2010– 11
L o c a l Go ve rnm e nt
N a ti o na l Re p o rt
2010–11 report on the operation of the
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995
2010 –11
Local Government National Report
2010 –11 report on the operation of the
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995
© Commonwealth of Australia 2013
ISSN 1441 5739
ISBN 0 9756884 8 0
October 2013 / INFRA1976
Ownership of intellectual property rights in this publication
Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is
owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to below as the Commonwealth).
Disclaimer
The material contained in this publication is made available on the understanding that the
Commonwealth is not providing professional advice, and that users exercise their own skill and care
with respect to its use, and seek independent advice if necessary.
The Commonwealth makes no representations or warranties as to the contents or accuracy of
the information contained in this publication. To the extent permitted by law, the Commonwealth
disclaims liability to any person or organisation in respect of anything done, or omitted to be done, in
reliance upon information contained in this publication.
Creative Commons licence
With the exception of (a) the Coat of Arms and (b) the Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development’s photos and graphics copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows
you to copy, communicate and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work to the
Commonwealth and abide by the other licence terms. A summary of the licence terms is available
from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available
from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode.
This publication should be attributed in the following way: © Commonwealth of Australia 2013
Use of the Coat of Arms
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet sets the terms under which the Coat of Arms is
used. Please refer to the Department’s Commonwealth Coat of Arms and Government Branding web
page http://www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines/index.cfm#brand and in particular, the Guidelines on the
use of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms publication.
Contact us
This publication is available in hard copy or PDF format. All other rights are reserved, including in
relation to any Departmental logos or trade marks which may exist. For enquiries regarding the licence
and any use of this publication, please contact:
Director - Publishing and Communications
Communications Branch
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
GPO Box 594, Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
Email: Website: [email protected]
www.infrastructure.gov.au
About the department
On 18 September 2013, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development assumed
administrative responsibility for the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (the Act). The
annual Local Government National Report is a requirement under this Act.
Letter of transmittal
iii
Contents
Preface
.....................................................................................................................................
Chapter 1
Local Government in Australia ..............................................................................
3
Local government functions ..................................................................................
4
Local government employees ..............................................................................
5
Population .................................................................................................................
5
Diversity ......................................................................................................................
6
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
1
National representation of local government ....................................................
8
Involvement in inter-governmental structures.....................................................
8
Local government finances ...................................................................................
10
Financial assistance grants to local government ...............................................
19
Overview of current arrangements ......................................................................
20
Determining the quantum of the grant ...............................................................
20
Determining entitlements for 2010–11 and 2011–12...........................................
21
Inter-jurisdictional distribution of grant ..................................................................
27
Quantum of financial assistance grant allocations ...........................................
29
National Principles for the allocation of grants under the
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 ..........................................
30
Determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions ..................................
30
Bodies eligible to receive financial assistance grants........................................
32
Methods of local government grants commissions ...........................................
33
Allocation of grants to local government in 2010–11 ........................................
34
Local governing bodies on the minimum grant .................................................
37
Reviews of grants commission methods ..............................................................
42
Impact of local government grants commission capping policies ................
43
Local government efficiency and performance...............................................
45
Long-term financial and asset management.....................................................
46
Comparative performance indicators ................................................................
51
Efficiency and effectiveness reforms ....................................................................
53
Local government amalgamations .....................................................................
55
Reporting requirements ..........................................................................................
59
v
Chapter 4
Appendix A
Appendix B
vi
Local government service provision to Indigenous communities ...................
59
Closing the gap........................................................................................................
60
State and local government initiatives ................................................................
63
Australian Government expenditure and progress ...........................................
66
National awards for local government ................................................................
68
National Principles for allocating general purpose and
local road grants ......................................................................................................
71
State and territory government and local government
association submissions ...........................................................................................
75
Report from the New South Wales Division of Local Government of the
Department of Premier and Cabinet ...................................................................
76
Report from Victorian Department of Planning and
Community Development .....................................................................................
92
Report from the Municipal Association of Victoria ............................................
107
Report from Queensland Department of Local Government
and Planning.............................................................................................................
116
Report from the Local Government Association of Queensland....................
129
Report from Western Australian Department of Local Government ..............
133
Report from the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission
and the Local Government Association..............................................................
140
Report from Tasmanian Department of Premier and Cabinet ........................
154
Report from Northern Territory Department of Local Government
and Housing ..............................................................................................................
156
Report from the Local Government Association of the
Northern Territory ......................................................................................................
163
Report from the Australian Capital Territory Department of Territory and
Municipal Services ...................................................................................................
165
Appendix C
Comparison of local government grants commission
distribution models ...................................................................................................
177
Appendix D
Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing
bodies in 2010–11 .....................................................................................................
193
Appendix E
Ranking of local governing bodies on a relative needs basis 2010–11 ..........
219
Appendix F
Australian classification of local governments....................................................
247
Bibliography ..............................................................................................................
251
Glossary......................................................................................................................
253
Abbreviations............................................................................................................
257
Index of local governments ...................................................................................
261
Alphabetical index ..................................................................................................
269
Tables and Figures
Table 1.1
Local government employment, by jurisdiction, 1998 and 2011......................
5
Table 1.2
Characteristics of selected councils, 2010–11.....................................................
7
Table 1.3
Share of taxation revenue, by sphere of government and source
of revenue, 2010–11..................................................................................................
10
Table 1.4
Local government revenue sources, by jurisdiction, 2010–11...........................
11
Table 1.5
Local government revenue source, by jurisdiction,
$ per capita, 2010–11...............................................................................................
12
Table 1.6
Grants from states and Northern Territory to local government,
by purpose, 2009–10.................................................................................................
14
Table 1.7
Local government expenditure, by purpose, by jurisdiction, 2010–11 ...........
15
Table 1.8
Local government assets and liabilities, 2010–11................................................
17
Table 2.1
Calculation of financial assistance grants actual entitlements and
adjustments for 2010–11...........................................................................................
23
Table 2.2
Calculation of financial assistance grants estimated entitlements and
actual cash paid for 2011–12..................................................................................
24
Table 2.3
2010–11 allocations of general purpose and local road grants among
jurisdictions.................................................................................................................
28
Table 2.4
2011–12 allocation of estimated grant entitlement among jurisdictions
and percentage change from 2010–11 actual grant allocation....................
28
Table 2.5
National financial assistance grant allocation, 1974–75 to 2011–12................
29
Table 2.6
Distribution of local governing bodies, by type and jurisdiction,
at 1 July 2011..............................................................................................................
32
Table 2.7
Average general purpose grant per capita to local governing bodies
by jurisdiction and classification, 2010–11.............................................................
35
Table 2.8
Average local road grant per kilometre to local governing bodies by
jurisdiction and classification, 2010–11..................................................................
36
Table 2.9
Local governing bodies on the minimum grant, by jurisdiction,
2001–02 to 2010–11 ..................................................................................................
38
Table 2.10
Status of most recent major methodology reviews, by state as
at 30 June 2011.........................................................................................................
42
Table 3.1
Funding agreed under Phase 1 of the Local Government
Reform Fund..............................................................................................................
47
Table 3.2
Number of local governments, by state, 1910–2011..........................................
55
Table 4.1
Distribution of Indigenous local governing bodies, by eligibility type and
jurisdiction, at July 2010............................................................................................
67
Table B.1
Average expenditures per unit for each expenditure function,
except local roads and bridges—Victoria...........................................................
93
Table B.2
Average grant revenue on a per unit basis, based on actual grants
received in 2009–10­—Victoria................................................................................
95
Table B.3
Derivation of average rates for each property class—Victoria........................
96
Table B.4
Standard fees and charges per unit—Victoria ...................................................
97
Table B.5
Changes in general purpose grant entitlements from
2009–10 to 2010–11­­—Victoria..................................................................................
98
vii
viii
Table B.6
Natural disaster assistance from general purpose grant pool
2010–11—Victoria......................................................................................................
99
Table B.7
Variations in local road length at 30 June 2009—Victoria.................................
100
Table B.8
Average annual costs used in allocating local road grants
for 2010–11—Victoria................................................................................................
100
Table B.9
Changes in estimated local road grant entitlements from
2009–10 to 2010–11—Victoria..................................................................................
102
Table B.10
Outline of expenditure assessment: 2010–11—Queensland.............................
119
Table B.11
Rural roads, standards and cost adjustors—Queensland..................................
120
Table B.12
Urban roads, standards and cost adjustors—Queensland................................
121
Table B.13
Local road funding allocations, 2010–11—Western Australia............................
135
Table B.14
Special projects funds for indigenous access roads, 2010–11
—Western Australia...................................................................................................
135
Table B.15
Special project funds for bridge works 2010–11—Western Australia................
136
Table B.16
Expenditure functions, standard cost and units of measure
—South Australia.......................................................................................................
144
Table B.17
Calculated standards, by function—South Australia.........................................
145
Table C.1
Distribution models used by grants commissions for general purpose grants for
2010–11 allocations...................................................................................................
179
Table C.2
The scope of equalisation in grants commissions’ models for
general purpose grants...........................................................................................
181
Table C.3
Grants treated by inclusion in general purpose grant allocations for 2010–11,
by jurisdiction.............................................................................................................
184
Table C.4
Features of local government grants commission models for allocating local
road grants, 2010–11................................................................................................
191
Table D.1
Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by
classification and population 2010–11 and 2011–12..........................................
194
Table E.1
New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant
funding 2010–11........................................................................................................
222
Table E.2
Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant
funding 2010–11........................................................................................................
228
Table E.3
Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant
funding 2010–11........................................................................................................
231
Table E.4
Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant
funding 2010–11........................................................................................................
234
Table E.5
South Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant
funding 2010–11........................................................................................................
240
Table E.6
Tasmanian councils ranked by financial assistance grant
funding 2010–11........................................................................................................
243
Table E.7
Northern Territory councils ranked by financial assistance grant
funding 2010–11 .......................................................................................................
245
Figure 4.1
Map of discrete Indigenous communities by usual population,
Australia 2006.............................................................................................................
60
Figure A.1
National Principles for allocating general purpose and local
road grants.................................................................................................................
72
Preface
The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth)(the Act) 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 Australian
Government’s goals in relation to the arrangements under the Act. They are:
• to increase the transparency and accountability of methodologies used in
allocating the Australian Government’s grants to local governing bodies
• to promote consistency in the methods by which grants are allocated to
achieve equitable levels of services by local governing bodies.
The report covers all local governing bodies that were in receipt of grants under the
Act in 2010 –11. It fosters transparency and accountability by enabling interstate and
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 territories and between local governing bodies within the states
and the Northern Territory.
Chapter 3 provides an overview of local government efficiency and performance.
It reports on infrastructure issues, primarily local roads and asset management issues that
affect the efficiency and effectiveness of local government performance. State and
territory reports on performance and reform are included in Appendix B.
Chapter 4 provides an overview of delivery of local government services to Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The financial assistance grants for 2010 –11 to the
31 identified Indigenous councils are identified in Appendix D.
Appendix A contains the National Principles for allocating the general purpose and
local road grants.
1
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Appendix B contains the submissions from state and territory governments and local
government associations. As required by the Act, the Minister must ensure that relevant
state and territory ministers and a body or bodies representative of local government are
consulted in connection with preparing the report. In calling for submissions, the state and
territory governments and local government associations were asked to provide input on:
• the methodology used for distributing local government financial assistance grants
for 2010 –11, in particular any changes in methodology from 2009–10 or details
previously reported regarding the status of the most recent methodology review and
the scope of equalisation of grants commission general purpose models
• any developments in relation to local government’s use of long-term financial and
asset management plans. In particular, any developments in implementing the Local
Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks
• any measures undertaken to develop and implement comparative performance
measures between local governing bodies
• any reforms undertaken during 2010 –11 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of local government service delivery
• any initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service delivery to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
Appendix C contains a comparison of the distribution models recommended by the state
and Northern Territory local government grants commissions.
Appendix D contains the grant outcomes for each local governing body in 2010 –11.
Appendix E shows the ranking of local governing bodies within each state and the
Northern Territory on a relative needs basis.
Appendix F contains the classification system used in Appendixes D and E to categorise
local governing bodies, including changes in local government classifications.
2
CHAPTER 1
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN AUSTRALIA
During 2010 –11, Australia had 566 local governing bodies eligible to receive funding under
the Australian Government’s financial assistance grants scheme. The Local Government
(Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) (the Act) provides the legislative basis for this
scheme. These 566 local governing bodies include 556 local governments and 10 declared
local governing bodies: five Indigenous local governing bodies and the Outback Areas
Community Development Trust in South Australia; the Trust Account in the Northern Territory;
and the Silverton and Tibooburra villages, and Lord Howe Island in New South Wales.
In addition to these local governing bodies, the Australian Capital Territory receives
funding through the financial assistance grants scheme. However, it is considered a special
case and not a local governing body, because it maintains both territorial and local
government functions.
The Act defines the term ‘local governing bodies’ in a way that includes local governments
established under state and Northern Territory legislation as well as ‘declared bodies’. The
term ‘council’ is regularly employed in this report to encompass all local governing bodies,
recognising its common use to denote ‘local government’.
Declared bodies are provided with financial assistance grants and are treated as local
governments for the purposes of grant allocations. However, declared bodies are not local
governments and have different legislative obligations. Due to this difference, data
provided in this report relating to local government may not be directly comparable to
that for local governing bodies. Neither can data relating to local government be directly
comparable to that for the Australian Capital Territory, as it performs both territorial and local
government functions.
Local government was created in the early 1840s to enable colonial governments to deliver
local services and allow local residents to contribute to their cost. The initial focus was on
property-based services, particularly building and maintaining local roads, which provided
the primary means of transportation. In 1840 the Adelaide Corporation was created,
followed in July 1842 by incorporation of the City of Sydney and in August 1842 by the Town
of Melbourne.
At the time of Federation in 1901 the states gave up to the Commonwealth power over
certain matters they agreed would be better administered at the national level. These
3
2010–11 Local Government National Report
powers included defence, immigration, foreign affairs, customs and excise duties, trade
and commerce, and taxation. Since Federation, more powers have been transferred to the
federal government or shared between the states and the federal government.
The taxing power passed to the federal government, has generated regular consultations on
the distribution of revenue and other matters between the federal and state governments.
Councils and conferences of ministers frequently convene to cover areas like agriculture,
education, housing, employment, minerals and energy, transport and legal matters.
While the structure, powers and responsibilities of the federal and state governments were
established during Federation, local government was not one of the areas identified as
a Commonwealth responsibility; it is a state and Northern Territory responsibility. The states
and the Northern Territory pass the legal and regulatory framework for the creation and
operations of local government.
As a consequence there are often significant differences between the state systems for
overseeing councils. The Australian Government has recognised that the national interest is
served through improving local governments’ capacity to deliver services to all Australians,
while also enhancing the performance and efficiency of the sector. The Act is an important
means used to achieve these goals.
Local government functions
Local government systems differ from state to state, but the main roles of local government
are governance, planning, community development, service delivery, asset management
and regulation.
Local governments are close to their communities and have a unique insight into local and
community needs. Councils determine service provision according to local needs and the
requirements of state/territory local government legislation. Examples of local government
functions and services include:
• engineering (public works design, construction and maintenance of roads, bridges,
footpaths, drainage, cleaning, waste collection and management)
• planning and development approval
• building (inspection, licensing, certification and enforcement)
• administration (of aerodromes, quarries, cemeteries, parking stations and
street parking)
• recreation (golf courses, swimming pools, sports courts, recreation centres, halls,
kiosks, camping grounds and caravan parks)
• health (water sampling, food sampling, immunisation, toilets, noise control, meat
inspection and animal control)
• community services (child care, elderly care and accommodation, refuge facilities,
meals on wheels, counselling and welfare)
• cultural/educational (libraries, art galleries and museums)
• water and sewerage (in some states)
• other (abattoirs, sale-yards, markets and group purchasing schemes).
4
Chapter 1 • Local Government in Australia
Local government employees
In June 2011 there were 1 896 100 public sector employees. There were 251 400 employees
in Commonwealth government, 1 449 200 in state government and 195 500 in local
government (Table 1.1). Local government’s revenue of $33.5 billion (Table 1.4) accounted
for about 2.7 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product.
Table 1.1: Local government employment, by jurisdiction, 1998 and 2011
Jurisdiction
Employees
Aug 1998
‘000a
Population
Sept 1998
’000b
Population
served per
employee
Sept 1998
Employees
June 2011
’000a
Population
June 2011
’000b
Population
served per
employee
June 2011
NSW
44.6
6 358.1
142.6
62.1
7 303.7
117.6
Vic.
31.1
4 648.9
149.5
53.1
5 624.1
105.9
Qld
36.5
3 460.4
94.8
42.0
4 580.7
109.1
WA
13.3
1 830.8
137.7
20.9
2 346.4
112.3
SA
8.1
1 491.0
184.1
10.9
1 657.0
152.0
Tas.
3.6
4 71.9
131.1
#
4.0
510.6
127.7
NT
2.6
190.6
73.3
2.5
230.2
92.1
139.9
18 764.6#
132.3*
195.5
22 620.6#
115.7*
National
Notes:
*
#
State data may not add to national due to inclusion of external territories and rounding.
These figures are the national ratio of population per local government employee, not totals or
averages of state figures.
Estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution.
Sources:
a
ABS, Wage and Salary Earners, Public Sector, Australia, cat. no. 6248.0; ABS, Employment and Earnings,
Public Sector, Australia, 2010 –11, cat. no. 6248.0.55.002.
b
ABS, Australian Demographic Statistics, cat no. 3101.0.
Population
The population of Australia at 30 June 2011 was 22 620 600 persons. This was an increase of
320 800 persons since 30 June 2010 and 74 200 persons since 31 March 2011.
Australia’s population grew by 1.4% during the year ended 30 June 2011. All states and
territories experienced positive population growth for the year ended 30 June 2011.
Western Australia recorded the fastest growth (2.4%) while the Northern Territory recorded
the slowest (0.4%).
Australia’s population density as at June 2011 was 2.9 people per square kilometre (sq km).
Among the states and territories, the Australian Capital Territory had the highest population
density at 160 people per sq km, followed by Victoria with 25, New South Wales with 9.1 and
Tasmania with 7.5. The remaining states and territories all had population densities below the
Australian figure, with the Northern Territory having the lowest at just 0.2 people per sq km.
(ABS, Regional Population Growth, Australia 2011, cat. no. 3218.0).
Table 1.2 shows the 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 60 572, but half of them have a population of less than 4 913.
5
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Diversity
Considerable diversity can exist both within and between jurisdictions. This extends beyond
rural-metropolitan differences. In addition to size and population, other significant differences
between local governing bodies include:
• attitudes and aspirations of local communities
• fiscal position (including wide disparity in revenue-raising capacity), resources and
skills base
• legislative frameworks within which councils operate, including voting rights and
electoral systems
• physical, economic social and cultural environments of local government areas
• range and scale of functions.
Indigenous councils, for example, have been established under different legislative
frameworks. They can be established under the mainstream local government legislation
of a jurisdiction, through distinct legislation, or they can be ‘declared’ to be local governing
bodies by the Australian Government Minister for Local Government on advice from a
state minister.
The variation in population size between an urban fringe council (such as Gosford City
Council in New South Wales with 166 626 people) and a rural remote council such as
Wiluna Shire Council in Western Australia with 755 people) can be seen in Table 1.2.
This table provides a snapshot of a small selection of councils’ physical and financial
diversity in 2010 –11.
The population density of councils can also vary significantly. Marrickville in New South Wales,
for example, has an area of 16 square kilometres and a population density of 4 892 residents
per square kilometre, compared with Coomalie, a rural remote council in the Northern
Territory, with an area of 1 512 square kilometres and a population density of 0.86 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 755 and a area of 184 000 square
kilometres. Wiluna Council received over $2 400 per capita in 2010 –11 (Table 1.2).
Per capita grant versus per capita rate income also varies significantly. The grant per
capita for Flinders ($1 270.61) is more than 40 times that of the grant per capita for Burnside
($29.14). Conversely, rate income per capita for Wiluna Council ($2 499) is over 7 times that
of Gosford City Council ($347). Appendix D lists all local governing bodies, the area they
cover, their population, their local road length and details of the financial assistance grants
they receive.
6
UFL
RAS
URS
URM
RAS
RAL
UFV
RAM
UDL
UFS
RTS
VIC
NT
TAS
VIC
TAS
NSW
NSW
SA
NSW
NT
WA
Cardinia
Coomalie
Devonport
East Gippsland
Flinders
Forbes
Gosford
Goyder
Wagait
Wiluna
755
335
78 271
4 285
166 626
9 744
897
43 615
25 518
1 306
68 641
184 000
6
16
6 688
940
4 720
1 994
20 931
111
1 512
1 281
554
27
1 350
560
sq km
Source: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Marrickville
RSG
WA
Capel
12 687
44 300
UDM
SA
Burnside
1 052 458
UCC
QLD
Brisbane
no.
58 153
Classificationa
UFM
WA
State
Armadale
Council name
Population
Council
area
Table 1.2: Characteristics of selected councils, 2010 –11
0.004
55.83
4 892
0.64
177.26
2.06
0.45
2.08
229.89
0.86
53.58
22.60
1640.74
779.60
103.84
sq km
Density
no. of
residents
1 943
13
190
3247
947
1649
385
2881
249
164
1389
477
233
5560
584
km
Total road
length
1 886
170.00
36 069
3 214
57 829
5 589
911.00
31 805
17 387
482.00
37 844
5 204
24 722
592 994
27 985
$’000
Rate
income
2498.67
507.37
460.82
749.99
347.06
573.56
1 015.18
729.22
681.35
369.05
551.33
410.17
558.06
563.44
481.23
$
Rate
income
per capita
1 076 931
9 028
2 673 096
2 315 617
6 773 311
2 735 005
587 838
8 768 431
850 693
26 403
6 011 004
862 519
862 833
20 630 528
2 247 741
$
742 473
51 309
521 618
600 620
1 913 798
1 558 987
551 899
4 104 061
1 092 200
377 495
2 309 762
574 859
427 977
13 231 113
1 031 096
$
General
purpose Local road
1 819 404
60 337
3 194 714
2 916 237
8 687 109
4 293 992
1 139 737
12 872 492
1 942 893
403 898
8 320 766
1 437 378
1 290 810
33 861 641
3 278 837
$
Total
2010 –11 Actual Entitlement
2 409.81
180.11
40.82
680.57
52.14
440.68
1 270.61
295.14
76.14
309.26
121.22
113.30
29.14
32.17
56.38
$
Total grant
per capita
Chapter 1 • Local Government in Australia
7
2010–11 Local Government National Report
National representation of local government
A number of national groups represent the interests of local government and professionals
working in the local government sector, including the Local Government Managers Australia
(LGMA), the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) and the Australian Council of
Local Government.
Local Government Managers Australia
LGMA is a professional association of local government managers throughout Australia
and the Asia–Pacific. LGMA is committed to developing and improving local government
management, maintaining high professional and ethical standards, and ensuring its
members are at the forefront of change and innovation.
