility of the relevant departments. Further information on where these performance indicators are now located is provided in the contents section of the report.

The report continues to produce time series data for each indicator. New South Wales will continue to review and develop appropriate performance measures. To promote use, transparency and accountability, the department continues to produce the report and the raw data freely available and accessible on the Internet.

Promoting Better Practice reviews

The Promoting Better Practice review program has a number of objectives, namely:

• to generate momentum for a culture of continuous improvement and greater compliance across local government

• to provide an ‘early intervention’ option for councils experiencing operating problems

• to promote good governance and ethical conduct principles

• to identify and share innovation and good practice in local government

• to enable the department to use review information to feed back into its work in identifying necessary legislative and policy work for the local government sector.

The review process was developed after extensive research into council performance measurements in Australia and overseas. The review consists of five steps – preparing, assessing, checking, analysing and reporting. The review team examines local circumstances in order to understand the pressures on a council and how the council has sought to manage that environment.

The process involves a review team from the department evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the council’s operations and giving feedback. The team checks compliance, examines appropriate practices, and ensures the council has frameworks in place to monitor its performance. The results of reviews are analysed and fed back to the elected council, the Director General of the department and the Minister for Local Government.

Reviews act as a ‘health check’, giving confidence about what is being done and helping to focus attention on key priorities. In 2007–08, the department completed 22 Promoting Better Practice reviews. They covered both city and country councils, ranging from the inner suburbs of Sydney to the rural border towns of Tenterfield in the northwest and Deniliquin in the south. In total, the program has undertaken 78 Promoting Better Practice reviews, 65 of these are fully completed and 13 are partially completed.

210


Overall, most participating councils were found to be operating to a satisfactory standard and have shown a solid commitment to implementing recommendations. The reviews have highlighted the need for most councils, when developing their strategic direction, to understand the possible implications of the new planning and reporting framework.

The department will continue to focus on strategic collaboration between councils in 2008–09 by conducting a review of the New England strategic alliance. This will involve examining the Alliance’s overall strategic direction and business planning, and frameworks it uses to monitor performance.

The department is committed to continuing the review and has planned to conduct 12 reviews during 2008–09. The department is also evaluating the effectiveness of the review program; one of the evaluation outputs is to identify options for improving the review process.

VictoriaLocal Government Victoria, Department for Victorian CommunitiesPriorities for 2006–07 included monitoring councils’ financial sustainability and helping councils improve their asset management performance. A continued emphasis on helping councils reform their business practices has taken place during the year. Other initiatives to help the sector achieve microeconomic reforms and efficiencies included establishing and implementing the Victorian State/Local Government Agreement and efforts to achieve greater efficiencies in local government planning.

Another area of reform undertaken in the year related to improving local council governance practices. Local Government Victoria released a consultation paper in November 2007, titled ‘Better Local Governance’, which proposed extensive reforms to deal with the conduct of elected councillors. This was in response to complaints from a number of councils and peak bodies about limitations on councils’ ability to enforce their councillor codes of conduct. It also responded to concerns that existing legislation provided no avenue to deal with serious misconduct by a councillor short of prosecution for illegal action or dismissal of an entire council.

The proposed reforms included establishing councillor conduct panels to deal with complaints from councils about individual councillors who breach codes of conduct. Panels would be formed, as required, from lists of suitable people maintained by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV). In addition, allegations of serious councillor misconduct would be heard by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which would have powers to discipline councillors, including powers to suspend or dismiss. These proposals were widely supported in submissions from local councils, peak bodies and the community.

Review of Best Value Commission

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 has reported annually to the minister on implementation of the Best Value Principles.

Throughout 2005–06 the Best Value Commission worked with the local government sector and Local Government Victoria to develop voluntary guidelines to assist councils with the ongoing application of Best Value Victoria. The guidelines were released in September 2006.

211

Appendix G

During 2006–07 a review of the work of the Best Value Commission was undertaken to ensure its objectives continue to meet changes in community demand for local government services and innovations in local government service delivery. Consultation with local government took place during the year and the review has now been completed.

In 2007–08 the Minister for Local Government received and approved the recommendation to dissolve the Best Value Commission and for Local Government Victoria to work with peak bodies, the Corporate Planners Network and Best Value Principles network to develop a performance road map to ensure the benefits of Best Value continue. Dissolution of the Commission is in recognition of how much Best Value has become part of the way council business is conducted.

Councils Reforming Business

The $4.6 million Councils Reforming Business (CRB) initiative was announced in the 2007–08 Victorian Budget and is consistent with the COAG National Reform Agenda, which aims to improve services and lift the nation’s productivity.

The CRB initiative is being delivered in partnership with the MAV to support councils in their efforts to improve services, reduce costs and reduce red tape for businesses through:

• smarter procurement practices

• greater use of shared services

• reduced cost to business through better practice law making

• improved processes for affordable housing.

The CRB initiative is now in its second phase. The focus of Phase 1 was to build an evidence base and develop priority initiatives. It included a wide range of development work and consultation with the sector, key stakeholders and relevant state government agencies.

Phase 2 is focusing on delivering a range of key projects in each priority area. These projects will encourage cooperation and practical action to support significant long-term reform in local government. Key projects include implementation of the:

• Local Government Procurement Strategy

• Better Practice Local Laws Strategy

• Local Action on Affordable Housing Project

• Shared Services Program

• EasyBiz Online Permits for Business Project.

Victorian State/Local Government Agreement

In April 2006, the Minister for Local Government signed a national intergovernmental agreement that clarifies how federal, state and territory and local governments will work together more effectively.

In November 2006 the government committed to implementing the Victorian State/Local Government Agreement to strengthen relations between the two spheres of government and, in its A Fairer Victoria statement in May 2007, committed to finalising it.

Local Government Victoria worked with the Municipal Association of Victoria towards the agreement throughout this period. The Minister for Local Government, the Hon Richard Wynne MP, and the

212


Municipal Association of Victoria President, Cr Dick Gross (on behalf of councils), signed the Victorian State/Local Government Agreement on 14 May 2008.

The Agreement provides a basis for continued improvement in the relationship between state and local government that will promote a more efficient, joined-up approach to local services to meet community needs and provide value for money.

National Competition Policy – Local Government Improvement Incentive Program

In November 2002, the Local Government Improvement Incentive Program was introduced in Victoria to replace the previous system of National Competition Policy payments to councils. In 2005 the Australian Government announced that National Competition Policy payments to the states and territories would cease after 2005–06 because the funds were to be redirected to water conservation initiatives. Hence from 2006–07, Victorian councils no longer received competition payments under the Local Government Improvement Incentive Program. They are, however, still obliged to comply with National Competition Policy principles as specified in the competition Principles Agreement 1995 between the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments and as recommitted to at the February 2006 COAG meeting.

Compliance for 2007–08 was based on the assessment criterion of ‘National Competition Policy (trade practices, local laws and competitive neutrality)’.

Developments in local government use of long-term financial and asset management plansLocal Government Victoria, in cooperation with peak local government bodies, is implementing a range of initiatives to help councils improve their financial and asset management capabilities.

Department of Planning and Community Development – Asset Management Performance Measures Project

The Asset Management Performance Measures Project developed support tools that councils can use to monitor improvements in their asset management. The project provides councils with a measurement tool to monitor their own asset management improvement and to benchmark their performance against like council groupings. Local Government Victoria collected data from councils annually for analysis to determine whether councils’ confidence in their asset management is improving and to measure whether councils’ infrastructure renewal funding is adequate to meet future needs. Councils are further supported in this project through regional training sessions held in June each year.

The MAV Step Program provides assistance to councils in their asset management planning and processes. The program aims to help all participating councils achieve a minimum measurable ‘good practice’ standard of asset management. The program provides support to councils to enable long-term asset management planning for key assets.

Developing comparative performance measures between local governments

Each year Local Government Victoria, in collaboration with Victorian councils, publishes two reports on local government indicators: the Local Government in Victoria report and the Community Satisfaction Survey.

213

Appendix G

Local Government in Victoria Report

Data for the Local Government in Victoria 2007 report were collected during 2007–08 and the report published in April 2008. 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. The 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.5

The report shows local governments have generally strengthened their financial positions consistent with the findings of the Auditor-General’s recent report on council finances.

Overall the results are showing that median rates have increased by an average of 8 per cent (slightly faster than in 2005 or 2006 where they averaged 7%); councils’ operating expenditure and capital expenditure is also increasing, with debt levels remaining fairly stable. Councils have increased rates to fund increases in operating and capital expenditure.

Infrastructure renewal and maintenance expenditure, as a percentage of desired levels, is also generally increasing. This is further recognition of the efforts councils are making to manage the upkeep of their key assets, such as roads and buildings. Community satisfaction on an aggregate level continues to be high.

Annual Community Satisfaction Survey for local governments

Since 1998, Local Government Victoria has coordinated conduct of the annual Community Satisfaction Survey for local governments. The survey is a 10-minute telephone interview conducted with a random representative sample of residents for each participating council. Across the state, 350 telephone interviews are conducted in each municipality, which totals some 27 000 interviews.

The survey was undertaken in early 2008, with 78 out of 79 councils participating on a voluntary basis. The survey asks respondents a series of questions to find out how satisfied they were with their council’s performance across a range of service areas as well as asking ‘higher order’ questions about overall council performance, council’s advocacy role, customer contact and community engagement.

Overall council performance has improved for the state as a whole since the survey commenced in 1998, an improvement of 11 per cent (from 69 per cent in 1998 to 80 per cent in 2008). While a slight decline was evident between 2007 and 2008 (81 per cent in 2007, 80 per cent in 2008), councils generally maintained a high positive result.

On the measure of overall council performance, metropolitan councils continued the trend of reporting higher levels of satisfaction for overall council performance compared to country respondents (in 2008, metropolitan councils at 84 per cent compared to country councils at 78%).

5 The report is available at <www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au> under local government publications.

http://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au

214


The most important aspects of local government influencing community satisfaction, meaning those measures that most influence how residents view the overall performance of their councils, were in ranked order as follows:

1. Town planning, policy and approval

2. Economic development

3. Local roads and footpaths

4. Appearance of public areas

5. Recreational facilities

6. Traffic management and parking.

Municipal Association of VictoriaA strong focus for the MAV in 2007–08 was increasing the level of collaborative service provision and procurement in the sector. Several examples, illustrated below, have resulted in reduced costs to councils and improved services to the community. Specific actions Victorian local government took in 2007–08 that improved the efficiency and effectiveness of the sector included:

• increasingly focusing on procurement to identify opportunities to reduce costs and improve service delivery, such as the electoral services tender

• further improving asset management by refining the Advanced Step Asset Management program

• starting work on increasing shared service provision through the MAV-–Victorian Government Councils Reforming Business program

• expanding the Swift library project, which provides a common library management system

• undertaking work to establish business rules necessary for the national e-planning standards

• starting projects aimed at encouraging collaboration and shared service provision in partnership with the Victorian Government.

Procurement

In 2007–08, the MAV brokered procurement deals for councils in software, demographic data, library services and materials and public lighting to deliver savings and better services for local communities. Procurement has been an increasing focus of the MAV and in 2007–08 it commissioned a best practice and literature review to examine different models and means of building capability through purchasing. The MAV works with functional areas of councils to identify procurement opportunities that align with policy drivers. Opportunities are pursued where it is found that leveraging economies of scale within the sector would result in cheaper pricing, a simpler process and/or an improved outcome.

Shared services

One of the key outcomes of the MAV’s examination of the future of local government that commenced in 2005 was the opportunity for more widespread cooperation between councils. A series of regional meetings was conducted in 2007–08 to identify shared services projects of interest to councils. A list of projects was developed that covered topics as broad as information technology, asset management, records management, planning, environmental health, local laws, water and data collection. Expressions of interest were sought from councils for each project on the list with a view to progressing

215

Appendix G

scoping for the most well supported ideas. These projects will be considered for funding under the Councils Reforming Business program. To further harness the sector’s enthusiasm for greater cooperation, the 2008 Future of Local Government Summit focused on shared services. Conference participants were presented with case studies, heard how shared services support retention of local autonomy, learnt about the critical success factors and advantages of shared services, and found out how their council could get involved in local opportunities through the MAV’s expression of interest process.

Swift

The Swift Project has developed an integrated library management system that continues to flourish. Fifteen library organisations representing 35 councils are now part of the consortium. In the past year, more than 30 million transactions have been processed and statistics show a 244 per cent increase in the number of intra-library loans. The consortium operates as a shared service using a single library management system, with members adopting common global policies while still retaining some local policies. It is the largest of its kind anywhere in the world and the MAV has been approached by library organisations in New South Wales, South Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to establish similar operations.

EasyBiz

The EasyBiz program has established a single web portal for businesses to access local government forms in order to reduce the burden of regulatory transactions. Over 5000 EasyBiz forms were downloaded in May 2008 alone for transactions including planning permits, registering animals, footpath displays, advertising permits and plans for food or health businesses, among others. Assistance has been provided to the 30 councils in the consortium to load the forms and step-by-step guides for 22 standard transactions onto their websites and integrate these transactions with the main council system. While the initial objectives of the project were to make regulatory transactions easier for business, EasyBiz also has the significant potential of improving productivity and efficiency for councils, particularly for managing citizen–council compliance transactions. A business case has been prepared to assess the costs and benefits of extending EasyBiz to all Victorian councils.

ICT Committee

In 2007–08 the MAV’s Information and Communications Technology Committee brokered an agreement with Microsoft for the whole of Victorian local government that resulted in pricing equivalent to the Australian Government’s arrangement, greater choice, a high degree of flexibility and other value-added benefits for councils. Approximately 75 per cent of councils expressed interest in participating in the agreement for the supply of Microsoft products and services from approved large account resellers. In another initiative this year MAV involved 22 councils, led by Greater Geelong City Council, in taking advantage of a sector-wide deal that reduces costs associated with server infrastructure, maintenance and support by up to 45 per cent. The Committee has become an important point of reference and engagement for representing local government interests in Victorian Government information technology initiatives.

E-planning

In 2007–08 the MAV surveyed councils and vendors to identify barriers to the take-up of information technology to support planning processes and understand how the MAV can help implement the

216


e-planning strategy. This work strongly positions councils to benefit from the $30 million funding provided under the Federal Housing Affordability Fund to support e-planning nationally.

Throughout the year the MAV supported training and information workshops for planning and business support officers to improve the use of existing e-planning tools and inform system development. The MAV, with councils, provided significant input to establishing the business rules necessary for national e-planning standards to be applied in Victoria as required by COAG from 1 July 2008. The Planning Permit Activity Report has been established, which involves councils contributing electronic data monthly on permit activity. The data are integrated into councils’ information technology systems, which provides the capacity to identify planning activity spatially and examine where and when planning permits result in building construction.

Resource Sharing Protocol for Emergency Management

The MAV developed a protocol to address occasions when councils need assistance from other councils in an emergency. The protocol describes a process for initiating a request for resources from another council and clarifies associated operational insurance and reimbursement issues that may arise through sharing arrangements. The protocol promotes reduction of costs and improved response to emergencies. To date 26 councils have signed up to the protocol; the MAV will focus on expanding that number in 2008–09.

Business Expansion and Retention program

Expansion of existing businesses is known to generate between 60 and 80 per cent of all new jobs in a community. In 2007–08, the MAV launched the Business Expansion and Retention program to support councils eager to partner with their business community to retain and expand local businesses. The program provides training for community volunteers to visit local businesses and conduct a structured interview, thereby opening dialogue with owners and operators of local businesses about what helps and hinders their business activities, and what ideas they may have to improve the local business environment. The information gathered forms the basis for designing a community economic development strategy. Participating councils receive ongoing support through a statewide network for exchanging knowledge and tools through forums and newsletters.

Electoral Services Tender

Forty-nine councils benefited from a single tender for electoral services thereby saving considerable costs and reducing administrative burden. The MAV provided a standard suite of documentation that included specification of core and additional electoral services required, tenders and contract terms and conditions. Participating councils were provided with an evaluation of the tender and assistance in finalising the contract. This approach provided participating councils with certainty in the provision of electoral services in 2008.

217

Appendix G

QueenslandDepartment of Local Government, Sport and Recreation

Local government reform

In April 2007, the Queensland Government announced the most significant reform of Queensland’s local government sector since its inception. The Queensland Government instigated the reform agenda in order to provide a stronger, more efficient local government system, which has greater ability to deliver services and infrastructure to all Queenslanders. Local government reform aims to achieve a modern, sustainable, strong, effective and efficient local government system that can be relied upon to deliver services and infrastructure to all Queenslanders now and into the future.

The new reformed local government system will enable councils to:

• achieve optimum service delivery to Queensland communities

• actively participate in and promote Queensland’s regional economies

• meet the economic, environmental and social challenges presented by population growth

• collaborate with the state and other key stakeholders to ensure communities are sustainable, prosperous and viable.

The reform of the Queensland local government system has four key elements:

• structural reform

• legislative reform

• performance evaluation and reporting

• capacity building, including financial certainty and stability.

In 2007–08, the Queensland Government concluded implementation of the structural reform component and made significant progress towards finalising its legislative reform program. The Queensland Government will continue to implement local government reform during 2008–09 and beyond.

Structural reform

In April 2007, the Queensland Government announced a statewide review of local government boundaries to address the significant risk of non-viable councils to state government and Queensland communities. The structural reform aims to provide:

• financially stronger councils with strong resource bases, operating with significant economies of scale

• better service delivery and reduced operating costs in core council functions

• more opportunities for regional economic development

• better growth management through improved land use planning and infrastructure delivery

• better aligned communities of interest with local government system.

An independent Local Government Reform Commission was formed to guide local government reform. The Commission’s charter was to recommend structural change to ensure strong, effective and financially viable councils. The Commission’s findings, presented in July 2007, recommended reducing the number of councils from 156 to 72 (Brisbane City was not part of the reform). Significant

218


amalgamation of existing councils has seen creation of 31 new councils to replace 115 former councils. Implementation of the Commission’s findings was undertaken during 2007–08, with new boundaries taking effect in 15 March 2008 following local government elections.

Legislative reform

To modernise the local government system and equip it with the relevant powers and capability, it is important for the state to provide a comprehensive and clear legislative framework. In this context, during 2007–08 the department continued a review of the Local Government Act 1993. The objective of the review is to develop modern local government legislation that balances accountability with autonomy and can facilitate effective, efficient and sustainable governance within councils.

In 2007–08, the review amended the Local Government Act 1993 to provide for a new governance structure for the Torres Strait Island and Northern Peninsula Area regional councils. This is in line with the policy to bring all local governments in Queensland under a single legislative instrument.

Further consultation, undertaken with stakeholders during 2007–08, informed the drafting of new legislation, scheduled to take place during 2008–09. The review is also scheduled to continue through 2008–09.

Performance evaluation and reporting

Performance evaluation is part of local government reform, and is directly linked to the primary reform themes of sustainability of councils and management of growth within Queensland. The objectives of performance evaluation can be presented in terms of value to the state, the community and to councils.

The state – The Queensland Government’s primary concern is ongoing sustainability of all local councils in Queensland. For the state and the department, the overarching responsibility is the system of local government in Queensland. The state and the department need to be able to develop evidence-based policy; and the data, information and outcomes from the evaluation support better policy making.

Within the department, the performance evaluation will provide data and information to support development of regional perspectives and initiatives, inform capacity-building activities, determine the department’s future strategic direction and relationship with local government, and provide decision support for enhanced approaches to local government financial management policy, debt policy and grant funding arrangements.

The department will seek to understand the strategies councils are employing in order to remain sustainable and will use this understanding as a basis for helping develop additional capacity and capability within councils, where needed.

It will also improve the quality and usefulness of data provided for use in dealings with the Local Government Grants Commission and other stakeholders. To this end, performance evaluation is a catalyst for greater coordination of data and information collection from local government, incorporating the Grants Commission, consolidated data return, Remuneration Tribunal and monitoring activities.

The community – Transparency and accountability to the community is a key emphasis of the reform program. Community engagement in councils’ planning will continue to be an important theme.

Performance evaluation, in conjunction with the new Local Government Act, will provide for additional disclosures to the community in annual reports, annual budgets and corporate plans specifically

219

Appendix G

relating to matters of sustainability and governance. The community should be appropriately informed of the ongoing sustainability of its local councils.

The councils – Local decision making by councils will remain and be supported by improved data and information availability. Capacity-building initiatives, specifically associated with identified gaps in capability will, over time, enhance strategic and operational performance.

The evaluation will allow councils to self-assess the extent to which important governance processes are in place and operating effectively, and support councils in forming strategies that support their ongoing sustainability.

Evaluation outcomes will:

• highlight emerging funding and revenue issues within Queensland’s local government sector and provide a basis for developing alternative strategies

• provide statewide perspectives on the size and scale of infrastructure being managed by local government in Queensland

• consolidate, on an ongoing basis, the status of infrastructure management within councils

• provide councils with access to comparative data and information on topics related to asset management, financial management and particular areas of governance

• provide, for the first time, a view of the Queensland local government sector as an important industry sector

• provide for Queensland’s inclusion in comparative assessments undertaken nationally.

Capacity building, including financial certainty and stability

In March 2008, the Premier of Queensland, the Hon Anna Bligh MP, announced that the Department of Local Government, Sport and Recreation would be regionalised to provide better support to the new structure of local governments in Queensland. The department is changing from a predominantly Brisbane-based organisation to a regional service delivery model that aims to provide full support for local governments and communities at the regional and local level. The department’s organisational change is a tangible example of how it is continuing to support the local government reform agenda to ensure councils have the capacity and resources to meet their community’s expectation and deliver quality services.

During 2007–08 the department established five regions – the Far North Region, the Northern Region, the Central Region, the South West Region, and the South East Region – with boundaries that align with the new local government boundaries, as well as those of a number of other state government agencies.

Regional headquarters have been established in Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, Toowoomba and Ipswich. The regional headquarters are being supported by a number of area offices, which will give the department good coverage of the state and good access to local government and other clients. Locations of area offices will include Roma, Charleville, Longreach, Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, Mount Isa, Mackay, Atherton, Beenleigh and Maroochydore.

The department’s five new regions became operational on 1 July 2008, along with the new Service Delivery Division. Staff from across all service areas and all five regions of the department are now incorporated into the single division, which will enable a more integrated service and funding model. The new regional service delivery model will facilitate more regular contact with staff to ensure councils’ ongoing needs are being met directly and responsively.

220


Local government staff located within regions will work closely with other regionally based departmental staff and other Queensland Government officers to ensure a more integrated approach to services, funding programs and advice for local governments.

Key benefits of regionalisation for the department’s clients will include:

• local decision-making within regions

• more direct interface with clients

• brokering solutions/advocacy on behalf of councils with other state agencies and peak/professional bodies

• assistance for council officers navigating government departments

• better knowledge of local issues

• solving issues before they become problems

• integrated, more streamlined and consistent funding processes

• on-the-ground assistance for councils developing funding submissions.

During 2008–09, the department will continue its transition to a regional model.

Community Governance Improvement Strategy

Over the past four years, the Community Governance Improvement Strategy has been the Queensland Government’s primary capacity-building initiative for Indigenous councils.

The Strategy is a major initiative under the state government’s Meeting Challenges, Making Choices strategy to build capacity and strengthen the standard of corporate governance in Indigenous shires, with some components being offered to Torres Strait Island councils and to Aurukun and Mornington Island shire councils. The Strategy was implemented in July 2004 to help Indigenous shires meet new responsibilities under the Local Government (Community Government Areas) Act 2004, during a transition over four years to the Local Government Act 1993.

The newly established Torres Strait Island and Northern Peninsula Area regional councils will be similarly assisted during 2008–09 to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

As most Indigenous councils have now made substantial progress towards meeting the Act’s compliance requirements, the focus of the Strategy will shift to concentrating on further skills development and capacity building to enable councillors and staff to cope with the changing local government environment.

In 2008–09 the department will conduct a range of activities under this Strategy. Key activities will include:

• supporting the two new regional councils and all Indigenous councils in implementing a performance management framework

• exploring and brokering solutions and implementing alternative service delivery and bureau-type services

• continuing to deliver the proven and successful accredited training programs in which Indigenous councils have participated so enthusiastically for four years, and introducing new initiatives, such as the cadetships and traineeships for council staff.

221

Appendix G

Local government use of long-term financial and asset management plansIn March 2007, the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council endorsed national frameworks for assessing financial sustainability, asset planning and management, and financial planning and reporting. The national frameworks are intended to:

• help states and territories achieve a consistent approach to assessing financial sustainability of councils, including the ability to assess where councils may need additional assistance

• provide a basis for states and territories to help councils fulfil their commitment to sound public governance under Clause II of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Local Government Matters.

The national frameworks complement current practices of each state and territory and promote three main ideas, namely:

• long-term asset management and reporting, with an emphasis on understanding long-term requirements

• financial management and reporting that includes long-term asset management data

• integrated planning that is based on long-term modelling and strategic planning and that incorporates the asset management and financial management themes.

Queensland is providing for implementation of the national frameworks within local government as part of the local government reform and Performance Evaluation and Reporting being implemented during 2008–09. In 2007–08, Queensland concluded its detailed design and commenced its consultations in support of the initiative.

At the core of the department’s new approach is the integration between:

• longer-term strategic planning

• annual strategic plans

• annual budgets

• annual financial statements and reporting against budget

• annual reports that indicate progress against the longer-term strategic plan.

As a consequence, local governments in Queensland will have robust reporting, planning and asset management frameworks with a significant emphasis on improving asset management in conjunction with development of complete and robust long-term financial models that support decision making.

Development of comparable performance measures

The Queensland Government’s provision of information to the community through the Local Government Profile Reports and the Queensland Local Government Comparative Information Reports continued in 2007–08. The Profile Reports measure Queensland councils through a series of key themes and indicators, which directly relate to the most important areas of local government service delivery and how these services are actually delivered.

The annual Comparative Information Reports help local governments in their endeavours to develop new and more effective ways to deliver their services by providing an effective tool by which they can monitor trends over time and benchmark performance of services both internally and with other councils.

222


The performance evaluation and reporting process will emphasise a limited number of key indicators associated with sustainability of council’s infrastructure and financial viability. These indicators will greatly support further comparative assessments undertaken locally and nationally.

Continuous improvement initiatives that deliver significant cost savings for local government

Individual councils across Queensland undertake continuous business improvement on a case-by-case basis. Local government reform will provide medium to long-term benefits to local government in Queensland by building higher capacity organisations. This will engender a greater capacity to implement strategic long-term business improvement initiatives that deliver significant cost savings to local government.

The local government structural reform program is also expected to deliver significant cost savings to councils in the medium term. History indicates that the ongoing, annual savings delivered as a result of amalgamation far outweigh the one-off costs of amalgamation. These savings are generally a direct result of economies of scale and efficiencies brought about by the amalgamation.

Western AustraliaWestern Australian Local Government AssociationImproving efficiency and effectiveness of local government

The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) is involved in a range of measures designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government.

Systemic Sustainability Study

The report arising from the Systemic Sustainability Study titled, The Journey: Sustainability into the Future was completed during 2007–08 and formally endorsed by the local government sector at a special forum on 15 September 2008. This report documents the results of the work undertaken by five working parties during 2007–08 that focused on leadership for change, finance, revenue, services, and capability.

The working parties achieved high levels of agreement on the direction for reform of local government in Western Australia encapsulated in the vision statement: ‘Local government will implement and maintain a governance model that integrates effective service delivery with appropriate political representation.’

The research and sector wide consultation identified 39 actions that had been undertaken since 2005 covering a range of measures including:

• delivery of functions and services at the optimal (local, regional or statewide) scale

• financial reporting and debt management

• asset management practices

• revenue raising, including best practice in rate setting, consistent methodologies for developer contributions to community infrastructure and enabling local governments to form corporate entities

• councillor training, development and mentoring.

223

Appendix G

Development of a new, fully revised accounting manual, as recommended in the study, commenced during the year in conjunction with the Western Australian Department of Local Government and Regional Development and local government.

Urban planning and development

Progress on a new framework for developer contributions to community infrastructure resulted in an agreed policy with statewide application. The framework will be implemented through a state planning policy developed by the Western Australian Department for Planning and Infrastructure. Ministerial approval will spearhead development of an implementation program.

WALGA gained consensus with the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Western Australian Department for Planning and Infrastructure and industry representatives on improvements to the approvals systems. Implementation by nine councils of an electronic lodgement system for building approvals represented important progress. Emphasis has now moved to investigating electronic development assessment for planning applications.

The local government sector participated with state agencies and the development industry in the Land and Housing Industry Reference Group to focus particularly on improvements to the planning and approvals systems for urban development.

An emerging issue is the state’s intent to implement a new legislative environment for the building industry, expected to comprise three pieces of legislation: the Building Commission Act, the Builder’s Registration Act and the Building Act. Key issues for local government include the changing role for local government, the impact on revenue, legal consequences and public benefits.

In conjunction with member councils, WALGA joined forces with the Department for Planning and Infrastructure along with other key state agencies, to deliver the state’s Transit Oriented Development program, Reconnecting Perth. This is the delivery program for Perth’s urban planning strategy, Network City, and seeks to respond to the problems associated with car dependence and urban sprawl by encouraging creation of communities that promote sustainability through economic prosperity, ecological sensitivity and community development. The program focused on mixed use land development surrounding new rail stations at Cockburn Central and Wellard, and a planned station at Butler. The program will also deliver planning frameworks for redevelopment of rail stations and surrounding land at Armadale, Gosnells, Kelmscott and Bassendean. Future work is scheduled for a new city centre transit system in Rockingham and further development along the Midland and new Southern suburbs railways.

Community services

WALGA, in partnership with the State Library of Western Australia, reviewed the library service arrangements between state and local government, to determine if the current model provides the most efficient partnership arrangement. The result was discussed in the Structural Reform Report (the Lunn Report). The report outlines 10 strategic outcomes and high-level recommendations for future directions for the public library service in Western Australia, provides a blueprint to position Western Australian public libraries for the future, and provides the evidence base to negotiate a new library agreement and future funding arrangements.

Local governments undertook a range of projects designed to encourage inclusiveness and community participation.

224


In partnership with the Disability Services Commission, the Western Australian Department of Sport and Recreation, the Western Australian Disabled Sports Association, Recreation and Sport Network and the Cerebral Palsy Association, WALGA lead development of the Captivate – participation for all project. WALGA developed the project in response to local government’s concerns over the capacity, roles and responsibilities of individuals and of government relating to inclusive sport and recreation. The project developed the framework and resources necessary to support local governments and their service provider partners to develop inclusive sport and recreation policies and practices, which included developing a literature review and environmental scan, and the Local Government Inclusion Toolkit and Training Package.6

Following amendment of the Disability Services Act 1993 (WA) in December 2004, all councils must develop and implement Disability Access and Inclusion Plans to make their services, buildings and information accessible for people with disability. WALGA in partnership with the Western Australian Disability Services Commission has provided significant grants to councils to support the development of the Disability Access and Inclusion Plans.

WALGA, in partnership with the Western Australian Disability Services Commission, is also working with local businesses, through the You’re Welcome program to provide accurate access information so people of all ages and abilities can decide which businesses and community services and facilities meet their access requirements; increase staff awareness so business and community services meet the specific access requirements of their customers with disability; and encourage business and community to expand their customer base by making their information, services and facilities more accessible.

In anticipation of a new Public Health Act for Western Australia, to replace the Health Act 1911 (WA), WALGA and the Western Australian Department of Health established the Department of Health and Local Government Partnerships Agreement – Public Health Act Roles and Responsibilities. This agreement defines the roles and responsibilities of the spheres of government affected by the new Act. The agreement sets parameters to ensure any increase in the current roles and responsibilities of local government afforded within the new Act are accompanied by appropriate cost recovery mechanisms.

WALGA, in partnership with the Western Australian Department of Local Government and Regional Development, and the Western Australian Department of Health, developed a memorandum of understanding for provision of child health facilities in Western Australia. Child health services are currently provided in 310 centres in Western Australia and, with this state’s growing population, this project demonstrated WALGA’s ability to provide effective leadership to councils through collaborative projects with state government departments.

The memorandum of understanding and guidelines set out the roles and responsibilities of local government and the Department of Health in provision of child health facilities. The guidelines also provide examples of partnership agreements that reflect contemporary models of practice and recognise the diversity of communities across Western Australia.

Comparative performance measuresAccounting manual

WALGA, in collaboration with the Western Australian Department of Local Government and Regional Development and Local Government Managers Australia (WA), began developing a new accounting

6 These can be downloaded at <http://www.walga.asn.au/about/policy/community_development>.

http://www.walga.asn.au/about/policy/community_development

225

Appendix G

manual for local government. The manual will be released in stages over the next three years and is expected to make a significant contribution to improving the consistency of financial reporting across the sector; this conforms with the recommendations of the Systemic Sustainability Study undertaken by WALGA. It is anticipated that the manual will be updated regularly to reflect amendments in Australian accounting standards and Western Australian legislation.

Rating best practice

Eight high growth local governments partnered with WALGA to develop benchmarks and best practice processes for property rating. Rates contributed 39 per cent of total sector revenue in 2006 and hence are critical to the financial status of most local governments in Western Australia. This project commenced during 2008 with an initial analysis of processes used and development of key performance indicators. This project will report during 2009.

Continuous improvements that deliver cost savingsBuilding and development approvals

An integrated system to enable electronic lodgement of building application licences was completed during 2007–08 with funding support from the Australian Government’s Regulation Reduction Incentive Fund, administered by AusIndustry. The standardisation of building applications and electronic processing will reduce regulatory compliance costs for builders and processing costs for local governments. Five of Western Australia’s largest home building companies joined with eight rapidly growing local governments in developing the WALGA-managed project.

Emergency management

Following successful introduction of the new emergency management legislation through a federally funded project conducted during 2007–08, WALGA has continued to develop its expertise in the field. To the great benefit of councils in Western Australia, the WALGA Emergency Management Service (EMS) has commenced operation as an emergency management consultancy service to the sector while continuing to provide policy advice and advocacy. WALGA-EMS is involved in emergency management at a state level through membership of committees and working groups formed under the Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA). This service, working in conjunction with the Fire and Emergency Services Authority (WA), has used standardised guides and templates to deliver tailored, cost effective emergency planning to Western Australian local governments. This included a particular focus on emergency management in Indigenous communities. Funding assistance for local government emergency management planning and activities is a continuing issue.

Procurement

Local governments in Western Australia continued to purchase key products and services collectively where this delivered benefits to the sector. During 2007–08 a major tender for electricity supply for the sector was concluded, in response to the increasing deregulation and contestability of energy supplies.

Use of long-term financial and asset management plansAdapting to climate change

Following the signing of a partnership agreement between the state and local government on climate change and sustainability, WALGA commenced a project with support from the Office of Climate

226


Change to develop a toolkit to build local government capacity to respond to climate change. The project focuses on systematic incorporation of climate change considerations in local government policies, particularly planning policies, and decision-making.

Road asset management

The road asset management system (ROMAN), currently used by 93 per cent of councils, is based on software that is no longer supported. An evaluation program commenced during 2007–08 to identify and procure a suitable replacement, which will enhance councils’ capacity to manage their road and related assets. This is expected to be a multi-million dollar investment for the sector with benefits extending over many years.

Asset Management Improvement program

Approximately 40 councils in Western Australia participated in the Western Australian Asset Management Improvement program during 2007–08. The program is a partnership between the Department of Local Government and Regional Development, Local Government Managers Australia (WA) and the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia. An alliance partnership for delivering the program was developed in early 2007 and the program was launched in March 2007. Through a series of four workshops with the consulting team, participating councils gain a good understanding of their assets, and develop appropriate management plans that can be linked to their strategic and long-term financial plans.

South AustraliaOffice for State/Local Government RelationsLegislative reforms introduced by the South Australian Government and an independent inquiry initiated by the Local Government Association in 2005 into the financial sustainability of local government in South Australia have led to significant improvements in the sector’s financial governance. The inquiry identified the pressing need for local government to address shortcomings in its financial policies and practices and emphasised the importance of long-term financial planning and asset management planning.

The Association, with the support of councils, subsequently initiated a comprehensive Financial Sustainability program to implement the inquiry’s recommendations and support improved council performance. The program includes publishing a series of information papers supported by guidelines and templates, and involves provision of extensive training and practical support for both council members and staff. The inquiry received a category award in the 2006 National Awards for Local Government.

Amendments to the Local Government Act 1934 (SA) brought into effect in 2007 led to a number of requirements for councils during 2007–08 aimed at improving their accountability as well as strengthening their financial governance, asset management and auditing arrangements. Changes included a requirement for councils to:

• prepare and adopt long-term financial plans

• prepare and adopt long-term infrastructure and asset management plans

• establish audit committees

227

Appendix G

• adopt several measures to strengthen the independence of external auditors

• adopt an improved and consistent reporting format covering financial statements.

The Local Government Association supported these legislative reforms, as they are consistent with the recommendations of the independent inquiry into the financial sustainability of local government. The reforms focus in particular on councils achieving affordable service levels and management programs that minimise whole-of-life costs of assets.

During 2007–08, the Association continued to rollout its Financial Sustainability program, with assistance and input from the state government. Extensive training, information and support provided to councils included:

• achieving financial sustainability

• developing infrastructure and asset management planning

• understanding the role of audit committees

• achieving improved and consistent financial reporting

• preparing annual business plans

• preparing long-term financial plans

• managing a modern treasury.

In addition, during 2007–08, the Association developed an implementation framework for additional shared service arrangements in local government. Following endorsement of the program by councils, the Association embarked on an ambitious program of pilot projects to explore a wide range of opportunities for increased resource sharing between councils.

use of long-term financial and asset management plans

During 2007–08, in the context of its relationships with the local government sector, the South Australian Government progressively applied the nationally consistent financial and asset management planning frameworks endorsed by the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council. The approach in South Australia is characterised by highly collaborative arrangements between the Office for State/Local Government Relations, the Local Government Association and the Local Government Financial Management Group, which comprises finance professionals from councils.

Following extensive consultation by the Association, most councils adopted a definition of financial sustainability similar to that set out in the national frameworks. In turn, many councils have formally adopted ‘financial sustainability’ as a key longer-term objective in their strategic plans.

The Financial Management Group developed a standard set of financial indicators, which all councils have adopted. The seven indicators focus attention on factors that are key to securing a council’s long-term financial sustainability. Importantly, the Financial Management Group and the Association also are encouraging and helping councils set targets, or target ranges, as a goal for each indicator. Consistent with the national frameworks, these indicators highlight annual accrual operating results as well as capital spending on renewal and replacement of existing assets compared with the optimal level of such expenditure.

Throughout 2007–08, the Association has been supporting councils in their preparation of Infrastructure and Asset Management Plans. Earlier, the Association had initiated a statewide project to help councils develop strategies, policies and tools to achieve sustainable asset management. Councils in South Australia are custodians of infrastructure valued at approximately $14 billion, and

228


other assets on behalf of their communities. The Association has entered into an alliance with the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia to adopt an internationally recognised approach for preparing asset management policies and plans. The resultant asset management plans will provide essential information to give surety to development of long-term financial plans.

An updated long-term financial planning software product was released to councils in 2007–08 and is supported by training sessions. The Local Government Act 1934 (SA) requires all councils to have adopted a long-term financial plan supported by an infrastructure and asset management plan by 30 November 2008.

Development of comparative performance measures between local governing authorities

The Local Government Association continued its Comparative Performance Measurement Project in 2007–08. This project provides data to all South Australian councils on corporate level performance in four key areas: 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 performance indicators is drawn from the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission, local government statistical returns and from a voluntary community survey.

The results of the project are provided to all councils through a secure website. During 2007–08, 40 of 68 South Australian councils also decided to make their performance information available on a public website.

A joint initiative of the South Australian Government and the Local Government Association in 2007–08 was implementation of a simplified financial reporting framework broadly equivalent to the uniform and consistent approach state governments have adopted Australia-wide.

The South Australian Government and the Association believe it is vital that up-to-date information be readily available to the public on the financial performance and position of individual councils. Initially, 33 councils were approached to participate in implementation of the new framework. Each agreed to do so and it is expected that high-level summary financial information will be made available publicly on both the Office for State/Local Government Relations and the Association’s websites by September 2008.

Continuous improvement that delivers significant cost savings for local government

South Australia continues to initiate and deliver a range of activities and functions for greater efficiencies, and the following are examples of working together for the best outcomes in community service delivery.

Combined procurement and contract management arrangements

In February 2007, 38 councils, comprising 80 per cent of local government electricity purchasing from the national grid, had entered 12-month contracts requiring 20 per cent of the supply to be accredited GreenPower. The additional cost of GreenPower in total has largely been offset by overall savings in the bulk purchasing of power by councils (the outcome varies for individual councils). Local Government Corporate Services and the state government facilitate the bulk purchase of electricity.

Local Government Corporate Services is a joint company owned by the Local Government Association and the Local Government Finance Authority. Local Government Corporate Services also provides an after-hours call centre contract through the Royal Automobile Association, contract printing of electoral material for council elections, management of a Microsoft contract, communication audits and fleet contracts.

229

Appendix G

Public libraries and community information services

On 14 December 2006, the new five-year Libraries and Information Funding Agreement was signed between the South Australian Government and the Local Government Association. Total state funding is to receive CPI indexation for the life of the agreement, with funding related to public library services staff receiving indexation based on enterprise bargaining agreement outcomes. This element provides increased funding in real terms, as past agreements have required the Libraries Board to fund salary increases beyond CPI indexation from within the funding provided by the agreement.

Treasury management

Most South Australian councils have capacity to better serve their communities by making greater use of debt and achieving financial savings and reductions in risk from a more holistic approach to managing their borrowings and investments. The legislative reforms mentioned above support a longer-term planning focus by councils and these, coupled with earlier introduction of accrual accounting, have been catalysts for changes to recommended treasury management practices.

In June 2008, following extensive consultation, the Association issued an information paper to help councils clearly articulate their policies to govern and guide borrowing and investment activities. It is expected that councils, which embrace the arrangements, will achieve savings in net interest costs over the longer-term.

Tasmania

Local Government Division, Department of Premier and Cabinet

Premier’s Local Government Council

The Premier’s Local Government Council has continued to be a vital forum for both state and local governments to work collaboratively on key issues of interest and joint projects.

The Council was formed in 2000 to provide a forum for high-level discussion on issues of statewide significance. The Premier, Mr David Bartlett MP, chairs the Council and members include the Minister for Local Government, the President of the Local Government Association of Tasmania, the Lord Mayor and two mayors from each region across the state.

The Council met four times in 2007–08. An Officials Committee – chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Rhys Edwards – supports the Council, and membership is drawn from local and state government agencies. The Council progressed a range of matters during 2007–08 including:

• The Stronger Councils, Better Services initiative that aims to strengthen local government throughout Tasmania. In particular, it seeks to strengthen the financial and business sustainability, service delivery and governance of councils across the state.

• Collaborative action on climate change, which led to development of the partnership agreement.

• Redevelopment of the statewide partnership agreement on communication and consultation.

• Activities designed to expedite Tasmanian’s take-up of the First Home Owner Boost.

230


Local Government Board

The Local Government Board is a statutory body established under Part 12A of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas). The Board’s functions are to:

• carry out general reviews of councils every eight years

• carry out supplementary and special reviews, as required

• undertake reviews of single and joint authorities

• advise the minister on any other matters which the minister may determine.

In its reports, the Board makes recommendations for improvements to be made by the council or authority being reviewed and highlights leading practice in local government.

During 2007–08 the Board concluded a cycle of general reviews for all 29 Tasmanian councils. As well, the Board commenced reviews of single and joint (council-owned) authorities, beginning with waste management authorities. The authorities reviewed included the Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority, the Dulverton Regional Waste Management Authority, the Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority, the Southern Waste Strategy Authority and the Cradle Coast Authority.

A review of the Board’s operations and functions has been undertaken under the auspices of the Premier’s Local Government Council. The government is considering the review recommendations with a view to ensuring the Board has a more strategic, expertise-based role promoting continuous improvement in performance, improved reporting and self-review by councils.

The division provides executive and administrative support to the Board.

Key performance indicators for local government

Each year the Key Performance Indicator Committee produces the Measuring Council Performance in Tasmania (KPI report). The Committee includes representatives from local government, the Department of Treasury and Finance and the division. The key performance indicator system allows Tasmanian residents and councils to easily view councils’ performance.

Forty-nine key performance indicators provide an industry-wide framework for measuring and comparing councils’ performance. The report measures performance in the areas of governance, management and finance, infrastructure and utilities, and community services and development.

The report provides five-year comparisons to demonstrate performance trends within Tasmanian councils. The key performance indicator system is designed to enhance performance measurement by councils, enable benchmarking and identification of best practice, establish performance trends over time, and improve accountability to the community.

A feature of this project is that all 29 Tasmanian councils continue to provide data voluntarily. Similar projects in other states rely on a more prescriptive approach. The project also represents a unique collaboration across the three spheres of government. Both the ABS and the State Grants Commission also use the data collected for the report.

The division publishes and distributes the report on the Committee’s behalf. The 2007–08 report is being prepared.

231

Appendix G

Competition reforms

The Tasmanian Government has continued to work with local government to ensure adoption of competition reform principles. The National Reform Agenda agreed to by COAG on 10 February 2006 continued and strengthened the National Competition Policy reforms previously adopted under the National Competition Principles Agreement.

These reforms are applied to local government through an application statement developed in accordance with the National Competition Policy agreement. The National Competition Policy – Applying the Principles to Local Government in Tasmania 2004 Application Statement was prepared in consultation with local government and provides broad guidance on how the key competition principles are applied to local government.

In addition, the statement is 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 agreement, with a view to helping local government continue to apply competition principles to its activities.