Australian Local Government Association
ALGA is a federation of state and Northern Territory local government associations and the
Australian Capital Territory Government. ALGA aims to add value, at the national level,
to the work of state and territory associations and their member councils. It represents
the interests of local government through its participation in the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) and ministerial councils where there is a clear local government
interest, including the Regional Development Council and the Australian Transport Council.
Australian Council of Local Government
The Australian Council of Local Government has been established to engage local
government directly with the Australian Government. It provides a forum for the Australian
Government and local government to consider policies and initiatives in areas of mutual
interest and promotes collaboration between the Australian Government and local
government, as well as between local governments themselves.
Involvement in inter-governmental structures
Council of Australian Governments
COAG is the peak inter governmental forum in Australia, comprising the Prime Minister, state
premiers, territory chief ministers and the ALGA president. It was established in May 1992.
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.
COAG meets to debate and co-ordinate government activities between federal, state and
territorial governments, this includes issues affecting local government. Ministerial councils
and forums facilitate consultation and cooperation between federal, state and territory
ministers sharing common responsibilities.
COAG establishes inter governmental agreements that signify the commitment of
jurisdictions to implement its decisions. In many instances, these agreements are the
precursor to the passage of legislation at the Commonwealth, state and/or territory levels.
8
Chapter 1 • Local Government in Australia
On 29 November 2008, against the background of the unfolding global financial
crisis, COAG agreed to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations
(the Agreement).
The Agreement commenced on 1 January 2009 and involved rationalising the number of
payments made to state and local governments, while increasing the overall payments. It
provided clearer specification of the roles and responsibilities of each sphere of government,
so the appropriate sphere became accountable to the community. The Agreement also
provided incentives for reform through National Partnership reform payments, and more
transparent reporting of outcomes to drive better service delivery.
The Agreement provided a foundation for the economic and social reforms needed to
boost productivity and workforce participation. It also facilitated delivery of economic
stimulus through a short-term expansion in state and local government service delivery
programs, particularly in the schools, infrastructure and housing sectors. This was
accompanied by a major rationalisation of the number of payments to the states for specific
purpose payments (SPPs), reducing the number of such payments from over 90 to five.
Central to these reforms is a substantial financial package that provides $7.1 billion in
SPP funding to the states over five years to improve services for all Australians.
Commonwealth-state financial relations were placed on a secure footing with the
creation of five new national SPPs, including total funding of:
• $60.5 billion in a National Healthcare SPP
• $18 billion in a National Schools SPP
• $6.7 billion in a National Skills and Workforce Development SPP
• $5.3 billion in a National Disability Services SPP
• $6.2 billion in a National Affordable Housing SPP.
Each SPP is associated with a National Agreement that contains the objectives, outcomes,
outputs and performance indicators, and clarifies the roles and responsibilities that will guide
the Commonwealth and states in the delivery of services across the relevant sectors.
COAG agreed to six new national agreements, the National Healthcare Agreement,
National Education Agreement, National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development,
National Disability Agreement, National Affordable Housing Agreement, and National
Indigenous Reform Agreement. The new federal framework is the culmination of extensive
joint work by all levels of government. It provides a solid foundation for COAG to pursue
economic and social reforms to underpin growth, prosperity and social cohesion.
Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council
In response to reforms to the Ministerial Council system agreed to by COAG on 20 April 2010,
all Ministerial Councils lost their remit on 30 June 2011. Some councils, including the Local
Government and Planning Ministers’ Council (LGPMC), were wound up.
The LGPMC has some residual work, including annual reporting commitments. It is expected
these activities will be referred to other bodies in due course. Further advice will be posted on
their web site as it becomes available.
9
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Local government finances
Share of taxation revenue by sphere of government
Local government’s taxation revenue increased 7.0 per cent from $11.6 billion in
2009–10 to $12.4 billion in 2010 –11 (Table 1.4). Local government’s taxation revenue amounts
to 3.5 per cent of all taxes raised across all spheres of government in Australia (Table 1.3).
Taxes on property are the sole source of taxation revenue for local governments; refer to
ABS, Taxation Revenue, Australia, 2010 –11 cat. no. 5506.0 for further information.
Table 1.3: Share of taxation revenue, by sphere of government and source of revenue, 2010 –11
Federal
State
Local
Total
Revenue source
%
%
%
%
Taxes on income
57.3
-
-
57.3
0.1
5.1
-
5.0
-
5.8
3.5
9.3
22.9
2.9
-
25.7
0.2
2.5
-
2.7
80.5
16.2
3.5
100
Employers payroll taxes
Taxes on property
Taxes on provision of goods and services
Taxes on use of goods and performance activities
Total
Notes: Figures may not add to totals due to inclusion of external territories and rounding;
– nil or rounded to zero.
Source: ABS, Taxation Revenue, Australia, 2010 –11, Total Taxation Revenue, cat. no. 5506.0.
10
Chapter 1 • Local Government in Australia
Local government revenue sources
Overall, councils raise about 90 per cent of their own revenue, with grants and subsidies only
making up about 10 per cent (Table 1.4). Individual councils have differing abilities to raise
revenue, which may not be apparent when considering national or even state average.
The differences between urban, rural and remote councils, their population size, rating base
and ability to levy user charges, all affect their ability to raise revenue.
Table 1.4: Local government revenue sources, by jurisdiction, 2010 –11
Revenue source
Taxation
Grants and
subsidies
Sales of goods
and services
Interest
Other
Total
$m
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
3 317
3 410
2 792
1 420
1 086
298
86
Total
12 409
%
33.1
42.7
30.3
42.3
57.4
50.0
20.2
37.0
$m
1 129
801
615
385
226
106
115
3 376
%
11.3
10.0
6.7
11.5
12.0
17.8
27.1
10.1
$m
3 229
1 363
2 585
773
296
122
98
8 466
%
32.2
17.1
28.0
23.0
15.7
20.5
23.1
25.3
$m
350
129
520
130
29
23
11
1 192
%
3.5
1.6
5.6
3.9
1.5
3.9
2.6
3.6
$m
2 000
2 285
2 710
648
255
47
115
8 060
%
20.0
28.6
29.4
19.3
13.5
7.9
27.1
24.1
$m
10 025
7 988
9 221
3 356
1 891
596
425
33 503
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to inclusion of external territories and rounding.
Source: ABS, Government Finance Statistics, Australia, 2010 –11, cat. no. 5512.0.
Local government revenue—taxes
Local government raises taxes through rates on property. In 2010 –11, 37.0 per cent of local
government revenue came from rates nationally. The proportion of revenue from rates
varied notably between jurisdictions, from a high of 57.4 per cent for South Australia to a low
of 20.2 per cent for the Northern Territory (Table 1.4).
The variation of revenue per capita across states for all revenue sources is shown in
Table 1.5. While South Australian councils levy the highest rates per capita, they raise the
lowest revenue per capita for all other revenue sources. As a result, South Australian councils
collect the lowest total revenue per capita overall.
11
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Table 1.5: Local government revenue source, by jurisdiction, $ per capita, 2010 –11
Revenue source
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT Average
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Taxation
464.97
626.48
631.42
632.50
668.89
592.10
393.35
572.81
Grants and subsidies
158.26
147.16
139.08
171.49
139.20
210.61
525.99
213.11
Sales of goods and services
452.63
250.41
584.61
344.31
182.31
242.40
448.24
357.84
Interest
Other
Total
49.06
23.70
117.60
57.90
17.86
45.70
50.31
51.73
280.35
419.79
612.87
288.63
157.06
93.39
525.99
339.73
1 405.27
1 467.54
2 085.36
1 494.84
1 164.70
1 184.20
1 943.88
1 535.11
Notes: Figures may not add to totals due to inclusion of external territories and rounding.
Sources: ABS, Government Finance Statistics, cat. no. 5512.0; ABS, Australian Demographic Statistics,
cat.no. 3101.0.
Rates in each state and the Northern Territory are based on a valuation of the land upon
which they are charged. However, methods for assessing land value differ significantly
between states. New South Wales have state-wide requirements that rates are based
on the unimproved value of the land, In Victoria and South Australia, different valuation
assessments are used depending on the type or primary use of the land.
Local government revenue—other non-grant revenue sources
Local government received on average 25.3 per cent of its revenue in 2010 –11 from the
sale of goods and services (Table 1.4).
Councils in the Northern Territory are more reliant on government grants and subsidies
than are councils in other jurisdictions as they raised only 72.9 per cent of their own revenue.
For the remaining states, the proportion of revenue raised from own sources ranged from
82.3 per cent for Tasmanian councils to 93.3 per cent for Queensland councils (Table 1.4).
Local government revenue—Australian Government grants
The Australian Government supports local government through financial assistance grants,
specific purpose payments and direct program funding.
In 2010 –11, the Australian Government provided $2.09 billion in local government financial
assistance grants to local governing bodies and the Australian Capital Territory. The means
of distributing financial assistance grants is discussed in Chapter 2. The allocation of financial
assistance grants is at Appendix D.
The Commonwealth provides payments to the states for specific purposes to enable
the pursuit of important national policy objectives in areas that may be administered by
the states (see page 9). These payments cover most functional areas of state and local
government activity—including health, education, skills and workforce development,
community services, housing, indigenous reform, infrastructure and environment.
12
Chapter 1 • Local Government in Australia
Under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations, the Australian
Government continues to provide ongoing financial support to local government through:
• National Specific Purpose Payments to be spent in key service delivery sectors
• National Partnership payments to support delivery of specified outputs or projects,
to facilitate reforms or to reward those jurisdictions that deliver on nationally
significant reforms.
• General revenue assistance, consisting of GST payments and other general
revenue assistance.
The National SPPs are distributed among the states in accordance with population
shares based on the Australian Statistician’s determination of state population shares as at
31 December of that year. An equal per capita distribution of the National SPPs ensures that
all Australians, regardless of the jurisdiction they live in, are provided with the same share of
Commonwealth funding support for state service delivery.
Total payments to the states for specific purposes constitute a significant proportion of
Commonwealth expenditure. In 2010 –11, payments totalled $47.4 billion (Budget Paper
No.3. Part 2, 2011–12), down from $53.3 billion in 2009‑10 (Budget Paper No.3, Part 2,
2010 –11), a decrease of $5.9 billion.
Local government revenue—state and Northern Territory grants
During 2010 –11, the states and the Northern Territory offered a variety of grants to local
government for specific purposes and services, reflecting the different functions required
of local governing bodies. In total the states and the Northern Territory provided $3.05 billion
to local government out of their own funds (Table 1.6). On a per capita basis, state grants
varied considerably from $67.98 per capita in South Australia to $441.35 per capita in the
Northern Territory.
Caution should be exercised when using the figures shown in Table 1.6 as state grants may
increase or decrease from time to time.
13
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Table 1.6: Grants from states and Northern Territory to local government, by purpose, 2009–10
Jurisdiction
a
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Total
$m
$m
$m
$m
$m
$m
$m
$m
Agriculture, forestry, fishing
and hunting
–
1
–
–
1
–
–
2
Education
4
40
2
–
–
–
–
46
Purpose
Fuel and energy
General public services
Health
Housing and community amenity
NSW
Vic.
–
–
–
–
3
–
34
25
52
27
2
3
32
175
3
2
11
4
3
1
1
1
23
19
13
47
635
148
68
319
21
Mining, manufacturing
and construction
-
–
11
–
–
–
2
13
Public order and safety
47
4
13
18
1
–
3
86
Recreation and culture
63
166
69
65
27
8
8
406
Social security and welfare
Transport and communications
Other economic affairs
Other purposes
Total
85
409
25
38
21
2
3
583
429
282
407
189
70
43
18
1 438
4
14
27
36
4
1
6
92
573
355
271
137
105
36
2
1479
1 390
1 372
1 199
536
253
107
122
4 979
Less Australian Government financial assistance grantsb
General purpose grants
443
336
272
138
101
31
14
1 335
Local road grants
175
124
113
92
28
32
14
578
–
–
–
–
15
–
–
15
772
912
814
306
109
44
94
3 051
110.54
171.63
194.82
140.94
67.98
88.44
Supplementary local road funding
Net state grants
Net state grants per capita
441.35 143.18
Notes: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. Data for Victoria include commonwealth grants, as
the Victorian Grants Commission source data do not differentiate between commonwealth and state
government grants revenue.
Sources: ABS unpublished data; Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development;
ABS, Australian Demographic Statistics, Table 4 Estimated Resident Population, States and
Territories, cat. No. 3101.0.
14
Chapter 1 • Local Government in Australia
Local government expenditure
Local government expenditure is dominated by transport and communication (22.6%)
followed by housing and community amenities (22.0%) and general public services (19.1%)
(Table 1.7).
Table 1.7: Local government expenditure, by purpose, by jurisdiction, 2010 –11
Jurisdiction
Expenditure
Agriculture, forestry
and fishing
Education
Fuel and energy
General public services
Health
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Total
$m
1
5
14
–
9
–
–
29
%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.5
–
–
0.1
$m
54
78
6
3
–
–
3
144
%
0.6
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.5
$m
–
–
6
–
8
–
1
15
%
– – 0.1
– 0.5
– 0.2
0.1
$m
1 663
861
2 194
374
253
101
166
5 611
%
18.3
13.2
27.4
12.9
14.4
16.7
37.0
19.1
$m
89
84
52
49
43
12
3
332
%
1.0
1.3
0.7
1.7
2.5
2.0
0.7
1.1
Housing and community
amenities
$m
2 349
1 412
1 590
508
379
126
86
6 451
%
25.8
21.6
19.9
17.6
21.6
20.9
19.2
22.0
Mining, manufacturing
and construction
$m
196
–
101
29
29
–
–
356
%
2.2
– 1.3
1.0
1.7
–
–
1.2
$m
291
336
166
88
67
31
38
1 016
%
3.2
5.1
2.1
3.0
3.8
5.1
8.5
3.5
$m
213
48
249
28
35
4
1
578
%
2.3
0.7
3.1
1.0
2.0
0.7
0.2
2.0
$m
308
143
162
103
32
6
17
769
Other economic affairs
Public debt transactions
Public order and safety
Recreation and culture
Social security and welfare
Transport and
communications
Other
Total
%
3.4
2.2
2.0
3.6
1.8
1.0
3.8
2.6
$m
1 179
1 165
881
659
326
100
49
4 359
%
13.0
17.8
11.0
22.8
18.6
16.6
10.9
14.9
$m
343
998
64
138
94
24
24
1 684
%
3.8
15.3
0.8
4.8
5.4
4.0
5.3
5.7
$m
1 734
1 202
2 400
741
341
178
45
6 640
%
19.1
18.4
30.0
25.6
19.5
29.5
10.0
22.6
$m
666
214
112
169
138
21
16
1 336
%
7.3
3.3
1.4
5.8
7.9
3.5
3.6
4.6
$m
9 088
6 544
7 997
2 890
1 753
603
449
29 323
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: ABS, Government Finance Statistics, Australia, 2010 –11, General Government Expenses by Purpose,
cat. no. 5512.0.
15
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Assets and liabilities
Local government assets underpin delivery of vital services. A challenge facing local
government is ensuring sufficient revenue to maintain these assets.
In 2010 –11, local government in Australia had a net worth of $313.36 billion, with assets worth
$328.27 billion and liabilities worth $14.91 billion (Table 1.8).
At 30 June 2011, 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 2011 on a state basis, only councils in South Australia had a net debt position while
all the other states had a net surplus (Table 1.8).
16
Chapter 1 • Local Government in Australia
Table 1.8: Local government assets and liabilities, 2010 –11
Jurisdiction
Assets
Financial assets
Cash and deposits
Advances paid
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Total
$m
$m
$m
$m
$m
$m
$m
$m
2 032
1 155
2 882
1 355
69
88
123
7 704
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
6
Investments, loans
and placements
4 351
1 163
3 631
572
125
285
114
10 240
Other non-equity
assets
1 128
742
1 110
298
127
47
40
3 491
42
42
3 975
0
58
1 774
0
5 892
7 553
3 105
11 598
2 226
378
2 196
276
27 333
119 946
62 744
71 372
17 843
19 226
6 408
636
815
101
10
0
8
120 583
63 558
71 473
17 853
19 226
6 416
1 827 300 936
128 136
66 663
83 071
20 079
19 605
8 611
2 103 328 268
Deposits held
61
134
5
38
178
13
0
429
Advances received
16
4
0
2
32
6
0
60
Borrowing
3 155
702
2 683
455
721
66
11
7 793
Unfunded superannuation liability
and other employee entitlements
1 218
566
470
175
138
70
22
2 660
11
41
67
6
3
13
0
142
1 061
684
1 348
371
207
69
81
3 821
115
14 905
Equity
Total
Non-financial
assets
Land and
fixed assets
Other non-financial
assets
Total
Total assets
1 796 299 335
30
1 600
Liabilities
Other provisions
Other non-equity liabilities
Total liabilities
Net worth
Net debt*
Net financial worth
#
5 523
2 132
4 573
1 048
1 278
237
122 613
64 531
78 498
19 032
18 326
8 375
-3 151
-1 480
-3 825
-1 433
737
-291
-225
-9 667
2 030
973
7 025
1 179
-900
1 959
162
12 428
1 988 313 364
Notes: These figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
* Net debt figures are memorandum items for comparison only. They do not derive from the above
calculations. Net debt is the sum of selected financial liabilities, deposits held, advances received,
government securities, loans, and other borrowing; less the sum of selected financial assets, cash and
deposits; advances paid; and investments, loans and placements. Net debt is a common measure of
the strength of a government’s financial position.
#
Net financial worth is the difference between total financial assets and total liabilities.
Source: ABS, Government Finance Statistics, Australia, 2010 –11, Main Features, Tables 331 to 337 and 339,
cat. no. 5512.0.
17
CHAPTER 2
Financial assistance grants to
local government
For 2010 –11, the Australian Government provided a total of $2.09 billion in financial
assistance grants to 566 local governing bodies and the Australian Capital Territory
Government—an average of around $98.77 per capita.
Australian Government financial assistance grants to local government comprise a general
purpose component and a local road component. For 2010 –11 the general purpose
entitlement was $1.45 billion while the local road entitlement was $642 million.
Both components are paid to the states and territories to be passed on to local government.
Financial assistance grants are untied in the hands of local governments, who are free to
spend them according to local priorities.
The objectives of the general purpose component include improving local governments’
capacity to provide their communities with an equitable level of services and increasing the
efficiency and effectiveness of local government.
General purpose grants commenced in 1974–75 with allocations distributed according to
Commonwealth Grants Commission recommendations. This was followed, over the next two
decades, by developments in legislative arrangements for providing financial assistance
to local government. General purpose grants are currently provided under the Local
Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth), which replaced the Local Government
(Financial Assistance) Act 1986 (Cwth) from 1 July 1995.
The 1990 Special Premiers’ Conference determined that a local road component would be
provided in addition to general purpose from July 1991. Local road grants are intended to
help local government with the cost of maintaining their 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 (the Hawker Report),
in October 2003. The Hawker Report identified that South Australia was disadvantaged in
the interstate distribution of the local road grant. The Australian Government subsequently
introduced supplementary funding to South Australian councils for local roads in 2004 – 05
for three years to 2006–07. The funding was extended for another four years from 2007– 08 to
2010 –11. In the 2011 Budget the Government announced that the SA supplementary local
road funding would be extended for a further three years from 2011–12 to 2013 –14.
19
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Overview of current arrangements
In determining the distribution of financial assistance grants to local government, the current
arrangements are:
• Before the start of each financial year, the Australian Government estimates the
quantum of general purpose and local road grants that local government is entitled
to nationally. This is equal to the national grant entitlement for the previous financial
year multiplied by the estimated escalation factor of changes in population and the
consumer price index (CPI).
• The states and territories are advised of their estimated quantum of general purpose
and local road grants, calculated in accordance with the Local Government
(Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth).
• Local government grants commissions in each state and the Northern Territory
recommend to their local government minister the distribution of general purpose
and local road grants among local governing bodies in their jurisdiction. The
Australian Capital Territory does not have a local government grants commission,
because its government provides local government services in lieu of the territory
having a system of local government.
• The state and Northern Territory local government ministers forward the
recommendations of the local government grants commission in their jurisdiction to
the Australian Government Minister responsible for local government (the Minister).
• When satisfied that all legislative requirements have been met, the Minister approves
payment of the recommended grants.
• The Australian Government pays the grants in quarterly instalments to the states
and territories that, without undue delay, pass them on to local government as
untied grants.
• When updated changes in the CPI and population become available toward the
end of the financial year, an actual escalation factor is calculated and the actual
grant entitlement is determined.
• Any difference between the estimated and actual grant entitlements is combined
with the estimated entitlement in the next year to determine that next year’s cash
payment. This is referred to as the adjustment.
More details on each step are given below.
Determining the quantum of the grant
Section 8 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) specifies the
formula the Federal Treasurer (the Treasurer) is to apply each year for calculating the
escalation factors used to determine the local government financial assistance grant.
The escalation factors are based on changes in CPI and population, so that the value of
the grant is maintained in real per capita terms.
20
Chapter 2 • Financial assistance grants to local government
The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) provides the Treasurer
with discretion to increase or decrease the escalation factors in special circumstances.
In applying this discretion, the Treasurer is required to have regard to the objects of the
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) (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 components.
OBJECTS OF THE ACT
Subsection 3(2) of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth)
states the objects of the Act.
T he Parliament wishes to provide financial assistance to the states for the purposes
of improving:
•
the financial capacity of local governing bodies
•
t he 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
•
t he provision by local governing bodies of services to Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander communities.
Determining entitlements for 2010 –11 and 2011–12
Calculation of the 2010 –11 actual grant entitlement and the 2011–12 estimated grant
entitlement using the final escalation factor (the final factor) and estimated escalation
factor (the estimated factor) respectively are set out in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
In 2010 –11, the estimated grant entitlement was $1.546 billion. This comprised $1.071 billion in
general purpose grants and $475.1 million in local road grants (Table 2.1).
In June 2011, one-quarter of the budgeted allocation for the 2011–12 grant was brought
forward and paid to provide local government with additional flexibility and assist them in
responding to the widespread natural disasters in 2010 –11 and other pressures. The brought
forward payment totalled $536.6 million, consisting of $371.7 million in general purpose grant
and $164.9 million in local road grant (Table 2.1).
The brought forward payment was provided for under amendments made to the Local
Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) in 2009.
The 2010 –11 final factor was calculated using the CPI for the year ending March 2011 and
revised population growth figures to December 2009. To account for, and balance the effect
of, the brought forward payment in June 2010, the Treasurer used his discretionary power
provided under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) to consider
the brought forward payment in determining the 2010 –11 final factor. The calculations for
the 2010 –11 final factor are explained in ‘Determining the final factor for 2010 –11’.