Under the statement, in applying competitive neutrality principles, local government is required to:

• identify relevant business activities it considers to be significant business activities

• undertake public benefit assessments of the corporatisation of those business activities, as outlined in the 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) requires councils to report competitive neutrality costs for their significant business activities in their annual reports.

The 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 Government Prices Oversight Commission, which has responsibility for investigating all alleged breaches of the competitive neutrality principles in Tasmania.

The competitive neutrality provisions were transferred to the Government Prices Oversight Act 1995 (Tas) on 1 August 2007, by the Government Prices Oversight Amendment Act 2007 (Tas), and were amended to provide the Commission with additional information-gathering powers to obtain information when conducting a preliminary assessment of a complaint.

Water and sewerage pricing

The statement also acknowledges that the Government Prices Oversight Amendment Act 2007 extended coverage of the Government Prices Oversight Act 1995 to include local government monopoly or near monopoly of services. As a consequence of this extended coverage, local government monopoly or near monopoly providers fell under the Commission’s prices oversight jurisdiction. In this regard, the Government Prices Oversight Act was applied to Tasmania’s three bulk water authorities.

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, state and territory governments on water reform issues. Under the National Water Initiative, Tasmania

232


is required to comply with the National Water Initiative Implementation Plan (Tasmania), signed in September 2006. Accordingly, inquiries of local government water and wastewater businesses undertaken by the Commission were carried out in accordance with the Implementation Plan, and are conducted on a biennial basis.

In late 2007, the Government issued terms of reference for the Commission to conduct an inquiry under section 39A of the Government Prices Oversight Act 1995 to assess Tasmanian councils’ compliance with the Urban Water and Wastewater Pricing Guidelines in 2006–07.

The principal purpose of the review was to assess councils’ compliance with the requirement for these businesses to achieve cost recovery within the upper and lower limits specified in the Urban Water and Wastewater Pricing Guidelines.

Based on the returns provided by the councils and their annual reports, the Commission found that the majority of councils are recovering revenues between the upper and lower limits specified in the Guidelines.

The Commission was also asked to comment on a number of other matters, such as asset valuations, cost of asset consumption, cross-subsidies, community service obligations, own-use transfers and, where relevant, the appropriateness of two-part pricing structures.

The review was completed and the report forwarded to the Minister in February 2008. This was the fifth such review the Commission has conducted for the government.

During 2007–08 the Tasmanian Government continued with a wide-ranging structural and institutional reform of the water and sewerage services provided by local government in Tasmania. Under the reforms three local government-owned regional corporations (based on the northern, north-western and southern regions of the state) were created to deliver water and sewerage services. A fourth common services corporation, owned by the regional corporations, was established to provide common services for the three corporations.

This major reform of the state’s water and sewerage sector will not only deliver significant long-term benefits to environmental and public health outcomes, but will also support the economic development of regional communities.

In future, an economic regulator of water and sewerage – the National Water Commission – will oversee the water and sewerage sectors. In its new role, the Commission will no longer be required to undertake the abovementioned pricing investigations and reviews. However, as economic regulator of water and sewerage, it will have responsibility for regulating water and sewerage prices and licensing industry participants, as well as annually monitoring the sector’s performance.

233

Appendix G

Northern TerritoryDepartment of Local Government and HousingOn 11 October 2006, the Minister for Local Government announced the Northern Territory Government’s reform program for local government. The reform has resulted in a new framework of municipal and shire councils, incorporating the whole of the Northern Territory as at 1 July 2008.

The major reform of local government in the territory (New Local Government) has reduced the number of local governing bodies from 61 to 16. The resulting local government framework is five municipal councils, eight new shire councils and three former community government councils converted to shires.

The reforms resulted in most of the territory being incorporated under a local government area. This expansion provides increased potential for shire councils’ own-source revenue collection, as pastoral properties, mining tenements and roadhouses are for the first time rateable.

New Local Government will increase revenue-raising opportunities and provide economies of scale. Standardised shire business systems are being purchased to meet financial and administrative requirements; specific administrative functions have been co-located; and shires will share resources such as purchasing and use of heavy equipment and access to technical expertise. While these efficiencies will ease shire budget outcomes, their revenue base will continue to remain heavily dependent on government funding.

For the first time in the territory, the eight newly created shire councils will be required under legislation to carry out 29 identified ‘core services’ as defined in three regional management plans. The plans also identify which communities will receive these core services. These councils will be required to report annually against agreed key performance indicators. As well, regular Department of Local Government and Housing community visits will also monitor service delivery and community satisfaction. Shires will be robust, viable and professional organisations able to improve services over the long-term to a diverse range of communities.

Key principles that underpin the reforms are:

• consultation across all communities during transition and implementation, allowing for flexibility

• municipals and regional shires will be encouraged to work together and share resources through regional plans and agreements

• a focus on delivering a fair standard of core local government services to all communities

• ongoing cooperative partnership between the territory and Australian governments to ensure seamless transition to the new arrangements

• integrated planning between the three spheres of government, to deliver better services in the bush.

The health of the local community will be improved through council services such as waste collection and environmental health, and higher levels of expertise will be available through the shire structure.

The shires will be big enough to negotiate with the territory and Australian governments on behalf of their communities. They will also, for the first time, be able to apply for grants for local projects and local roads. Local people will be able to get local jobs, such as drivers, plant operators, labourers, office workers, service providers and program managers, in the new shires. People will be able to receive training for a range of jobs at the shire, such as environmental health officers.

234


The Northern Territory Emergency Response (intervention) in managing the territory’s remote Indigenous communities has highlighted the high cost of action to reduce Indigenous disadvantage and particularly the high cost of improving infrastructure and service delivery. This is the same high-cost environment in which the New Local Government shires will be operating. The effectiveness of these initiatives will require continued close cooperation of all three spheres of government, in partnership with Indigenous leaders and community members, to ensure all parties make appropriate contributions to achieve the desired outcomes.

The territory has received substantial assistance to develop shire councils through the Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs by way of a bilateral agreement on Indigenous affairs.

Local government use of long-term financial and asset management plans

The Northern Territory Government has replaced local government legislation with new legislation that includes a requirement for shire councils to financially plan all aspects of operations for a period of four years.

Additionally, the government has purchased and is implementing specialised planning software for each new shire council that will integrate with shire business systems to enhance strategic and business planning and performance management. The software provides a single system for strategic, corporate, business and service level planning linked to budgets and performance measures. This system provides:

• full integration of strategic, business, service and annual planning

• performance management linked to plan outcomes

• integration of policy and governance into all planning levels

• links to specialist plans developed throughout the organisation

• a working tool for planners, business analysts and management

• reductions in resource requirements for reporting on and monitoring plans

• progress reporting including individually tailored home pages for all employees.

The government is also funding integration with the new business system (financial, asset, records) for all new shires.

The territory is working with national and state colleagues on contemporary asset management practices. It expects the outcomes from this research and guidelines to be implemented into shires as part of their development over the next few years.

The local government information and communications technology system, Shires Net, is being developed in the territory to ensure new shires have improved capacity and capability to deliver services. It is highly probable that the Australian and territory governments will jointly support Shires Net through an agreement.

The Northern Territory Government has contracted with a major software supplier to install a modern business system into all nine shires covering all aspects of operations. The software has high-end capability and should improve accountability, performance management and control of shire assets.

235

Appendix G

Measures taken to develop comparable performance indicators

The aim of the 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 Northern Territory Department of Local Government and Housing linked the development and implementation of performance indicators for local governing bodies to introduction of its best practice program.

While the territory has been collecting comparable performance indicators since 1997–98, not all local governing bodies embraced the reporting of such. Despite early enthusiasm, the number of councils willing to participate in collecting performance data has been in steady decline. While performance reporting was well within the capacity of the municipal and larger councils, it was more difficult for the smaller and more remote councils to provide the required information.

In November 2003, in recognition of the difficulties smaller councils were experiencing, the previous Northern Territory 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 the department and the Commission and simplified the reporting process requiring councils to provide financial data for 2007–08.

The New Local Government project team has developed an extensive local government data warehouse with information on, among other things, existing council assets, human resources, contracts, programs and grants. Additionally, a vast amount of information has been collated, through a new shire mapping exercise, to link territory demographics and geographical data to each new shire.

Australian Capital TerritoryDepartment of Territory and Municipal ServicesRoads ACT

Roads ACT manages construction and maintenance of roads and associated infrastructure in the territory. This includes setting standards, preparing contract specifications, and developing policy for commissioning. It is also responsible for operating and maintaining Canberra’s roads, bridges, community paths, driveways, street signs, line marking, traffic signals, street lighting and urban storm water drainage assets.

In 2007–08 Roads ACT tendered a Traffic Signal Maintenance contract that commenced on 1 May 2008 as a five-year maintenance contract. The Streetlight and Stormwater maintenance contracts are single select tenders that were benchmarked against industry standards. These contracts, with revised scope of works, are currently being negotiated for commencement in February 2009. They are Schedule of Rate based contracts which incorporate the Department of Territory and Municipal Services Infrastructure standards and, where relevant, include reference to industry and departmental specifications for maintenance works.

A government in-house provider – Road Maintenance Services – undertakes routine road maintenance works; during 2007–08 it undertook a road resurfacing program at which time 27 territorial roads and 144 municipal [local] roads and car parks were sealed. These works were undertaken on a number of urban municipal [local] roads in Calwell, Fadden, Fyshwick, Campbell, Florey, Kaleen and O’Connor. Approximately 506 200 square metres, or 3.9 per cent of the municipal [local] road network was sealed.

236


As a result of a number of severe storms in Canberra between December 2006 and February 2007, consultants were engaged to review the drainage systems in the areas worst affected by localised flooding. Some 120 areas were investigated during 2007–08 to consider the issues raised and provide recommended works.

Roads ACT undertook many maintenance functions during 2007–08, covering a broad range of public infrastructure. For example:

• road sweeping – 17 500 kilometres

• footpath maintenance – 49 500 square metres

• sign maintenance or replacement – 5134 signs

• incident or accident responses – 1100 responses

• pothole patching – 12 500 potholes

A draft consultancy brief was prepared for development of the Roads ACT Asset Management Plan 2008–11. The Plan outlines the broad approach that Roads ACT will adopt to manage the condition and use of roads assets. The plan also provides future directions for road use and network capacity, safety, recurrent maintenance and capital works programs for key roads assets. The calling of tenders for the consultancy occurred in 2008–09.

Table G.1 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 ‘benchmarked service levels’ as reported in the Roads ACT Asset Management Plan 2004–2007 (currently under review).

237

Appendix G

Table G.1: Roads ACT benchmarked assets, 2007–08

Asset type Current service levels Benchmarked service level

Bridges – inspection Based on structured inspection program and reaction to public complaints

Based on structured inspection program and reaction to public complaints

Bridges – replace bridge bearings As required As required following inspections

Bridges – replace bridge joints Every 20–30 years As required, following inspections

Community paths – inspection Frequency depends on path hierarchy risk group 7

Frequency of inspection depends on path hierarchy

Line marking Remark every 5–8 years Remark every 5 years 4

Municipal (local) roads network resurfaced

Treat approx 3% annually Treat 7–10% annually 1

Pavements routine maintenance – potholes

Repaired within 1 week Repaired within 2 days

Sign replacement 2% per year 8% per year 5

Stormwater – above ground Reactive and some planned based on routine inspections

Fully planned program based on annual inspections

Stormwater – below ground Reactive during and after storms to clear chokes

Reactive during and after storms to clear chokes

Streetlights – municipal bulk replacement

Nil Every 3 years 6

Streetlights operation – lamp faults Fix 90% within 7 days Fix 95% with 5 days 6

Traffic signals Service level ‘B’ 3 Service level ‘B’ 3

Traffic signals – inspection and safety checks

Service level ‘D’ 2

Bulb replacement incandescent annually, Quartz Halogen every 2 years, LEDs every 10 years

Service level ‘D’ 2

Bulb replacement incandescent annually, Quartz Halogen every 2 years, LEDs every 10 years

Notes:

1 Benchmarks sourced from ‘Strategic Study into Management of ACT Roads and Stormwater Assets’ by ARRB Transport Research Ltd.

2 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’.

3 Service level ‘B’ is defined as ‘where drivers, during business hours, have reasonable freedom to select their desired speeds’.

4 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.

5 Signs should be replaced on a 12-year cyclical program to achieve the Australian Standards guidelines for serviceability.6 To bring in line with other jurisdictions.7 Paths are categorised based on risk profile: High – Inspect annually, areas around major group centres. Medium – Inspect every 3 years areas around local shops, high-density housing and tourist attractions.

Low – Inspect every 5 years areas around low/medium density residential areas.Source: Roads ACT

238


Parks, Conservation and Lands

Parks, Conservation and Lands is the branch within the department’s Environment and Recreation Network responsible for planning and managing the territory’s parks and reserves, 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 the territory’s parks and reserves, and maintains the look of the city and its environs.

Parks, Conservation and Lands continues its focus on improving efficiency and effectiveness of services being delivered by:

• Reviewing Asset Management Plans for the programmed inclusion of additional asset maintenance to contribute to public safety goals.

• Interpreting annual Customer Satisfaction Survey outcomes to better inform service delivery planning in line with public expectations.

• Monitoring 2007–08 Parks, Conservation and Lands Action Plans and the milestone reporting program in consultation with Parks, Conservation and Lands business units to further focus initiatives and timelines.

• Implementing audit recommendations to continuously improve documentation, procedures, service deliverables and assets.

• Implementing the annual Bushfire Operational Plan to contribute to departmental policy objectives, standards and goal setting on bushfire-related issues, implementing additional training to increase fire management capacity.

• Implementing the Urban Forest Renewal program to progressively replace Canberra’s ageing urban forest over the next 25 years.

• Implementing the ACT Weeds Strategy 2007–2017 to guide the consistent and sustainable approach to weed management and contribute to national weed strategy objectives.

• Partnering with Conservation Volunteers Australia to increase delivery of public education programs and facilities.

• Specifying use of non-potable water across the estate where possible, and preparing for installation of rainwater tanks at key Parks, Conservation and Lands depots.

• Contributing to consolidation of fleet, plant and equipment management activities, such as car-pooling and accounts management, for improved efficiency across the department.

• Heightened risk management focus with increasing and ongoing drought conditions and the subsequent loss or damage to soft infrastructure, such as dead and hazardous trees, garden beds and park and reserve landscapes.

• Implementing improved contract management planning and contractor performance management audits across major Parks, Conservation and Lands contracts.

• Developing a core compliance dataset to better manage governance across Parks, Conservation and Lands.

Parks, Conservation and Lands has continued its association with external organisations in 2007–08 for industry benchmarking activities, including:

• Board and Executive Committee representation on the Parks Forum and involvement on various specialist working groups and committees.

239

Appendix G

• Contributing to core data for Parks Forum Benchmarking Program (Australia and New Zealand), to establish benchmarks for the parks management industry.

ACT NOWaste

ACT NOWaste continues with key strategies and programs to minimise waste to the territory’s landfill.

Infrastructure and services are a key element of the No Waste strategy. In 2007–08, ACT NOWaste continued to manage delivery of municipal waste infrastructure and services to the territory’s community, including household kerbside garbage and recycling services, managing free garden waste recycling facilities, and managing landfills, transfer stations and Regional Recycling Drop-Off Centres.

As part of this work, the ACT NOWaste Unit supported growth of the resource recovery industry and improvement of waste, recycling and re-use facilities. This involved developing and administering complex contracts, asset management strategies, capital upgrades and programs for waste infrastructure and services.

Table G.2 provides benchmarks for ACT NOWaste for 2007–08.

Table G.2: Benchmarks for ACT NOWaste, 2007–08

Performance measure Value

Amount of waste diverted from landfill 590 000 tonnes / 74%

Amount of waste to landfill 210 000 tonnes / 26%

Annual cost of kerbside collection per household $62 per household per annum

Customer satisfaction with kerbside garbage and recycling services 97%

Level of contamination in recycling stream from domestic waste 9.3%

Level of standard recyclables in domestic waste stream 12.6%

Overall amount of waste generated in the territory 800 000 tonnes

Source: ACT NOWaste

Waste programs

ACT NOWaste delivered the following programs in cooperation with the Program Implementation Unit, to support the NOWaste Strategy:

• The WasteWise Schools Program, which was incorporated into the Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative and has been taken up by 85 schools in the territory.

• Advice was provided to businesses and government agencies on effective waste management practices through the Government Waste Reduction Program.

• The ‘Recycle Michael Campaign’ was upgraded to include television advertising.

• Materials Recovery Facility education centre and Resource Management Centre tours.

• Second Hand Sunday (a program encouraging reuse of unwanted goods).

• No Waste Awards.

• The Public Event Guide continues to provide support and advice on establishing best practice waste management as part of overall sustainable events management.

240


Appendix HProgress reports on performance of local government in service provision to Indigenous Communities

The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) requires that an assessment, based on comparable national data, be undertaken of local government services to Indigenous communities. State and territory agencies have provided the following reports on activities aimed at improving local government services to Indigenous communities.

New South WalesThe New South Wales Department of Local Government continues to participate in the annual Local Government Aboriginal Network Conference. Since 2000, the Department has conducted surveys to collect data on a range of specific social justice initiatives being undertaken by New South Wales councils, including in relation to Indigenous people. The most recent survey was issued to councils in 2008 about initiatives for 2006 and 2007. A report on the findings from the survey is anticipated in 2009.

Findings from the 2006 survey, to which 125 (82%) out of 152 councils responded, regarding Indigenous initiatives include:

• 16 councils (13%) have implemented the Aboriginal Mentoring program and 33 Indigenous people have participated in the program

• 55 councils (44%) reported having an Indigenous advisory or consultative committee

• 45 councils (36%) reported playing a role in reconciliation groups in their area

• 37 councils (30%) reported adopting a formal agreement or memorandum of understanding with an Indigenous group

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 the 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, which includes Indigenous people. Through this process, councils may identify issues and services they could be addressing in relation to Indigenous

241

Appendix H

communities. New South Wales councils are required to submit a current plan to the department every five years, with the next social plan due in November 2009.

As part of the New South Wales Government’s Two Ways Together, Partnerships: a new way of doing business with Aboriginal people 2003–2012, the department has prepared a resource kit to help councils work more effectively with local Indigenous communities. Engaging With Local Aboriginal Communities: A Resource Kit For Local Government in New South Wales was developed in partnership with the Local Government and Shires Associations and informed by a reference group, including a number of Indigenous and non-Indigenous councillors and council staff. The kit includes strategies and resources that councils can use to empower Indigenous communities to participate in council decision-making. It also includes examples of initiatives councils have developed, in forming productive partnerships with Indigenous communities.

The kit complements the department’s updated publication, Local Government in New South Wales: Issues and Information for Aboriginal Communities. This publication provides New South Wales Indigenous communities with information about the role of local government and encourages Indigenous people to communicate with their local council and become more involved in council activities. Both publications aim to develop common ground to facilitate productive partnerships between councils and Indigenous communities that will unlock the potential for Indigenous people to be involved in developing sustainable communities and help councils better meet the needs of Indigenous people in their areas.

The department is undertaking the Promoting Diversity in Local Government project to develop and implement strategies to increase the representation of under-represented groups among elected representatives and senior staff, including Indigenous people. The project is being implemented in conjunction with the Local Government and Shires Associations and Local Government Managers Australia New South Wales. To date the project has included a workshop with a small number of council representatives, preparation of a background paper, consultation with key New South Wales Government agencies and development of a draft action plan.

VictoriaThe Municipal Association of Victoria continues to coordinate its Local Government Indigenous Network. The statewide voluntary network of local government councillors and officers meets quarterly and advocates development of positive relationships between councils and Indigenous communities, and promotes policy and actions that advance the status of Indigenous people in Victoria’s 79 municipalities. Opportunities are provided for councillors and staff to share experiences and knowledge on Indigenous issues and about local government Indigenous projects with initiatives that improve linkages and services. The network supports provision of leadership and best practice in local government on Indigenous issues, in line with the COAG commitment to reconciliation, endorsed by the Australian Local Government Association.

A growing number of Victoria’s individual local councils are actively involved in developing and supporting their own governance arrangements to facilitate engagement and community planning between councils and their Indigenous communities. For example:

• Eight councils in Victoria’s southeast metropolitan region continue to be active on the inter-council Aboriginal Consultative Committee. Originally formed in 1997, the committee provides opportunities for networking ideas, initiatives and strategic projects of community importance.

242


The committee provides a framework for planning and implementing relevant, largely social policy projects, funded by the Department of Human Services which reflect local government priorities in accord with those the Indigenous community identifies as its priorities.

• Formation of the Darebin Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Council, as a formal committee of Darebin City Council, provides Indigenous community members, councillors and council officers the opportunity to provide direct advice to council on issues affecting the Indigenous community.

• Yarra City Council Aboriginal Advisory Group has an active role in working between council and the Indigenous community on a wide range of issues. The Aboriginal Partnership Plan underpins aspirations for reconciliation and for improved social justice opportunities for its Indigenous community.

• The compact behind the COAG Trials – an alliance since 2003 of local Indigenous organisations, Greater Shepparton City Council and the Victorian and federal governments – continues to provide realistic working models for unique partnership arrangements to identify priorities delivering valuable outcomes through strategic and action planning.

The recent election of native title holder, Ken Saunders, in November 2008 to Glenelg Shire Council, provides for greater opportunities for the municipality’s Indigenous communities to influence local government service delivery in line with local priorities.

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, which came into effect on 28 May 2007, recognises Indigenous people ‘as the primary guardians, keepers and knowledge holders of Aboriginal cultural heritage’. Local councils participated in developing the legislation through consultative forums. A key feature of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 is that it links protection of Indigenous cultural heritage more directly with planning and land development processes managed by local government. The regulations determine what permits granted by local government and other planning authorities will require Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plans. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria provided training to Victorian councils on introduction and implementation of the legislation and mapping resources and advice. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria also provided funding to the Municipal Association of Victoria to employ a planner to help councils implement the legislation.

Introduction of the new Indigenous heritage legislation heightened the need for rural and regional councils to have better knowledge, skills, understanding of and connections with the Indigenous community, Indigenous heritage issues and delivery of services. The Victorian Government’s blueprint for regional growth, Moving Forward: Update – The Next Two Years 2008 to 2010,7 resulted in the government providing seed funding of $50 000 to the Planning Institute of Victoria in partnership with Latrobe University’s Bendigo campus. The funding was provided to stimulate initiatives that aim to improve the capability and capacity of councils to deal with Indigenous heritage and planning issues. Initiatives include establishment of an Indigenous planning internship program to raise participation of Indigenous students in planning higher education courses and providing local government with trained Indigenous planners to further improve the quality of planning advice and Indigenous heritage expertise in rural and regional Victoria.

The Victorian Government’s social policy statement, A Fairer Victoria, sets out its commitment to building a new partnership with Indigenous Victorians. Establishing new arrangements for Indigenous community engagement and representation is part of this commitment.

7 Available at <http://www.business.vic.gov.au/busvicwr/_assets/main/lib60177/rdv.pdf>

http://www.business.vic.gov.au/busvicwr/_assets/main/lib60177/rdv.pdf

243

Appendix H

Thirty-eight new Local Indigenous Networks and eight Regional Indigenous Councils are being established across Victoria, and representatives from those groups will join the Premier’s Aboriginal Advisory Council. These new regional representative structures reflect the government’s commitment to improving outcomes for Indigenous Victorians by ensuring they have a voice in their local community, their region, and in all spheres of government.

Thirty-three Local Indigenous Networks have been established with the remaining five to be established in 2008–09. Each network is a group of local Indigenous people keen to represent, and work together to plan for the benefit of their local community.

One of the main tasks of a Local Indigenous Network is to develop and implement a local community plan for a stronger, healthier community. Community planning undertaken by Local Indigenous Networks presents an important opportunity to build stronger links with local government planning processes. The presence of such networks will also enable effective and meaningful communication between local councils and the local Indigenous community. Staff from the Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development in each location will facilitate this communication.

QueenslandThrough the Community Governance Improvement Strategy, the Queensland Government delivered a range of activities and programs to help Indigenous councils achieve effective service delivery and sustainable good governance during 2007–08.

Key activities included implementing targeted intervention strategies, in line with Auditor-General and Public Accounts Committee recommendations, such as appointing financial controllers for those Indigenous councils considered at high financial risk.

The Queensland Department of Local Government, Sport and Recreation complemented these intervention strategies with a range of activities to improve Indigenous councils’ financial management, accountability, and business systems and also provided assistance for the longer-term divestment of enterprise and business activities by these councils. As a result of Community Governance Improvement Strategy activities, the government anticipates the need for further interventions will diminish.

Significant support throughout 2007–08 was also provided for those 20 Indigenous councils that transitioned into the new Torres Strait Island and Northern Peninsula Area Regional councils.

Over the first four years of the Community Governance Improvement Strategy a number of local government administration training initiatives for Indigenous councillors and council staff were undertaken. These have resulted in participation of over 180 Indigenous council representatives, with many gaining certificates through to diploma level qualifications.

Since July 2004 the Department, under the Community Governance Improvement Strategy, has funded over 120 projects to Indigenous councils for a total cost of around $18 million. For example:

• Sixty per cent of Aboriginal Shires have implemented the 22 mandatory transitional requirements under the Local Government Act 1993 (Qld), such as corporate plans and structures, mandatory policies, registers and systems. The remainder has implemented up to 90 per cent of these requirements.

• Indigenous councils have shown improvement in audit results in the past two financial years. Full results for 2006–07 are not yet available; however, of the 27 audits complete from a total of 32,

244


18 councils have received unqualified audits. Further improvements are anticipated in 2007–08 as a result of the introduction of financial controllers in a number of poorer performing councils.

• A range of accredited courses from certificate through to diploma level in local government administration, and non-accredited training delivered to over 95 per cent of councillors and senior and base grade administrative staff across all Indigenous councils. The training has been conducted in partnership with other agencies, including the Crime and Misconduct Commission; the Local Government Association of Queensland; the Queensland Department of Education, Training and the Arts; the Queensland Department of Industrial Relations; and non-profit organisations, such as Indigenous Community Volunteers.

• Seventeen councils have received assistance for business system improvements, such as implementation of new accounting systems that have contributed to improved audit outcomes.

The Community Governance Improvement Strategy has also delivered other projects including human resources reviews, accounting support, temporary appointments to key management positions, asset management and planning, land use and statutory planning, financial management reviews, elections support and community engagement initiatives.

Western AustraliaThe Local Government Advisory Board undertook a major inquiry into local government service delivery to Indigenous communities in early 2008. Local governments and other stakeholders contributed to this inquiry, which was intended to underpin conclusion of bilateral negotiations between the state and the Commonwealth concerning delivery of municipal services to more than 270 discrete Indigenous communities in Western Australia. It is clear that the costs incurred by local governments to deliver comparable levels of municipal services to remote Indigenous communities will not be met by the municipal services and the Community Development Employment Project funding programs currently provided by the Australian Government.

Local governments in the Kimberley combined to initiate a feasibility study into the formation of a regional council specifically to deliver services to remote Indigenous communities. This work is ongoing.

South AustraliaThe state government, through the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division, is reviewing existing service delivery and governance arrangements on Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands. Since 1994, through the Local Government Ministers’ conference pilot project on Indigenous organisations, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara has been prescribed as a local governing body for the purposes of receiving local government financial assistance grants under regulations made by the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission Act 1992. Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara has been a member of the Local Government Association since 1995.

As part of the review, a consultant has identified options to strengthen delivery of services and governance arrangements on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands, including developmental steps towards achieving local government status under the local government legislative framework. The division is preparing to consult on proposed options.

South Australia maintained a strategic and collaborative approach to promoting negotiated outcomes on native title with a unique process involving the state government, claim group representation, the

245

Appendix H

Native Title Representative body, the Local Government Association and peak bodies representing miners, farmers and fishers.

Progress slowed on native title negotiations during 2007–08 as a result of funding constraints to the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement. During the year the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement separated its native title services into a body called Native Title Services, which has since 1 July 2008 taken over as the native title representative body for the whole state. In addition, some funding issues remained outstanding with the Australian Government in relation to the Kaurna Native Title Application (which involves 29 South Australian councils and covers the entire Adelaide metropolitan area).

Issues of state government funding for Native Title Services were resolved and a revised program has been prepared to support negotiations in 2008–09.

TasmaniaLocal government services to Indigenous communities in Tasmania are predominately delivered through mainstream local government service provision.

The partnership agreements program coordinated by the Local Government Division, of the Tasmanian Department of Premier and Cabinet, also provides a mechanism for councils to engage and consult with the Indigenous community.

The Glenorchy City Council’s current partnership agreement retains, from its first agreement, a provision for regular consultation with the Indigenous community. At this stage, this is the only provision of its kind in an existing agreement, although all councils are able to include such a statement if they feel it is warranted.

The Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association is responsible for providing a range of services to the community of up to 70 people on Cape Barren Island. It owns and manages rental housing with a portfolio of 23 houses, and maintains the sewerage system and water and power supplies for the island. It also has administrative responsibility for maintaining a post office, shop and community health centre and undertakes land management activities. Most infrastructure on the island has been constructed and maintained using funding for municipal services provided by the Australian Government. The Tasmanian Government has recognised issues around service delivery on Cape Barren Island and has provided funding to the Association for road works and maintenance (including bridges).

Northern TerritoryOn 11 October 2006, the Minister for Local Government announced the Northern Territory Government’s reform program for local government. The reform resulted in a new framework of municipal and shire councils, incorporating the whole of the territory as of 1 July 2008. The major reform of local government in the territory (New Local Government) has reduced the number of local government bodies from 61 to 16. The resulting local government framework is five municipal councils, eight shire councils and three former community government councils converted to shires.

The New Local Government restructure provides increased potential for shire councils’ own-source revenue collection as pastoral properties, mining tenements and leases, and roadhouses are, for the first time, rateable.

246


New Local Government increases revenue-raising opportunities and provides economies of scale. To accommodate the new structure, standardised shire business systems were purchased to meet financial and administrative requirements. Arrangements were made for co-locating specific administrative functions, and sharing resources, such as purchasing and using heavy equipment and access to technical expertise, between shires. While these efficiencies will ease shires’ budget outcomes, their revenue base will continue to remain heavily dependent on government funding.

Shires will be robust, viable and professional organisations able to improve services over the long-term to a diverse range of communities. Key principles that underpin the reform are:

• Consultation across all communities throughout transition and implementation, allowing for flexibility.

• Encouragement of municipal and regional shires to work together and share resources through regional plans and agreements.

• A focus on delivering a fair standard of core local government services to all communities.

• An ongoing, cooperative partnership between the territory and Australian governments to ensure a seamless transition to the new arrangements.

• Integrated planning between the three spheres of government, to deliver better services in the bush; services will include roads, waste management, and parks and reserves.

The current federal intervention in managing the territory’s remote Indigenous communities has highlighted the high cost of action to reduce Indigenous disadvantage and improve infrastructure and service delivery. This is the same high-cost environment in which the shires will be operating. The effectiveness of these initiatives will require continued close cooperation of all spheres of government, in partnership with Indigenous leaders and community members, to ensure all parties make appropriate contributions to achieve the desired outcomes.

The federal response is also an explicit recognition that the Northern Territory Government alone does not have the resources to address the dire condition in remote Indigenous communities. The Australian Government has provided substantial assistance through the bilateral agreement on Indigenous affairs with the Northern Territory Government. This support is being coordinated through the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

Australian Capital TerritoryDuring 2007–08 the Australian Capital Territory Government implemented a number of whole-of public sector initiatives to improve service delivery to Indigenous communities. It established the ACT Public Service Indigenous Network pilot Indigenous Traineeship program; and it formed the Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs, which brought together chief executives in the key areas of health, education, disability, housing and community, to address, in an integrated way, the multiple and complex needs of those most at risk, particularly young people and children.

In 2004 the territory government committed to establishing a democratically elected Indigenous representative body. In 2008 the ACT Legislative Assembly passed legislation to establish an Indigenous elected body. Elections were held in June and by July 2008 seven candidates were declared. The elected body will operate over three-year terms and must consult with the territory’s traditional custodians represented through the United Ngunnawal Elders Council.

247

Appendix H

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services Unit in the Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services continued to administer Indigenous-specific programs and partnerships for those most at risk. The unit also provided advice on policy and procedural issues across departments.

The unit was responsible for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Kinship and Foster Care Service, which placed 29 children in foster care, provided an Indigenous Family Support program for 75 families and 120 children, and managed a supported accommodation facility for young Indigenous males, providing 33 periods of care for 24 young men.

At any one time, the team also supported up to 40 families comprising between 55 and 65 children and young people involved in care and protection services.

The unit helped develop the territory’s Children and Young People Bill, and operational aspects of a new youth justice centre.

In 2007–08, the department targeted assistance to Indigenous families and individuals through the Community Support and Infrastructure Grants program, the Youth Homelessness Action Plan, the Youth Supported Accommodation and Assistance program services, the Youth Services program and the Indigenous Supported Accommodation Service.

As part of a joint management arrangement with a local Aboriginal association, the first stage of a capital works refurbishment program at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre was completed in February 2008.

Indigenous organisations and individuals formed key focus groups for a number of government community initiatives, for example the Women’s Return to Work Grants, the annual Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Gathering, the Women’s Register, and the Office for Ageing Research Project on Social Isolation.

Throughout 2007–08 ACT Health undertook a number of initiatives to improve life outcomes for Indigenous people.

Work to establish a culturally appropriate alcohol and drug rehabilitation service, under A New Way: The ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Family Wellbeing Plan 2006–20118 continued during 2007–08. In December 2007, the government committed $10.8 million to establish a residential facility for the new service.

In 2007, ACT Health funded an Indigenous midwifery access program, providing pre- and post-natal support and intervention, which helped achieve improved infant birth weights for Indigenous children born in the territory.

In 2008 Therapy ACT commenced speech pathology services to the four Koori preschools at Holt, Calwell, Ngunnawal and Wanniassa Hills.

In accordance with recommendations from the report Australian Directions in Indigenous Education 2005–2008, released by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, the Department of Education and Training began implementing strategies for improving Indigenous learning outcomes. One example of this was the Community Partnership Agreements.

In 2007 the ACT Government provided new funding for three new programs, implemented in 2008, to support Indigenous students from Kindergarten to Year 4 to focus on literacy and numeracy, provide

8 Available at <http://www.health.act.gov.au/c/health?a=dlpol&policy=1153889980>.

http://www.health.act.gov.au/c/health?a=dlpol&policy=1153889980

248


mentoring for high achieving high school students, and deliver professional and targeted development for school principals and deputy principals.

During 2007–08 the Department of Justice and Community Safety continued to advance Indigenous justice outcomes by strengthening initiatives aimed at reducing Indigenous over-representation in the criminal justice system, improve access to justice services for Indigenous victims and offenders, and improve collaboration in service delivery for Indigenous people.

The department funded the Aboriginal Justice Centre, an independent community-based association that provides case management and programs for those in contact with the criminal justice system and through consultation works to increase inter-agency cooperation and coordination.

Special purpose project funding was directed at reviewing and improving the Ngambra Circle Sentencing Court structure and protocols, with the aim of further strengthening the court’s services for future work with youth offenders.

The department commenced work on an Aboriginal Justice Agreement, a whole-of-government consultative and partnership approach to increasing access to services and reducing Indigenous over-representation in the criminal justice system.

The department continues to focus on Indigenous cultural issues in corrective services programming and to support strong working relationships on these issues with government and non-government organisations.

At a national level, the department is an active member of the National Indigenous Consumer Strategy Implementation Reference Group, and through this forum contributes to practical and effective solutions to cross-jurisdictional Indigenous issues. It also began developing the Indigenous Consumer Guide to help Indigenous people understand their rights as consumers.

The Territory and Municipal Services’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Service Plan 2006–2009 recognises that the department has the opportunity to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous Australians through services it delivers to the community and the way it shapes the workforce.

The department has been involved in a number of educational programs aimed at helping the wider territory community build awareness and understanding of local Indigenous concerns. The department continued promoting awareness of the culture and history of local Indigenous people through the guided activities of Parks, Conservation and Lands involving Indigenous staff, and through self-drive heritage trails developed by Australian Capital Tourism in conjunction with the Heritage Unit in Environment Protection and Heritage.

In 2007–08 the department focused on protecting the territory’s Indigenous heritage. The Heritage Unit worked through issues with the Indigenous community to develop ACT Heritage Guidelines to ensure Indigenous sites are protected.

Four Aboriginal Community Partnership Projects – the Archaeological GIS Analysis, the Raw Material Sourcing Study, the Cultural Heritage Training for Representative Aboriginal Organisations, and the Aboriginal Archaeological Collections Audit – were funded through the ACT Heritage Grants Program.

The Heritage and Information and Communication Technology Units were involved in developing the Corporate Geographic Database to help protect Indigenous heritage sites. The database allows continual input, management and display of heritage information on culturally and/or historically significant sites, including Indigenous heritage sites. The database will be a comprehensive guide for other agencies’ use.

249

Appendix H

The ACT Library and Information Services’ mobile library continued developing a collection that reflects both traditional and contemporary Indigenous culture, including publications and recordings of Indigenous artists. In partnership with local community organisations, the Indigenous Sport Program continued to conduct activities to promote active participation and skill development of Indigenous people in sport and sports coaching. Working with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre, the department began a project to have two ACTION buses vinyl-wrapped with artwork painted by local Indigenous people.

In 2007–08 Territory and Municipal Services also consulted with Indigenous staff to improve its Indigenous employment and career development strategy, extended its Indigenous Traineeship program and streamlined provisions for employing successful trainees.

250


Table H.1: Financial assistance grant entitlements to Indigenous councils, 2006–07

State/ council name Population

Council area Total road

General purpose

grant Roads grant Total

General purpose

grant Roads grant

No Sq km Km $ $ $ $ per capita $ per km

Queensland

Aurukun 1 168 7 383 183 903 951 89 204 993 155 773.93 487.45

Badu Island 786 10 53 495 881 30 051 525 932 630.89 567.00

Bamaga 937 67 58 567 399 33 609 601 008 605.55 579.47

Boigu Island 295 67 54 345 924 25 941 371 865 1 172.62 480.39

Cherbourg 1 250 31 70 80 082 41 685 121 767 64.07 595.50

Dauan Island 120 4 5 366 454 3 266 369 720 3 053.78 653.20

Doomadgee 1 236 1 510 127 414 992 65 912 480 904 335.75 518.99

Erub Island 320 6 12 378 501 8 313 386 814 1 182.82 692.75

Hammond Island 208 17 6 343 319 4 522 347 841 1 650.57 753.67

Hopevale 914 1 100 185 366 950 87 667 454 617 401.48 473.88

Iama Island 363 1 5 360 395 4 913 365 308 992.82 982.60

Injinoo (Cowal Ck) 446 795 265 377 381 117 449 494 830 846.15 443.20

Kowanyama 1 054 2 520 208 474 782 98 797 573 579 450.46 474.99

Kubin Island 226 152 21 412 570 11 102 423 672 1 825.53 528.67

Lockhart River 642 3 597 323 477 899 110 123 588 022 744.39 340.94

Mabuiag Island 240 6 9 362 991 6 106 369 097 1 512.46 678.44

Mapoon Aboriginal Council

214 1 840 35 439 055 16 972 456 027 2 051.66 484.91

Mer Island 462 7 5 350 601 6 486 357 087 758.88 1 297.20

Mornington Island 1 044 1 231 560 869 010 249 150 1 118 160 832.39 444.91

Napranum 813 6 20 278 909 16 201 295 110 343.06 810.05

New Mapoon 360 94 16 321 970 10 227 332 197 894.36 639.19

Palm Island 2 378 71 39 307 742 39 912 347 654 129.41 1 023.38

Pormpuraaw 631 4 360 570 377 659 249 535 627 194 598.51 437.78

Poruma Island 175 0 4 357 280 3 229 360 509 2 041.60 807.25

Saibai Island 368 104 7 400 652 6 457 407 109 1 088.73 922.43

Seisia Island 144 2 7 335 313 4 348 339 661 2 328.56 621.14

St Paul’s Island 239 18 11 365 724 9 302 375 026 1 530.23 845.64

Ugar Island 57 0 2 331 589 1 391 332 980 5 817.35 695.50

Umagico 288 53 15 368 529 9 123 377 652 1 279.61 608.20

Warraber Island 239 1 5 378 377 4 387 382 764 1 583.17 877.40

Woorabinda 1 035 388 80 71 260 43 891 115 151 68.85 548.64

Wujal Wujal 379 11 20 92 166 12 115 104 281 243.18 605.75

251

Appendix H



General purpose


General purpose

grant Roads grant


Yarrabah 2 322 156 50 218 779 43 230 262 009 94.22 864.60

Yorke Island 336 2 8 357 919 6 582 364 501 1 065.24 822.75

Qld total and average

– – – 12 952 005 1 471 198 14 423 203 – –

Western Australia

Ngaanyatjarraku (S) 1 776 159 948 1 317 2 421 402 904 936 3 326 338 1 363.40 687.12

WA total and average

– – – – – – – –

South Australia

Anangu Pitjantjatjara

2 266 52 3 088 910 158 113 412 1 023 570 401.66 36.73

Gerard 89 0 10 35 521 15 111 50 632 399.11 1 511.10

Maralinga 137 0 147 74 220 40 577 114 797 541.75 276.03

Nepabunna 66 0 10 22 785 15 044 37 829 345.23 1 504.40

Yalata 229 2 64 127 853 32 669 160 522 558.31 510.45

SA total and average

– – – 1 170 537 216 813 1 387 350 – –

Northern Territory

Aherrenge (Arunga) 470 0 42 107 303 29 875 137 178 228.30 711.31

Ali Curung 485 0 152 76 079 61 153 137 232 156.86 402.32

Alpurrurulam 741 100 33 131 952 43 837 175 789 178.07 1 328.39

Amoonguna 353 0 7 39 018 11 829 50 847 110.53 1 689.86

Angurugu 1 377 2 204 207 148 161 933 369 081 150.43 793.79

Anmatjere 1 254 3 631 206 247 125 119 917 367 042 197.07 582.12

Aputula 243 0 66 39 861 32 726 72 587 164.04 495.85

Areyonga 232 0 88 37 775 45 495 83 270 162.82 516.99

Arltarlpilta 319 12 47 51 997 9 106 61 103 163.00 193.74

Belyuen 246 41 84 31 694 27 027 58 721 128.84 321.75

Borroloola 961 13 25 154 373 71 104 225 477 160.64 2 844.16

Daguragu 732 43 36 120 393 78 858 199 251 164.47 2 190.50

Galiwinku 1 965 0 352 357 881 179 332 537 213 182.13 509.47

Gapuwiyak 1 154 0 358 204 124 154 150 358 274 176.88 430.59

Ikuntji 174 0 125 29 320 39 227 68 547 168.51 313.82

Imanpa 208 0 20 34 030 24 869 58 899 163.61 1 243.45

Jabiru (T) 1 174 13 31 138 271 85 604 223 875 117.78 2 761.42

Jilkminggan 302 6 16 30 004 26 243 56 247 99.35 1 640.19

252




General purpose


General purpose

grant Roads grant


Kaltukatjara 381 0 342 68 035 90 680 158 715 178.57 265.15

Kunbarllanjnja 1 475 530 672 217 477 478 855 696 332 147.44 712.58

Lajamanu 1 022 7 313 315 170 829 100 307 271 136 167.15 318.43

Ltyentye Purte (Santa Teresa)

580 1 242 118 87 859 89 153 177 012 151.48 755.53

Maningrida 2 658 0 317 435 962 215 109 651 071 164.02 678.58

Marngarr 351 3 12 35 606 24 075 59 681 101.44 2 006.25

Milingimbi 1 458 0 53 248 735 59 154 307 889 170.60 1 116.11

Minjilang 303 0 73 37 773 74 501 112 274 124.66 1 020.56

Nauiyu Nambiyu 596 43 145 78 133 165 416 243 549 131.10 1 140.80

Nganmarriyanga (Palumpa)

442 0 155 74 205 78 030 152 235 167.88 503.42

Ntaria 633 0 305 101 173 78 895 180 068 159.83 258.67

Numbulwar–Numburindi

1 274 4 500 302 239 558 129 691 369 249 188.04 429.44

Nyirranggulung Mardrulk

1 184 28 700 441 240 541 340 790 581 331 203.16 772.77

Nyirripi 319 0 431 52 078 109 838 161 916 163.25 254.84

Papunya 383 0 214 63 269 56 515 119 784 165.19 264.09

Peppimenarti 199 0 120 48 960 158 080 207 040 246.03 1 317.33

Ramingining 731 0 145 134 103 112 748 246 851 183.45 777.57

Tapatjatjaka 318 12 55 40 682 22 812 63 494 127.93 414.76

Thamarrurr 2 856 3 450 305 528 547 331 620 860 167 185.07 1 087.28

Tiwi Islands 2 659 7 984 925 487 049 726 482 1 213 531 183.17 785.39

Trust Account 0 0 2 143 0 947 008 947 008 0.00 441.91

Umbakumba 528 0 137 89 273 99 829 189 102 169.08 728.68

Urapuntja 971 0 301 234 321 60 863 295 184 241.32 202.20

Walangeri–Ngumpinku

580 386 108 91 484 60 941 152 425 157.73 564.27

Wallace Rockhole 111 5 23 19 291 17 340 36 631 173.79 753.91

Walungurru 438 0 308 85 666 131 395 217 061 195.58 426.61

Warruwi 396 0 64 72 953 85 935 158 888 184.22 1 342.73

Watiyawanu (Mt Liebig)

248 78 73 41 536 28 844 70 380 167.48 395.12

Yirrkala/Dhanbul 1 157 0 55 175 917 61 476 237 393 152.05 1 117.75

Yuelamu 303 0 206 50 927 77 992 128 919 168.08 378.60

Yuendumu 1 374 22 142 907 266 714 288 316 555 030 194.11 317.88

253

Appendix H



General purpose


General purpose

grant Roads grant


Yugul Mangi 2 098 12 269 177 426 580 194 161 620 741 203.33 1 096.95

NT total and average

– – – 6 983 584 6 699 136 13 682 720 – –

National total and average

– – 23 527 528 9 292 083 32 819 611 – – –

Source: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.