21
2010–11 Local Government National Report
The 2010 –11 final factor of 1.0494 resulted in the 2010 –11 actual entitlement being
$2.09 billion, comprising $1.447 billion in general purpose grant and $642 million in local road
grant (Table 2.1). As the 2010 –11 actual entitlement was more than the combination of the
2010 –11 estimated entitlement and the brought forward payment in June 2011, there was a
positive adjustment of $6.6 million to the grant in the following year.
The 2011–12 estimated factor was calculated using the projected CPI for the year ending
March 2012 and revised population growth figures to December 2010. To account for, and
balance the effect of, the brought forward payment in June 2011, the Treasurer used his
discretionary power provided under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995
(Cwth) to decrease the 2011–12 estimated factor. The calculations for the 2011–12 estimated
factor are explained in ‘Determining the estimated factor for 2011–12’.
The 2011–12 estimated factor of 0.7734 resulted in the estimated entitlement for 2011–12
being $1.616 billion, comprising $1.119 billion in general purpose grants and $496.5 million in
local road grants (Table 2.2). Under financial assistance grants, the Australian Government
paid $2.159 billion to local government in 2011–12. This is the combination of the 2011–12
estimated entitlement of $1.616 billion, the 2010 –11 adjustment of $6.6 million, and the
brought forward payment of $536.6 million (Table 2.2).
In addition to the general purpose and local road grant, South Australian councils received
additional funding of $15.6 million for local roads in 2010 –11.
22
General purpose
x
33 621 980
32 420 525
14 331 064
19 617 298
611 789 598
Tas.
NT
ACT
Total
Note:
x
93 543 528
SA
1.0494
1.0494
1.0494
1.0494
1.0494
1.0494
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
642 012 005
20 586 393
15 039 018
34 022 099
35 282 907
98 164 578
120 289 528
132 359 654
Bring forward amounts are included in the year in which they are entitled
x
x
x
x
1.0494
1.0494
186 267 828
WA
x
x
=
23 188 665
1 446 854 689
114 626 956
x
354 988
22 149 445
126 128 887
Total
14 892 525
33 012 434
106 787 410
148 259 290
292 162 294
Qld
22 122 107
1 378 744 701
ACT
227 985
505 377
1 634 775
2 269 655
4 472 621
359 259 559
469 292 512
Vic.
14 141 655
NT
7 184 252
5 499 792
2010 –11 final factor
31 797 840
Tas.
2 088 866 694
1.0494
102 364 560
SA
=
642 012 005
1 446 854 689
177 499 360
140 386 191
WA
=
=
31 Dec 2009 population
1.0494
1.0494
1.0494
NSW
277 165 683
Qld
x
x
x
$
2010 –11 actual
entitlement
Local road
449 144 492
341 622 173
NSW
1 990 534 300
611 789 598
1 378 744 701
$
$
Vic.
General purpose
Total
Local road
2010 –11 final
factor
2009–10 actual
entitlement
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
475 054 624
15 232 832
11 128 071
25 174 538
26 107 468
72 636 550
89 007 831
97 939 081
137 828 253
1 070 595 260
17 150 994
11 004 913
24 423 537
78 959 804
109 716 448
216 166 209
265 626 895
347 546 460
1 545 649 884
475 054 624
1 070 595 260
$
2010 –11 estimated
entitlement
Table 2.1: Calculation of financial assistance grants actual entitlements and adjustments for 2010 –11
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
164 915 212
5 288 077
3 863 110
8 739 341
9 063 207
25 215 778
30 899 069
33 999 552
47 847 078
371 657 142
5 962 099
3 817 631
8 421 978
27 302 274
38 285 978
75 235 409
92 347 207
120 284 566
536 572 354
164 915 212
371 657 142
$
2011–12 early
payment
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
2 042 169
65 484
47 837
108 220
112 232
312 250
382 628
421 021
592 497
4 602 287
75 572
69 981
166 919
525 332
256 864
760 676
1 285 457
1 461 486
6 644 456
2 042 169
4 602 287
$
2010 –11
adjustment
Chapter 2 • Financial assistance grants to local government
23
24
292 162 294
148 259 290
106 787 410
33 012 434
14 892 525
23 188 665
1 446 854 689
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
ACT
Total
x
120 289 528
98 164 578
35 282 907
34 022 099
15 039 018
20 586 393
642 012 005
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
ACT
Total
Note:
x
132 359 654
=
=
=
1 615 529 500
496 532 083
1 118 997 417
1 118 997 417
18 019 245
11 445 139
25 357 011
82 170 204
115 363 714
226 472 133
278 098 334
362 071 637
0.7734
0.7734
0.7734
0.7734
0.7734
0.7734
0.7734
0.7734
0.7734
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
496 532 083
15 921 516
11 631 176
26 312 691
27 287 800
75 920 485
93 031 921
102 366 956
144 059 538
2011–12 estimated factor
22 474 906
361 914
229 874
509 292
1 650 377
2 317 064
4 558 661
5 585 566
7 272 158
31 Dec 2010 population
0.7734
0.7734
0.7734
$
2011–12 estimated
entitlement
Bring forward amounts are included in the year in which they are entitled
x
x
x
x
x
x
186 267 828
Vic.
x
x
x
x
NSW
Local road
292 512
359 259 559
Vic.
2 088 866 694
642 012 005
1 446 854 689
$
$
NSW
General purpose
Total
Local road
General purpose
2011–12 estimated
factor
2010 –11 actual
entitlement
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
2 042 169
65 484
47 837
108 220
112 232
312 250
382 628
421 021
592 497
4 602 287
75 572
69 891
166 919
525 332
256 864
760 676
1 285 457
1 461 486
6 644 456
2 042 169
4 602 287
$
2010 –11
adjustment
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
Table 2.2: Calculation of financial assistance grants estimated entitlements and actual cash paid for 2011–12
164 915 212
5 288 077
3 863 110
8 739 341
9 063 207
25 215 778
30 899 069
33 999 552
47 847 078
371 657 142
5 962 099
3 817 631
8 421 978
27 302 274
38 285 978
75 235 409
92 347 207
120 284 566
536 572 354
164 915 212
371 657 142
$
2011–12 early
payment
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
663 489 464
21 275 077
15 542 123
35 160 252
36 463 239
101 448 513
124 313 618
136 787 529
192 499 113
1 495 256 846
24 056 916
15 332 751
33 945 908
109 997 810
153 906 556
302 468 218
371 730 998
483 817 689
2 158 746 310
663 489 464
1 495 256 846
$
2011–12 actual
cash payable
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Chapter 2 • Financial assistance grants to local government
DETERMINING THE FINAL FACTOR FOR 2010 –11
Under section 8 of the Act, the unadjusted factor for 2010 –11 was calculated
as follows:
Unadjusted factor =
Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2009
Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2008
x
CPI at March 2011
CPI at March 2010
That is:
Unadjusted factor =
22 149 445
21 720 390
x
176.7
=
171.0
1.0537
However, to account for the Australian Government’s decision to bring forward
one quarter of the budgeted allocation for 2011–12 ($536.6m) for payment in
2010 –11, the final factor was decreased in accordance with section 8(1)(c) of the
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth), by the adjustment factor
as follows:
Adjustment factor =
2010 –11 unadjusted amount – 2009–10 adjustment amount
+ 2010 –11 adjustment amount
2009–10 final entitlement
x
1
Unadjusted factor
That is:
Adjustment factor =
2 063 703 126 – 511 573 436
+ 536 572 354
1 990 429 939
x
1
= 0.9959
1.0537
Therefore, the final factor for 2010 –11 was determined through the multiplication of
the unadjusted factor and the adjustment factor as follows:
Final factor = Unadjusted factor (1.0537) x Adjustment factor (0.9959) = 1.0494
25
2010–11 Local Government National Report
DETERMINING THE ESTIMATED FACTOR FOR 2010 –11
Under section 8 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth),
the unadjusted factor for 2011–12 was calculated as follows:
Unadjusted factor =
Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2010
x
Population of Australia at 31 Dec 2009
CPI at March 2012
CPI at March 2011
That is:
Unadjusted factor =
22 474 906
22 149 445
x
181.6
176.7
=
1.0428
However, to account for the Australian Government’s decision to bring forward
one quarter of the budgeted allocation in 2011–12 ($511.6m) for payment in
2010 –11, the final factor was decreased, in accordance with section 8(1)(c) of
the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth), by the adjustment
factor as follows:
Adjustment factor =
2011–12 unadjusted amount – 2010 –11 adjustment amount
2010 –11 final entitlement
x
1
Unadjusted factor
That is:
Adjustment factor =
2 152 029 620 – 536 572 354
2 088 702 044
x
1
1.0428
= 0.7393
Therefore, the estimated factor for 2011–12 was determined through the
multiplication of the unadjusted factor and the adjusted factor as follows:
Estimated factor = Unadjusted factor (1.0428) x Adjusted factor (0.7417) = 0.7734
26
Chapter 2 • Financial assistance grants to local government
VARIATIONS IN REPORTED GRANTS
At the beginning of each financial year, the quantum of the grant to local
government is estimated using the estimated factor, which is based on forecasts of
the CPI and population increases for the year.
At the end of each financial year the actual, or final, grant for local
government is calculated using the final factor, which is based on updated
CPI and population figures.
Invariably there is a difference between the estimated and actual grant
entitlements. This difference is combined with the estimated entitlement in the
following financial year to provide the actual cash payment for the next year.
Consequently, there are three ways in which the financial assistance grant can
be reported: an estimated grant entitlement, an actual grant entitlement and the
actual cash paid.
Inter-jurisdictional distribution of grant
The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) specifies that the general
purpose grant is to be divided among the jurisdictions on a per capita basis. The distribution
is based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ estimate of each jurisdiction’s population and
the estimated population of all states and territories as at 31 December of the previous year.
By contrast, each jurisdiction’s share of the local road grant is fixed. The distribution is
based on shares determined from the former, tied grant arrangements (see ‘History
of the Interstate Distribution of Local Road Grants’ in the 2001–02 Local Government
National Report, pp. 25-6). Therefore the local road grant share for each state and territory
is determined by multiplying the previous year’s funding by the estimated factor as
determined by the Treasurer.
Table 2.3 shows the allocation of the actual entitlement for 2010 –11 among jurisdictions.
Table 2.4 shows the allocation of the estimated entitlement for 2011–12 among jurisdictions
and the percentage change in the grant from 2010 –11 to 2011–12.
27
28
292 162 294
148 259 290
106 787 410
33 012 434
14 892 525
23 188 665
1 446 854 689
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
ACT
Total
100.00
1.60
1.03
2.28
7.38
10.25
20.19
24.83
32.44
% of total
general
purpose pool
22 149 445*
354 988
227 985
505 377
1 634 775
2 269 655
4 472 621
5 499 792
7 184 252
31 Dec 2009
population
General Purpose
65.32
65.32
65.32
65.32
65.32
65.32
65.32
65.32
65.32
$ per
capita
642 012 005
20 586 393
15 039 018
34 022 099
35 282 907
98 164 578
120 289 528
132 359 654
186 267 828
Local Road
actual
entitlement
$
100.00
3.21
2.34
5.30
5.50
15.29
18.74
20.62
29.01
657 930
2 872
14 208
14 325
75 420
128 148
152 578
124 733
145 646
Local Road grant
% of
local
road
pool
km
100.00
0.44
2.16
2.18
11.46
19.48
23.19
18.96
22.14
% of
local
road
length
975.81
7 167.96
1 058.49
2 375.02
467.82
766.03
788.38
1 061.14
1 278.91
$ per
km
2 088 866 694
43 775 058
29 931 543
67 03 4 533
142 070 317
246 423 868
412 451 822
491 619 213
655 560 340
Total actual
entitlement
$
Total grant
301 707 542
153 649 692
109 472 478
33 778 989
15 262 770
23 981 344
1 490 654 559
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
ACT
Total
Source: 4.25
3.42
3.59
3.58
3.83
4.79
4.42
4.39
4.07
100.00
1.61
1.02
2.27
7.34
10.31
20.24
24.85
32.36
22 474 906*
361 914
229 874
509 292
1 650 377
2 317 064
4 558 661
5 585 566
7 272 158
66.33
66.26
66.40
66.33
66.33
66.31
66.18
66.32
66.33
$ per
capita
661 447 295
21 209 593
15 494 286
35 052 032
36 351 007
101 136 263
123 930 990
136 366 508
191 906 616
Local Road
2011–12
estimated
entitlement
$
4.23
3.03
4.28
4.28
4.28
4.28
4.28
4.28
4.28
%
change
from
2010 –11
actual
grant
100.00
3.21
2.34
5.30
5.50
15.29
18.74
20.62
29.01
% of
local
road
pool
km
657 930
2 872
14208
14325
75420
128 148
152 578
124 733
145 646
Local Road
$ per
km
481.98
789.21
812.25
45 190 937
30 757 056
68 831 021
145 823 485
254 785 955
425 638 532
506 812 049
674 262 819
100.00 1 005.35 2 152 101 854
0.44 7 384.96
2.16 1 090.53
2.18 2 446.91
11.46
19.48
23.19
18.96 1 093.27
22.14 1 317.62
% of
local
road
length
Total
2011–12
estimated
entitlement
$
4.25
100.00
1.43
2.10
3.23
3.20
6.78
11.84
19.78
23.55
31.33
% of
total
grant
3.93
3.93
3.94
4.59
4.38
4.36
4.13
%
change
from
2010 –11
actual
grant
Total grant
100.00
2.10
1.43
3.21
6.80
11.80
19.75
23.54
31.38
% of
total
grant
ABS, Australian Demographic Statistics, Dec 2010, cat.no. 3101.0.
Excludes other Territories comprising Jervis Bay Territory, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Does not include brought forward (early) payment made
in June 2010.
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
370 445 541
Vic.
Notes: *
482 356 203
NSW
State
General
Purpose 2011–
12 estimated
entitlement
$
General Purpose
%
change
% of
from
total
2010 –11 general
actual purpose 31 Dec 2010
grant
pool
population
Table 2.4: 2011–12 allocation of estimated grant entitlement among jurisdictions and percentage change from 2010 –11 actual grant allocation
ABS, Australian Demographic Statistics, Dec 2009, cat.no. 3101.0.
Excludes other Territories comprising Jervis Bay Territory, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
359 259 559
Vic.
Notes: *
Source: 469 292 512
NSW
State
General
Purpose actual
entitlement
$
Table 2.3: 2010 –11 allocations of general purpose and local road grants among jurisdictions
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Chapter 2 • Financial assistance grants to local government
Quantum of financial assistance grant allocations
Table 2.5 shows the aggregate level of financial assistance grants since the Australian
Government’s provision of general purpose in 1974–75 and local road in 1991–92.
Table 2.5: National financial assistance grant allocation, 1974–75 to 2011–12
Year
1974–75
1975–76
1976–77
1977–78
1978–79
1979–80a
1980–81
1981–82
1982–83
1983–84
1984–85
1985–86
1986–87
1987–88
1988–89
1989–90
1990–91
1991–92b
1992–93c
1993–94
1994–95
1995–96d
1996–97
1997–98
1998–99
1999–2000
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
2010 –11
2011–12e
Total
General purpose grants
($)
56 345 000
79 978 000
140 070 131
165 327 608
179 426 870
222 801 191
302 226 347
352 544 573
426 518 330
461 531 180
488 831 365
538 532 042
590 427 808
636 717 377
652 500 000
677 739 860
699 291 988
714 969 488
730 122 049
737 203 496
756 446 019
806 748 051
833 693 434
832 859 742
854 180 951
880 575 142
919 848 794
965 841 233
1 007 855 328
1 039 703 554
1 077 132 883
1 121 079 905
1 168 277 369
1 234 986 007
1 621 289 630
1 378 744 701
Local road grants
($)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
303 174 734
318 506 205
322 065 373
330 471 280
357 977 851
369 934 312
369 564 377
379 025 226
390 737 104
408 163 980
428 572 178
447 215 070
461 347 062
477 955 558
497 456 144
518 399 049
547 999 635
719 413 921
611 789 598
Total grants
($)
56 345 000
79 978 000
140 070 131
165 327 608
179 426 870
222 801 191
302 226 347
352 544 573
426 518 330
461 531 180
488 831 365
538 532 042
590 427 808
636 717 377
652 500 000
677 739 860
699 291 988
1 018 144 222
1 048 628 254
1 059 268 869
1 086 917 299
1 164 725 902
1 203 627 746
1 202 424 119
1 233 206 177
1 271 312 246
1 328 012 774
1 394 413 411
1 455 070 398
1 501 050 616
1 555 088 441
1 618 536 049
1 686 676 418
1 782 985 642
2 340 703 551
1 990 534 300
1 446 854 689
1 118 997 417
27 918 219 552
642 012 005
496 532 083
9 398 312 745
2 088 866 694
1 615 529 500
37 316 532 298
Note:
a
b
c
d
e
Source: Grants to the Northern Territory under the program commenced in 1979-80, with the initial allocation
being $1 061 733.
Prior to 1991–92 local road funding was provided as tied grants under different legislation
(n/a = Not applicable).
In 1992-93 part of the road grant entitlement of the Tasmanian and Northern Territory governments was
reallocated to local government in these jurisdictions.
Grants to the Australian Capital Territory under the program commenced in 1995-96, with the initial
allocation being $13 572 165 in general purpose and $11 478 714 in local road.
For 2011–12 the national grant allocation is the estimated entitlement.
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
29
2010–11 Local Government National Report
National Principles for the allocation of grants under the
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995
The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) requires the Australian
Government Minister to formulate national principles in consultation with state and territory
ministers for local government and a body or bodies representative of local government.
The National Principles provide guidance for the states and the Northern Territory in
allocating financial assistance grants to local governing bodies within their jurisdiction.
The National Principles came into effect in 1996–97. In 2005–06 the Minister formulated an
additional national principle to take effect from 1 July 2006, with respect to local governing
bodies formed as a result of amalgamation.
The National Principles are set out in full at Appendix A.
Determining the distribution of grants within jurisdictions
Under sections 11 and 14 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth)
financial assistance grants can only be paid to jurisdictions (other than the Australian
Capital Territory) that have established a local government grants commission
(see ‘Local government grants commissions’).
The Australian Capital Territory does not have a local government grants commission,
because its government provides local government services in lieu of the territory
having a system of local government. The local government grants commissions make
recommendations, in accordance with the National Principles, on the quantum of the
financial assistance grant allocated to local governing bodies.
The state and Northern Territory governments determine the membership of, and provide
resources for, their respective local government grants commissions.
30
Chapter 2 • Financial assistance grants to local government
LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSIONS
Section 5 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) specifies
the 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
•
t he 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
•
t he Australian Government 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 (Cwth) requires
local government grants commissions to:
•
old public hearings in connection with their recommended
h
grant allocations
•
ermit or require local governing bodies to make submissions to the
p
commission in relation to the recommendations
•
make their recommendations in accordance with the National Principles.
The legislation establishing local government grants commissions in each state and
the Northern Territory are:
New South Wales
Local Government Act 1993
Victoria
Victoria Grants Commission Act 1976
Queensland
Local Government Act 1993
Western Australia
Local Government Grants Act 1978
South AustraliaSouth Australian Local Government Grants Commission Act 1992
Tasmania
State Grants Commission Act 1976
Northern Territory
Local Government Grants Commission Act 1986
Once each local government grants commission determines the recommended allocation
of grants to local governing bodies in its jurisdiction, the relevant state or Northern Territory
minister recommends the allocation to the Australian Government Minister responsible
for local government for approval. The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act
1995 (Cwth) requires that the Minister is satisfied that the state or Northern Territory has
adopted the recommendations of its local government grants commission.
Section 15 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) requires that, as
a condition for paying the grants to the states and the Northern Territory, the states and the
Northern Territory must pay the grants to local government without undue delay and without
conditions, thus giving local government discretion to use the funds for local priorities.
31
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Further, the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) requires the
state and Northern Territory treasurers to give the Minister, as soon as practicable after
30 June each year, a statement detailing payments made to local government during
the previous financial year, including the date the payments were made, as well as a
certificate from their respective Auditor-General certifying that the statement is correct.
The grants are paid to the states and the Northern Territory in equal instalments each quarter.
The first payment for each financial year is paid as soon as statutory conditions are met.
One of the requirements of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth)
is that the first payment cannot be made before 15 August.
Bodies eligible to receive financial assistance grants
All local governing bodies constituted under state and territory local government Acts are
automatically local governing bodies. In addition, section 4(2)(b) of the Local Government
(Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) provides for:
a body declared by the minister, on the advice of the relevant state minister, by notice
published in the Gazette, to be a local governing body for the purposes of this Act.
In addition to the Australian Capital Territory, 566 local governing bodies, including 10
declared local governing bodies made eligible under section 4(2)(b), received grants in
2010 –11 (Table 2.6).
Table 2.6: Distribution of local governing bodies, by type and jurisdiction, at 1 July 2011
Type
Local governmentsa
Declared local governing bodies
b
Total
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NTc
Total
152
79
73d
139
68
29
16
556
3
0
0
0
6
e
0
1
10
155
79
73
139
74
29
17
566
Notes:
a
These are local governing bodies, eligible under section 4(2)(a) of the Local Government (Financial
Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth), as they are constituted under state or territory legislation.
b
These are declared local governing bodies under section 4(2)(b) of the Local Government (Financial
Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth).
c
Includes the amalgamations that took effect in the Northern Territory on 1 July 2008 (see ‘Efficiency
and effectiveness reforms’ in Chapter 3) and includes the Northern Territory Road Trust Account.
d
Includes the two indigenous local governments established under distinct legislation as reported in
Chapter 4, Table 4.1.
e
Includes the two indigenous local governing bodies established under distinct legislation as reported in
Chapter 4, Table 4.1.
Source: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
The Shires of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands are part of Australia’s Indian
Ocean Territories. They are not entitled to receive funding under the Local Government
(Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) but receive the equivalent of financial assistance
grant payments. For an explanation of the arrangements for these local governments
and that of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council in the Jervis Bay Territory see
page 35 (‘Financial assistance to Australia’s territories’).
32
Chapter 2 • Financial assistance grants to local government
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO AUSTRALIA’S TERRITORIES
Under an arrangement between the Australian Government and the Western
Australian Government, the Western Australian Local Government Grants
Commission (WALGGC) provides an annual assessment of the general purpose and
local road grants for the Shires of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The
commission determines the grant allocations as if these areas were local governing
bodies in Western Australia. This is done on the basis that funding from the Australian
Government for these territories should allow them to provide municipal services that
align with communities in Western Australia.
Under an arrangement between the Australian Government and the New South
Wales Government, the New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission
provides an annual assessment of the funding that would be allocated for the
Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council in the Jervis Bay Territory, as if that council
was a local governing body in New South Wales. This is done on the basis that
funding from the Australian Government to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community
Council should allow it to provide municipal services that align with communities in
New South Wales.
On the basis of these assessments, the Australian Government provides funding
for the shires of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands, as well as the Wreck
Bay Aboriginal Community Council. The funding comes from a separate budget
allocation to that provided under the Local Government (Financial Assistance)
Act 1995 (Cwth).
The funding provided in 2010 –11 was:
•
Jervis Bay Territory – $76 870 in general purpose grants
•
hristmas Island Shire Council – $2 719 371 in general purpose grants and
C
$335 091 in local road grants
•
ocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council – $1 697 000 in general purpose grants
C
and $114 602 in local road grants.
Methods of local government grants commissions
Local government grants commissions each have their own methodology for allocating
grants to local government in their jurisdiction.
For allocating general purpose grants, local government grants commissions assess the
amount each local government would need to be able to provide a standard range and
quality of services, while raising revenue from a standard range of rates and other income
sources. The local government grants commissions then develop recommendations
taking account of each local governing body’s assessed grant need. The recommended
allocation of the local road component is based on the local government grants
commissions’ assessments of local governing bodies’ road expenditure need. The local
government grants commissions are required to make their recommendations in line with
National Principles for the allocation of grants under the Local Government (Financial
Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth).
33
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Local government grants commissions meet annually at a national conference to share
insights and discuss common issues. The 2010 conference was held in Melbourne with
presentations made on the following topics: Financial Assistance Grants—35 years on,
Liveability—the Role of Councils, Local Government in a Changing environment and state
and local perspectives were provided on the Bushfire Response and Recovery.
A detailed description of each local government grants commission’s methodology
can be found in Appendix B under the headings ‘The methodology for distributing
Australian Government Financial Assistance Grants for 2010 –11, including any changes in
methodology from 2009–10’.
In addition, local government 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 local government grants commissions used in
2010 –11 is in Appendix C.
INTERNET ADDRESSES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSIONS
Local government grants commission Internet address
New South Wales
www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_CommissionTribunalIndex.
asp?areaindex=GC&index=21
Victoria
www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment/
victoria-grants-commission
Queensland
www.qlggc.qld.gov.au
Western Australia
www.dlgrd.wa.gov.au/lggc
South Australia
www.localgovt.sa.gov.au/about_us/south_australian_local_
government_grants_commission
Tasmania
www.treasury.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/v-stategrants/home
Northern Territory
www.grantscommission.nt.gov.au
Allocation of grants to local government in 2010 –11
The Australian Government Minister approved the allocation of financial assistance grants
to local governing bodies for 2010 –11, as recommended by local government grants
commissions through state and Northern Territory ministers. Appendix D contains the actual
entitlements for 2010 –11 and the estimated entitlements for 2011–12.
Table 2.7 sets out the average general purpose grant per capita to local governing bodies
by jurisdiction and the Australian Classification of Local Government, a description of which
is in Appendix F, while Table 2.8 provides the average local road grant per kilometre by
jurisdiction and classification. The Australian Classification of Local Government has been
developed to aid comparison of similar local governing bodies, and is used here to indicate
trends and allow comparison of grants to individual local governing bodies with the average
for their category.
34
Chapter 2 • Financial assistance grants to local government
The results in Table 2.7 and Table 2.8 suggest there are some differences in outcomes
between jurisdictions. Notwithstanding the capacity of the classification system to group
similar local governing bodies, it should be noted that considerable scope for divergence
within these categories remains, 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 classification categories.
Table 2.7: A
verage general purpose grant per capita to local governing bodies by jurisdiction and
classification, 2010 –11
Classification
Jurisdiction ($)
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NTa
Average
Urban Capital City (UCC)
25.46
19.56
19.60
19.59
19.48
19.44
20.22
20.48
Urban Developed Small (UDS)
19.49
n/a
n/a
19.59
19.48
n/a
n/a
19.52
Urban Developed Medium (UDM)
20.34
n/a
n/a
19.59
19.48
n/a
n/a
19.80
Urban Developed Large (UDL)
23.51
22.92
n/a
19.59
19.48
n/a
n/a
21.38
Urban Developed Very
Large (UDV)
66.33
36.70
20.73
19.59
59.41
n/a
n/a
40.55
125.07
159.28
169.31
71.77
118.42
60.92
28.99
104.82
Urban Regional Medium (URM)
92.32
132.83
138.98
40.13
19.48
19.44
n/a
73.86
Urban Regional Large (URL)
73.81
104.55
50.02
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
76.13
Urban Regional Very Large (URV)
66.33
73.15
36.21
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
58.56
n/a
72.37
99.17
19.59
28.30
67.38
20.29
51.18
Urban Fringe Medium (UFM)
37.55
61.35
56.52
32.13
19.48
19.44
n/a
37.74
Urban Fringe Large (UFL)
84.93
86.49
n/a
19.59
97.91
n/a
n/a
72.23
Urban Fringe Very Large (UFV)
38.71
53.11
n/a
19.59
38.50
n/a
n/a
37.48
Rural Significant Growth (RSG)
n/a
n/a
n/a
79.34
19.48
n/a
n/a
49.41
Urban Regional Small (URS)
Urban Fringe Small (UFS)
Rural Agricultural Small (RAS)
691.66
n/a
n/a
584.17
623.07
436.17
28.29
472.67
Rural Agricultural Medium (RAM)
399.15
556.18
939.54
186.73
313.43
148.97
n/a
424.00
Rural Agricultural Large (RAL)
282.00
357.74
n/a
203.19
194.88
167.23
n/a
241.01
Rural Agricultural Very
Large (RAV)
189.79
192.55
371.15
113.86
166.60
111.17
20.22
166.48
Rural Remote Extra Small (RTX)
460.55
n/a 6 284.24 6 002.56
782.82
n/a
n/a
3 382.54
n/a
n/a 2 104.68 1 402.80
n/a
n/a
n/a
1 753.75
n/a 1 190.40
895.44
n/a
n/a
86.93
803.68
n/a 1 151.71
308.67
355.64
n/a
212.84
500.36
65.31
64.94
64.80
67.39
65.42
Rural Remote Small (RTS)
Rural Remote Medium (RTM)
Rural Remote Large (RTL)
Average
1 041.98
472.92
64.97
65.19
65.34
Notes: a
Excludes the Northern Territory Trust Fund. n/a = not applicable.
Source: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
35
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Table 2.8: A
verage local road grant per kilometre to local governing bodies by jurisdiction and
classification, 2010 –11
Classification
Jurisdiction ($)
NT
Average
Urban Capital City (UCC)
3 553.78 2 900.47 2 379.70 3 804.88 1 618.72 5 781.08 3 590.66
3 375.61
Urban Developed
Small (UDS)
2 355.03
n/a
n/a 1 986.69 2 051.45
n/a
n/a
2 131.06
Urban Developed
Medium (UDM)
2 734.34
n/a
n/a 1 997.95 1 861.16
n/a
n/a
2 197.82
Urban Developed
Large (UDL)
2 554.62 1 417.00
n/a 1 789.76 1 759.63
n/a
n/a
1 880.25
Urban Developed Very
Large (UDV)
2 488.44 1 507.94 1 692.80 1 905.76 1 753.89
n/a
n/a
1 869.76
Urban Regional Small (URS)
1 277.74
624.45 3 143.36 3 346.24
1 629.37
Urban Regional
Medium (URM)
1 487.88 1 069.90
609.30 1 250.40 2 121.26 3 690.31
n/a
1 704.84
Urban Regional Large (URL)
1 967.73 1 159.79
875.01
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1 334.18
Urban Regional Very
Large (URV)
2 101.14 1 326.13
951.15
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1 459.47
Urban Fringe Small (UFS)
NSW
Vic.
942.04
Qld
WAa
570.05 1 501.68
SAa
Tas.
n/a 1 151.86
610.98 1 669.95
624.28 2 243.26 3 314.30
1602.44
Urban Fringe Medium (UFM)
1 758.75 1 280.81
709.88 1 622.37
814.77 3 179.15
n/a
1 560.95
Urban Fringe Large (UFL)
1 710.49 1 627.51
n/a 1 628.35 1 353.99
n/a
n/a
1 580.09
Urban Fringe Very
Large (UFV)
2 101.88 1 573.84
n/a 1 738.89 1 542.73
n/a
n/a
1 739.34
n/a
Rural Significant
Growth (RSG)
n/a
n/a
n/a 1 209.45
245.03
n/a
727.24
Rural Agricultural Small (RAS)
854.19
n/a
n/a
562.89
293.34 1 453.90 1 643.81
961.62
Rural Agricultural
Medium (RAM)
897.60
758.94
507.52
741.76
253.58 1 740.01
n/a
816.57
Rural Agricultural Large (RAL)
945.63
543.80
n/a
746.46
267.80 2 045.80
n/a
909.90
1 012.18 1 114.19
528.26
757.95
321.17 1 970.59 2 825.32
1 218.52
Rural Agricultural Very
Large (RAV)
Rural Remote Extra
Small (RTX)
n/a
n/a
492.94
434.10
517.43
n/a
n/a
481.49
Rural Remote Small (RTS)
n/a
n/a
497.57
316.21
n/a
n/a
n/a
406.89
Rural Remote Medium (RTM)
832.18
n/a
506.56
568.49
n/a
n/a
876.70
695.98
Rural Remote Large (RTL)
857.30
n/a
511.98
726.57
n/a
n/ a
711.87
701.93
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
513.56
513.56
1 263.60 1 048.44
778.95
756.86
462.22 2 346.59 1 045.82
1 100.35
Northern Territory Trust fund
Average
Notes:
a
Averages for all classifications in these states includes special roads grants received by local government.
not applicable
n/a
Source: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
36
Chapter 2 • Financial assistance grants to local government
Local governing bodies on the minimum grant
Local governing bodies receiving the minimum grant entitlement generally fall within the
classification of capital city, urban developed or urban fringe as described in the Australian
Classification of Local Government. Local governing bodies on the minimum grant are
identified with a hash (#) in Appendix D.
The per capita grant of these local governing bodies in 2010 –11 was between $19 and
$21, with slight differences between jurisdictions (see Appendix E). 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 local governing bodies.
The number of local governing bodies on the minimum grant, and the proportion of the
general purpose grant local governing bodies on the minimum grant increased from
2009–10 to 2010 –11. This has resulted in an increase in the per capita grant to non-minimum
grant local governments relative to that of minimum grant local governments. This trend is
consistent with the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) objective of
horizontal equalisation.
The proportion of the population covered by local governing bodies on the minimum grant
varies widely between jurisdictions. In 2010 –11, the proportion ranged from 26.01 per cent in
New South Wales to 75.32 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 local
government grants commissions use.
In 2010 –11, the proportion of the general purpose grant that went to local governing
bodies on the minimum grant was 11.05 per cent nationally. It varied from 7.80 per cent in
New South Wales to 22.60 per cent in Western Australia.
Local governing bodies on the minimum grant are relatively affluent compared to the
non-minimum grant local governing bodies in their jurisdiction. Local government grants
commissions determine the level of assistance each local governing body requires to
function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not lower than the average standard of other
local governing bodies in the jurisdiction. In doing this they consider the revenue-raising
ability and expenditure requirements of each local governing body in the jurisdiction. Where
a local governing body is on the minimum grant, its local government grants commission
has determined it requires less assistance to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not
lower than the average standard of other local governing bodies in the jurisdiction.
37
38
24.07
% of population in
minimum grant councils
833 950
17.41
8/79
Population for minimum
grant councils
% of population in
minimum grant councils
Min grant
councils/No. LGB’s
4 791 268
5.25
% to minimum grant
councils
Population per
jurisdiction
12 553 936
239 054 282
$ to minimum grant
councils
$ general purpose grant
Vic.
21/166
1 581 130
Population for minimum
grant councils
Min grant
councils/No. LGB’s
6 568 902
7.53
% to minimum grant
councils
Population per
jurisdiction
24 054 968
319 471 456
$ to minimum grant
councils
$ general purpose grant
NSW
2001–02
6/79
11.58
559 791
4 836 196
3.48
8 681 598
249 588 629
21/166
24.32
1 607 137
6 608 792
7.57
25 175 682
332 621 822
2002–03
7/80
13.63
665 812
4 884 952
4.10
10 542 345
257 091 396
20/166
26.34
1 754 764
6 662 212
8.13
27 799 562
341 916 239
2003–04
8/80
13.56
670 083
4 941 398
4.09
10 883 040
266 191 972
20/155
24.33
1 632 677
6 710 408
7.38
26 481 959
358 832 105
2004–05
9/80
15.81
789 522
4 992 667
4.76
13 194 313
276 987 692
20/155
24.37
1 644 799
6 749 297
7.33
27 451 347
374 443 598
2005–06
10/80
18.25
928 552
5 088 427
5.55
16 041 360
289 188 062
21/155
25.22
1 712 959
6 790 811
7.59
29 279 694
385 938 812
2006–07
Table 2.9: Local governing bodies on the minimum grant, by jurisdiction, 2001–02 to 2010–11
7/79
14.30
738 401
5 163 649
4.35
13 310 089
305 906 191
21/155
25.18
1 725 814
6 854 067
7.58
30 793 666
406 050 359
2007–08
11/79
24.21
1 273 912
5 262 390
7.34
23 450 803
319 394 720
21/155
25.13
1 744 716
6 943 884
7.60
32 070 254
422 066 453
2008–09
12/79
27.24
1 447 208
5 313 734
8.17
27 458 066
336 060 498
21/155
25.19
1 759 235
6 983 605
7.56
33 460 548
442 758 903
2009–10
12/79
28.72
1 563 445
5 443 134
8.62
30 577 564
354 852 579
22/155
26.01
1 855 282
7 133 854
7.80
36 160 752
463 479 161
2010–11
2010–11 Local Government National Report
58.19
% of population in
minimum grant councils
23/142
57.02
% of population in
minimum grant councils
Min grant
councils/No. LGB’s
1 079 722
Population for minimum
grant councils
17.19
% to minimum grant
councils
1 893 490
16 244 304
$ to minimum grant
councils
Population per jurisdiction
94 473 299
$ general purpose grant
WA
10/157
2 096 769
Population for minimum
grant councils
Min grant
councils/No. LGB’s
3 603 043
17.65
% to minimum grant
councils
Population per jurisdiction
31 728 207
179 769 293
$ to minimum grant
councils
$ general purpose grant
QLD
2001–02
27/142
67.15
1 285 089
1 913 850
20.19
19 939 143
98 770 852
11/157
60.90
2 231 630
3 664 284
18.34
34 681 718
189 108 056
2002–03
28/142
69.19
1 340 055
1 936 902
20.86
21 262 998
101 937 713
8/157
55.94
2 100 117
3 754 154
17.00
33 578 476
197 578 337
2003–04
28/142
69.32
1 363 077
1 966 410
20.95
22 188 029
105 930 054
7/157
54.14
2 081 206
3 844 405
16.45
34 075 645
207 097 211
2004–05
30/142
73.87
1 473 011
1 993 926
22.29
24 661 291
110 620 829
3/157
40.74
1 599 555
3 926 210
12.37
26 940 642
217 821 826
2005–06
30/140
73.51
1 498 209
2 038 209
22.36
25 901 130
115 836 527
2/157
35.91
1 454 323
4 049 647
11.01
25 346 303
230 151 592
2006–07
Table 2.9: Local governing bodies on the minimum grant, by jurisdiction, 2001–02 to 2010–11 cont.
31/140
74.21
1 544 602
2 081 303
22.59
27 858 876
123 301 075
2/157
35.99
1 486 720
4 131 389
10.98
26 876 194
244 752 786
2007–08
31/139
73.95
1 581 149
2 138 062
22.53
29 147 411
129 395 614
2/73
34.38
1 458 827
4 242 789
10.68
27 468 884
257 092 111
2008–09
31/139
75.22
1 633 126
2 171 197
22.57
31 045 359
137 579 902
2/73
35.66
1 489 934
4 178 232
10.70
29 098 788
272 006 416
2009–10
31/139
75.32
1 691 057
2 245 057
22.60
33 132 023
146 620 875
2/73
35.45
1 567 615
4 421 783
10.64
30 728 757
288 922 754
2010–11
Chapter 2 • Financial assistance grants to local government
39
40
13.60
7/74
% of population in
minimum grant councils
Min grant
councils/No. LGB’s
472 288
89 801
19.01
2/29
Population for minimum
grant councils
% of population in
minimum grant councils
Min grant
councils/No. LGB’s
5.73
% to minimum grant
councils
Population per jurisdiction
1 349 616
$ to minimum grant
councils
$ general purpose grant
23 564 217
205 519
Population for minimum
grant councils
TAS
1 511 183
4.12
% to minimum
grant councils
Population per jurisdiction
3 103 810
75 398 572
$ to minimum
grant councils
$ general purpose grant
SA
2001–02
2/29
19.00
89 702
472 116
5.72
1 394 260
24 365 180
14/74
36.64
555 400
1 515 748
11.09
8 675 109
78 225 421
2002–03
2/29
19.31
91 602
474 305
5.80
1 448 298
24 962 320
17/74
44.38
675 601
1 522 475
13.33
10 679 916
80 126 729
2003–04
1/29
10.01
48 071
480 162
3.02
781 868
25 866 216
22/74
55.40
847 861
1 530 402
16.66
13 732 563
82 442 403
2004–05
1/29
10.03
48 533
483 813
3.02
810 666
26 841 415
22/74
55.36
850 511
1 536 333
16.63
14 175 161
85 234 073
2005–06
1/29
9.99
48 794
488 559
3.02
837 576
27 766 033
22/74
54.69
852 943
1 559 565
16.59
14 706 754
88 633 994
2006–07
Table 2.9: Local governing bodies on the minimum grant, by jurisdiction, 2001–02 to 2010–11 cont.
2/29
19.06
93 708
491 704
5.76
1 676 505
29 129 652
20/74
52.94
834 072
1 575 389
16.09
15 018 873
93 329 590
2007–08
3/29
32.08
158 901
495 377
9.66
2 914 651
30 163 788
21/74
54.99
876 276
1 593 494
16.59
16 084 800
96 948 206
2008–09
4/29
42.36
210 772
497 529
12.71
3 994 953
31 433 715
20/74
53.75
861 778
1 603 361
16.13
16 309 932
101 127 276
2009–10
5/29
48.81
245 667
503 292
14.64
4 775 551
32 611 864
21/74
55.48
900 691
1 623 590
16.64
17 542 801
105 434 395
2010–11
2010–11 Local Government National Report
30.92
% of population in
minimum grant councils
Source:
81/712
32.95
5 886 891
19 038 661
10.03
89 034 841
941 634 378
0/65
-
-
198 487
-
-
10 198 709
2002–03
0/63
-
-
198 075
-
-
10 713 889
2004–05
1/63
34.83
69 958
198 885
10.94
1 219 197
11 142 605
2005–06
0/62
-
-
200 844
-
-
11 865 377
2006–07
1/61
33.05
70 245
208 778
10.72
1 350 251
12 590 104
2007–08
2/16
8.21
17 856
212 519
13.42
1 772 176
13 203 569
2008–09
4/16
58.23
124 029
217 435
17.47
2 424 889
13 880 149
2009–10
4/16
57.82
126 424
212 983
17.35
2 555 872
14 733 572
2010–11
82/711
34.11
6 328 749
19 208 603
10.39
98 547 510
86/700
33.77
6 627 951
19 433 075
10.23
105 311 595
86/700
32.57
6 642 975
19 672 070
9.83
108 143 104
86/697
32.12
6 475 889
19 883 090
9.75
108 452 617
84/695
31.66
6 495 780
20 223 996
9.62
112 112 817
91/565
34.39
6 493 562
20 510 020
10.48
116 884 454
94/565
35.91
7 111 637
20 893 431
10.77
132 908 979
97/565
34.34
7 526 082
20 960 641
11.05
143 792 535
982 878 669 1 014 037 273 1 057 073 850 1 103 092 038 1 149 380 397 1 215 059 757 1 268 264 461 1 334 846 859
0/63
-
-
197 617
-
-
10 424 539
2003–04
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
71/713
5 771 530
Population for minimum
grant councils
Min grant
councils/No. LGB’s
18 738 875
9.46
% to minimum grant
councils
Population per jurisdiction
84 066 586
896 868 719
$ to minimum grant
councils
$ general purpose grant
AUSTRALIA
0/66
-
% of population in
minimum grant councils
Min grant
councils/No. LGB’s
-
Population for minimum
grant councils
194 297
-
% to minimum grant
councils
Population per jurisdiction
-
9 903 259
$ to minimum grant
councils
$ general purpose grant
NT
2001–02
Table 2.9: Local governing bodies on the minimum grant, by jurisdiction, 2001–02 to 2010–11 cont.
Chapter 2 • Financial assistance grants to local government
41
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Reviews of grants commission methods
Local government grants commissions have programs for monitoring grant outcomes
and refining aspects of their allocation methodologies. However, from time to time it is
appropriate for local government grants commissions to undertake a thorough review of
their allocation methodologies.
Since the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) commenced in
July 1995, most local government grants commissions have undertaken major reviews of
their methodologies, are currently undertaking such examinations, or have such activities
planned (Table 2.10).
The need to review methodologies was reinforced by the 2001 Commonwealth Grants
Commission review of the operations of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act
1995 (Cwth). The review identified the need to revise methodologies to achieve consistency
with the principles of relative need, other grant support and Aboriginal peoples and Torres
Strait Islanders (Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001).
Table 2.10: Status of most recent major methodology reviews, by state as at 30 June 2011
State
General purpose grants
Local road grants
NSW
Revenue assessment during 2010 –11
None planned
Vic.
Completed in May 2001 and implemented from
2002–03. Review of revenue component completed in
2004 and implemented over four years from 2005–06
Completed in July 1999 and
implemented from 2001–02
Qld
Completed in 2010 and implemented from 2011–12
Completed in December 2002 and
implemented from 2004–05
WA
The current review is due for completion in
December 2011.
None planned
SA
Last review completed in 1996–97 and implemented in
Major review planned for 2011–12 and
1997–98. Major review planned for 2011–12 and 2012–13. 2012–13.
Tas.
Last triennial review was implemented in 2009–10.
Next review period will end during 2011–12 and be
implemented in 2012–13.
Last triennial review was implemented
in 2009–10. Next review period will end
during 2011–12 and be implemented in
2012–13.
NT
Review of methodology completed in 2004–05 and
implemented over five years from 2005–06
None planned
Source: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
42
Chapter 2 • Financial assistance grants to local government
Impact of local government grants commission
capping policies
Year-to-year variations in the data local government grants commissions use to determine
allocation of grants can lead to significant fluctuations in grants for individual local
governing bodies. Changes in local government grants commission methodologies for
improving allocation of grants most likely to achieve horizontal equalisation can also lead
to fluctuations. As unexpected changes in grants can impede local governments’ efficient
planning, local government grants commissions have adopted policies to ensure changes
are not unacceptably large.
Many local government grants commissions average the data of several years to reduce
fluctuations. Nevertheless, policies to limit changes, by capping increases or decreases, may
be needed to limit year-to-year variations.
No local governing body receives less than the minimum grant, so local governing bodies on
the minimum grant are exempt from capping. In some circumstances, a local government
grants commission may decide a local governing body’s grant should not be capped.
Usually, this is to allow a larger grant increase than would otherwise be possible.