254


Appendix IBest practice in local government

The Australian Government is keen to encourage best practice in local government. Its two initiatives to recognise and promote best practice are the annual National Awards for Local Government and the Leading Practice Seminar Series.

National Awards for Local GovernmentThe National Awards for Local Government are the peak national awards that reward and highlight outstanding achievements in local government. They identify and promote projects and councils that are finding new ways of delivering services and developing solutions to complex and challenging local difficulties thereby building local government capacity and enhancing the social and economic wellbeing of Australian communities.

The National Awards were established in 1986, to foster and acknowledge innovation and continuous improvement in local government and are managed by the Local Government Section of the Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The National Awards have attracted thousands of entries over its 22-year history. They demonstrate how local governments throughout Australia exhibit remarkable enterprise in developing excellent and innovative ways of delivering services and managing scarce resources in a changing environment. Details of the National Award winners for 2008 are provided below.

Leading Practice Seminar SeriesThe Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government established the Leading Practice Seminar Series initiative in 2000. Since its establishment, 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 the department and host councils, regional organisations of councils or local government associations. It provides an opportunity for councils to meet to hear from their colleagues and to discuss how particular project case studies might apply in their specific situations. The sponsors of the National Awards provide transportation and accommodation for winning councils presenting at the seminars.

255

Appendix I

2008 National Awards for Local GovernmentThe 2008 National Awards were funded by sponsorship from the following Australian Government departments:

• Health and Ageing

• Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

• Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

• Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

• Industry, Tourism and Resources

• Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

• Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.

The sponsors funded 10 categories of awards. Table I.1 shows the categories of awards grouped into the four broad council business areas of Capacity Building, Community Services, Environment and Management Practices.

Table I.1 Categories for the 2008 National Awards for Local Government

Council business area Categories of awards

Capacity Building Strengthening Indigenous Communities

Youth Engagement

Community Services Health and Wellbeing

Excellence in Alcohol Management

Universal Design of Public Amenities

Valuing and Promoting Quality Child Care

Environment Local Greenhouse Action

Natural Resource Management

Management Practices Innovation in Regional Development

Increasing Women’s Participation

Source: Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government

The theme of the 2008 National Awards was Local Government – working hard for Australians, and it showcased the resourcefulness and innovation of Australia’s hard working councils to improve services to their communities. Overall, 114 entries were received from 71 councils from all mainland jurisdictions.

An independent panel judged the awards and determined 13 winners for the 10 categories – four of which were from small councils with fewer than 15 000 ratepayers.

256


A panel chaired by the former Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Mr Jim Soorley, determined the national winners. The panel consisted of Cr John Rich, Local Government Association of South Australia; Mr John Bennie, Director Local Government Managers Australia and CEO City of Greater Dandenong; and Mr Barry O’Neill, former manager, Local Government Section, Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, announced category and commendation winning councils on 3 September 2008. Each project is summarised below.9

2008 National Award winnersNational Award for Outstanding Achievement

Cities of Armadale and Gosnells and Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire, Western Australia: the ‘Switch Your Thinking! Program

In 1999 the cities of Armadale and Gosnells and the Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire formed a partnership – the South East Regional Energy Group – through the Cities for Climate Protection campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The group influences community attitudes and behaviour in relation to energy, water and waste efficiency. The switch your thinking! Program (with the syt! brand) was developed in 2002 to deliver sustainability initiatives to the community under a catchy, recognisable and consistent brand. The initiative has encouraged four other Western Australian councils to recently licence the syt! brand to deliver the program to their communities.

National Award for Excellence

Clarence Valley Council, New South Wales: the Clarence Floodplain Project – Reviving Floodplain Watercourses and Wetlands

In 1997 the Clarence Floodplain Project was established to help manage the floodplain, particularly the design and management of environmentally friendly flood mitigation structures. The main objectives of the project were to:

• increase tidal exchange to improve water quality in creek systems

• improve the water quality of the Clarence River and its tributaries

• improve fish passage and provide habitat or breeding areas for fish and other aquatic species

• restore wetlands and improve grazing productivity to previously drained wetlands

• provide habitat for waterbirds and raise water tables in acid sulfate areas and neutralise acid water in creeks with salt or seawater.

The main tool of the project is individual agreements between council and the landholders that facilitate active drain management, reconnecting habitat areas to the estuary. The Floodplain Project has resulted in revival of important wetlands and around 200 kilometres of flood-gated waterways.

9 Details of the national, category and commendation award winning projects, and category judging panel members, are available at <http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/local/awards/winners_2008.aspx>.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/local/awards/winners_2008.aspx

257

Appendix I

National Award for Excellence – for a small council with under 15 000 ratepayers

Murray Shire Council, New South Wales: the Long Paddock Cobb Highway Touring Route

The Long Paddock Cobb Highway Touring Route covers 610 kilometres of the Cobb Highway, stretching between Echuca–Moama on the Victorian border and Wilcannia in the mid northwest of New South Wales, telling the story of its drovers, its history and its people. The route incorporates many different elements, such as tourism, culture and heritage.

In 1999, the Murray, Deniliquin, Conargo, Hay and Central Darling councils formed the Long Paddock Committee. With the region facing the challenges of drought, economic hardship and population decline, the committee decided to develop a robust tourism industry through the Long Paddock Cobb Highway route. The Long Paddock is now a nationally recognised touring route and is the first themed touring route recognised by the New South Wales Road Transport Authority.

National Award for Innovation

Brisbane City Council, Queensland: Stylin’ Up – Brisbane City Council 2026 Youth Visionary Project

Stylin’ Up is guided by three important themes – pride in self, pride in community, and pride in culture. The project is an Indigenous-owned cultural program with music and dance skills development workshops highlighting contemporary music. It is developed with and for young people from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds in Brisbane’s south west communities with an emphasis on increasing skills in music, dance, writing, event staging, production or sport. The event is an initiative of Brisbane City Council and the Indigenous community of Inala, and is developed by Elders, children, community leaders and government representatives.

National Award for Innovation – for a small council with under 15 000 ratepayers

Rural City of Murray Bridge, South Australia: Youth Led Rescue (joint winner)

The Youth Led Rescue project showcased the council’s commitment to working with the youth in the community. The project actively engaged them while providing valuable and accredited skills. The rescue and restoration of the heritage listed and iconic Murray Bridge railway station refreshment rooms was used to establish a ‘youth hub’ that encouraged active participation of youth in their communities, fostered leadership, helped young people achieve their potential, improved the profile of and access to services for youth and recognised their contribution to the community.

In renovating the building, young people worked with and under the supervision of skilled and experienced tradesmen gaining valuable and accredited skills that in many cases led to employment or further education. This youth-led project has changed the landscape of youth services in the region through engaging, enabling and empowering youth to be part of the local solution.

Rural City of Murray Bridge, South Australia: Murraylands Community of Youth Services (joint winner)

The Murraylands Community of Youth Services project was developed and implemented to address the needs of youth in primary health, mental health, drug and alcohol, and social recovery. These four main streams affecting young people’s wellbeing are further compounded in a rural environment suffering the effects of an ongoing and crippling drought, geographical isolation and limited access to services.

258


The Murraylands Community of Youth Services is a coordinated, collaborative and holistic approach, by more than 20 service providers in the Murraylands, to provide services in these areas through:

• centralised management

• co-location

• common client management systems

• outreach services throughout the region

• establishment of a youth centre that acts as a centralised hub.

Community awareness campaigns and community education programs that focus on early identification and intervention in youth health and wellbeing issues sustain the project.

National Award for Merit

Clarence Valley Council, New South Wales: Clarence Valley Youth Summer Events Program

The Youth Summer Events Program is an innovative project designed by young people to provide low or no cost activities over the summer school holidays. The program came about when young people highlighted the lack of activities, travel distances, and costs, as drawbacks of the area. Council decided to harness youth enthusiasm and creativity in two Youth Advisory Committees to develop a solution. The committees honed skills and built their confidence by approaching businesses for support. Young people planned, organised and ran the program and performances, such as the Spaghetti Circus workshops, music production, and surf clinics. This successful pilot saw the program expanded to Maclean and Grafton.

The program enables local businesses to engage with young people. The activities have resulted in greater community respect for youth initiative; showing young people can participate without resorting to antisocial behaviour. It also promotes volunteering, welcomes visitors and provides social networks for new residents.

259

Bibliography

Bibliography

ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics], Government Finance Statistics, cat. no. 5512.0, available at <http://www.abs.gov.au/>.

—— Taxation Revenue, cat. no. 5506.0.

—— Australian demographic statistics, cat. no. 3101.0.

—— Employed Wage and Salary Earners, Australia: Original Series, cat. no. 6248.0.

—— Estimated Stocks of Dwellings, Western Australia, cat. no. 8705.5.

—— Population, Western Australia, cat. no. 3234.5.

—— Building Approvals, Australia, cat. no. 8731.0.

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.

Department for Communities and Local Government 2007, Delivering Value for Money in Local Government: Meeting the challenge of CSR07, Department for Communities and Local Government, 4, London, available at <http://www.emce.gov.uk/documents/news_info/Meeting_the_challenge_of_CSR07/CSR07%20-Deliver%20Value%204%20Money%20CSG%209%20Oct%2007.pdf>.

Department of Housing and Regional Development 1994, Australian Classification of Local Governments, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Financial Sustainability Review Board 2005, ‘Rising to the Challenge: Towards Financially Sustainable Local Government in South Australia’, Volume 1: Overview, South Australia.

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.

LGAT [Local Government Association of Tasmania] 2007, A review of the financial sustainability of local government in Tasmania, available at <http://www.lgat.tas.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=349#e348>.

Local Government Rates Inquiry Panel 2007, Funding Local Government, Local Government Rates Inquiry, Wellington, available at <http://www.ratesinquiry.govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/URL/RatesInquiryFullReport.pdf/$file/RatesInquiryFullReport.pdf>.

Mirza S 2007, Danger ahead: The coming collapse of Canada’s municipal infrastructure, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Ottawa.

Morton A 1994, Local Government Funding Methodologies, Australian Urban and Regional Development Review Discussion Paper No. 2.

http://www.abs.gov.au

http://www.emce.gov.uk/documents/news_info/Meeting_the_challenge_of_CSR07/CSR07%20-Deliver%20Value%204%20Money%20CSG%209%20Oct%2007.pdf

http://www.emce.gov.uk/documents/news_info/Meeting_the_challenge_of_CSR07/CSR07%20-Deliver%20Value%204%20Money%20CSG%209%20Oct%2007.pdf

http://www.lgat.tas.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=349#e348

http://www.ratesinquiry.govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/URL/RatesInquiryFullReport.pdf/$file/RatesInquiryFullReport.pdf

http://www.ratesinquiry.govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/URL/RatesInquiryFullReport.pdf/$file/RatesInquiryFullReport.pdf

260


PricewaterhouseCoopers 2006, National financial sustainability study of local government, Table E2, Australian Local Government Association, available at <www.alga.asn.au/policy/finance/pwcreport/summary.php#Extrapolation>.

Productivity Commission 2008, Assessing Local Government Revenue Raising Capacity, research report, Productivity Commission, Canberra, available at <http://www.pc.gov.au/study/localgovernment/docs/finalreport>.

Robinson, P & Cayton B 2001, Strategic Study Into Management of ACT Roads and Stormwater Assets, ARRB Transport Research, Melbourne.

South Australian Government 2008, 2007–08 Budget Statement, SA Department of Treasury and Finance, available at <http://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/dtf/budget/publications_and_downloads/previous_budgets/state_budget_2007_08.jsp>.

Sproats, K 1996, Comparison of agendas and processes in Australian Local Government, a paper presented to the Local Government in Queensland Centenary Conference, August 1996.



http://www.pc.gov.au/study/localgovernment/docs/finalreport

http://www.pc.gov.au/study/localgovernment/docs/finalreport

http://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/dtf/budget/publications_and_downloads/previous_budgets/state_budget_2007_08.jsp

http://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/dtf/budget/publications_and_downloads/previous_budgets/state_budget_2007_08.jsp

261

GlossaryGlossary

ABSAustralian Bureau of Statistics

ACLGAustralian Classification of Local Government

ALGAAustralian Local Government Association

balanced budget approachA method of general purpose grant assessment whereby gross expenditure needs an revenue capacity for each council are assessed with the difference between the expenditure and revenue assessments being the equalisation need.

cappingCapping, 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.

COAGCouncil of Australian governments

Commonwealth Grants CommissionA 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 goods and services tax revenue.

cost adjustorsSee ‘disability factor’

CPIconsumer price index

CRI – cost relativity indexSee ‘disability factor’

direct assessment approachA 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 factorA 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’.

262


effort neutral or neutralityThe 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 factorThe 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 factorThis 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 factorThis 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 grantsThese 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 equalisationDistribution of general purpose grants to local government, with the objective of ensuring each council is able to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not lower than the average standard in the state and takes account of differences in expenditure required in performing its functions and in the capacity to raise revenue (subsections 6.3(a) and 6.3(b) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995).

general purpose grantThis 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.

Hawker ReportThe 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.

263

Glossary

inclusion approachThe 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.

KPIkey performance indicator

local government grants commissionsIn 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 grantThis 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.

MAVMunicipal Association of Victoria

minimum grant entitlementEvery 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 PolicyA 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 allowancesAllowances 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.

operational subsidyGrant provided to councils that do not have access to significant other revenue, such as that from rates.

positive allowancesAllowances that equalise the financial capacity of ‘disadvantaged’ council 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 capacityA measure of a council’s capacity to raise revenue from rateable property, having regard to activities on that property, such as agriculture or mining.

264


rate peggingAction 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 allowancesRevenue 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.

RRIrevenue relativity index

SEIFASocio-Economic Indexes for Areas

specific purpose grantPayments 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 expenditureThe 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 reformA change to the external relationships between council, including boundary changes and amalgamation of councils, cooperative service provision, major resource sharing initiatives and joint service delivery.

the ActLocal Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth)

WALGGCWestern Australian Local Government Grants Commission

WALGAWestern Australian Local Government Association

265

Index of local governments

Index of local governmentsAAdelaide, 165, 194, 196Adelaide Hills, 165, 194, 196Aherrenge (Arunga), 170, 198, 199Albany, 157, 190, 192Albury, 138, 176, 178Alexandrina, 165, 195Ali Curung, 170, 199Alice Springs, 170, 198, 200Alpine, 145, 181, 182Alpurrurulam, 170, 198Amoonguna, 170, 198, 199Anangu Pitjantjatjara, 111, 165, 194, 196Angurugu, 170, 198, 199Anmatjere, 170, 198, 199Aputula, 170, 198, 199Aramac, 149, 184, 188Ararat, 92, 145, 181, 183Areyonga, 170, 199Arltarpilta, 170, 199, 200Armadale, 158, 189, 192, 256Armidale Dumaresq, 138, 178, 207Arunga, 170, 198, 199Ashburton, 158, 190, 192Ashfield, 138, 176, 180, 207Atherton, 149, 185, 187Auburn, 138, 176, 179Augusta–Margaret River, 158, 190, 193Aurukun, 68, 101, 134, 149, 185, 186, 220

BBadu Island, 149, 185Ballarat, 145, 181, 182Ballina, 138, 177, 179Balonne, 149, 185, 187Balranald, 138, 176, 180Bamaga, 149, 185Banana, 149, 186, 187Bankstown, 138, 176, 180, 206, 207Banyule, 92, 145, 181, 183Barcaldine, 149, 184, 187Barcoo, 149, 183, 188Barkly, 170Barossa, 165, 195, 196Barunga West, 165, 195, 196Bass Coast, 145, 182Bassendean, 158, 189, 192Bathurst, 138, 178, 206

Bauhinia, 149, 185, 187Baulkham Hills, 138, 177, 180, 206Baw Baw, 92, 145, 181, 182Bayside, 91, 145, 182, 183Bayswater, 158, 189, 193Beaudesert, 149, 184, 188Bega Valley, 138, 178Bellingen, 138, 178, 207Belmont, 158, 189, 192Belyando, 149, 186Belyuen, 170, 199Benalla, 145, 181, 182Bendemere, 150, 184, 187Berri and Barmera, 165, 195Berrigan, 138, 177, 179Beverley, 158, 191Biggenden, 150, 185, 187Binjari, 204Blackall, 150, 184, 187Blackall–Tambo, 150Blacktown, 138, 177, 179Bland, 138, 176, 180Blayney, 138, 177, 178, 206Blue Mountains, 138, 177, 178, 207Boddington, 158, 191Bogan, 138, 176, 180, 206Boigu Island, 150, 184, 186Bombala, 138, 176, 179Boonah, 150, 186, 187Booringa, 150, 184, 188Boorowa, 138, 177, 180Boroondara, 91, 145, 182, 183Borroloola, 170, 198, 199Botany Bay, 139, 176, 180Boulia, 150, 183Bourke, 139, 176, 180Bowen, 150, 186, 187Boyup Brook, 158, 191Break O’Day, 168, 197Brewarrina, 139, 176, 180Bridgetown–Greenbushes, 158, 191Brighton, 168, 197Brimbank, 146, 181, 182Brisbane, 4, 8, 70, 150, 183, 188, 217, 257Broadsound, 102, 150, 186Broken Hill, 139, 177Brookton, 158, 190, 192Broome, 158, 190, 191

266


Broomehill, 158, 190, 192Broomehill–Tambellup, 158Bruce Rock, 158, 189, 191Bulloo, 8, 150, 183, 188Buloke, 146, 181, 183Bunbury, 158, 189, 193Bundaberg, 150, 184, 188Bungil, 150, 184, 188Burdekin, 150, 185, 187Burke, 150, 183, 187Burnett, 150, 185, 187Burnie, 168, 197Burnside, 165, 194, 196Burwood, 139, 176, 180, 207Busselton, 158, 190, 193Byron, 139, 177, 179

CCabonne, 139, 178, 179, 206Caboolture, 150, 184, 188Cairns, 150, 184, 188Calliope, 150, 185, 187Caloundra, 150, 184, 188Cambooya, 151, 186, 187Cambridge, 158, 189, 193Camden, 139, 177, 179Campaspe, 146, 181, 183Campelltown (NSW), 70, 139, 176, 179, 206Campelltown (SA), 165, 194, 196Canada Bay, 139, 176, 180, 207Canning, 158, 189, 193Canterbury, 139, 176, 179, 207Capel, 159, 189, 192Cardinia, 146, 181, 182Cardwell, 151, 185, 187Carnamah, 159, 189, 192Carnavon, 159, 190, 191Carpentaria, 151, 184, 188Carrathool, 139, 176, 180Casey, 146, 181, 182Cassowary Coast, 151Ceduna, 165, 194, 196Central Coast, 168, 197Central Darling, 139, 176, 180, 207, 257Central Desert, 170Central Goldfields, 92, 146, 181, 183Central Highlands (Qld), 151Central Highlands (Tas.), 169, 197Cessnock, 139, 177, 178Chapman Valley, 159, 191, 192Charles Sturt, 165, 194, 196Charters Towers, 151, 184, 187

Cherbourg, 151, 185, 187Chinchilla, 151, 186, 187Chittering, 159, 190, 192Circular Head, 169, 197Clare and Gilbert Valleys, 165, 195, 196Claremont, 159, 189, 193Clarence, 169, 197Clarence Valley, 139, 178, 256, 257Cleve, 165, 194, 196Clifton, 151, 186, 187Cloncurry, 151, 185, 187Cobar, 139, 176, 180Cockburn, 159, 189, 193Coffs Harbour, 139, 176, 179, 206, 207Colac–Otway, 146, 181, 182Collie, 159, 189, 191Conargo, 139, 176, 180, 257Coober Pedy, 165, 194, 196Cook, 151, 185, 187Coolamon, 139, 176, 180, 207Coolgardie, 159, 192, 193Cooloola, 151, 185, 187Coomalie, 170, 198, 199Cooma–Monaro, 139, 177, 178Coonamble, 139, 176, 180, 206Coorong, 165, 194, 195Coorow, 159, 190, 191Cootamundra, 139, 177, 178Copper Coast, 165, 195Corangamite, 146, 181, 182Corowa, 140, 177, 179Corrigin, 159, 190, 192Cottesloe, 159, 189, 193Cowal Creek, 153, 185, 187Cowra, 140, 177, 179Cox Peninsula, 170, 198, 199Cranbrook, 159, 190, 191Crow’s Nest, 151, 186, 187Croydon, 151, 183, 185Cuballing, 159, 190Cue, 159, 189, 193Cunderdin, 159, 190, 191

Daguragu, 170, 198Dalby, 151, 184, 187Dalrymple, 151, 184, 188Dalwallinu, 159, 190, 192Dandaragan, 159, 191Dardanup, 159, 190, 192Darebin, 146, 181, 182, 242Darwin, 170, 198, 200

267


Dauan Island, 151, 183, 185Deniliquin, 140, 177, 209, 257Denmark, 159, 191, 192Derby–West Kimberley, 160, 190, 192Derwent Valley, 169, 197Devonport, 8, 169, 197Diamantina, 151, 183, 188Docklands Authority, 91, 92, 93, 95, 204Donnybrook–Balingup, 160, 190, 191, 204Doomadgee, 151, 186Dorset, 169, 197Douglas, 151, 185, 187Dowerin, 160, 190, 192Duaringa, 151, 186Dubbo, 140, 178, 206Dumbleyung, 160, 189, 192Dundas, 160, 189, 191Dungog, 140, 178

Eacham, 152, 185, 186East Arnhem, 170East Fremantle, 160, 189, 192East Gippsland, 146, 181East Pilbara, 160, 190, 191Eidsvold, 152, 184, 188Elliott, 171, 198, 199Elliston, 165, 194, 195Emerald, 152, 185, 187Erub Island, 152, 184, 185Esk, 152, 186, 187Esperance, 160, 191, 192Etheridge, 152, 184, 188Eurobodalla, 140, 177, 178Exmouth, 160, 190

Fairfield, 140, 176, 179, 206Fitzroy, 152, 186, 187Flinders (Qld), 152, 184, 188Flinders (Tas.), 8, 169, 197Flinders Ranges, 165, 194, 196Forbes, 140, 177, 179, 204Franklin Harbour, 165, 194, 195Frankston, 146, 181, 182Fraser Coast, 152Fremantle, 160, 189, 192

Galiwinku, 171, 198, 199Gannawarra, 146, 181, 183Gapuwiyak, 171, 198, 199

Gatton, 152, 185, 187Gawler, 166, 194, 195Gayndah, 152, 186, 187George Town, 169, 197Geraldton–Greenough, 160, 190, 192Gerard, 111, 166, 194Gilgandra, 140, 176, 180, 206Gingin, 160, 190, 192Gladstone, 152, 184, 188Glamorgan-Spring Bay, 169, 197Glen Eira, 91, 146, 182, 183Glen Innes Severn, 140, 177, 178, 207Glenelg, 146, 181, 182, 242Glenorchy, 67, 169, 197, 245Gloucester, 140, 177, 178Gnowangerup, 160, 191, 192Gold Coast, 152, 183, 188Golden Plains, 146, 181, 182Goomalling, 160, 191, 192Goondiwindi, 152, 184, 186Gosford, 8, 140, 177, 179Gosnells, 160, 189, 193, 256Goulburn Mulwaree, 140, 178, 206Goyder, 166, 194, 196Grant, 166, 195, 196Great Lakes, 140, 178Greater Bendigo, 146, 182Greater Dandenong, 146, 181, 182Greater Geelong, 56, 146, 181, 182, 215Greater Hume, 140, 177, 179Greater Shepparton, 146, 182, 242Greater Taree, 140, 178Greenough, 204Griffith, 140, 178Gundagai, 140, 177, 179Gunnedah, 140, 177, 179, 207Guyra, 140, 177, 179, 207Gwydir, 141, 176, 180, 207Gympie, 152

Halls Creek, 160, 189, 191Hammond Island, 152, 184, 185Harden, 141, 176, 179Harvey, 160, 190, 192Hawkesbury, 141, 177, 179Hay, 141, 176, 180, 257Hepburn, 146, 181, 182Herberton, 152, 186Hervey Bay, 152, 183, 188Hinchinbrook, 152, 185, 187Hindmarsh, 146, 181, 183

268


Hobart, 169, 197Hobson’s Bay, 147, 181, 183Holdfast Bay, 166, 194, 196Holroyd, 141, 176, 179, 206Hopevale, 152, 186, 187Hornsby, 141, 177, 180, 207Horsham, 147, 181, 183Hume, 147, 181, 182Hunters Hill, 141, 177, 180, 206Huon Valley, 169, 197Hurstville, 141, 176, 180, 206

Iama Island, 153, 184, 185Ikuntji, 171, 198, 199Ilfracombe, 153, 183, 187Imanpa, 171, 198Indigo, 92, 147, 181, 183Inglewood, 153, 185, 187Injinoo (Cowal Ck), 153, 185, 187Inverell, 141, 177, 179, 207Ipswich, 153, 184, 188Irwin, 160, 191, 192Isaac, 153Isis, 153, 186, 187Isisiford, 153, 183, 188

Jabiru, 171, 198, 199Jericho, 153, 184, 188Jerilderie, 141, 176, 180Jerramungup, 160, 191, 193Jilkminggan, 171, 198, 199Johnstone, 102, 153, 185, 187Jondaryan, 153, 185, 187Joondalup, 161, 189, 193Junee, 141, 177, 179

Kalamunda, 161, 190, 192Kalgoorlie–Boulder, 161, 190, 192Kaltukatjara, 171, 198, 199Kangaroo Island, 166, 194, 195Karoonda–East Murray, 166, 193, 195Katanning, 161, 191Katherine, 171, 198, 199Kellerberrin, 161, 189, 192Kempsey, 141, 178Kent, 161, 190, 193Kentish, 169, 197Kiama, 141, 177, 179Kilcoy, 153, 186

Kilkivan, 153, 186, 187Kimba, 166, 194, 195King Island, 169, 197Kingaroy, 153, 186, 187Kingborough, 169, 197Kingston (SA), 91, 166, 194, 195Kingston (Vic.), 147, 181, 183Knox, 147, 181, 182Kogarah, 141, 176, 180, 206Kojonup, 161, 191, 192Kolan, 153, 186Kondinin, 161, 190, 193Koorda, 161, 189, 192Kowanyama, 153, 185, 187Ku-ring-gai, 141, 177, 180Kubin Island, 153, 184, 186Kulin, 161, 190, 193Kunbarllanjnja, 171, 199Kwinana, 161, 189, 193Kyogle, 141, 177, 178, 207

Lachlan, 141, 176, 180, 207Laidley, 153, 185, 187Lajamanu, 171, 198, 199Lake Grace, 161, 190, 193Lake Macquarie, 141, 177, 179Lane Cove, 141, 176, 180Latrobe (Tas.), 169, 197Latrobe (Vic.), 147, 181, 182Launceston, 169, 197Laverton, 161, 189, 193Le Hunte, 166, 193, 196Leeton, 141, 177, 179, 207Leichhardt, 141, 176, 180Leonora, 161, 191, 193Light, 166, 195, 196Lismore, 142, 177, 178Litchfield, 171, 198, 200Lithgow, 142, 178, 206Liverpool, 142, 177, 179, 206Liverpool Plains, 142, 177Livingstone, 153, 185, 188Lockhart, 142, 176, 179Lockhart River, 153, 185, 188Lockyer Valley, 154Loddon, 147, 181, 183Logan, 154, 183, 188Longreach, 154, 185, 187Lord Howe Island, 48, 142, 176, 180Lower Eyre Peninsula, 166, 195Loxton Waikerie, 166, 195Ltyentye Purte (Santa Teresa), 171, 199

269


Mabuiag Island, 154, 184, 185MacDonnell, 171Macedon Ranges, 147, 182Mackay, 154, 184, 188McKinlay, 154, 184, 188Maitland, 142, 177, 179Mallala, 166, 195, 196Mandurah, 161, 189, 193Maningrida, 171, 198, 199Manjimup, 161, 190, 191Manly, 142, 176, 180Manningham, 92, 147, 182, 183Mansfield, 92, 147, 181, 182Mapoon Aboriginal Council, 154, 184, 186Maralinga, 111, 166, 194, 195Mareeba, 102, 154, 186, 187Maribyrnong, 147, 181, 182Marion, 166, 194, 196Marngarr, 171, 198, 199Maroochy, 154, 184, 188Maroondah, 147, 181, 182Marrickville, 142, 176, 179, 207Maryborough, 102, 154, 183, 188Mataranka, 171, 198, 199McKinlay, 154, 184, 188Meander Valley, 169, 197Meekatharra, 161, 189, 193Melbourne, 91, 147, 181, 183Melton, 147, 181, 182Melville, 161, 189, 193Menzies, 161, 189, 193Mer Island, 154, 184, 185Merredin, 161, 191Mid Murray, 166, 194, 196Mid-Western, 142, 178, 206Mildura, 147, 181, 183Milingimbi, 171, 198Millmerran, 154, 186, 187Milyakburra, 204Mingenew, 162, 190, 191Minjilang, 171, 198, 199Mirani, 154, 186Miriam Vale, 154, 186, 188Mitcham, 166, 194, 196Mitchell, 147, 182Moira, 147, 181, 183Monash, 147, 182, 183Monto, 154, 185, 186Moonee Valley, 147, 181, 183Moora, 162, 191Moorabool, 147, 182

Morawa, 162, 189, 192Moree Plains, 142, 178, 179, 207Moreland, 92, 148, 181, 182Moreton Bay, 154Mornington Island, 68, 101, 134, 154, 185,

187, 220Mornington Peninsula, 148, 182, 183Mosman, 142, 176, 180Mosman Park, 162, 189, 192Mount Alexander, 148, 182Mount Barker, 166, 194, 195Mount Gambier, 166, 194, 195Mount Isa, 154, 183, 187Mt Liebig, 173, 198, 199Mount Magnet, 162, 189, 191Mount Marshall, 162, 189, 193Mount Morgan, 154, 186, 188Mount Remarkable, 167, 194, 196Moyne, 148, 181, 182Mukinbudin, 162, 189, 192Mullewa, 162, 191, 193Mundaring, 162, 190, 192Mundubbera, 154, 185, 188Murchison, 162, 189, 193Murgon, 155, 185, 186Murilla, 155, 185, 187Murray (NSW), 142, 177, 179, 257Murray (WA), 162, 190, 192Murray Bridge, 167, 195, 257Murrindindi, 92, 148, 181, 182Murrumbidgee, 142, 176, 180Murweh, 155, 185, 187Muswellbrook, 142, 178

Nambucca, 142, 177, 178, 207Nanango, 155, 186Nannup, 162, 190Napranum, 155, 184, 186Naracoorte Lucindale, 167, 195Narembeen, 162, 189, 192Narrabri, 142, 177, 179, 207Narrandera, 142, 176, 180Narrogin (Shire), 162, 190, 192Narrogin (Town), 162, 189, 191Narromine, 142, 177, 180, 206Naulyu Nambiyu, 171, 198, 199Nebo, 155, 185, 187Nedlands, 162, 189, 192Nepabunna, 111, 112, 135, 167, 194New Mapoon, 155, 185Newcastle, 142, 177, 179, 207

270


Ngaanyatjarraku, 68, 162, 189, 191Nganmarriyanga (Palumpa), 172, 198, 199Nillumbik, 148, 181, 183Noosa, 155, 184, 188North Burnett, 155North Sydney, 142, 176, 180Northam, 162, 190, 191, 204Northampton, 162, 191Northern Areas, 167, 195Northern Grampians, 148, 181, 183Northern Midlands, 169, 197Northern Peninsula Area, 57, 65, 155, 218,

220, 243Norwood, Payneham and St Peters, 167, 194,

196Ntaria, 172, 199, 200Numbulwar-Numburindi, 172, 198, 199Nungarin, 162, 189, 192Nyirranggulung Mardrulk, 172, 198, 199Nyirripi, 172, 199, 200

Oberon, 143, 177, 179, 206Onkaparinga, 167, 194, 195Orange, 143, 177, 178, 206Orroroo/Carrieton, 167, 193, 196Outback Areas Community Development Trust,

3, 7, 48, 106, 111, 167, 194, 196

Palerang, 143, 178, 206Palm Island, 155, 184, 187Palmerston, 172, 198, 200Palumpa, 172, 198, 199Papunya, 172, 198, 200Parkes, 143, 177, 179Paroo, 155, 184, 188Parramatta, 143, 176, 179Peak Downs, 155, 185, 187Penrith, 143, 177, 179, 206, 207Peppermint Grove, 162, 189, 193Peppimenarti, 172, 198Perenjori, 163, 189, 193Perry, 102, 155, 184, 188Perth, 163, 189, 192Peterborough, 167, 194, 196Pine Creek, 172, 198, 199Pine Rivers, 155, 184, 188Pingelly, 163, 190, 191Pittsworth, 155, 187, 188Pittwater, 143, 177, 180Plantagenet, 163, 191, 192

Playford, 167, 194, 195Pormpuraaw, 155, 185, 187Port Adelaide Enfield, 167, 194, 196Port Augusta, 167, 194Port Hedland, 163, 190, 191Port Lincoln, 167, 194, 195Port Macquarie–Hastings, 143, 177, 179Port Phillip, 91, 92, 148, 181, 183Port Pirie, 167, 194, 195Port Stephens, 143, 177, 179, 207Poruma Island, 155, 184Prospect, 167, 193, 196Pyrenees, 148, 181, 182

Quairading, 163, 189, 191Queanbeyan, 143, 176, 179Queenscliffe, 148, 182Quilpie, 155, 184, 188

Ramingining, 172, 198, 199Randwick, 143, 176, 180Ravensthorpe, 163, 190, 193Redcliffe, 155, 183, 188Redland, 156, 183, 188Renmark Paringa, 167, 195Richmond, 156, 184, 188Richmond Valley, 143, 178Robe, 167, 196Rockdale, 143, 176, 180, 206, 207Rockhampton, 156, 184, 188Rockingham, 163, 189, 193Roebourne, 163, 189, 191Roma, 156, 186Rosalie, 156, 186Roxby Downs, 167, 194, 196Ryde, 143, 176, 180, 207

Saibai Island, 156, 184Salisbury, 167, 193, 195Sandstone, 163, 189, 192Santa Teresa, 171, 199Sarina, 156, 185, 187Scenic Rim, 156Seisia Island, 156, 184, 185Serpentine–Jarrahdale, 163, 190, 192, 256Shark Bay, 163, 189, 191Shellharbour, 143, 177, 179, 207Shoalhaven, 143, 177, 179, 207Silverton Village, 48, 143, 176, 180

271


Singleton, 143, 178Snowy River, 143, 177, 179Somerset, 156Sorell, 169, 197South Burnett, 156South Gippsland, 92, 148, 181South Perth, 163, 189, 192Southern Downs, 156Southern Grampians, 148, 181, 182Southern Mallee, 168, 194, 195Southern Midlands, 169, 197St Paul’s Island, 156, 184Stanthorpe, 156, 186Stirling, 163, 189, 193Stonnington, 91, 148, 181, 183Strathbogie, 148, 181, 183Strathfield, 143, 176, 180, 207Streaky Bay, 168, 194, 195Subiaco, 163, 189, 193Sunshine Coast, 156Surf Coast, 148, 182Sutherland, 144, 176, 180, 206Swan, 163, 190, 192Swan Hill, 148, 181, 183Sydney, 144, 176, 180, 207

Tablelands, 156Tambellup, 163, 190Tambo, 156, 184Tammin, 163, 189, 192Tamworth, 144, 178, 207Tapatjatjaka, 172, 199Tara, 156, 185, 187Taroom, 156, 185, 187Tasman, 169, 197Tatiara, 168, 194, 195Tea Tree Gully, 168, 194, 196Temora, 144, 177, 179Tennant Creek, 172, 198, 199Tenterfield, 144, 176, 179, 207, 209Thamarrurr, 172, 198Three Springs, 163, 190Thuringowa, 156, 184, 188Tiaro, 156, 186Tibooburra Village, 48, 144, 176, 180Timber Creek, 172, 198, 199Tiwi Islands, 172, 198, 199Toodyay, 163, 190, 192Toowoomba, 157, 183, 188Torres, 157, 184, 185Torres Strait Island, 57, 65, 157, 218, 220, 243

Townsville, 157, 184, 188Towong, 148, 181, 182Trayning, 164, 189, 192Trust Account, 172, 199, 200Tumbarumba, 144, 177, 178Tumby Bay, 168, 195, 196Tumut, 144, 177, 178, 207Tweed, 144, 177, 179

Ugar Island, 157, 183, 185Umagico, 157, 184, 185Umbakumba, 172, 198, 199Unley, 168, 193, 196Upper Gascoyne, 164, 189, 193Upper Hunter, 144, 178Upper Lachlan, 144, 177, 179, 206Uralla, 144, 177, 179, 207Urana, 144, 176, 180Urapuntja, 172, 198, 200

Victor Harbor, 168, 194, 196Victoria Park, 164, 189, 193Victoria Plains, 164, 191Victoria–Daly, 172Vincent, 164, 189, 192

Wagait, 173Wagga Wagga, 144, 178Waggamba, 157, 185, 187Wagin, 164, 191Wakefield, 168, 195, 196Wakool, 144, 176, 179Walangeri–Ngumpinku, 173, 199Walcha, 144, 177, 179, 207Walgett, 144, 176, 179Walkerville, 168, 194, 196Wallace Rockhole, 173, 198, 199Walungurru, 173, 198, 199Wambo, 157, 186, 187Wandering, 164, 190, 192Wangaratta, 148, 182Wanneroo, 164, 189, 193Waratah–Wynyard, 170, 197Waroona, 164, 190, 191Warraber Island, 157, 184Warren, 144, 176, 179, 206Warringah, 144, 176, 180Warrnambool, 148, 181, 182Warroo, 157, 184, 187

272


Warrumbungle, 144, 176, 179, 206Warruwi, 173, 198Warwick, 157, 186, 187Watiyawanu (Mt Liebig), 173, 198, 199Wattle Range, 168, 195Waverley, 144, 176, 179Weddin, 145, 176, 180Wellington (NSW), 145, 177, 179, 206Wellington (Vic.), 148, 181, 182Wentworth, 145, 176, 180West Arthur, 164, 191, 192West Coast, 170, 197West Tamar, 170, 197West Torrens, 168, 194, 196West Wimmera, 149, 181, 183Westonia, 164, 189, 192Whitehorse, 92, 149, 182, 183Whitsunday, 58, 157, 184, 188Whittlesea, 149, 181, 182Whyalla, 168, 194Wickepin, 164, 189, 192Williams, 164, 192Willoughby, 145, 176, 180Wiluna, 8, 164, 189, 193Wingecarribee, 145, 177, 179, 207Winton, 157, 184, 188Wodonga, 92, 149, 181, 182Wollondilly, 145, 177, 179, 206Wollongong, 145, 177, 179Wondai, 157, 186, 187Wongan–Ballidu, 164, 190, 192Woocoo, 157, 186Woodanilling, 164, 189, 192Woollahra, 145, 176, 180Woorabinda, 157, 186, 187Wudinna, 168Wujal Wujal, 157, 185, 186Wyalkatchem, 164, 189, 192Wyndham, 149, 181, 182Wyndham–East Kimberley, 164, 190Wyong, 145, 177, 179

Yalata, 111, 112, 135, 168, 194Yalgoo, 164, 189, 193Yankalilla, 168, 195Yarra, 91, 149, 181, 183, 242Yarra Ranges, 149, 181, 182Yarrabah, 157, 184, 187Yarriambiack, 92, 149, 181, 183Yass Valley, 145, 178Yilgarn, 164, 191, 193

Yirrkala/Dhanbul, 173, 198, 199York, 164, 190, 191Yorke Island, 157, 184Yorke Peninsula, 168, 195, 196Young, 145, 178Yuelamu, 173, 198, 199Yuendumu, 173, 198, 199Yugul Mangi, 173, 198

273


General index

Aboriginal Advisory Council, 65, 243Aboriginal Advisory Group, 242Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division

(SA), 244Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, 242Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural

Centre, 247, 249Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Kinship and

Foster Care Service, 247Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Service

Plan 2006–2009, 248Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services

Unit, 247Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s

Gathering, 67, 247Aboriginal Archaeological Collections Audit, 249Aboriginal communities, see Indigenous

communitiesAboriginal Community Partnership Projects, 249Aboriginal Consultative Committee, 242Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plans,

242Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic.), 242Aboriginal Justice Agreement, 248Aboriginal Justice Centre, 68, 248Aboriginal Lands Trust, 66Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, 245Aboriginal Mentoring program, 240Aboriginal midwifery access program, 68Aboriginal Partnership Plan, 242Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders

principle, 35, 44, 69, 134–135Aboriginal Trust Act 1966 (SA), 66Access Economics, 51accounting manual, 225ACLG, see Australian Classification of Local

Governmentsacquittal of grants, 45ACT, see Australian Capital TerritoryACTION buses, 249actual grant entitlement 2006-07, 27–28actual grant entitlement 2007-08, 26–32,

138–173changes from 2006-07, Victoria, 92

airports, 207Albanese, Hon. Anthony, 256

274


alcohol rehabilitation services, 68, 247ALGA, see Australian Local Government

Associationallocation of grants, see grantsamalgamations, see structural reformAnangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands,

66, 244annual reports, ix

see also reportingArchaeological GIS Analysis, 249area, 5–6, 7, 138–173

Indigenous councils, 250–253artists: Indigenous, 249asset management, 49–53

Australian Capital Territory, 236–239New South Wales, 53, 208Northern Territory, 234plans, 52, 56, 60Queensland, 53, 58, 221–22South Australia, 53, 59, 60, 226–228Tasmania, 60training programs, 52, 56, 58–59, 212Victoria, 56–57, 212, 214Western Australia, 58–59, 226see also roads

Asset Management Improvement program, 58, 226

Asset Management Performance Measure Project, 212

Asset Management Planning for New South Wales Local Government, position paper, 208

asset preservation model, 93–94, 102, 104, 118–120, 124, 130

assets and liabilities, 20–21Auditor-General and Public Accounts Committee

(Qld), 243Auditor-General’s Office (Vic.), 57AusIndustry, 225Auslink, 18Australian Capital Territory, 11, 24, 37, 61, 123,

235–239classification (type): ACLG, 201general purpose grants, 27–29, 31–32Indigenous community, 67–68, 246–249road network, 27–29, 31–32, 235–237specific purpose payments, 18United Ngunnawal Elders Council, 67

Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre, 247, 249

Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Kinship and Foster Care

Service, 247Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander Service Plan 2006–2009, 248

Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services Unit, 247

Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Gathering, 67, 247

Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal Archaeological Collections Audit, 249

Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal Community Partnership Projects, 249

Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plans, 242

Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal Justice Agreement, 248

Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal Justice Centre, 68

Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal midwifery access program, 68

Australian Capital Territory Bushfire Operational Plan, 238

Australian Capital Territory Children and Young People Bill, 67, 247

Australian Capital Territory Community Partnership Agreements, 248

Australian Capital Territory Community Support and Infrastructure Grants program, 247

Australian Capital Territory Conservation Volunteers Australia, 238

Australian Capital Territory Corporate Geographic Database, 249

Australian Capital Territory Cultural Heritage Training for Representative Aboriginal Organisations, 249

Australian Capital Territory Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services, 67

Australian Capital Territory Department of Health, 247

Australian Capital Territory Department of Justice and Community Safety, 68, 248

Australian Capital Territory Department of Territory and Municipal Services, 235–239, 248

Australian Capital Territory Environment and Recreation Network, 238

Australian Capital Territory financial assistance grants, 31–32

entitlement, calculation of, 27–29Australian Capital Territory Heritage Grants

275


Program, 249Australian Capital Territory Heritage Guidelines,

248Australian Capital Territory Heritage Unit,

Environment Protection and Heritage, 248, 249

Australian Capital Territory Indigenous Consumer Guide, 248

Australian Capital Territory Indigenous Family Support program, 247

Australian Capital Territory Indigenous Network pilot Indigenous Traineeship program, 246

Australian Capital Territory Indigenous Sport Program, 249

Australian Capital Territory Indigenous Supported Accommodation Service, 247

Australian Capital Territory Library and Information Services, 249

Australian Capital Territory Materials Recovery Facility education centre, 239

Australian Capital Territory National Indigenous Consumer Strategy Implementation Reference Group, 248

Australian Capital Territory A New Way: The ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Family Wellbeing Plan 2006-2011, 68

Australian Capital Territory Ngambra Circle Sentencing Court, 248

Australian Capital Territory NOWaste, 239Australian Capital Territory Parks, Conservation

and Lands, 238–239, 248Australian Capital Territory Raw Material

Sourcing Study, 249Australian Capital Territory ‘Recycle Michael

Campaign’, 239Australian Capital Territory Resource

Management Centre, 239Australian Capital Territory road network, 31–

32, 235–237asset management plan, 61grant entitlement, calculation of, 27–29

Australian Capital Territory Roads ACT, 235–237Australian Capital Territory Roads ACT Asset