43
CHAPTER 3
Local government efficiency
and performance
Section 16 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) requires
an annual report to Parliament on its operations, which includes an assessment based
on comparable national data of the performance of local governments including
their efficiency.
Previous Local Government National Reports have identified the difficulty of basing an
assessment on comparable national data, due in large part to the different arrangements
each state has to collect and report on local government performance.
In preparing this National Report, states and local government associations were asked to
provide a report on their activities during 2010 –11 in the following areas:
• developments in relation to local government’s use of long-term financial and
asset management plans, including any developments in implementing the Local
Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks;
• measures undertaken to develop and implement comparative performance
measures between local governing bodies; and
• reforms undertaken during 2010 –11 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
local government service delivery.
These reports are in Appendix B. This chapter will focus on progress as reported by the states
and local government associations in relation to activities in these areas.
45
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Long-term financial and asset management
Across the three spheres of government in Australia, there is a clear focus to encourage
local government to proactively manage its community’s assets and to improve its
long-term financial planning.
At the national level, the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council agreed to
pursue nationally consistent approaches to the financial sustainability, asset management
and financial reporting of local government. At its 2007 meeting, the Council committed
to provide a consistent reporting mechanism for local government and to ensure state
governments had a clearer picture of the financial and management health of the local
government sector in their state.
As part of this commitment, three Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks
were developed for local government1. These were:
• Framework 1: Criteria for Assessing Financial Sustainability
• Framework 2: Asset Planning and Management
• Framework 3: Financial Planning and Reporting
At the Ministers’ Council meeting on 9 October 2009, the Australian Government
announced arrangements for a Local Government Reform Fund. A focus of the Reform
Fund was to improve infrastructure asset management and planning, and to build the
sustainability and capacity of local government to meet community needs. Projects
approved for funding under the Reform Fund would complement the development of this
Nationally Consistent Framework.
The Australian Government subsequently approved $16.521 million worth of projects under
Phase 1 of the Reform Fund (see Table 3.1). These projects are expected to be completed
in 2012. Further projects under Phase 2 of the Reform Fund are expected to be delivered in
2012 and 2013.
1
46
These three frameworks are available for download at www.lgpmcouncil.gov.au/publications/sus_framework.aspx.
Chapter 3 • Local government efficiency and performance
Table 3.1: Funding agreed under Phase 1 of the Local Government Reform Fund
Recipient
Purpose
Australian Capital Territory
Development of an asset and financial
management planning framework
437 000
New South Wales Government
Local government asset management
and financial management project
3 250 000
Northern Territory Government and
the Local Government Association of
the Northern Territory
Local Government capacity
building project
1 350 000
Queensland Government and Local Government
Association of Queensland
Advancing asset management in
local government
2 695 000
South Australian Government and Local
Government Association of South Australia
Improving South Australian
councils’ asset and financial
management practices
1 650 000
South Australian Government and local
government bodies
Adelaide integrated design strategy
1 000 000
Local Government Association of Tasmania
Long term asset and financial
management planning for all
Tasmanian councils
870 000
Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority
Independent review of structures
for local governance and service
delivery in southern Tasmania
150 000
Tasmanian Government and
Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority
Future-proofing Tasmania’s councils:
a regional and land use based
approach to climate change
adaptation
400 000
Victorian Government and the Municipal
Association of Victoria
Local government sustainability project
964 000
Victorian Government and the Municipal
Association of Victoria
Local government regional asset
management services project
1 404 000
Western Australian Government
Integrated strategic planning, financial
management and asset management
in local government
2 351 000
Total
Agreed funding
16 521 000
Source: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
In April 2010, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) decided to reform the system
of Ministerial Councils so as to give a greater focus on national strategic priorities. As a result,
the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council was wound up on 30 June 2011.
Oversight of local government asset management and long-term financial planning is to be
undertaken by the Local Government Ministers’ Forum.
For this National Report, jurisdictions were asked to provide reports on the implementation of
these Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks during 2010 –11. While the full
reports are at Appendix B, a summary of the progress by state follows:
In New South Wales, the State government is reforming the way councils plan and report
to their communities. One element of this reform is to require councils to have a resourcing
strategy that includes an asset management plan, a long-term financial plan and a
workforce plan. Councils must also provide improved annual financial reporting on the
condition of their assets and the cost to bring assets to a satisfactory standard.
47
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Improving asset management practices within councils is expected to lead to a better
understanding of:
• their current assets and their condition;
• how well the current assets meet the community’s current and future needs; and
• the capacity of the council to change the assets available.
Councils should therefore be better placed to determine whether additional funds are
required for assets and how the funds could be sourced.
These reforms are being introduced via a staged approach over three years beginning in
2010 –11 with councils self-selecting the year they begin implementation.
In Victoria, an assessment by the Victorian Auditor-General found that councils have
improved their financial performance and asset management over the past decade.
The state has also provided additional funding to local government for infrastructure under:
• the Regional Growth Fund where councils are eligible for grant funding over four
years through the $100 million Local Government Infrastructure Account for road
projects, bridges, new community assets and the upgrade of existing facilities;
• the Country Roads and Bridges Fund where 40 rural councils are able to apply for
funding to renew and maintain regional roads and bridges; and
• the Public Libraries Capital Works Program to improve library infrastructure by
delivering new or upgraded facilities.
In Queensland, the local government legislation now requires councils to prepare long-term
asset management plans, long-term financial forecasts and long-term community plans. This
has shifted the planning process within councils from an annual focus on the budget to a
longer term perspective with an emphasis on the ongoing sustainability of the council.
In 2011, the state found that most councils can prepare long-term financial forecasts
and develop sustainability strategies. However, further work is required to develop
asset management plans and to integrate these with financial forecasts. The State has
also been assessing the financial sustainability of councils and identifying those facing
financial challenges.
It is expected that all councils will have developed asset management plans for all
infrastructure assets by March 2012.
In Western Australia, an Integrated Strategic Planning Framework has been developed to
improve the practice of strategic planning in local government. So that councils comply
with the intent of state local government legislation, the Framework specifies the minimum
requirements to be met by councils and outlines processes and activities for councils so that
an integrated strategic plan can be developed.
Key components of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework are the frameworks
and guidelines for the long-term financial planning and for asset management. These
components are aligned with the Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks.
Training programs on integrated planning, asset management planning and long-term
financial planning are being delivered to councils across the state.
48
Chapter 3 • Local government efficiency and performance
Amendments have been drafted to regulations under the state local government legislation
to require asset management planning and long-term financial planning to become
standard practice for councils.
In South Australia, all councils have developed and adopted long-term financial and asset
management plans as required under State local government legislation.
Funding under the Local Government Reform Fund will accelerate the implementation of the
asset management and financial planning frameworks, build capacity in and resilience of
councils and increase collaboration between councils in planning and service delivery.
Additional work is underway to improve the rigour of existing infrastructure and asset
management plans. This is because some councils have found their earlier plans had not
been based on financially sustainable service levels.
During 2010 –11, councils were advised of the importance of making careful decisions when
proposing projects to be funded under the Australian Government’s Regional and Local
Community Infrastructure Program (see description of program in box). They were reminded
that decisions on infrastructure priorities need to be based on the long-term financial plans of
the council.
In Tasmania, a project approved under the Australian Government’s Local Government
Reform Fund will provide funding to assist with the development of planning templates
and the implementation of long-term financial and asset management plans in all
Tasmanian councils.
As part of this project, a local government asset management policy was developed
to provide councils with high-level guidance in the development of their asset
management policies.
In the Northern Territory, all councils either have long term financial and asset management
plans or are close to finalising them.
Funding from the Australian Government’s Local Government Reform Fund was used
in 2010 –11 for workshops on financial and asset management for council staff and
elected members.
In the Australian Capital Territory, the Territory and Municipal Services Directorate (TAMS)
delivers a wide range of local government-type services such as roads, footpaths, public
transport, public libraries as well as landfill, recycling and waste collection. Financial and
asset management are core functions of the Directorate.
Two projects in 2010 –11 focused on the financial and asset management of TAMS. These
were to:
• identify opportunities for improvement in its structure, processes and work practices
of TAMS. An ACT Expenditure and Evaluation Committee worked with TAMS on this
review; and
• implement a Strategic Asset Management Framework for TAMS. This was facilitated
by funding given under the Australian Government’s Local Government Reform
Fund. A key output of this project is expected to be improvements in the life cycle
management of assets.
Both projects are expected to deliver more accurate and accessible information about the
Territory’s assets.
49
2010–11 Local Government National Report
REGIONAL AND LOCAL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
This program was part of the Australian Government’s Nation Building Economic
Stimulus Plan. On 18 June 2010, the Federal Government announced further funding
of $100 million to be made available in 2010 –11 under Round 3 of the program.
Under this program, councils were funded to provide community infrastructure
such as:
•
social and cultural infrastructure (e.g. art spaces, gardens);
•
recreational facilities (e.g. swimming pools, sports stadiums);
•
tourism infrastructure (e.g. walkways, tourism information centres);
•
hildren, youth and seniors facilities
c
(e.g. playgroup centres, senior citizens’ centres);
•
access facilities (e.g. boat ramps, footbridges); and
•
environmental initiatives
(e.g. drain and sewerage upgrades, recycling plants).
The program allowed for funding of new construction and major renovation of
community infrastructure as well as the refurbishment of assets.
When determining project proposals, councils were responsible for community
consultation and for assessing the benefit to their community of potential
infrastructure projects. Councils were encouraged to consider projects that:
•
addressed the needs of the local indigenous population;
•
ddressed environmental sustainability and how the projects they selected
a
promoted green building technologies, design practices and operations
and prepared for climate change impacts; and
•
involved collaboration with neighbouring councils including by way of
joint-projects.
Funding under Round 3 was determined as follows:
•
each council received a minimum payment of $30 000;
•
ouncils with populations greater than 30 000 and categorised as urban
c
fringe or urban regional, according to the Australian Classification of Local
Governments, received an additional growth component of $150 000; and
•
ll councils with at least 5 000 residents shared the remaining funds
a
proportionate to their 2009–10 general purpose financial assistance grant.
Since its inception in November 2008, more than $1 billion has been
available to local government under the Regional and Local Community
Infrastructure Program. Further information on the program is available at:
www.regional.gov.au/local/cip/index.aspx
50
Chapter 3 • Local government efficiency and performance
Comparative performance indicators
All local governments have a legal requirement, under their state local government
Acts, to report on their performance. These reports may be in the form of annual reports,
performance statements, financial statements and/or strategic planning reports.
While not all performance information is publicly available, some states provide a
comparative analysis of local governments under their jurisdiction. This information is
collected by either the responsible state or territory agency or by grants commissions.
An interesting development involving the Productivity Commission occurred in July 2011.
The Commission was asked to assess the performance of local government as a regulator.
The study is expected to develop indicators so that the performance of local government
as a regulator can be benchmarked (see the Productivity Commission Business Regulation
Benchmarking study on page 56).
For this National Report, state governments and local government associations were asked
to report on measures undertaken in 2010 –11 to develop and implement comparative local
government performance indicators. A summary of these reports for each state follows.
In New South Wales, 19 performance indicators for councils were published in the 2009–10
Comparative Information on New South Wales Local Government Councils. This is the 20th
year of publication of this report. Time series data for each indicator, the raw data as well as
the publication are available at: www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_index.asp
In Victoria, some exploratory work by the Essential Services Commission, a Victorian
government statutory authority, was undertaken in 2009–10 to develop council performance
measures. The Commission sought to develop indicators from the perspective of service
recipients. This work will form the foundation of future developments in this area.
In Queensland, the 2009–10 edition of the Queensland Local Government Comparative
Information Report was released. The report includes efficiency, effectiveness and qualityof-service indicators for key functional and financial areas of local government. The report
assists councils to monitor trends over time and to benchmark their performance both
internally and with other councils.
In addition, councils are required to provide information annually about asset management,
community engagement, governance and financial sustainability. This information is used to
evaluate and report on the financial sustainability of councils in Queensland.
In Western Australia, the development of a Performance Measurement Framework for local
government is being pursued.
As a first step, performance measures have been developed to identify changes in local
government capability in:
• integrated planning;
• workforce planning;
• financial planning; and
• asset management.
51
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Using information collected from councils, a sector-wide Capability Index will be calculated
showing the proportion of councils attaining the baseline level of capability. It is intended
that councils will use these results to drive continuous improvement.
In South Australia, the Local Government Association provides a report annually showing
key financial indicators for the local government sector. The report provides the latest values
for these indicators as well as historical values and comparisons across councils. For the
2010 –11 report, additional data showing differences between categories of councils for
2009–10 was provided.
In Tasmania, to promote excellence in performance and to support long-term sustainability,
a Sustainability, Objectives and Indicators project is being developed for the local
government sector. Council performance will be measured against sustainability indicators.
In the Northern Territory, comparative performance measurement for local government is
not currently being pursued.
The Australian Local Government Association identified the need to resolve data issues
for local government. It outlined a case for Australian Government funding to assist in the
measurement of local government service delivery, citing a finding in the 2008 Productivity
Commission report Addressing Local Government Revenue Raising Capacity that ‘[t]here is
a need for the Australian Bureau of Statistics and various grants commissions to improve the
consistency and accuracy of the local government data collections’.
PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION BUSINESS REGULATION BENCHMARKING STUDY:
ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS REGULATOR
In July 2011, the Productivity Commission was asked to undertake a study into the
performance of local government as a regulator. This study is the fourth in a series of
Commission reviews to benchmark the regulatory burdens on Australian business.
The Productivity Commission was asked to benchmark the extent to which
approaches adopted by councils when exercising their regulatory responsibilities
affects the costs incurred by business. Specifically, the Commission was asked to:
•
identify the scope of local government regulatory responsibilities in
each state;
•
larify the extent to which the local government role includes implementing
c
policies of national and state governments;
•
ssess whether different responsibilities and the approach taken to their
a
exercise has a material impact on business costs; and
•
identify best practices which have the capacity to reduce unnecessary
regulatory costs for business.
The study will develop indicators so that the performance of local government can
be benchmarked. It will also draw on leading practice approaches both in Australia
and overseas. Further details on the study can be found at: www.pc.gov.au/
projects/study/regulationbenchmarking/localgov.
52
Chapter 3 • Local government efficiency and performance
Efficiency and effectiveness reforms
State governments and local government associations were asked to report on other
reforms undertaken in 2010 –11 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local
government service delivery.
In New South Wales, one of the aims of that state’s Local Government Reform Program is to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of services provided by councils. The approaches
being pursued with councils under this program are:
• strengthening the strategic focus and the better integration of planning and
reporting processes;
• implementing an asset management framework, including long term
financial planning;
• promoting better council practices; and
• encouraging greater cooperation between councils.
An example of this is the formation of the Strategic Alliance Network to encourage greater
cooperation between councils. The Network comprises key local government stakeholders
and councils committed to developing and sharing initiatives involving
council collaboration.
The Division of Local Government within the New South Wales government, the Local
Government and Shires Associations, Local Government Managers Australia and the
Strategic Alliance Network are working to develop better ways to share information,
build relevant skills and promote further council collaboration. In this regard, work has
begun on preparing a discussion paper on strengthening the role of Regional
Organisations of Councils.
In Victoria, the Councils Reforming Business program helped councils to improve services,
reduce costs and reduce red tape. For example, a project to harmonise engineering
standards across regional councils was initiated under this program. Financial benefits, time
savings and better outcomes were identified as potential outcomes if shared state-wide
engineering and infrastructure standards were adopted. These engineering standards are
being implemented in 24 councils and are available for adoption in other councils.
Other projects under this program are the Local Government Procurement Strategy that
sought to improve council procurement processes, and the Better Practice Local Laws
Strategy that sought to help councils develop regulations in a robust and consistent manner.
In Queensland, the focus in 2010 –11 was on improving the efficiency and effectiveness
of local government through enhancements in financial management, sustainability and
reporting requirements.
53
2010–11 Local Government National Report
In Western Australia, assistance is provided to councils that are voluntarily participating in
structural reform. The councils receiving assistance are directly pursuing amalgamations or
joining a Regional Transition Group or a Regional Collaborative Group.
As at June 2011, four councils were directly pursuing amalgamations. A further four councils
had recommended an amalgamation to the Local Government Advisory Board but a poll
of electors from one of these councils had overturned this. In addition, 16 councils have
formed five Regional Transition Groups to work together on a Regional Business Plan to
consider whether amalgamation would benefit their communities. A further 23 councils have
formed five Regional Collaborative Groups to work together on a Regional Business Plan to
consider whether a regional approach to service delivery would benefit their communities.
The Regional Collaborative Groups approach is more suited to councils in regional areas
where amalgamation is not a priority because of the distance between towns.
In South Australia, the Governance Standards Advisory Committee of the Local Government
Association provided advice on leading practice and continued governance improvement
for the sector. Its focus in 2010 –11 was on:
• legislative review;
• governance within local government;
• good governance assessment; and
• a code of practice for access to meeting and associated documents.
The Local Government Association Education and Training Service continued to provide
training and support for councillors and council staff. The Association also funded two
reports by the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (for further information
on ACELG, see page 56) on professional development in the local government sector:
The Current State of Professional Development and Issues, Challenges and Professional
Development Priorities.
In 2010 –11, a paper on good administrative practice in managing a complaints and
investigations process was produced as part of the Regulatory Services Program. Under
this program, councils already had access to a model enforcement policy and a set of
standard operating procedures for the regulatory powers commonly exercised by councils.
In Tasmania, a review of valuation and local government rating processes is being
undertaken to identify an approach that will be:
• more efficient and more flexible for councils;
• simpler and more easily understood;
• cost-effective;
• equitable for different classes of ratepayers;
• less susceptible to market fluctuations; and
• more sustainable in the long term.
In the Northern Territory, the local government association has sought exemption for
councils having to call tenders for a range of equipment so that access to such equipment
can be obtained under the Local Government National Procurement Network tender using
local suppliers.
54
Chapter 3 • Local government efficiency and performance
Local government amalgamations
Table 3.2 shows the change in the number of councils in Australia at various times since 1910.
Table 3.2: Number of local governments, by state, 1910–2011
State
Councils 1910a
Councils 1991a
Councils 2001b
Councils 2008*
Councils 2011*
NSW
324
176
172
152
152
Vic.
206
210
79
79
79
Qld
164
134
125
73
73
WA
147
138
142
140
139
SA
175
122
68
68
68
Tas.
51
46
29
29
29
n/a
n/a
7
61
16
1 067
826
622
602
556
NT
Total
Note:
*
n/a
–
New South Wales total excludes Silverton and Tibooburra villages and Lord Howe Island;
–South Australian total excludes the five Indigenous local governing bodies and the Outback Areas
Community Development Trust;
–
Northern Territory total excludes the Trust Account.
not applicable.
Sources:
a
K Sproats, 1996, Comparison of agendas and processes in Australian Local Government, a paper
presented to the Local Government in Queensland Centenary Conference, p.5;
b
From information provided by state local government associations and individual councils (totals
exclude Indigenous and other local governing bodies receiving federal financial assistance grants).
In the last 20 years, local government structural reform processes have been implemented
in most states. For Queensland and the Northern Territory, the structural reform programs
have been implemented relatively recently and the new arrangements are being bedded
down. Structural reform is now on the agenda for councils in Western Australia and council
amalgamation is one possible outcome of this process.
In May 2011, ACELG released a report on options for ‘consolidation’ in local government.
Options considered for council consolidation included shared services delivery, regional
collaboration, boundary adjustment as well as amalgamation of councils.
The report, Consolidation in Local Government: A Fresh Look2, covers both Australia and
New Zealand and it was a collaborative research project between ACELG, the Local
Government Association of South Australia and the Local Government New Zealand.
Significantly, one of the findings of the report is that (p 8):
…consolidation…is an essential (but not exclusive) strategy to address the challenges
facing local government and secure its place in the evolving Australian system of
government. The evidence shows that significant benefits can be derived from all of the
approaches to consolidation examined in this study. Equally there may be disbenefits,
disruption, transition costs, weakening of loc al democracy, loss of local identity and
employment that need to be weighed in any strategic approach to reform.
2
The full report and detailed case studies can be downloaded from the ACELG website at www.acelg.org.au
55
2010–11 Local Government National Report
The study also found that (p 10):
…consolidation provides important opportunities to capture economies of scope and
enhance the strategic capacity of local government. Economies of scope increase
the capacity of councils to undertake new functions and deliver new or improved
services that previously were not possible. Significantly, they enable councils to shift their
focus towards a more strategic view of their operations. We argue that this enhanced
strategic capacity is in part a function of increased size and resource level, but it is
also related to the potentialities that are created by the pooling of knowledge and
expertise. The process of consolidation can generate a focus that transcends individual
local government boundaries and encourages councils to operate in a broader
context, one that is more regional or system-wide, enabling them to relate more
effectively to central governments. Enhanced strategic capacity appears essential to
local government’s long term success as a valued partner in the system of government,
and this emerged as probably the most important issue for councils to consider in
examining different modes of consolidation.
AUSTRALIAN CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
During June 2009, the Australian Government announced the creation of
the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG), which is a
collaboration of university and professional bodies committed to advancing
local government3. At the end of its initial five years, the intention is that ACELG
will have brought about enduring improvements in local government’s
capacity and performance.
ACELG’s vision is:
World-class local government to meet the emerging challenges of
21st century Australia.
To achieve this vision, the Centre’s mission is to provide:
3
56
•
national network and framework within which local government
a
organisations, government agencies, academic institutions, training bodies
and other key stakeholders can collaborate in areas of mutual interest;
•
research and development capacity to support policy formulation, drive
innovation and help address the challenges facing local government;
•
leadership in promoting informed debate on key policy issues;
•
clearing house for the exchange of information and ideas,
a
identifying, showcasing and promoting innovation and best
practice in local government;
•
inputs to capacity building programs across the local government
sector, with an initial emphasis on long term financial sustainability
and asset management;
2010 Annual Report for the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government at
www.acelg.org.au/aboutacelg.php
Chapter 3 • Local government efficiency and performance
•
orkforce development initiatives including education, training and skills
w
development for both staff and elected members;
•
leadership development programs for both senior and emerging
leaders; and
•
specialist focus on the particular needs of local government in rural and
a
remote areas, including Indigenous local governance.
The work of the consortium has six program areas. These are:
•
research and policy foresight;
•
innovation and best practice;
•
governance and strategic leadership;
•
organisation capacity building;
•
rural-remote and Indigenous local government; and
•
workforce development.
All six program areas have the potential to improve the performance of local
government. For example, in the innovation and best practice program, the
objective is to promote exchange of information and ideas, and to identify,
showcase and disseminate innovation and best practice in local government.
Under this program, an interactive web-based system the Innovation and
Knowledge Exchange Network or IKEN was launched in June 2011. It provides an
online space where local government practitioners can interact with their peers and
other stakeholders from across the nation for information exchange, collaboration,
mutual learning and shared insights.