Management Plan 2004–2007, 236Australian Capital Territory Roads ACT Asset

Management Plan 2008–11, 236Australian Capital Territory Second Hand

Sunday, 239Australian Capital Territory Social Isolation

Research Project, 67, 247

Australian Capital Territory Taskforce on

Indigenous Affairs, 246

Australian Capital Territory Territory and

Municipal Services, 248, 249

Australian Capital Territory Urban Forest

Renewal program, 238

Australian Capital Territory Waste Reduction

Program, 239

Australian Capital Territory Women’s Grants

Programs, 67

Australian Capital Territory Women’s Register,

67

Australian Capital Territory Women’s Return to

Work Grants, 67

Australian Capital Territory Youth Homelessness

Action Plan, 247

Australian Capital Territory Youth Services

program, 247

Australian Capital Territory Youth Supported

Accommodation and Assistance

program, 247

Australian Capital Tourism, 248

Australian Classification of Local Governments

(ACLG), 201–204

average grant by, 41–43

Australian Directions in Indigenous Education

2005-2008, 248

Australian Government funding, see grants

Australian Local Government Association

(ALGA), 10, 11, 50, 65, 241

National Financial Sustainability Study of

Local Government, 50

Australian Transport Council, 11

average grants, 40–42

ratio for non-minimum grant councils to

minimum grant councils, 43

revenue per unit, Victoria, 89

awards and recognition, 239

National Awards for Local Government,

70–71, 226, 254–258

276


Backroom to the Boardroom initiative, 58balanced budget model, 126–127Bartlett, Hon. David, 229Bathurst, Dubbo and Orange Councils Strategic

Alliance, 206benchmarking, see performance measuresBennie, John, 256Bert Hinkler Hall of Aviation, 18best practice, 225Best Value Commission (Vic.), 210–211Best Value Principles network, 211Better Local Governance, 210bilateral agreements, 60

with Australian Government, 234, 246Blackburn Lake Sanctuary, 18Boat Harbour Beach, 18Bridge Committee, 105bridges, 105, 124, 130, 132Builder’s Registration Act (WA), 223Building Act (WA), 223building and development approvals, 223, 225Building Commission Act (WA), 223Bushfire Operational Plan, 238bushfires, 238Business Expansion and Retention program,

216

call centres, 229Campbelltown Intergenerational Aboriginal

Project, 70–71capacity building, 219–220Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association, 245capital cities, see classification of bodiescapping policies, 45, 91Captivate – participation for all project, 224cars, see motor vehiclesCentral Tablelands Strategic Alliance, 206Central West Catchment Authority, 206Central West Salinity and Water Quality Alliance,

206Cerebral Palsy Association (WA), 224child health services, 224Children and Young People Bill (ACT), 67, 247children’s services, 18Christmas Island Shire, 38–39Cities for Climate Protection campaign, 256Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Vic.), 210Clarence Floodplain Project – Reviving

Floodplain Watercourses and Wetlands, 256

Clarence Valley Youth Summer Events Program, 258

classification of bodies, 3, 8, 38–39, 201–204average grants, 41–43on relative needs basis, 174–200see also Indigenous councils; minimum

grant councilsclimate change, 61, 206, 226, 230, 256COAG, see Council of Australian GovernmentsCobb Highway, 257Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire, 38–39code of conduct, 210Coffs Coast Waste Service, 207Collaboration and Partnerships between

Councils: A Guidance Paper, 206collaborative arrangements, see resource

sharingCommonwealth funding, see grantsCommonwealth Grants Commission, 24, 120,

1342001 review of Act, 44, 112

communications, see information and communications technology

community development, 66, 244, 257–258Indigenous, 70–71, 257

Community Development Employment Project, 66, 244

Community Governance Improvement Strategy, 65, 220, 243–244

community information services, 229Community Partnership Agreements, 248community satisfaction surveys, 212–214, 228,

238community services, 223–224Community Strategic Plan, 207Community Support and Infrastructure Grants

program, 247Comparative Information on New South Wales

Local Government Councils, 208comparative performance, see performance

measurescompetition policy, 212, 231competitive neutrality, 231complaints, 231computing, see information and

communications technologyconferences, workshops and other forums,

39–40, 55, 64, 215, 216Australian Capital Territory, 238–239New South Wales, 206, 240, 241Victoria, 216Western Australia, 222, 226

277

General index

see also training programsConservation Volunteers Australia, 238consumer guides: for Indigenous people, 248consumer price index (CPI), 25, 30contracts, see purchasingCooks River Foreshore Working Party Group,

207cooperation, see resource sharingCopping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority,

230Corporate Geographic Database, 249Corporate Planners Network, 211Council of Australian Governments (COAG), 10,

11, 65, 212, 216, 231, 241trials, 242

councillors, 241, 242code of conduct, 210training programs for, 244see also employees

Councils Reforming Business initiative, 56, 211, 214, 215

CPI, 25, 30Cradle Coast Authority, 230Crime and Misconduct Commission (Qld), 244criminal justice system, 68, 248cultural heritage, see heritage managementCultural Heritage Training for Representative

Aboriginal Organisations, 249

Darebin Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Council, 242

databasesAustralian Capital Territory, 238, 249New South Wales, 207, 240Northern Territory, 235South Australia, 228Victoria, 212

declared local governing bodies, 3, 38, 66Indigenous councils, 68–69

Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services, 247

Department of Education and Training, 248Department of Families, Community Services

and Indigenous Affairs, 234Department of Families, Housing, Community

Services and Indigenous Affairs, 70, 246

Department of Human Services, 242Department of Infrastructure, Transport,

Regional Development and Local Government, 256

Leading Practice Seminars, 254Department of Local Government (NSW), 55,

64, 205–210, 240Diploma of Local Government Administration,

58direct assessment model, 126–128Disability Access and Inclusion Plans, 224disability services, 18, 224Disability Services Act 1993 (WA), 224Disability Services Commission (WA), 224Disabled Sports Association (WA), 224disaster management, 92, 216, 225distribution of grants, see grantsdomestic garbage and recycling services, 239droughts, 238, 257drug rehabilitation services, 68Dulverton Regional Waste Management

Authority, 230

e-planning, 214, 215–216EasyBiz, 56, 215education programs, see training programsEdwards, Hon. Rhys, 229efficiency and performance, 48–61, 205–239Effort Neutrality principle, 34elections

ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body, 67

electoral services, 216, 229, 244Queensland, 8, 218

electricity, see energyeligibility criteria, 38–39

local government grants commissions, 38emergency management, 216, 225Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA), 225Emergency Management Service (WA), 225Emergency Response (NT), 234employees, 3–4, 5

training and development, 220, 226, 243–244; asset management courses, 52, 56, 58–90, 60, 212

unfunded superannuation liability and other entitlements, 21

employment programs, 61Indigenous, 249

energy, 224, 228–229Engaging With Local Aboriginal Communities: A

Resource Kit For Local Government in New South Wales, 64, 241

Environment and Recreation Network, 238environment protection, 256

278


see also water and sewerageenvironmental health officers, 61, 233equalisation, see horizontal equalisationequalisation ratio method of factoring back,

136escalation (final/estimated) factor, 25–30estimated grant entitlement, 30

2007-08, 26, 27–28, 322008-09, 26, 28–29, 138–200

Excellence, National Awards for, 256executive officer workshops, 39–40expenditure, 14–17

assessments, 129–130, 132–133New South Wales, 15–17Northern Territory, 15–17Queensland, 15–17roads, 129–130South Australia, 15–17Tasmania, 15–17Victoria, 15–17; average (per unit), 87Western Australia, 15–17

factoring back, 135A Fairer Victoria statement, 211, 243families, 247Federal Housing Affordability Fund, 216final (escalation) factor, 25–30finance, 11–21

see also expenditure; grants; purchasing; resource sharing; revenue raising

financial managementNew South Wales, 53Northern Territory, 234Queensland, 53, 58, 243–244South Australia, 53, 59Tasmania, 60Victoria, 56Western Australia, 59, 226

Financial Management Group, 59, 60financial planning and reporting

frameworks, 52–53New South Wales, 208Queensland, 221–222South Australia, 226–228Western Australia, 225

financial sustainability, 49–53definition, 53frameworks, 52–53New South Wales, 51, 208Queensland, 219–220, 243–244South Australia, 51, 59–60, 226–228

Tasmania, 61, 230Victoria, 51, 57Western Australia, 51, 222–223

Fire and Emergency Services Authority, 225First Home Owner Boost, 230floodplains, 256Forest Renewal program, 238forums, see conferences, workshops and other

forumsfoster care, 247fringe bodies, see classification of bodiesfunctions, 2–3

expenditure by, 14–17grant funding, 17–20

funding, see finance; grantsFuture of Local Government Summit, 215

general purpose grants, see grantsGeorges River Combined Councils Committee,

206Goulburn Mulwaree, Palerang and Upper

Lachlan Councils Strategic Alliance, 206

governance, 2–21Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands,

244see also finance; legislation

Government Prices Oversight Act 1995 (Tas.), 231, 232

Government Prices Oversight Amendment Act 2007 (Tas.), 231

Government Prices Oversight Commission (Tas.), 231

Government Prices Oversight Regulations 1998 (Tas.), 231

Government Waste Reduction Program, 239grant distribution method

Queensland road network, 99–100grants, 24–45, 137–200

distribution methods, 35–40, 44, 77–123Indigenous councils, 68–69, 250–253mainstream councils in relation to

Indigenous population, 69–70National Principle, 75–76as revenue source, 12, 13, 14, 17specific purpose payments, 17–18see also minimum grant councils; National

Principles; road grantsGrants Commission Act 1976 (Vic.), 37grants commissions, 37–38, 39–40, 44–45,

69–70, 77–123, 228, 235

279

General index

see also Commonwealth Grants CommissionGreen Power, 60, 228–229greenhouse gases, 61, 256

Hawker (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration) Inquiry, 53, 74

Health Act 1911 (WA), 224health officers, 61Heritage Grants Program, 249Heritage Guidelines, 248heritage management, 242

Indigenous, 248Heritage Unit, Environment Protection and

Heritage (ACT), 248, 249horizontal equalisation, 34, 36, 126–128

impact of capping policies, 45House of Representatives, 75House of Representatives Standing Committee

on Economics, Finance and Public Administration (Hawker Inquiry), 53, 74

household garbage and recycling services, 239housing, 14, 56, 97, 210, 211, 216, 245

Indigenous, 246Housing Affordability Fund, 216

ICT Committee, 215identified local road grants, see road grantsIdentified Road Component: national principle,

36Inala Indigenous community, 70Indian Ocean Territories, 38Indigenous communities, 64–71, 241–243,

243–244, 244–245, 246–249Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait

Islanders principle, 44, 69, 134–135

access roads servicing, WA, 104–105emergency management, 225National Awards for Local Government:

Leading Practice Seminars, 257wellbeing and quality of life, 70–71

Indigenous Community Volunteers, 244Indigenous Consumer Guide, 248Indigenous councils (local governing bodies), 3,

68–69, 244–245, 250–253Northern Territory, 69, 135, 245–246,

251–253Queensland, 69, 101, 134–135, 243–244,

250–251

South Australia, 69, 111–112, 135, 251Western Australia, 69, 135, 251

Indigenous cultural heritage, 70–71, 242, 248, 249, 257

Indigenous Family Support program, 247Indigenous Network pilot Indigenous

Traineeship program, 246Indigenous planning internship program, 242Indigenous Roads Committee, 104Indigenous Sport Program, 249Indigenous Supported Accommodation Service,

247inflation (CPI), 25, 30information and communications technology,

234, 249e-planning, 215–216grants commission Internet addresses, 40see also Internet

Information and Communications Technology Committee, 215

information services, 229infrastructure, 49–53

Australian Capital Territory, 235–239Queensland, 58South Australia, 59, 60Tasmania, 60Victoria, 56, 57see also asset management; financial

sustainability; roads; water and sewerage

Infrastructure and Asset Management Plans, 228

Innovation, National Awards for, 257–258Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia,

52, 58, 60, 226, 228interest income, 12, 13Intergenerational Aboriginal Project, 70–71intergovernmental agreement, 53, 55, 211, 221

National Water Initiative, 232inter-governmental structures, 10International Infrastructure Management

Manual, 52, 60Internet, 40intervention (NT), 234

Jeff Roorda & Associates, 60Jervis Bay Territory, 39joint payroll service, 207The Journey: Sustainability into the Future, 222

280


Kaurna Native Title Application, 245Key Performance Indicator Committee, 230Kimberley, 66, 244

Land and Housing Industry Reference Group, 223

land rates, see rateslandfill, 239Latrobe University, 242Leading Practice Seminar Series, 254–258legislation, 2, 8, 53

Australian Capital Territory, 67, 247establishing grants commissions, 37New South Wales, 37, 208, 240Northern Territory, 37, 233, 234Queensland, 37, 57, 218South Australia, 37, 59, 60, 66, 111, 226,

228Tasmania, 37, 230, 231Victoria, 37, 55, 65, 210, 242Western Australia, 37, 223, 224, 225see also Local Government (Financial

Assistance) Act 1995LGANT Road Trust (NT), 48liabilities, 20–21Libraries and Information Funding Agreement,

229library services, 56, 215, 223, 229

Indigenous, 249literacy and numeracy, 68, 248local governance, see governanceLocal Government – working hard for

Australians, 255Local Government Aboriginal Network, 240

Conference, 64Local Government Act 1934 (SA), 226–227,

228Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), 37, 64,

208, 240Local Government Act 1993 (Qld), 37, 57, 218,

243Local Government Act 1993 (Tas.), 230, 231Local Government Act 1999 (SA), 59, 60Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act

1986, 24Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act

1995, 2, 24annual report requirements, ixCommonwealth Grants Commission review

(2001), 44, 112

definition of ‘local governing bodies’, 3, 38escalation factor determinations, 25grants commission requirements, 37–38

Local Government Advisory Board, 66, 244Local Government and Planning Joint

Committee, 10Local Government and Planning Ministers’

Council, 10, 60agreement on nationally consistent

frameworks, 52–53, 221Local Government and Planning Ministers’

Council (SA), 227Local Government and Shires Associations, 80,

206, 207, 241Local Government Asset Initiative, 58Local Government Association of Queensland,

58, 244Local Government Association of South

Australia, 59, 228, 229, 244, 245, 256and financial sustainability, 226, 227and native title, 66and planning, 60

Local Government Association of Tasmania, 60Local Government Association of Western

Australia, 59, 222–226Local Government Board, 230Local Government Comparative Information

Reports, 221Local Government Corporate Services, 60, 229Local Government Council (Tas.), 61, 229–230Local Government Division, Department of

Premier and Cabinet (Tas.), 229–232Local Government Finance Authority, 229Local Government Financial Management

Group, 59, 60, 227Local Government Grants Act 1978 (WA), 37Local Government Grants Commission Act

1992 (SA), 36, 66, 244Local Government Grants Commission Act

1995 (NT), 37local government grants commissions, 37–38,

39–40, 44–45, 69–70, 77–123, 228, 235

Local Government Improvement Incentive Program, 212

Local Government in New South Wales: Issues and Information for Aboriginal Communities, 64, 241

Local Government in Victoria report, 212–213Local Government Inclusion Toolkit and Training

Package, 224Local Government Joint Officers Group, 10

281

General index

Local Government Managers Australia, 11, 256NSW Division, 206, 207, 241WA Division, 58, 225, 226

Local Government Profile Reports, 221Local Government Reform Commission, 217Local Government Reform Program, 54–55,

205Local Government Victoria, Department for

Victorian Communities, 210–212local governments receiving grants: numbers of,

48–49local Indigenous networks, 65, 241, 243local roads, see roadsLong Paddock Cobb Highway Touring Route,

257Lunn Report, 223

Main Roads WA, 105Maritime NSW, 206Materials Recovery Facility education centre,

239Measuring Council Performance in Tasmania,

230Meeting Challenges, Making Choices, 220memoranda of understanding, 224, 240mentoring programs, 240mergers, see structural reformMerit, National Award for, 258methods of distribution, 34–40, 44–45,

77–123Microsoft, 56, 229midwifery access program, 68, 247minimum grant councils, 136

New South Wales, 43–44Northern Territory, 43–44, 122Queensland, 43–44, 102South Australia, 43–44symbol indicating in Appendix D, 173Tasmania, 43–44Victoria, 43–44, 91Western Australia, 43–44

Minimum Grant principle, 35, 36Minister for Local Government (NT), 245Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,

Training and Youth Affairs, 248ministerial councils, 10–11, 248

see also Council of Australian Governments (COAG); Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council

Morton Consulting Services, 111–112motor vehicles, 223

Moving Forward: Update – The Next Two Years 2008 to 2010, 242

Municipal Association of Victoria, 56, 57, 65, 210, 211, 214–216

funding to, 242and intergovernmental agreement, 55and Local Government Indigenous Network,

241municipal libraries, see library servicesmunicipal rates, see ratesMurraylands Community of Youth Services,

257–258music: Indigenous, 70My Father, My Brother—20 stories from

Campbelltown Aboriginal men, 71

NAMS Plus training, 52National Awards for Local Government, 70–71,

226, 254–258National Competition Policy, 212, 231National Competition Policy – Applying the

Principles to Local Government in Tasmania, 231

National Financial Sustainability Study of Local Government, 50

National Indigenous Consumer Strategy Implementation Reference Group, 248

National Principles, 34–36, 40, 44, 69, 74–76, 124–125

impact of capping policies, 45national representation, 11National Water Commission, 232National Water Initiative, 232National Water Initiative Implementation Plan,

232Nationally Consistent Frameworks for financial

and asset management, 52–53, 58, 60native title, 66, 242, 245Native Title Representative Body, 245Native Title Services, 245natural disaster management, 92, 102, 216,

225natural resource management, 256

urban land and parks, 238–239needs basis allocation, 174–200net debt, 20, 21net worth, 20, 21Network City, 223New England Strategic Alliance, 206, 210New Local Government (NT), 233–235New South Wales, 4, 7, 9, 205–210

282


area, 5asset management, 52, 208assets and liabilities, 21classification (type): ACLG, 41–42, 203, 204expenditure by purpose, 15–16financial assistance grants see New South

Wales financial assistance grantsfinancial planning, 298financial sustainability, 51, 54, 208Indigenous communities, 64, 70–71, 134,

240–241Local Government Reform Program, 54–55mandated financial and asset management,

53National Awards for Local Government,

70–71; Leading Practice Seminars, 256, 257, 258

number of local governments receiving grants, 49

population, 5publications, 64, 208, 241resource sharing, 205–207revenue sources, 12–14road grants see New South Wales road

networkroads see New South Wales road networkspecific purpose payments, 18specific purpose payments: from state

government, 19structural reform, 48–49training programs, 52water and sewerage, 80

New South Wales Aboriginal Mentoring program, 240

New South Wales Asset Management Planning for New South Wales Local Government, 208

New South Wales Campbelltown Intergenerational Aboriginal Project, 70–71

New South Wales Central Tablelands Strategic Alliance, 206

New South Wales Central West Catchment Authority, 206

New South Wales Central West Salinity and Water Quality Alliance, 206

New South Wales Clarence Floodplain Project – Reviving Floodplain Watercourses and Wetlands, 256

New South Wales Clarence Valley Youth Summer Events Program, 258

New South Wales Coffs Coast Waste Service,

207New South Wales Collaboration and

Partnerships between Councils: A Guidance Paper, 206

New South Wales Community Strategic Plan, 207

New South Wales Comparative Information on New South Wales Local Government Councils, 208

New South Wales Cooks River Foreshore Working Party Group, 207

New South Wales Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, 71

New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change, 206

New South Wales Department of Local Government, 55, 64, 205–210, 240

New South Wales Department of Planning, 207New South Wales Division Local Government

Managers Australia, 206, 207, 241New South Wales Engaging With Local

Aboriginal Communities: A Resource Kit For Local Government, 64, 241

New South Wales financial assistance grants, 31–32, 138–145

classification of bodies receiving: ACLG category, 41–42

distribution methods, 37–38, 77–82; status of methodology reviews, 44

entitlement, calculation of, 27–29minimum grant councils, 43–44relative needs ranking, 176–180

New South Wales Georges River Combined Councils Committee, 206

New South Wales Goulburn Mulwaree, Palerang and Upper Lachlan Councils Strategic Alliance, 206

New South Wales Grants Commission, 37, 39, 77

comparison with other grants commission models, 124–136

Internet address, 40methodology reviews, 44

New South Wales Intergenerational Aboriginal Project, 70–71

New South Wales Local Government Aboriginal Network, 240

Conference, 64New South Wales Local Government Act 1993,

37, 64, 208, 240New South Wales Local Government and Shires

Associations, 80, 206, 207, 241

283

General index

New South Wales Local Government in New South Wales: Issues and Information for Aboriginal Communities, 64, 241

New South Wales Local Government Reform Program, 54–55, 205–210

New South Wales Maritime, 206New South Wales My Father, My Brother—20

stories from Campbelltown Aboriginal men, 71

New South Wales New England Strategic Alliance, 206, 210

New South Wales Northern Regional Food Surveillance Group, 207

New South Wales Promoting Better Practice reviews, 209–210

New South Wales Promoting Diversity in Local Government project, 241

New South Wales RailCorp, 207New South Wales Regional Illegal Dumping

Squad, 206New South Wales Regional Organisations of

Councils, 55, 205, 206, 207New South Wales Road Maintenance Service

Level Agreement, 207New South Wales road network, 31–32

average grant per kilometre, 42grant distribution method, 82–86;

comparison with other grants commission models, 124–125; status of methodology reviews, 44

grant entitlement, calculation of, 27–29length, 5, 138–145relative needs ranking, 176–180

New South Wales Rous Water County Council, 206

New South Wales Social Plan, 64New South Wales Strategic Alliance Conference,

55, 206New South Wales Sydney Metropolitan

Catchment Management Authority, 207New South Wales Sydney Water, 207New South Wales Tell Me My Mother—20

stories from Campbelltown’s Aboriginal women, 71

New South Wales Two Ways Together, Partnerships: a new way of doing

business with Aboriginal people 2003–2012, 241

A New Way: The ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Family Wellbeing Plan

2006–2011, 68, 247

New Zealand, 10, 11, 215Newcastle Airport, 207Ngambra Circle Sentencing Court, 248No Waste Awards, 239Northern Regional Food Surveillance Group,

207Northern Territory, 4, 7, 9, 233–235

area, 6asset management, 52assets and liabilities, 21classification (type), 3classification (type): ACLG, 41–42, 203, 204expenditure by purpose, 15–16financial assistance grants see Northern

Territory financial assistance grantsIndigenous communities and councils, 67,

69, 135, 245–246, 251–253local government reform program, 61number of local governments receiving

grants, 49population, 6resource sharing, 61revenue sources, 12–14road grants see Northern Territory road

networkroads see Northern Territory road networkspecific purpose payments, 18specific purpose payments: from state

government, 19structural reform, 8, 48–49, 61, 233–234,

245–246training programs, 52, 233

Northern Territory Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, 235

Northern Territory Department of Local Government and Housing, 233–235

Northern Territory Emergency Response, 234Northern Territory financial assistance grants,

31–32, 170–173classification of bodies receiving: ACLG

category, 41–42distribution methods, 37–38, 120–123;

status of methodology reviews, 44entitlement, calculation of, 27–29minimum grant councils, 122relative needs ranking, 198–200

Northern Territory Grants Commission, 37, 120–123, 235


Internet address, 40

284


methodology reviews, 44Northern Territory intervention, 234Northern Territory Local Government Grants

Commission Act 1995, 37Northern Territory Minister for Local

Government, 245Northern Territory New Local Government,

233–235Northern Territory road network, 31–32

average grant per kilometre, 42grant distribution method, 123; comparison

with other grants commission models, 124–125; status of methodology reviews, 44

grant entitlement, calculation of, 27–29length, 6, 170–173; sealed and unsealed, 7relative needs ranking, 198–200

Northern Territory Roads Trust, 3, 4, 24NOWaste, 239NT, see Northern Territorynumeracy, 68, 248

Office for Ageing Research Project on Social Isolation, 67, 247

Office for State/Local Government Relations, 59, 226–229

Office of Climate Change, 226O’Neill, Barry, 256Other Grant Support principle, 35, 44, 133–

134Outstanding Achievement, National Award for,

256

parks management, 238–239, 248partnership agreements, see resource sharingper capita grants, 8, 9, 30, 138–200

average, 40–41Indigenous councils, 250–253from state government, 19

per capita rate revenue, 8, 9per kilometre local road grants, 138–200

average grant, 40, 42Indigenous councils, 250–253

performance and efficiency, 48–61, 205–239performance measures

Australian Capital Territory, 235–237New South Wales, 208–210Northern Territory, 235Queensland, 218–219, 221–222South Australia, 228

Tasmania, 230–231Victoria, 212–214; asset management, 212Western Australia, 225

planningAustralian Capital Territory, 236, 238New South Wales, 207–208; social, 64, 241Northern Territory, 233, 234South Australia, 226–228Victoria: Indigenous communities, 241–242Western Australia, 223see also financial planning and reporting

Planning Institute of Victoria, 242Planning Officials Group, 10Planning Permit Activity Report, 216population, 4–6, 40, 49, 138–200

escalation (final/estimated) factor determinations, 27–30

Indigenous councils, 250–253see also per capita grants

Premier’s Aboriginal Advisory Council (Vic.), 65, 243

Premier’s Local Government Council (Tas.), 61, 229–230

price oversight, 231, 232PricewaterhouseCoopers report, 50–52principles, 84–85

see also National Principlesprocurement, see purchasingProductivity Commission, 53–54, 59Promoting Better Practice reviews, 55, 209–

210Promoting Diversity in Local Government

project, 241property-rating project, 59property taxes/rates, 8, 9, 11–14, 225proportional method of factoring back, 136public health, 224, 233public libraries, see library servicesPublic Service Indigenous Network pilot

Indigenous Traineeship program, 246publications

Indigenous, 71, 249New South Wales, 64, 208, 241Queensland, 221South Australia, 226Victoria, 212–213

purchasingSouth Australia, 228–229Victoria, 214Western Australia, 225

285

General index

quantum of allocations, 33–34quantum of grant, 25–26

difference between estimated and actual entitlements, 30

Queensland, 4, 7, 9, 217–222area, 6asset management, 52, 58assets and liabilities, 21Backroom to the Boardroom initiative, 58classification (type): ACLG, 41–42, 203expenditure by purpose, 15–16financial assistance grants see Queensland

financial assistance grantsfinancial management, 58Indigenous communities, 65, 70, 243–244Indigenous councils, 69, 101, 134–135,

220, 243–244, 250–251Local Government Asset initiative, 58mandated financial and asset management,

53National Awards for Local Government, 70;

Leading Practice Seminars, 257number of local governments receiving

grants, 49population, 6relative needs ranking, 183–188resource sharing, 58revenue sources, 12–14road grants see Queensland road networkroads see Queensland road networkspecific purpose payments, 18specific purpose payments: from state

government, 19structural reform, 8, 48–49, 57, 217–218,

222training programs, 52, 58

Queensland Auditor-General and Public Accounts Committee, 243

Queensland Backroom to the Boardroom initiative, 58

Queensland Community Governance Improvement Strategy, 65, 220, 243–244

Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission, 244

Queensland Department of Education, Training and the Arts, 244

Queensland Department of Industrial Relations, 244

Queensland Department of Local Government, Sport and Recreation, 57, 65, 217–220, 219–220, 243

Queensland Department of Main Roads, 58

Queensland Diploma of Local Government Administration, 58

Queensland financial assistance grants, 31–32, 149–157



entitlement, calculation of, 27–29minimum grant councils, 43–44, 102relative needs ranking, 183–188

Queensland Grants Commission, 37, 95–102, 124–136


Queensland Inala Indigenous community, 70Queensland Indigenous Community Volunteers,

244Queensland Local Government Act 1993, 37,

57, 218, 243Queensland Local Government Asset initiative,

58Queensland Local Government Association, 58,

244Queensland Local Government Comparative

Information Reports, 221Queensland Local Government Grants

Commission, see Queensland Grants Commission

Queensland Local Government Profile Reports, 221

Queensland Local Government Reform Commission, 217

Queensland Meeting Challenges, Making Choices, 220

Queensland road network, 31–32average grant per kilometre, 42grant distribution method, 95, 99–100;


grant entitlement, calculation of, 27–29length, 6, 149–157; sealed and unsealed, 7relative needs ranking, 183–188

Queensland Roads Alliance, 58Queensland Stylin’ Up—the Brisbane City

Council 2026 Youth Visionary Project, 70, 257

Queensland Trust Councils, 68Queensland Whitsunday Regional Road Group,

58

286


RailCorp, 207railways, 223rates, 8, 11–14

Productivity Commission study, 53Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible

Local Government (Hawker Inquiry), 53, 74

Raw Material Sourcing Study, 249recognition, see awards and recognitionreconciliation, 65, 240, 241Reconnecting Perth, 223Recreation and Sport Network, 224‘Recycle Michael Campaign’, 239recycling, 239regional bodies, see classification of bodiesRegional Development Council, 11Regional Illegal Dumping Squad, 206Regional Indigenous Councils, 65, 243Regional Organisations of Councils, 55, 205,

206, 207regionalisation, 219–220Regulation Reduction Incentive Fund, 18, 225Relative Need principle, 44relative needs basis allocation, 174–200remote bodies, see classification of bodiesrenewal of infrastructure, 50–51reporting, ix

on Indigenous services, 64New South Wales, 207–208Queensland, 218–219see also financial planning and reporting

Resource Management Centre, 239resource sharing, 60, 61

New South Wales, 55, 205–207Northern Territory, 61, 233, 234Queensland, 58South Australia, 60, 227, 229Tasmania, 230, 245Victoria, 214–216Western Australia, 224, 226see also structural reform

revenue raising, 11–14assessments, 131–132Northern Territory, 233Productivity Commission study, 53–54Victoria, 90see also rates

Rich, John, 256road grants, 24–45, 138–200

assessing expenditure needs, 129–130average per kilometre, 40, 42

Indian Ocean Territories, 39Indigenous councils, 250–253National Principle, 36, 76

road grants distributions methods, 124–125New South Wales, 82–86Northern Territory, 123Queensland, 95, 99–100reviews, 44South Australia, 111–112Tasmania, 118–120Victoria, 93–95Western Australia, 104–105

Road Maintenance Service Level Agreement, 207

Road Management Act 2004 (Vic.), 55roads, length of, 5–7

New South Wales, 138–145Northern Territory, 170–173Queensland, 149–157sealed and unsealed, 7South Australia, 165–168Tasmania, 168–170Victoria, 145–149; changes from 2006-07 to

2007-08, 93Western Australia, 157–165

Roads ACT, 235–237Roads ACT Asset Management Plan 2004–

2007, 236Roads ACT Asset Management Plan 2008–11,

61, 236Roads Alliance (Queensland), 58Roads Trust, 3, 4role, see functionsROMAN, road asset management system, 226Rous Water County Council, 206Royal Automobile Association, 229rural bodies, see classification of bodies

SA, see South Australiasale of goods and services, 12, 13, 14satisfaction surveys, 212–214, 238Saunders, Ken, 242scope of equalisation, 128–129Second Hand Sunday, 239Secretary of the Department of Premier and

Cabinet (Tas.), 229seminars, see conferences, workshops and

other forumsservice delivery to Indigenous communities, 66sewerage, see water and sewerageShires Net, 234

287

General index

Significant Business Activities and Local Government in Tasmania, 231

Sisters Beach, 18size of bodies, see classification of bodies;

populationSocial Isolation Research Project, 67social justice initiatives, 240social planning, 64, 240–241, 243

see also community developmentsoftware, see information and communications

technologySoorley, Jim, 256South Australia, 4, 7, 9, 59, 215, 226–229

area, 6asset management, 52, 59, 60assets and liabilities, 21classification (type): ACLG, 41–42, 203expenditure by purpose, 15–16financial assistance grants see South

Australia financial assistance grantsfinancial sustainability, 51, 59–60, 226Indigenous communities and councils, 66,

69, 111–112, 135, 244–245, 251local governing bodies by type, 3local government reform program, 59–60mandated financial and asset management,

53National Awards for Local Government:

Leading Practice Seminars, 257–258

number of local governments receiving grants, 49

population, 6resource sharing, 60revenue sources, 12–14road grants see South Australia road

networkroads see South Australia road networkspecific purpose payments, 18; from state

government, 19structural reform, 48–49training programs, 52, 226

South Australia Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division, 244

South Australia Aboriginal Lands Trust, 66South Australia Aboriginal Legal Rights

Movement, 245South Australia Aboriginal Trust Act 1966, 66South Australia Comparative Performance

Measurement Project, 228South Australia financial assistance grants,

31–32, 165–168




South Australia Financial Management Group, 59, 60

South Australia Financial Sustainability Program, 59–60

South Australia Grants Commission, 37, 106–112, 228



South Australia Green Power, 60, 228–229South Australia Infrastructure and Asset

Management Plans, 228South Australia Kaurna Native Title Application,

245South Australia Libraries and Information

Funding Agreement, 229South Australia Local Government Act 1934,

226–227, 228South Australia Local Government Act 1999,

59, 60South Australia Local Government and Planning

Ministers’ Council, 227South Australia Local Government Association,

59, 228, 229, 244, 245, 256and financial sustainability, 226, 227and native title, 66and planning, 60

South Australia Local Government Corporate Services, 60, 229

South Australia Local Government Finance Authority, 229

South Australia Local Government Financial Management Group, 59, 60, 227

South Australia Local Government Grants Commission Act 1992, 37, 66, 244

South Australia Local Grants Commission, see South Australia Grants Commission

South Australia Murraylands Community of Youth Services, 257–258

South Australia Native Title Representative Body, 245

South Australia Native Title Services, 245South Australia Office for State/Local

Government Relations, 59, 226–229

288


South Australia road network, 31–32average grant per kilometre, 42grant distribution method, 111–112;


grant entitlement, calculation of, 27–29length, 6, 165–168relative needs ranking, 193–196supplementary funding, 26

South Australia Royal Automobile Association, 229

South Australia State Aquatic Centre, 18Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority, 230Southern Waste Strategy Authority, 230Special Premiers’ Conference 1990, 24specific purpose payments, 17–18speech pathology, 68, 247spending, see expendituresport and recreation, 224sport and sports coaching, 249sporting infrastructure, 18staff, see employeesState Grants Commission Act 1976 (Tas.), 37state grants commissions, 39–40, 44–45,

77–123State Library of Western Australia, 223state/local government agreement, see

intergovernmental agreementStep Program, 56, 212, 214Strategic Alliance Conference, 55, 206strategic alliances, 55, 205–207streets, see roadsStrengthening Indigenous Communities Award,

70–71Strengthening Tasmania, 18Stronger Councils, Better Services initiative, 61,

230structural reform, 48–49

Amalgamation Principle, 35, 40, 74–75, 76Northern Territory, 8, 61, 233–234, 245–

246Queensland, 8, 57, 217–218, 222Western Australia, 4

Stylin’ Up—the Brisbane City Council 2026 Youth Visionary Project, 70, 257

Swift library management system, 56, 215Switch Your Thinking! Program, 256Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management

Authority, 207Sydney Water, 207Systemic Sustainability Study, 222–223syt! brand, 256

Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs, 246Tasmania, 4, 9, 51, 229–232, 245

area, 6asset management, 52, 60assets and liabilities, 21classification (type): ACLG, 41–42, 203expenditure by purpose, 15–16financial assistance grants see Tasmania

financial assistance grantsfinancial management, 60financial sustainability, 61Indigenous communities, 66–67, 135local government reform program, 60–61number of local governments receiving

grants, 49population, 6revenue sources, 12–14road grants see Tasmania road networkroads see Tasmania road networkspecific purpose payments, 18; from state

government, 19structural reform, 48–49training programs, 52

Tasmania Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association, 245

Tasmania Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority, 230

Tasmania Cradle Coast Authority, 230Tasmania Department of Premier and Cabinet,

229–232Tasmania Department of Treasury and Finance,

230Tasmania Dulverton Regional Waste

Management Authority, 230Tasmania financial assistance grants, 31–32,

168–170classification of bodies receiving: ACLG

category, 41–42distribution methods, 37–38, 112–120;

status of methodology reviews, 44entitlement, calculation of, 27–29minimum grant councils, 43–44relative needs ranking, 197

Tasmania First Home Owner Boost, 230Tasmania Government Prices Oversight Act

1995, 231, 232Tasmania Government Prices Oversight

Amendment Act 2007, 231Tasmania Government Prices Oversight

Commission, 231

289

General index

Tasmania Government Prices Oversight Regulations 1998, 231

Tasmania Grants Commissioncomparison with other grants commission

models, 124–136Internet address, 40methodology reviews, 44

Tasmania Key Performance Indicator Committee, 230

Tasmania Local Government Act 1993, 230, 231

Tasmania Local Government Association, 60Tasmania Local Government Board, 230Tasmania Local Government Division,

Department of Premier and Cabinet, 229–232

Tasmania Measuring Council Performance in Tasmania, 230

Tasmania National Competition Policy – Applying the Principles to Local Government in Tasmania, 231

Tasmania National Water Initiative Implementation Plan, 232

Tasmania Premier’s Local Government Council, 61, 229–230

Tasmania road network, 31–32average grant per kilometre, 42grant distribution method, 118–120;


grant entitlement, calculation of, 27–29length, 6, 168–170relative needs ranking, 197

Tasmania Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, 229

Tasmania Significant Business Activities and Local Government in Tasmania, 231

Tasmania Southern Waste Strategy Authority, 230

Tasmania State Grants Commission, 37, 112–120


Tasmania State Grants Commission Act 1976, 37

Tasmania Stronger Councils, Better Services initiative, 61

Tasmania Urban Water and Wastewater Pricing Guidelines, 232

taxation revenue, 8, 9, 11–12see also rates

Tell Me My Mother—20 stories from Campbelltown’s Aboriginal women, 71

tenders, see purchasingTerritory and Municipal Services (TAMS), 248,

249Torres Strait Islander communities, see

Indigenous communitiestourism, 257traffic volume, 93training programs, 220

asset management, 52, 56, 58–59Australian Capital Territory, 246, 248environmental health officers, 61, 233financial and asset management, 52, 56,

58–59, 60New South Wales, 52Northern Territory, 52, 233Queensland, 52, 58, 243–244South Australia, 52, 226Tasmania, 52Victoria, 52, 56, 242; asset management,

212Western Australia, 52, 224see also conferences, workshops and other

forumstraining programs for Indigenous communities,

242Australian Capital Territory, 246New South Wales, 241

Transit Oriented Development program, 223transport, see roadstrees, 238Trust Councils, 68Two Ways Together, Partnerships: a new way of

doingbusiness with Aboriginal people 2003–

2012, 241

unincorporated areas, 7United Kingdom, 215United Ngunnawal Elders Council, 67, 247urban bodies, see classification of bodiesUrban Development Institute of Australia, 223Urban Forest Renewal program, 238urban planning, 223urban trees, 238Urban Water and Wastewater Pricing Guidelines,

232

290


Victoria, 4, 9, 210–216area, 5asset management, 52, 56–57, 212, 214assets and liabilities, 21classification (type): ACLG, 41–42, 203, 204expenditure by purpose, 15–16financial assistance grants see Victoria

financial assistance grantsfinancial management, 56financial sustainability, 51, 57Indigenous communities, 65, 134, 241–243infrastructure, 57local government reform program, 55–57number of local governments receiving

grants, 49population, 5revenue sources, 12–14road grants see Victoria road networkroads see Victoria road networkspecific purpose payments, 18specific purpose payments: from state

government, 19structural reform, 48–49training programs, 52, 56

Victoria Aboriginal Advisory Council, 65, 243Victoria Aboriginal Affairs, 242Victoria Aboriginal Consultative Committee, 242Victoria Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, 242Victoria Aboriginal Partnership Plan, 242Victoria Asset Management Performance

Measure Project, 212Victoria Auditor-General’s Office, 57Victoria Best Value Commission, 210–211Victoria Best Value Principles network, 211Victoria Better Local Governance, 210Victoria Business Expansion and Retention

program, 216Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 210Victoria Corporate Planners Network, 211Victoria Councils Reforming Business, 56Victoria Councils Reforming Business initiative,

211, 214, 215Victoria Darebin Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Community Council, 242Victoria Department of Planning and Community

Development, 243Victoria EasyBiz, 56, 215Victoria A Fairer Victoria statement, 211, 243Victoria financial assistance grants, 31–32,

145–149



entitlement, calculation of, 27–29; changes from 2006-07 to 2007-08, 92

minimum grant councils, 91relative needs ranking, 181–183

Victoria Future of Local Government Summit, 215

Victoria Grants Commission, 37, 86–95comparison with other grants commission

models, 124–136Internet address, 40methodology reviews, 44

Victoria Grants Commission Act 1976, 37Victoria Indigenous planning internship

program, 242Victoria Information and Communications

Technology Committee, 215Victoria Local Government Improvement

Incentive Program, 212Victoria Local Government in Victoria report,

212–213Victoria Local Government Indigenous Network,

65, 241Victoria Local Government Victoria, Department

for Victorian Communities, 210–212Victoria Local Indigenous Networks, 243Victoria Moving Forward: Update – The Next Two

Years 2008 to 2010, 242Victoria Municipal Association, 51, 56, 57, 65,

210, 211, 214–216funding to, 242and intergovernmental agreement, 55and Local Government Indigenous Network,

241Victoria Planning Institute, 242Victoria Planning Permit Activity Report, 216Victoria Premier’s Aboriginal Advisory Council,

65, 243Victoria Regional Indigenous Councils, 65, 243Victoria Road Management Act 2004, 55Victoria road network, 31–32

average grant per kilometre, 42grant distribution method, 93–95;


grant entitlement, calculation of, 27–29; changes from 2006-07 to 2007-08, 95

291

General index

length, 5, 145–149; changes from 2006-07 to 2007-08, 93

relative needs ranking, 181–183specific purpose payments, 18traffic volume, 93

Victoria State/Local Government Agreement, 55, 211–212

Victoria Step Asset Management Program, 56volunteers, 238, 244

WA, see Western Australiawaste management, 230, 239

see also water and sewerageWasteWise Schools Program, 239water and sewerage, 14, 18, 61

Australian Capital Territory, 238New South Wales, 80Tasmania, 231–232

websites, see Internetweed control, 238Weipa Structural Adjustment Package, 18wellbeing and quality of life: Indigenous people,

68, 70–71Wellington–Blayney–Cabonne Strategic

Alliance, 206Western Australia, 7, 9, 222–226

area, 6asset management, 52, 58–59assets and liabilities, 21classification (type): ACLG, 41–42, 203, 204Community Development Employment

Project, 66expenditure by purpose, 15–16financial assistance grants see Western

Australia financial assistance grantsfinancial management, 59financial sustainability, 51Indigenous communities and councils, 66,

69, 135, 244, 251; access roads servicing, 104–105

local government reform program, 58–59National Awards for Local Government:

Leading Practice Seminars, 256number of local governments receiving

grants, 49population, 6revenue sources, 12–14road grants see Western Australia road

networkroads see Western Australia road network

specific purpose payments, 18; from state government, 19

structural reform, 4training programs, 52, 224

Western Australia Asset Management Improvement program, 58, 226

Western Australia Bridge Committee, 105Western Australia Builder’s Registration Act,

223Western Australia Building Act, 223Western Australia Building Commission Act,

223Western Australia Captivate – participation for

all project, 224Western Australia Cerebral Palsy Association,

224Western Australia Cities for Climate Protection

campaign, 256Western Australia Community Development

Employment Project, 66, 244Western Australia Department for Planning and

Infrastructure, 223Western Australia Department of Health

and Local Government Partnerships Agreement – Public Health Act Roles and Responsibilities, 224

Western Australia Department of Local Government and Regional Development, 58, 224, 225, 226

Western Australia Department of Sport and Recreation, 224

Western Australia Disability Access and Inclusion Plans, 224

Western Australia Disability Services Act 1993, 224

Western Australia Disability Services Commission, 224

Western Australia Disabled Sports Association, 224

Western Australia Division Local Government Managers Australia, 58, 225, 226

Western Australia Emergency Management Act 2005, 225

Western Australia Emergency Management Service, 225

Western Australia financial assistance grants, 31–32, 157–165



292



Western Australia Fire and Emergency Services Authority, 225

Western Australia Grants Commission, 37, 39, 102–105



Western Australia Health Act 1911, 224Western Australia Indigenous Roads Committee,

104Western Australia The Journey: Sustainability

into the Future, 222Western Australia Land and Housing Industry

Reference Group, 223Western Australia Local Government Advisory

Board, 66, 244Western Australia Local Government

Association, 59, 222–226Western Australia Local Government Grants Act

1978, 37Western Australia Local Government Grants

Commission, see Western Australia Grants Commission

Western Australia Local Government Inclusion Toolkit and Training Package, 224

Western Australia Main Roads, 105Western Australia Network City, 223Western Australia No Waste Awards, 239Western Australia Office of Climate Change, 226Western Australia property-rating project, 59Western Australia Reconnecting Perth, 223Western Australia Recreation and Sport

Network, 224Western Australia road asset management

system, 226Western Australia road network, 31–32, 104–

105average grant per kilometre, 42grant entitlement, calculation of, 27–29length, 6, 157–165relative needs ranking, 189–193

Western Australia State Library, 223Western Australia Structural Reform Report,

223Western Australia Switch Your Thinking!

Program, 256wetlands, 256Whitsunday Regional Road Group, 58

Wollongong, 39Women’s Grants Programs, 67Women’s Register, 67, 247Women’s Return to Work Grants, 67, 247workers, see employeesworkshops, see conferences, workshops and

other forums

Yarra City Council Aboriginal Advisory Group, 242

young people, 257–258Indigenous, 67, 68, 247

You’re Welcome program, 224Youth Homelessness Action Plan, 247Youth Led Rescue, 257Youth Services program, 247Youth Supported Accommodation and

Assistance program services, 247

293

294

Documents

2007–08 - Regional · For 2007–08, the Australian Government provided $1.783 billion in financial assistance grants through state and territory governments to councils in support