57
CHAPTER 4
Local government service provision
to Indigenous communities
Reporting requirements
Section 16 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) requires an
assessment, based on comparable national data, of the delivery of local government
services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
During 2010 –11, states and local governments pursued initiatives aimed at promoting
the delivery of local government services to Indigenous people. Appendix B has reports
prepared by state governments and local government associations on these initiatives.
A summary of key initiatives is also provided later in this chapter.
The Act requires a report on the delivery of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities rather than to Indigenous individuals. In 2006, the Australian Bureau of
Statistics found 1,187 discrete Indigenous communities in Australia. About 90 per cent of the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in these discrete communities resided in
three jurisdictions, the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia (see Figure 4.1).
The delivery of services to Indigenous communities will therefore be particularly important for
local government in these jurisdictions.
59
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Figure 4.1: Map of discrete Indigenous communities by usual population, Australia 2006
500 people or more
200–499
50–199
Less than 50 people
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007, Housing and Infrastructure in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Communities, 2006 (Reissue), cat. no. 4710.0 (p. 121).
Closing the gap
Six targets were agreed at the October 2008 meeting of the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) for closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians across urban, rural and remote areas. These were:
• close the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians by 2031;
• halve the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five by 2018;
• ensure access to early childhood education for all Indigenous four year olds in
remote communities by 2013;
• halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievement for Indigenous
children by 2018;
• halve the gap in Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates for Indigenous young people
by 2020; and
• halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians by 2018.
60
Chapter 4 • Local government service provision to Indigenous communities
On 9 February 2011, the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard issued the third report to Parliament
on progress in Closing the Gap4. The report fulfills the Australian Government’s commitment
to table an annual report in Parliament on this initiative.
The report identifies three important imperatives that need to be overcome. These are:
• to overcome under-investment in services and infrastructure;
• to encourage and support personal responsibility as the foundation for healthy,
functional families and communities; and
• to build new understanding and respect between Indigenous and
non-Indigenous Australians.
Seven key building blocks that target specific areas of Indigenous disadvantage are listed in
the report. These are:
• early childhood building block;
• schooling building block;
• health building block;
• healthy homes building block;
• safe communities building block;
• economic participation building block; and
• governance and leadership building block.
The report indicates how each of these seven key building blocks works to make progress
towards achieving the targets.
Funding to make long-term improvements in each of these areas has been committed
under the following specific National Partnership Agreements:
• $5.5 billion on Remote Indigenous Housing;
• $1.57 billion on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes;
• $564.4 million on Indigenous Early Childhood Development;
• $228.9 million on Indigenous Economic Participation; and
• $291.2 million on Remote Service Delivery.
The report states that tackling Indigenous disadvantages requires ongoing collaboration
between all spheres of government working in partnership with Indigenous individuals and
communities. It also stresses the important role that the corporate and community sectors
have to play. The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples is cited as an example of how
this partnership approach is being pursued.
The report acknowledges that in order to measure progress, the evidence base must be
improved. The Government has therefore committed $46.4 million over four years from
2009–10 to improve the availability and reliability of data.
4
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 2011, Closing the gap, Prime Minister’s report 2011, Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra
61
2010–11 Local Government National Report
The Prime Minister, in tabling this Report in the House of Representatives5, said (p 127):
I know we could never say mission accomplished three years into a 30-year process.
But the message of this report is clear. Together, we can do this. Together, we have
a plan for progress. We do see change for the better. And we know where we want
change to continue. This is the power of Closing the Gap. We do not have a plan
to do everything. Such plans rarely succeed. We do have a plan to meet six targets.
Together, we can do this. With this evidence of where we have more work to do comes
a responsibility to do more work now.
In August 2011, the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service
Provision released the fifth edition of the report, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage:
Key Indicators6. The Steering Committee found (p 4):
Across virtually all the indicators in this report, there are wide gaps in outcomes between
Indigenous and other Australians. The report shows that the challenge is not impossible,
in a few areas, the gaps are narrowing. However, many indicators show that outcomes
are not improving, or are even deteriorating. There is still a considerable way to go to
achieve COAG’s commitment to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage.
Outcomes have improved in several areas. In those jurisdictions with long term data,
the mortality rate for Indigenous people declined by 27 per cent between 1991 and
2009, leading to a narrowing (but not closing) of the gap with non-Indigenous people in
those jurisdictions. In particular, Indigenous young child (0-4 years) and infant
(0-12 months) mortality rates declined by over 45 per cent between 1991 and 2009
(in the three jurisdictions for which data are available: WA, SA and the NT). Nationally,
Indigenous home ownership has increased, and Indigenous people are achieving
better outcomes in post-secondary education, employment and income. However,
outcomes in these areas have also improved for non-Indigenous people, leading
to little or no closing of the gaps. In other areas, there has been less progress. There
has been little change in literacy and numeracy, most health indicators and housing
overcrowding for Indigenous people. Rates of child abuse and neglect substantiations
and adult imprisonment have increased for Indigenous people but there has been
recent improvement in juvenile detention rates.
In addition to the substantial contributions of the Australian and state governments in
achieving the Closing the Gap targets, local government has an important role to play.
5
Australia, House of Representatives 2011, Ministerial Statements: Indigenous Affairs, 9 February 2011, p 127.
6
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2011, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2011, Productivity
Commission, Canberra.
62
Chapter 4 • Local government service provision to Indigenous communities
State and local government initiatives
An outline of key activities undertaken by states and local government associations in
improving the provision of local government services to Indigenous people in 2010 –11 is
as follows:
New South Wales
A Social Justice Initiatives survey covering 2008 and 2009 asked councils questions about
initiatives involving Indigenous people. Of the 122 councils that responded,
• 15 councils have implemented the Aboriginal Mentoring Program;
• 59 councils have an Aboriginal advisory or consultative committee; and
• 35 councils have a formal agreement with an Indigenous group.
The inaugural Census of Local Government Employees for New South Wales councils was
conducted in July 2010. It found that Indigenous people make up 3.9 per cent of staff in rural
councils, 1.2 per cent of regional councils and 0.6 per cent of metropolitan council7.
Victoria
The Victorian Government is funding an Aboriginal employment broker program to
assist councils to employ Indigenous people and to support economic development
initiatives. The Municipal Association of Victoria is acting as a local government industry
broker in this program.
The Local Government Aboriginal employment project was established in June 2011 to:
• support local government in their active engagement with Indigenous communities;
• support Indigenous communities as they strengthen their links with local government;
• encourage partnerships between the state and local governments dealing with
Indigenous issues; and
• improve outcomes for Indigenous people and local government primarily in relation
to reconciliation, service delivery, employment and cultural heritage.
Queensland
There are 14 Aboriginal Shire Councils and two Indigenous Regional Councils. The
Queensland Department of Local Government and Planning is improving local government
service delivery to Indigenous communities through enhancing financial and asset
management of Indigenous councils as well as building their capacity.
The Department is developing the capability of Indigenous councils in land use planning
and development as well as supporting the delivery of essential services by these councils.
Financial assistance and capacity building support has also been provided by the state
to the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, recently created from the amalgamation of
15 smaller councils.
7
This compares with data from the 2006 Census showing that 2.2 per cent of the New South Wales population identified as being indigenous.
63
2010–11 Local Government National Report
The Local Government Association of Queensland is assuming greater responsibility in
representing and advocating on behalf of Queensland’s Indigenous councils following the
demise of the Aboriginal Coordinating Council, their former peak organising body.
An Indigenous Leaders’ forum has also been formed that meets twice a year to identify and
discuss key issues affecting Indigenous councils.
The Association notes that while good progress has been made since establishing the
Indigenous councils with their status equal to that of other Queensland councils, the
Indigenous councils face many challenges not faced by other councils because of their
history, isolation and cultural environment. However, the Association reports that there is the
emergence of strong and capable leadership in Indigenous councils that is beginning to
tackle these challenges.
Western Australia
Work is proceeding on revised arrangements for the delivery of municipal services to
Indigenous communities. This initiative stems from a Bilateral Agreement between the state
and Australian governments as well as a subsequent National Partnership Agreement on
Remote Indigenous Housing.
Financial assistance from the state has been provided to a number of remote and regional
councils for specialist consultants to undertake the scoping and costing of services in
Indigenous communities using a template specifically developed for this project.
South Australia
Support continues to be provided to councils involved in Native Title processes. In particular,
support is given to the 27 councils involved in Indigenous land use negotiations in the
Kaurna region.
Tasmania
An arrangement to provide waste management to the Indigenous community on
Cape Barren Island was agreed following a meeting, facilitated by the state, involving
the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania, the Flinders Council and the Cape Barren Island
Aboriginal Association.
Northern Territory
All councils are involved in service delivery to Indigenous communities. While municipal
councils tend to only provide core local government services, the range of services
provided by shire councils is more diverse and can include services provide on behalf of the
Northern Territory Government as well as services funded by Northern Territory and Australian
Government grants.
64
Chapter 4 • Local government service provision to Indigenous communities
Australian Capital Territory
The ACT Government has established two bodies dealing with provision of services to
Indigenous people. These bodies are:
• the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body to ensure participation by
Indigenous people in the ACT in the formulation, coordination and implementation
of government policies that affect them; and
• the ACT Taskforce on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs comprising the
heads of key ACT government directorates as well as the ACT Chief Police Officer
to drive the delivery of improved services and outcomes for Indigenous people in
the ACT.
In 2010 –11, the Elected Body met formally six times and the Taskforce four times.
The President of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) is a member of
COAG. ALGA supports the Closing the Gap initiative and notes the important role local
government plays in service delivery for Indigenous communities. ALGA welcomes the
renewed focus of the Australian Government on service delivery for remote communities as
well as the increased funding made available for it.
AUSTRALIAN CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACELG)
INDIGENOUS PROGRAM
ACELG’s mandate is to enhance professionalism and skills in local
government, showcase innovation and best practice, and facilitate a
better-informed policy debate.
The rural-remote and Indigenous local government program is one of the six
program areas being pursued by ACELG8. The objective of this program is to
identify specific governance and capacity building issues facing rural, remote and
Indigenous local government.
This program began in 2009–10 when ACELG undertook scoping studies in
Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory to identify how best to
frame the program. In July 2010, it convened a roundtable discussion to consider the
findings of these scoping studies with the aim of formulating a national strategy for
discussion with key stakeholders.
Following the roundtable, ACELG put forward the following strategic priorities for
capacity building in rural-remote and Indigenous local government9:
1
Role and expectations of local government
2
Local government service delivery
3
Financial capability and asset management
4
Statutory and administrative compliance
8
Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, 2010 Annual Report.
9
Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, A Capacity Building Strategy for Rural-Remote and Indigenous Local Government, March 2011.
65
2010–11 Local Government National Report
5
Governance development and community engagement
6
Senior management capacity and support
7
Workforce development
8
Regional collaboration and resource sharing
9
Appropriate operational systems
10 External engagement and relationship building
ACELG proposed preparing a paper on roles and expectations of rural-remote and
Indigenous local government as well as to undertake specific work on issues relevant
to particular jurisdictions.
In addition, ACELG proposed to build additional elements relating to rural-remote
and Indigenous local government into its sector-wide Organisation Capacity
Building and Workforce Development programs. These additional elements will be
in areas such as guidelines for financial planning, Indigenous employment and the
design of training programs. It also proposes to facilitate the sharing of the Western
Australian experience resulting from the greater regional collaboration occurring in
the Pilbara, Kimberley and Goldfields.
Further, ACELG proposed that two further roundtable discussions be convened
covering compliance and operational systems.
ACELG believes that a partnership approach involving federal and state
governments, local government associations and professional bodies, and other key
stakeholders is essential to generate the funding and resources required to deliver
the strategy. It is therefore proposing to establish a reference group to provide
advice on priorities, to promote partnerships and to get projects agreed, funded
and started. It is also looking to convene annual roundtables of stakeholders to
review overall progress and consider next steps.
ACELG is also seeking formal endorsement of its strategy by local government
Ministers and local government associations.
Australian Government expenditure and progress
Financial assistance grants to Indigenous local
governing bodies
Of the 566 local governing bodies that received financial assistance grants in 2010 –11,
31 were Indigenous (Table 4.4).
To be eligible to receive these grants, Indigenous local governing bodies must be established
in one of three ways. The three ways are:
• a state government’s normal local government legislation; for example, the Aurukun
and Mornington local governments in Queensland and the Ngaanyatjarraku local
government in Western Australia, or
• a state government’s distinct legislation; for example, the Anangu Pitjantjatjara
Yankunytjatjara (APY) and the Maralinga Tjarutja Councils in South Australia, or
66
Chapter 4 • Local government service provision to Indigenous communities
• a declaration by the Australian Government minister, acting on advice from
the state minister, that it is a local governing body for the purposes of the Local
Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) so that it can receive financial
assistance grants.
Table 4.1 gives the distribution of the 31 Indigenous local governing bodies by jurisdiction and
the means by which they became eligible for financial assistance grants.
Table 4.1: D
istribution of Indigenous local governing bodies, by eligibility type and jurisdiction,
at July 2010
State
Established under state
Established under
local government distinct state legislation
legislation
(no.)
(no.)
Declared local
governing bodies
(no.)
Total Indigenous local
governing bodies
(no.)
0
0
16
Qld
16
WA
1
0
0
1
SA
0
2a
3
5
NT
9
0
0b
9
26
2
3
31
Total
Note: a
Established under the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 (SA) and the Maralinga
Tjarutja Land Rights Act 1984 (SA).
b
Does not include the Northern Territory Trust Account as it is not an Indigenous local governing body.
Source: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
During 2010 –11, $46.6 million in financial assistance grants was provided to these
31 Indigenous local governing bodies. Of this, $35.3 million was in general purpose grants
and $11.3 million in local road grants. The details of the grant provided to these Indigenous
local governing bodies are in Table D.1 of Appendix D. Indigenous local governing bodies
are identified by an asterisk (*).
Allocation of general purpose payments to mainstream local
governing bodies in relation to their Indigenous population
Some of the financial assistance grants funding received by mainstream local
governing bodies in 2010 –11 is provided to reflect the number of Indigenous people
within their boundaries.
Local Government Grants Commissions determine an allocation of financial assistance
grants to local governing bodies, which must comply with the National Principles
(see Appendix A). For the general purpose grants, local government grants commissions
apply cost adjusters where it has been determined that the cost of providing a local
government service is affected by 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:
67
2010–11 Local Government National Report
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
reflecting the size of the Indigenous population of a local governing body when 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 different costs
associated with delivering the service to Indigenous people, perhaps for language, cultural
reasons, or distance factors. Grants commissions also recognise that local governing bodies
are often unable to charge rates for the land on which some Indigenous communities reside.
This reduces the revenue they are able to raise.
In this way grants commissions try to take into account the impact of Indigenous people on
the finances of a local governing body, in terms of revenue received as well as expenditure
requirements, when determining the financial assistance grant to be allocated.
Grants commissions could determine the level of financial assistance grant that mainstream
local governing bodies receive in respect of Indigenous people. However, there are
conceptual difficulties in using these estimates as a measure of the financial assistance
grants that the local governing bodies receive to provide local government services to
Indigenous people as financial assistance grant is untied in the hands of local governing
bodies. 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 government
Through the National Awards for Local Government, the Australian Government recognises,
rewards and promotes the innovative work of local governments across Australia.
In 2011, two of the award categories recognised councils that worked constructively with
Indigenous people. One category, Engaging and Strengthening Indigenous Communities,
was awarded for good practice in engagement with Indigenous Australians that strengthens
Indigenous communities and actively encourages Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples to participate in decision making on issues that affect their lives. The other category,
Promoting Reconciliation, was awarded for initiatives that strengthen reconciliation through
mutual recognition, respect and participation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians. Both awards were sponsored by the Australian Government Department of
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
The 2011 Engaging and Strengthening Indigenous Communities category winners were:
• City of Swan in Western Australia for their project: Yagan Memorial Park.
This project highlights the results that can be achieved through partnerships between
local government and the Indigenous community.
The Yagan Memorial Park was initiated by the Derbarl Yerrigan Committee for the
Reburial of Yagan’s Kaat (Kaat means ‘head’ in the Nyoongar language).
By way of background, Yagan (c.1795, 11July 1833) was a great Nyoongar leader and
warrior. Yagan’s body was buried on the site where he was killed in 1833 but his Kaat
68
Chapter 4 • Local government service provision to Indigenous communities
was taken as a trophy to England. Since the early 1980s, a number of Nyoongar groups
sought the return of Yagan’s Kaat. After 164 years, his Kaat was finally brought back to
Australia for burial in accordance with Nyoongar custom.
A unique Memorial Park has been created to commemorate the life and death of
Yagan and as a burial site for Yagan’s repatriated Kaat. Now that the Kaat is respectfully
laid to rest, the Elders believe Yagan’s spirit is set free to continue on its eternal journey.
The project was a partnership between the Derbarl Yerrigan Committee for the
Reburial of Yagan’s Kaat, the Department of Indigenous Affairs of Western Australia
and the City of Swan. It involved not only the planning, designing and constructing the
Memorial Park but also organising and conducting the burial and opening ceremony
of the Memorial Park.
• Victoria Daly Shire Council in the Northern Territory was the small council
(less than 15,000 rateable properties) award winner with the project:
Leadership for Indigenous Women
The focus of the project has been to build Indigenous women’s capacity in leadership
as well as their ability to influence governance in the remote communities of Victoria
Daly Shire. The capacity building for the Indigenous women involved engagement,
encouragement and empowerment through training and skills development.
An initial consultative process provided all women with the opportunity to be represented
in a community group. Approximately 50 women were identified who were expected to
benefit from the program.
As a result of the project, there is a higher level of representation of Indigenous women at
local board levels within the shire. Approximately 25 women are currently on local boards
and there are still many not involved in local government forums but who have the
potential to be good leaders.
The Leadership for Indigenous Women project benefits everyone: women, families,
community, regional partnerships and the shire. It means having a more equitable
representation of men and women on boards and a broader discussion of issues
because Indigenous women are involved in the decision making processes.
The project now extends across organisations and networks, bringing together
Indigenous and non-Indigenous women to meet and develop the skills needed to
improve community governance and service delivery arrangements.
The 2011 Promoting Reconciliation category winners were:
• Manningham City Council in Victoria for their program: Manningham Reconciliation
Week Program and Exhibition
This program covers a diverse range of projects that embody the themes of cultural
education, improving understanding, celebration and action. The program has been
evolving since 2006 and in this time has established itself as best practice for Indigenous
engagement and promotion of reconciliation within the community.
The program is delivered through community partnerships. Local community
organisations (such as youth services, community health, education sector, police,
environmental and heritage groups) all have a strong sense of ownership over delivery of
69
2010–11 Local Government National Report
the program. Each partner has formed positive relationships with indigenous facilitators
whereby a shared vision for reconciliation has been established. As a direct result of
their participation in this program, many of these community partners have established
key organisational objectives around reconciliation, and have expressed an ongoing
commitment to continued learning and participation in the reconciliation process.
Reconciliation messages are communicated through ceremony, the arts, culture, history,
environment, literature and recreation. The messages reach a wide audience, with a
strong focus upon youth engagement. This focus is based upon a belief that building
awareness and respect in young people is the key to social change regarding issues
such as Indigenous disadvantage, as well as enabling sustainable reconciliation.
The success of the program arises primarily from the mentorship provided by the
Wurundjeri people. As well, a strong relationship has been built over these years between
local community organisations and the Indigenous community. This has allowed the
Indigenous community to take leadership roles in the planning and delivery of all aspects
of the reconciliation week program.
• Narrabri Shire Council in New South Wales was the small council
(less than 15,000 rateable properties) award winner for their project:
Aboriginal Flag Raising Celebration.
Narrabri Shire Council established a Yarnup Committee in April 2009 by way of an
informal invitation extended to Councillors, local Aboriginal Elders and community
members to discuss issues of mutual benefit. Numerous issues were raised at the initial
meeting including the raising of the Aboriginal Flag.
Subsequently, a request from the Narrabri Local Aboriginal Land Council was received
in May 2009 by Council to raise for the first time the Aboriginal Flag at the Council
Administration Building in conjunction with NAIDOC Week 2009. The year’s focus was
‘Honouring of Elders, Nurturing our Youth’.
Council agreed to fly the Aboriginal Flag for NAIDOC Week and hold a civic reception
during that week. The inaugural Aboriginal Flag raising at the Narrabri Shire Council took
place on 1 July 2009.
The celebration was embraced by the entire community with a march commencing at
the Narrabri Local Aboriginal Land Council Building for all people wishing to be involved.
The march proceeded along the main street of Narrabri which was closed to all traffic
while the march took place. On arrival at the council building, a Welcome to Country
and Smoking Ceremony was conducted by local Indigenous citizens followed by
symbolic speeches by local identities and it concluded with the raising of the
Aboriginal Flag.
The raising of the Aboriginal Flag was seen as one simple way to recognise the status of
the Aboriginal people and their contribution to Australia.
Details of all winners of the 2011 Awards are in the Australian Government publication
National Awards for Local Government: 2011 Winners. Further information on the Awards is
available from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
For example, further information is on the Department’s website at www.regional.gov.au
70
APPENDIX A
National Principles for allocating general purpose and
local road grants
According to section 3 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth)
(the Act), the Federal Parliament provides financial assistance grants to the states and
self-governing territories for the purpose of improving:
• the financial capacity of local governing bodies
• the capacity of local governing bodies to provide their residents with an equitable
level of services
• the certainty of funding for local governing bodies
• the efficiency and effectiveness of local governing bodies
• the provision, by local governing bodies, of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander communities.
The grants are provided to jurisdictions in the form of general purpose and local road
grants. The intra-jurisdictional allocation of these grants to local governing bodies is made
in accordance with recommendations of local government grants commissions with prior
approval of the Australian Government Minister. 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 section 6(1), for the Australian Government Minister
responsible for local government to formulate National Principles after consulting with
jurisdictions and local government.
71
2010–11 Local Government National Report
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.
Figure A.1: National Principles for allocating general purpose and local road grants
A. GENERAL PURPOSE GRANTS
The National Principles relating to allocation of general purpose grants payable
under section 9 of the Act among local governing bodies are as follows:
1. Horizontal equalisation
General purpose grants will be allocated to local governing bodies, as far as
practicable, on a full horizontal equalisation basis as defined by the Act. This is
a basis that ensures each local governing body in the State or Territory is able
to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not lower than the average
standard of other local governing bodies in the State or Territory. It takes account
of differences in the expenditure required by those local governing bodies in the
performance of their functions and in the capacity of those local governing bodies
to raise revenue.1
2. Effort neutrality
An effort or policy neutral approach will be used in assessing the expenditure
requirements and revenue-raising capacity of each local governing body. This
means as far as practicable, that policies of individual local governing bodies in
terms of expenditure and revenue effort will not affect grant determination.
3. Minimum grant
The minimum general purpose grant allocation for a local governing body in a
year will be not less than the amount to which the local governing body would be
entitled if 30 per cent of the total amount of general purpose grants to which the
State or Territory is entitled under section 9 of the Act in respect of the year were
allocated among local governing bodies in the State or Territory on a per capita
basis.1
4. Other grant support
Other relevant grant support provided to local governing bodies to meet any of
the expenditure needs assessed should be taken into account using an inclusion
approach.2
5. Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders
Financial assistance shall be allocated to councils in a way, which recognises the
needs of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders within their boundaries.3
72
Appendix A
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.
73
2010–11 Local Government National Report
WHAT IS HORIZONTAL EQUALISATION?
Horizontal equalisation would be achieved if every council in a state, by means
of reasonable revenue-raising effort, were able to afford to provide a similar range
and quality of services. The Australian Government pursues a policy of horizontal
equalisation when it distributes 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 Act defines horizontal equalisation
as being an allocation of funds that:
•
nsures each local governing body in a state is able to function, by
e
reasonable effort, at a standard not lower than the average standard of
other local governing bodies in the state
•
t akes 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.
74
APPENDIX B
State and territory government and local government
association submissions
This appendix contains the text of the reports submitted by state and territory governments
and local government associations. Headings have been standardised and minor edits
made to the texts to achieve style consistency in the report.
The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) requires that the relevant state
and territory minister and bodies representative of local government be consulted when
preparing this report.
During preparation of this report, they were asked for input on:
• methodology for distributing financial assistance grants for 2010 –11, including any
changes in methodology from 2009–10
• developments in relation to local government’s use of long-term financial and
asset management plans, including any developments in implementing the
Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks
• measures undertaken to develop and implement comparative performance
measures between local governing bodies
• reforms undertaken during 2010 –11 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
local government service delivery
• initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service delivery to Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander communities.
All state governments and the Northern Territory Government responded by directly
addressing each issue.
75
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Due to its special status as both a territory and a local government, the ACT was not required
to directly address the issues. However, it did group its response under two similar headings:
the second, third and forth issues regarding improving efficiency and effectiveness, use of
long-term financial and asset plans and comparative performance indicators; and the sixth
regarding improvement of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
While not required to do so, most local government associations also directly
addressed the issues, except the first regarding methodology for distributing Australian
Government financial assistance grants, which is primarily a state and Northern Territory
government matter.
Report from the New South Wales Division of Local
Government of the Department of Premier and Cabinet
Methodology for distributing financial assistance grants
for 2010 –11, including any changes in methodology from
2009–10
The New South Wales Local Government 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 (Cwth).
General purpose component
The general purpose component of the grant attempts to equalise the financial capacity
of councils. The New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission uses the direct
assessment method. The approach taken considers cost disabilities in the provision of
services on the one hand (expenditure allowances) and an assessment of councils’ relative
capacity to raise revenue on the other (revenue allowances).
Expenditure allowances are calculated for each council for a selected range of council
services. The allowances attempt to compensate councils for expected above average
costs resulting from issues that are beyond their control. To be consistent with the effort
neutral principle, council policy decisions concerning the level of service provided, or if there
is a service provided at all, are not considered.
Expenditure allowances are calculated for 21 council services. These services are: general
administration and governance, aerodromes, services for aged and disabled, building
control, public cemeteries, services for children, general community services, cultural
amenities, control of dogs and other animals, fire control and emergency services, general
health services, library services, noxious plants and pest control, town planning control,
recreational services, stormwater drainage and national report flood mitigation, street and
76
Appendix B – NSW
gutter cleaning, street lighting, and maintenance of urban local roads, sealed rural local
roads, and unsealed rural local roads.
An additional allowance is calculated for councils outside the Sydney statistical division that
recognises their isolation.
The general formula for calculating expenditure allowances is:
No. of units × standard cost × disability factor
where:
• the number of units is the measure of use for the service for the council; for most
services the number of units is the population; for others it may be the number of
properties or the length of roads
• the standard cost represents the state average cost for each of the 21 selected
services. The calculation is based on a state-wide average of councils’ net costs,
excluding extreme values, using selected items from Special Schedule 1 of councils’
financial reports, averaged over five years.
• the disability factor is the measure of disadvantage for the council.
A disability factor is the New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission’s estimate
of the additional cost, expressed as a percentage, of providing a standard service due to
inherent characteristics that are beyond a council’s control. For example, if it estimated that
it would cost a council 10 per cent more than the standard for town planning, because of
an issue such as population growth in the council area, the disability factor would be 10 per
cent. Consistent with the effort neutral principle, the New South Wales Local Government
Grants Commission does not compensate councils for cost differences that arise due to
policy decisions of council, management performance or accounting differences.
For each service the New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission has identified
a number of variables that are considered to be the most significant in influencing a
council’s expenditure on that particular service. These variables are termed ‘disabilities’.
A council may have a disability due to inherent factors such as topography, climate, traffic,
or duplication of services. In addition to disabilities identified by the New South Wales Local
Government Grants Commission, ‘other’ disabilities relating to individual councils may be
determined. These may arise where unique circumstances have been identified as a result
of council visits or special submissions.
The general approach to calculating a disability factor is to take each disability relating to a
service and to apply the following formula:
Disability factor = (council measure ÷ standard measure – 1) × 100 × weighting
where:
• the council measure is the individual council’s measure for the disability being
assessed (for example, population growth)
• the standard measure is the state standard (generally the average) measure for the
disability being assessed
77
2010–11 Local Government National Report
• 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 New South Wales Local Government Grants 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 New South Wales
Local Government Grants Commission considers the deduction approach to be more
consistent with the ‘effort neutral’ requirement specified in the nationality principles.
The New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission also calculates an allowance
for additional costs associated with isolation. The isolation allowance is calculated using
a regression analysis model based on the additional costs of isolation and distances from
Sydney and major regional centres. Only councils outside the Sydney statistical division are
included. Details of the formula are shown later in this section. An additional component
of the isolation allowance is included which specifically recognises the additional industrial
relations obligations of councils in western New South Wales.
A pensioner rebate allowance is calculated which recognises that a council’s share of
pensioner rebates is an additional cost. Councils with high proportions of ratepayers that
qualify for eligible pensioner rebates are considered to be more disadvantaged than those
with a lower proportion.
Revenue allowances attempt to compensate councils for their relative lack of revenueraising capacity. Property values are the basis for assessing revenue-raising capacity
because rates, based on property values, are the principal source of councils’ income.
Importantly, property values are also considered to be a useful indicator of the relative
economic strength of local areas.
The New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission’s methodology compares
land values per property for the council to a state standard value and multiplies the result
by a state standard rate-in-the-dollar. For comparative purposes the New South Wales Local
Government Grants Commission purchases valuation data that has been calculated to a
common base date for all councils by the Valuer-General. To reduce seasonal and market
fluctuations in the property market, the valuations are averaged over three years. In the
revenue allowance calculation, councils with low values per property are assessed as
being disadvantaged and are brought up to the average (positive allowances), while
councils with high values per property are assessed as being advantaged and are brought
down to the average (negative allowances). That is, the theoretical revenue-raising
capacity of each council is equalised against the state standard. The New South Wales
Local Government Grants Commission’s approach excludes the rating policies of individual
councils (effort neutral).
78
Appendix B – NSW
Separate calculations are made for urban and non-urban properties. Non-rateable
properties are excluded from the New South Wales Local Government Grants 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 New South Wales Local Government Grants
Commission was concerned that use of natural weighting would exaggerate the
redistributive effect of the average revenue standards. That is, the revenue allowances are
substantially more significant than the expenditure allowances. This issue was discussed with
the Australian Government and the agreed principles provide that ‘revenue allowances
may be discounted to achieve equilibrium with the expenditure allowances’. 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.
During 2009–10 and 2010 –11 the New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission
reviewed the appropriateness of moderating its revenue assessment outcomes using a
range of socio-economic indicators. The Commission also examined the findings of the
Productivity Commission’s 2008 research report on Assessing Local Government Revenue
Raising Capacity.
Because of the strong correlation between socio-economic indicators and property values
none of the moderators examined were found to enhance the existing property based
approach. Accordingly the New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission
decided to maintain its assessment method, with its discounting mechanism.
The commission does not specifically consider rate pegging, which applies in New South
Wales. The property based calculations are essentially dealing with relativities between
councils, and rate pegging affects all councils.
Movements in the grants are generally caused by annual variations in property valuations,
standard costs, road and bridge length, disability measures and population.
The New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission, because of the practical and
theoretical problems involved, does not consider the requirements of councils for capital
expenditure. In order to assess capital expenditure requirements the New South Wales
Local Government Grants 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 New South Wales Local
Government Grants Commission, rather than the council, would be determining which
projects were worthwhile. Further, councils that had failed to adequately maintain their
assets could be rewarded at the expense of those that did maintain them.
The issue of funding for local water and sewerage undertakings was examined
during the process of consultation between the New South Wales Local Government Grants
Commission, the Local Government and Shires Associations, and local
government generally.
79
2010–11 Local Government National Report
The associations and local government recommended to the New South Wales Local
Government Grants 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 if such services were considered
• inclusion would result in a reduced and distorted distribution of funds to general
purpose councils
• the state government makes other sources of funds and subsidies available to
councils for such service.
The New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission agreed with the submissions
of the associations and local government. Accordingly, water and sewerage services are
excluded from the distribution formula.
The New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission views income from council
business activities as a policy decision and, therefore, does not consider it in the grant
calculations (effort neutral). Similarly, losses are not considered either.
Debt servicing is related to council policy and is therefore excluded from the New
South Wales Local Government Grants Commission’s calculations. In the same way, the
consequences of poor council decisions of the past are not considered.
Generally the levels of a council’s expenditure on a particular service do not affect grants.
Use of a council’s expenditure is generally limited to determining a state standard cost for
each selected service. The standard costs for these services are then applied to all councils
in calculating their grants. What an individual council may actually spend on a service has
very little bearing on the standard cost or its grant.
Efficient councils are rewarded by the effort neutrality approach to the calculations. To
illustrate this, two councils with similar populations, road networks, property values, and
disability measures would receive similar grants. The efficient council can use its grant funds
to provide better facilities for its ratepayers. The inefficient council cannot provide additional
services to its ratepayers. Therefore, the efficient council will benefit from its efficiency.
Council categories have no bearing on the grants. Categories simply provide a convenient
method of grouping councils for analysis purposes.
Effective from 1 July 2006, the national principles embodied an amalgamation principle
that states:
Where two or more local governing bodies are amalgamated into a single body, the
general purpose grant provided to the new body for each of the four years following
amalgamation should be the total of the amounts that would have been provided to
the former bodies in each of those years if they had remained separate entities.
Accordingly grants to councils affected by boundary changes are maintained at the
previous year’s level if the outcome is a negative. No New South Wales councils currently
require protection under this provision.
80
Appendix B – NSW
Local road component
The method of allocating the local road component is based on a simple formula
developed by the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority. The formula uses councils’
proportion of the state’s population, local road length and bridge length. Details of the
formula are discussed below under ‘Principles’.
Formulae
The formulae used to calculate expenditure and revenue allowances of the general
purpose component follow.
Expenditure allowances
General
Allowances for most services are calculated on the following general formula:
Ac = Nc × Es × Dc
where: Ac =
allowance for the council for the expenditure service
Nc =
number of units to be serviced by council
Es =
standard expenditure per unit for the service
Dc =
disability for the council for service in percentage terms
Road length allowances
In addition to the disability allowances, road length allowances are calculated for each
road type based on the following formula:
Ac = Nc × Es ×
Lc
Nc
–
Ls
Ns
where: Ac =
allowance for road length allowance
Nc =
number of relevant properties for the council
Es =
standard cost per kilometre
=
council’s relevant length of road per relevant property
=
standard relevant length of road per relevant property
Lc
Nc
Ls
Ns
81
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Isolation allowances
Isolation allowances are calculated for all non-metropolitan councils based on the formula:
Ac = Pc × ([Dsc × K1] + [Dnc × K2] + Ic)
where: Ac
=
the isolation allowance for each council
Pc =
the adjusted population for each council
Dsc
=
the distance from each council’s administrative centre to Sydney
Dnc
= the distance from each council’s administrative centre to the
nearest major regional centre (a population centre of more
than 20 000)
Ic = the additional per capita allowance due to industrial award
obligations (if applicable)
K1 and K2 are constants derived from regression analysis
Specific purpose payments
Allowances for services are discounted where appropriate to recognise the contribution of
specific purpose grants. The discount factor that generally applies is:
1–
Gc
(Nc x Es) + Ac
where: Gc = the specific purpose grant received by the council for the
expenditure service
Nc =
number of units to be serviced by council
Es =
standard expenditure per unit for the service
Ac =
allowance for the council for the expenditure service
82
Appendix B – NSW
Revenue allowances
General
The general formula for calculating revenue allowances is:
Ac = Nc × ts × (Ts – Tc)
where: Ac =
revenue allowance for the council
Nc =
number of properties (assessments)
ts =
standard tax rate (rate-in-the dollar)
Ts =
standard value per property
Tc =
council’s value per property
The standard value per property (Ts) is calculated as follows:
Ts =
Sum of rateable values for all councils
Sum of number of properties for all councils
The standard tax rate (ts) is calculated as follows:
ts =
Sum of net rates levied for all councils
Sum of rateable values for all councils
Pensioner rebates allowances
The general formula for the allowance to recognise the differential impact of compulsory
pensioner rates rebates is:
Ac = Rc × Nc × (Pc – Ps)
where: Ac =
the allowance for the council
Rc =
the standardised rebate per property for the council
Nc =
the number of residential properties
Pc =
the proportion of eligible pensioner assessments for the council
Ps =
the proportion of eligible pensioner assessments for all councils
The standardised rebate for the council (Rc) is:
Rc = 0.25 × Tc × ts
where: Tc =
the average value per residential property in the council
=
the standard tax rate (rate-in-the dollar) for residential properties
ts 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.
83
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Principles
General purpose (equalisation) component
These principles, consistent with the National Principles of the Local Government
(Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth), are based on an extensive program of
consultation with local government.
The agreed principles are:
1General 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 (Cwth); 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.
2The 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.
3Revenue-raising capacity will primarily be determined on the basis of
property values; positive and negative allowances relative to average
standards may be calculated.
4Revenue allowances may be discounted to achieve equilibrium with
expenditure allowances.
5Generally for each expenditure function an allowance will be determined
using recurrent cost; both positive and negative allowances relative to average
standards may be calculated.
6Expenditure allowances will be discounted to take account of specific
purpose grants.
7Additional 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.
1Urban [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.
84
Appendix B – NSW
2
Rural [non-metropolitan] area
‘Rural area’ means an area not designated as an ‘urban area’.
3
Initial distribution
(a)
27.54 per cent to local roads in urban areas
(b)
72.46 per cent to local roads in rural areas.
4
Local road grant in urban areas
Funds will be allocated:
(a)
5 per cent distributed to individual councils on the basis of bridge length
(b)
95 per cent distributed to councils on the basis of:
(i)
60 per cent distributed on length of roads
(ii)
40 per cent distributed on population.
5
Local road grant in rural areas
Funds will be allocated:
(a)
7 per cent distributed to individual councils on the basis of bridge length
(b)
93 per cent distributed to councils on the basis of:
(i)
80 per cent distributed on length of roads
(ii)
20 per cent distributed on population.
6
Data
Population shall be based on the most up-to-date Estimated Resident Population
figures available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
Road length shall be based on the most up-to-date data available to the Local
Government Grants Commission of New South Wales for formed roads, which are
councils’ financial responsibility.
Bridge length shall be based on the most up-to-date data available to the Local
Government Grants Commission of New South Wales for major bridges and culverts
6 metres and over in length, measured along the centre line of the carriageway,
which are councils’ financial responsibility.
The method of application of the statistics shall be agreed to between
representatives of the Local Government Grants Commission of New South Wales
and the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales.
85
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Developments in relation to local government’s use of long
term financial and asset management plans, including
any developments in implementing the Local Government
Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks
The New South Wales Government is committed to improving local councils’ management
of community assets.
Under the umbrella of the National Frameworks for Financial Sustainability in Local
Government, the New South Wales Government is advancing the implementation of a
major reform to the way councils plan and report to their communities. This program is
seeing the implementation of a long term, integrated approach to local government
planning, operations and reporting (see Section 4 Measures to Improve the Efficiency and
Effectiveness of Local Government, under Strengthening councils’ strategic focus and better
integrating planning and reporting processes for more details).
A key element of the reform is the requirement for councils to develop a resourcing strategy,
which encompasses asset management planning, long term financial planning and
workforce planning. The reforms also include changes to the way councils report on their
performance, including improved annual financial reporting relating to the condition of
council assets and the cost to bring assets up to a satisfactory standard.
These reforms may present challenges to some councils, particularly in terms of acquiring the
necessary skills and expertise. However the benefits to councils and their communities will far
outweigh any short-term costs.
By improving their asset management practices, councils will have a better
understanding of:
• the scope of assets under their control
• the condition of those assets, including their maintenance requirements and when
they will need to be renewed or replaced
• whether their current asset stock matches their community’s current and
future needs
• their capacity to invest in new assets or dispose of surplus assets.
In summary, the new system is opening the way for councils and their communities to have
important discussions about funding priorities, service levels and preserving local identity and
to plan in partnership for a more sustainable future.
Councils will also be better placed to determine whether additional funds are required and
how those funds might be sourced.
In doing so, it will also improve the position of councils, both individually and as a sector, to
lobby for and access funding from other levels of government.
These reforms are being implemented on a staged basis over a three year period.
Group 1 councils implemented the reforms in 2010 –11, with Group 2 councils to implement
them in 2011–12 and Group 3 in 2012–13. Councils have self-selected the implementation
group they are in.
86
Appendix B – NSW
Measures undertaken to develop and implement
comparative performance measures between local
governing bodies
Local Government performance indicators
The New South Wales Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and
Cabinet’s 2009–10 Comparative Information on New South Wales Local Government
Councils marks the 20th year the publication has been produced. The report contains
19 performance indicators.
Data sources include council financial reports, rating records and Australian Bureau of
Statistics’ population data. The information collected has also been used to calculate
financial assistance grants, analyse councils’ financial health and check compliance of
rates collected.
The 2009–10 publication continues to produce time series data for each indicator.
New South Wales will continue to review and develop appropriate performance measures.
To promote use, transparency and accountability the New South Wales Division of Local
Government continues to make the publication and the raw data freely available and
accessible through their website at www.dlg.nsw.gov.au.
Measures undertaken during 2010 –11 to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of local government
service delivery
Local Government Reform Program
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 reform program includes a number of approaches:
• Strengthening councils’ strategic focus and better integrating planning and
reporting processes
• Implementing an asset management framework, including long term
financial planning.
• Promoting better council practices
• Encouraging greater cooperation between councils.
87
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Strengthening councils’ strategic focus and better integrating planning and
reporting processes
Reforms to the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) have introduced a new Integrated
Planning and Reporting framework for local government in New South Wales. Councils
which have commenced under the framework are required to prepare:
• a Community Strategic Plan (for a minimum of ten years)
• a Resourcing Strategy, comprising long term financial planning, workforce
management planning, and asset management planning
• a Delivery Program (a four year program identifying which principal activities the
council will undertake to implement the strategies established by the CSP during its
term of office)
• an annual Operational Plan, which identifies the council’s proposed activities,
projects, revenue policy and fees and charges.
The new Integrated Planning and Reporting framework is consistent with the National
Frameworks for Local Government Financial Sustainability, developed by the Local
Government and Planning Ministers’ Council and endorsed by the New South Wales
Government in 2008.
Supporting guidelines and a manual have been provided to the sector, along with a
website which includes a number of resources to support councils in their implementation
of the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework. Seminars and workshops are
being conducted with councils around New South Wales to provide information and an
opportunity to discuss the requirements of the new framework.
The new framework is being introduced over three years, with councils electing the most
appropriate commencement date for their circumstances. The first group of councils
commenced under the new framework on 1 July 2010. All councils will be operating under
the new system from the commencement of the next local government electoral term in
September 2012.
The Promoting Better Practice Program
Since 2004 the Promoting Better Practice Review Program has primarily focussed on
generating a culture of continuous improvement and greater compliance across local
government. The program is founded on extensive research into council performance
measurements in Australia and overseas.
Reviews involve officers evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of key aspects of the
council’s operations and giving feedback. This involves checking compliance, examining
appropriate practices and ensuring that council has frameworks in place to monitor its
performance. The results of reviews are analysed and fed back to the elected council and
the New South Wales Minister for Local Government.
Reviews act as a “health check” for councils, giving confidence about what is being done
and helping to focus attention on key priorities for improvement.
88
Appendix B – NSW
The New South Wales Division of Local Government has been proactive in encouraging
councils to engage in ongoing self-assessment and performance improvement. The New
South Wales Division continues to update its comprehensive self assessment checklist which
is published on its website for free use of councils. The New South Wales Division is aware of a
number of councils that have made good use of the self assessment process.
To facilitate councils in identifying and sharing innovation and good practice in local
government, completed council review reports are also available on the NSW Division’s
website at www.dlg.nsw.gov.au.
For the 2010 –11 financial year the Division completed 11 promoting better practice reviews.
The reviews covered both city and country councils throughout New South Wales. As at
30 June 2011, a total of 100 reviews were fully completed and 11 were partially completed.
In 2010 –11, the New South Wales Division undertook its first review of a county council. This
council has responsibility for the delivery of the water supply functions to a number of local
government authorities. A large amount of the promoting better practice format was
applicable to the county council systems indicating the versatility of the program tools and
processes in assessing the health of local government organisations in New South Wales.
The New South Wales Division continues to implement a risk analysis approach to reporting
on council performance and a revised reporting format which is shorter and more focussed.
The New South Wales Division remains committed to ensuring that councils continue to
improve performance and as such has undertaken follow up reviews with two councils in
2010 –11. A further follow up review was in progress as of 30 June 2011. These reviews focus
on the implementation of previous recommendations and report on any emerging issues.
These reports indicated a willingness by the councils to implement actions to address any
identified deficiencies.
Encouraging greater cooperation between councils
The New South Wales Government encourages councils to consider collaborative
arrangements such as strategic alliances where they can achieve better service outcomes
and more efficient service delivery for their communities.
Strategic Alliance Network
A Strategic Alliance Network exists in New South Wales and consists of key local
government stakeholders and councils committed to developing and sharing initiatives in
council collaboration.
The network is supported by an Executive Committee comprising representatives from
the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, Local Government
Managers Australia as well as interested Councils and County Councils.
The emphasis of the Executive Committee has been on continuing the development of
a strategic framework for council collaboration.
89
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Survey on council resource sharing
The New South Wales Division of Local Government surveyed councils in early 2010 to
determine what collaborative arrangements exist between councils. The results of the survey
are available on the Division’s website at www.dlg.nsw.gov.au.
The New South Wales Division is continuing to work with the Local Government and Shires
Associations of New South Wales, Local Government Managers Australia, and the Strategic
Alliance Network to develop ways to share information, build relevant skills, and promote
further council collaboration. This includes commencing preparing a discussion paper on
strengthening the role of Regional Organisations of Councils.
Initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service
delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
Social justice initiatives survey
Since 2000 the New South Wales Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and
Cabinet 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 Aboriginal people.
Findings from the survey covering the period 2008 and 2009 to which 122 out of 152 councils
responded (representing a response rate of 80%) regarding Aboriginal initiatives include:
• 15 councils (12%) have implemented the Aboriginal Mentoring Program and
23 Aboriginal people have participated in the Program
• 59 councils (48%) reported that they had an Aboriginal advisory or
consultative committee
• 35 councils (29%) reported that they have adopted a formal agreement or
Memorandum of Understanding with an Aboriginal group.
Publications to assist councils engage with Aboriginal communities
As part of the New South Wales Government’s policy Two Ways Together, Partnerships: a
new way of doing business with Aboriginal people 2003-2012, the NSW Division has prepared
a resource kit to assist councils to work more effectively with local Aboriginal 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 of New South Wales and informed by a reference group, including a number of
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal councillors and council staff.
The Kit includes strategies and resources that councils can use to help empower Aboriginal
communities to participate in council decision-making. It also includes examples of initiatives
councils have developed in forming productive partnerships with Aboriginal communities.
90
Appendix B – NSW
The Kit complements the Division’s publication Local Government in New South Wales:
Issues and Information for Aboriginal Communities. This publication provides New South
Wales Aboriginal communities with information about the role of local government and
encourages Aboriginal people to communicate more with their local council and become
involved in council activities.
Both publications aim to develop common ground to facilitate productive partnerships
between councils and Aboriginal communities that will unlock the potential for Aboriginal
people to be involved in the development of sustainable communities and assist councils
better meet the needs of Aboriginal people in their areas.
Promoting diversity in local government
The New South Wales Division of Local Government is undertaking the Promoting Diversity
in Local Government project to develop and implement strategies to increase the
representation of under-represented groups amongst elected representatives and senior
staff, including Aboriginal people. The project is being implemented in conjunction with
the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales and Local Government
Managers Australia (New South Wales Branch).
Promoting Diversity webpage
The project has included the development of a Promoting Diversity in Local Government
webpage on the NSW Division’s website. The webpage includes information and
resources for councils, as well as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other
under-represented groups, to achieve better representation in decision-making in local
government. Information about Aboriginal scholarships; flexible work practices; resources to
assist councils to employ, develop and retain Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees;
mentoring; and leadership development programs is provided on the webpage at
www.dlg.nsw.gov.au.
Workforce planning webpage
Under the new Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework developed as part of the
New South Wales Government’s commitment to a strong and sustainable local government
system, councils are required to develop a workforce management strategy. To assist
councils to meet this requirement; the New South Wales Division has developed a workforce
planning webpage at www.dlg.nsw.gov.au which includes information, resources and key
strategic issues to consider, such as workplace diversity and equity.
Census of Local Government Employees
To obtain information about the diversity of council staff and the initiatives councils are
implementing to attract and retain diverse staff, the New South Wales Division conducted
the inaugural Census of Local Government Employees in July 2010. A report on the findings
from the Census has been completed and is now available at www.dlg.nsw.gov.au.
The Census Report provides an initial snapshot of the demographic profile of local
government employees and valuable baseline data in relation to the good practices used
by councils to improve their workforce diversity. The Census will be conducted every four
years to identify trends over time in the diversity of staff and the programs offered by councils
to attract and retain diverse employees.
91
2010–11 Local Government National Report
According to information provided by 140 (92%) general purpose councils and 9 (64%)
county councils:
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up 2.2% of the total local
government workforce. In rural councils Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
make up 3.9% of staff, 1.2% of regional council staff and 0.6% of metropolitan
council staff
• While not a requirement, nearly one-quarter of councils have targets for certain
groups of employees, most commonly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people and women.
Many councils offer a number of diversity programs, most commonly apprenticeships,
traineeships and leadership development programs. The representation of Aboriginal
participants in these programs is usually either about equal to or higher than their
representation in the workforce.
Report from Victorian Department of Planning and
Community Development
The Victoria Grants Commission allocates general purpose and local roads grants in
accordance with the national principles formulated under the Commonwealth Local
Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth).
Methodology for distributing financial assistance grants
for 2010 –11, including any changes in methodology from
2009–10
General purpose grants
For each council, a raw grant is obtained which is calculated by subtracting the council’s
standardised revenue from its standardised expenditure.
The available general purpose grants pool is then allocated in proportion to each council’s
raw grant, taking into account the requirement in the Commonwealth legislation and
associated national distribution principles to provide a minimum grant to each council.
As outlined below, increases and decreases in general purpose grant outcomes have been
capped, which also affects the relationship between raw grants and actual grants.
Specific grants are allocated to a small number of councils each year in the form of natural
disaster assistance. These grants are funded from the general purpose grants pool and so
reduce the amount allocated on a formula basis. Details of natural disaster assistance grants
allocated for 2010 –11 are found at the end of this section.
92
Appendix B – Vic.
Standardised expenditure
Under the Victoria Grants Commission’s general purpose grants methodology, standardised
expenditure is calculated for each council on the basis of nine expenditure functions.
Between them, these expenditure functions include virtually all council recurrent
expenditure.
The structure of the model ensures that the gross standardised expenditure for each function
equals aggregate actual expenditure by councils, thus ensuring that the relative importance
of each of the nine expenditure functions in the Victoria Grants Commission’s model
matches the pattern of actual council expenditure.
Aggregate gross recurrent expenditure by Victorian councils in 2009–10 equalled
$5.165 billion. Total gross standardised expenditure in the Victoria Grants Commission’s
allocation model for 2010 –11 therefore also equals $5.165 billion, with each of the
nine expenditure functions assuming the same share of both actual expenditure and
standardised expenditure.
For each function, with the exception of local roads and bridges, gross standardised
expenditure is derived by multiplying the relevant unit of need (eg: population) by:
• the average Victorian council expenditure on that function, per unit of need; and
• a composite cost adjustor which takes account of factors that make service
provision cost more or less for individual councils than the state average.
Major cost drivers (‘units of need’)
The major cost drivers and average expenditures per unit for each expenditure function, with
the exception of local roads and bridges.
Table B.1: A
verage expenditures per unit for each expenditure function, except local roads and
bridges—Victoria
Average expenditure
per unit
Expenditure function
Major cost driver
Governance
Population (adjusted)
Family & Community Services
Population
$116.24
Pop. > 60 years + Disability
Pensioners
+ Carer’s Allowance Recipients
$425.29
Aged & Disabled Services
Recreation & Culture
Population
$206.10
Waste Management
No. of Dwellings
$218.38
Traffic & Street Management
Population
$99.80
Environmental Protection Services
Population (adjusted)
$55.33
Business & Economic Services
Population (adjusted)
$102.23
$47.01
Source: Victoria Grants Commission
Several different major cost drivers are used. These are viewed by the Victoria Grants
Commission as being the most significant determinant of a council’s expenditure need on a
particular function.
93
2010–11 Local Government National Report
For three expenditure functions (Family & Community Services, Recreation & Culture and
Traffic & Street Management), the major cost driver is the council’s population. For 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 Waste Management it
is the number of dwellings in the municipality.
For the remaining three expenditure functions (Governance, Environmental Protection
Services and Business & Economic Services), an adjusted population is used as the major
cost driver to recognise the fixed costs associated with certain functional areas.
The major cost driver used in assessing relative expenditure needs for the Governance
function is population which takes account of high rates of vacant dwellings at the time
the census is taken. Councils with a vacancy rate above the state average are assumed to
have a population higher than the census-based estimate, for the Governance function.
Councils with an actual population of less than 20 000 are deemed to have a population
of 20 000.
This year a review was undertaken of the utilisation of non-resident population within the
formula. This review has resulted in a new major cost driver being applied to the Business
& Economic Services function. The relative need assessment for the Business & Economic
Services function has been changed to take into account high rates of vacant dwellings
on census night. This reflects the Victoria Grants Commission’s assessment that some
elements of this expenditure (including planning and building approvals) are driven by
the size of a councils’ total population base (including non-residents). Therefore, the major
cost driver now is population adjusted by half the vacancy rate in excess of state average.
In addition, if the council’s population is less than 15 000, the population is doubled to a
maximum of 15 000.
Cost adjustors
A number of cost adjustors are used in various combinations against each function. These
allow the Victoria Grants Commission to take account of the particular characteristics of
individual councils which impact on the cost of service provision on a comparable basis.
Each cost adjustor has been based around a state weighted average of 1.00 with a ratio of
1:2 between the minimum and maximum values, to ensure that the relative importance of
each expenditure function in the model is maintained.
The 14 cost adjustors used in the calculation of the 2010 –11 general purpose grants were:
• Aged Pensions
• Population Less than 6 Years
• English Proficiency
• Regional Significance
• Indigenous Population
• Remoteness
• Kerbed Roads
• Scale
• Population Density
• Socio-Economic
• Population Dispersion
• Tourism
• Population Growth
• Environmental Risk.
94
Appendix B – Vic.
Because some factors represented by cost adjustors impact more on costs than
others, different weightings have been used for the cost adjustors applied to each
expenditure function.
There were no changes made to the cost adjustors for the 2010 –11 allocation.
Net standardised expenditure
Net standardised expenditure has been derived for each function by subtracting
standardised grant support (calculated on an average per unit basis) from gross
standardised expenditure. This ensures that other grant support is treated on an
’inclusion’ basis.
Average grant revenue on a per unit basis (based on actual grants received by government
in 2009–10).
Table B.2: A
verage grant revenue on a per unit basis, based on actual grants received in
2009–10­—Victoria
Average grants
per unit
Expenditure function
Major cost driver
Governance
Population (adjusted)
Family & Community Services
Population
Aged & Disabled Services
Pop. > 60 years + Disability Pensioners
+ Carer’s Allowance Recipients
Recreation & Culture
Population
$7.09
Waste Management
No. of Dwellings
$0.24
Traffic & Street Management
Population
$1.88
Environmental Protection Services
Population (adjusted)
$1.22
Business & Economic Services
Population (adjusted)
$2.81
$0.22
$30.15
$188.68
Source: Victoria Grants Commission
Diagrammatically, the calculation of net standardised expenditure for each expenditure
function is as follows:
Net standardised expenditure (for each function)
Unit
of
Need
Average
Expenditure
Per Unit
Gross
Standardised
Expenditure
Cost
Adjustors
Unit
of
Need
Less
Standardised
Grant
Revenue
Equals
Net
Standardised
Expenditure
Average
Grant
Revenue
Per Unit
95
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Standardised expenditure for the local roads and bridges expenditure function within the
general purpose grants model is now based on the grant outcomes for each council under
the Victoria Grants Commission’s local roads grants model. This incorporates a number of
cost modifiers (similar to cost adjustors) to take account of differences between councils.
Net standardised expenditure for this function for each council is calculated by subtracting
other grant support (based on actual identified local roads grants and a proportion of Roads
to Recovery grants) from gross standardised expenditure.
The total standardised expenditure for each council is the sum of the standardised
expenditure calculated for each of the nine expenditure functions.
Standardised revenue
A council’s standardised revenue is intended to reflect its capacity to raise revenue from
its community.
Relative capacity to raise rate revenue, or standardised rate revenue, is calculated for each
council by multiplying its valuation base (on a capital improved value basis) by the average
rate across all Victorian councils. The payments in lieu of rates received by some councils for
major facilities such as power stations and airports have been added to their standardised
revenue to ensure that all councils are treated on an equitable basis.
Rate revenue raising capacity is calculated separately for each of the three major property
classes (residential, commercial/industrial/other and farm) using a three year average of
valuation data.
Table B.3: Derivation of average rates for each property class—Victoria
Category
3-year average
valuations
$ billions
3-year average rate
revenue
$ billions
Average
rate
$ billions
Residential
$748.145
$2.210
$0.00295
Commercial/industrial/other
$156.615
$0.563
$0.00360
$64.909
$0.193
$0.00297
Farm
Source: Victoria Grants Commission
As in recent years, the Victoria Grants Commission has again constrained increases in
each council’s assessed revenue capacity to improve stability in grant outcomes. The
constraint for each council has been set at the state-wide average increase in standardised
revenue adjusted by the council’s own rate of population growth to reflect growth in the
property base.
A council’s relative capacity to raise revenue from user fees and charges, or standardised
fees and charges revenue, also forms part of the calculation of standardised revenue.
For each council, for each of the nine functional areas, the relevant driver (such as
population) is multiplied by the 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.
96
Appendix B – Vic.
The standard fees and charges used for each function (based on median actual revenues
generated by local government in 2008–09) are shown below, along with the revenue
adjustors applied.
Table B.4: Standard fees and charges per unit—Victoria
Expenditure function
Major driver (units)
Governance
Population
$8.33
Family & Community Services
Population
$11.45
Aged & Disabled Services
Population > 60 + Disability
Pensioners + Carer’ Allowance
Recipients
$63.54
Recreation & Culture
Population
Waste Management
No. of Dwellings
Local Roads & Bridges
Population
Traffic & Street Management
Other Infrastructure Services
Business & Economic Services
Population
Population
Population
Standard
fees & charges
per unit
Revenue
adjustors
Nil
Socio-Economic
Household Income
$13.70
Valuations
(% Commercial)
$23.34
Nil
$0.36
Nil
$4.16
Valuations
(% Commercial)
$1.13
Nil
$19.07
Tourism + Value of
Development
Source: Victoria Grants Commission
The assessed capacity to generate user fees and charges for each council is added to its
standardised rate revenue to produce total standardised revenue.
Bushfire affected councils
Following the February 2009 bushfires, the Victoria Grants Commission made a special
allowance in the 2009–10 general purpose grant allocations for the ten councils that had
more than ten properties destroyed in those fires. An adjustment was made to the
valuations for those councils used in assessing their rate revenue raising capacity, to reflect
the sudden loss of rate income. A similar adjustment has been made to the grant calculation
for those ten councils for the 2010 –11 allocations, and appropriate adjustments will continue
to be made until the impact of the bushfires fully flows through to the valuation data used by
the Commission.
In addition to this special allowance, the Victoria Grants Commission has recommended
that the 2010 –11 general purpose grant for the most severely impacted municipality,
Murrindindi Shire Council, be set at the same level as the 2009–10 final allocation, adjusted
by the overall rate of growth in the funding pool.
Between June 2008 and June 2009, Murrindindi suffered a reduction in population of an
estimated 6.9%. Ordinarily, this would have led to a decrease in that Council’s general
purpose grant for 2010 –11. The Victoria Grants Commission’s decision to set the Council’s
grant at the previous level, adjusted for the overall growth in the funding pool, is designed to
maintain support to the Council while the recovery and rebuilding process continues.
97
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Minimum grants
The available general purpose grants pool for Victorian councils represents, on average,
$64.96 per head of population (using ABS population estimates as at 30 June 2009). The
minimum grant national distribution principle requires that no council may receive a general
purpose grant that is less than 30% of the per capita average (or $19.49 for 2010 –11).
Without the application of this principle, general purpose grants for 2010 –11 for 13 councils
– Bayside, Boroondara, Glen Eira, Hobsons Bay, Kingston, Manningham, Melbourne, Monash,
Moonee Valley, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse and Yarra, would have been below the
$19.49 per capita level. The minimum grant principle has resulted in the general purpose
grants to these councils being increased to that level.
Capping
The Victoria Grants Commission is conscious that large movements in general purpose grants
can have a significant impact on a council’s financial position.
In 2009–10, the Victoria Grants Commission set a limit of 10% as the maximum percentage
any council’s general purpose grant could decrease by when compared with estimated
entitlement for the previous year. However, if a decrease of 10% in the general purpose grant
exceeded 1.0% of a council’s combined revenue from rates and financial assistance grants
(“untied revenue”), the Victoria Grants Commission agreed to limit any decrease to 1.0% of
that council’s untied revenue.
These limits on downward movements in general purpose grant outcomes were retained for
the 2010 –11 allocations. However, these limits were not reached by any council.
The Victoria Grants Commission also limits upward movements in general purpose grant
outcomes and caps such movements to 20% when compared with estimated entitlement
for the previous year. This cap has been applied to one council (Queenscliffe) for the
2010 –11 allocations.
Estimated entitlements 2010 –11
Table B.5 summarises the changes in estimated general purpose grant entitlements from
2009–10 to 2010 –11.
Table B.5: Changes in general purpose grant entitlements from 2009–10 to 2010 –11­­—Victoria
Change in general purpose grant
No. of councils
Increase of more than 10.0%
10
Increase of 5.0% to 10.0%
56
Increase of up to 5.0%
12
No change
0
Decrease of up to 10.0%
1
Decrease of 10.0% (capped)
Total
Source: Victoria Grants Commission
98
0
79
Appendix B – Vic.
Natural disaster assistance
The Victoria Grants Commission provides funds from the general purpose grants pool to
councils which have incurred expenditure resulting from natural disasters. Grants of up to
$35,000 per council per eligible event are provided to assist with repairs and restoration work.
Five grants totalling $150 619 have been allocated for 2010 –11.
Table B.6: Natural disaster assistance from general purpose grant pool 2010 –11—Victoria
Council
Natural Disaster
Funding
Alpine Shire Council
Bushfire
$35 000
Murrindindi Shire Council
Bushfire
$35 000
Nillumbik Shire Council
Bushfire
$35 000
Northern Grampians Shire Council
Storm
$10 619
Wellington Shire Council
Bushfire
$35 000
Total
$150 619
Source: Victoria Grants Commission
Local road funding
The Victoria Grants Commission’s formula for allocating local roads grants is based on each
council’s road length (for all surface types) and traffic volumes, using average annual
preservation costs for given traffic volume ranges. The methodology also includes a set of
five cost modifiers for freight loading, climate, materials, sub-grade conditions and strategic
routes and takes account of the deck area of bridges on local roads.
The formula is designed to reflect the relative needs of Victorian councils in relation to
local roads funding consistent with the national principle relating to the allocation of
local roads funding.
Traffic volume data
The allocation of local roads grants for 2010 –11 was based on traffic volume data collected
by all councils during the 12 months to June 2009. 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 129 201 kilometres of local roads as at 30 June 2009, an
increase of 540 kilometres or 0.4% over the length reported 12 months earlier (Table B.7).
99
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Table B.7: Variations in local road length at 30 June 2009—Victoria
Change in length of local roads
No. of councils
4
Increase of more than 5.0%
Increase of 1.0% to 5.0%
11
Increase of up to 1.0%
29
No change
25
Decrease of up to 1.0%
5
Decrease of 1.0% to 5.0%
5
Decrease of more than 5.0%
0
79
Total
Source: Victoria Grants Commission
Asset preservation costs
Average annual preservation costs for each traffic volume range are used in the allocation
model to reflect the cost of local road maintenance and renewal.
The Victoria Grants Commission has stated that the data on which the local roads
methodology is based will be reviewed periodically to maintain its relevance. The most
recent review undertaken by the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) in May 2009 has
resulted in a revised set of asset preservation base costs being adopted for the
2009–10 allocations. These same asset preservation base costs were applied for the
2010 –11 allocations (Table B.8).
Table B.8: Average annual costs used in allocating local road grants for 2010 –11—Victoria
Road type
Daily traffic volume range
Standard annual asset preservation cost $/km
< 500
$3 600
500 - <1000
$4 900
Kerbed
Unkerbed
Bridges
Source: Victoria Grants Commission
100
1000 - <5000
$6 600
5000+
$10 700
Natural Surface
$350
Natural Surface
$350
< 100
$2 500
100 - <500
$5 200
500 - <1000
$5 800
1000+
$6 600
Concrete Deck
$60 per sq metre
Timber Deck
$100 per sq metre
Appendix B – Vic.
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, and
• strategic routes.
Cost modifiers are applied to the average annual preservation costs for each traffic volume
range for each council to reflect the level of need of the council relative to others. Relatively
high cost modifiers add to the network cost calculated for each council, and so increase its
local roads grant outcome.
No changes were made to the cost modifiers for 2010 –11. The Victoria Grants Commission
has undertaken to review four of the five cost modifiers including climate, materials and
sub-grade condition cost modifiers over the coming two years.
Grant calculation
The Victoria Grants Commission calculates a total network cost for each council’s local
road network. This represents the relative annual costs faced by the council in maintaining
its local road and bridge networks, based on average annual preservation costs and taking
account of local conditions, using cost modifiers.
The network cost is calculated using traffic volume data for each council, standard asset
preservation costs for each traffic volume range and cost modifiers for freight generation,
climate, materials availability, sub-grade conditions and strategic routes. The deck area of
bridges on local roads is included in the network cost at a rate of $60 per square metre for
concrete bridges and $100 per square metre for timber bridges.
Mathematically, the calculation of the network cost for a single traffic volume range for a
council can be illustrated as follows:
Length of
local roads
in category
#
X
Standard
asset
preservation
cost for
category
X
Overall
cost
factor *
=
Network
Cost
Overall cost factor is calculated by multiplying the cost factors for freight loading, climate, materials,
reactive sub-grades and strategic routes.
The actual local roads grant is then determined by applying the available funds in
proportion to each council’s calculated network cost.
101
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Estimated entitlements 2010 –11
Local roads grant outcomes for most councils have stabilised following the phased
introduction of the “network cost” allocation formula. In general, where a significant change
has occurred in a council’s local roads grant for 2010 –11, this is due to changed road length
and traffic volume data supplied by the council to the Victoria Grants Commission.
Table B.9: provides a summary of the changes in estimated local roads grant entitlements
from 2009–10 to 2010 –11.
Table B.9: Changes in estimated local road grant entitlements from 2009–10 to 2010 –11—Victoria
Change in local roads grant
No. of councils
Increase of more than 10.0%
6
Increase of 5.0% to 10.0%
60
Increase of up to 5.0%
12
Decrease
Total
1
79
Source: Victoria Grants Commission
Priorities for 2010 –11
Stated priorities for 2010 –11 were supporting councils to be more sustainable, resilient and
responsive to:
• Further develop the “borderless library” concept to improve public library service
delivery
• Provide targeted assistance to ensure councils’ sustainability and proper
governance in response to identified circumstances e.g. bushfire impact.
Reforming council systems and processes—linking to National Reform Agenda:
• Embed the Council Reforming Business and Reducing the Regulatory Burden
programs’ outcomes as core business practice in local government
• Increase collaborative opportunities between councils, business and the community.
Continuing legislative reform to strengthen accountability and transparency:
• Ensure Victoria’s position as the leader in local government reform is maintained
• Ensure conflict of interest provisions and guidance is strong, fair and clear.
Strengthening councils’ capacity through training and system development:
• Provide effective guidance content for councillors and council staff
• Foster strong communications through Local Government Forums, regular
information exchange and guidance materials for local government, which
included monitoring councils’ financial sustainability and assisting councils to
improve their asset management performance.
102
Appendix B – Vic.
Developments in relation to local government’s use of long
term financial and asset management plans, including
any developments in implementing the Local Government
Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks
A continued emphasis on assisting councils to reform their business practices has taken
place over the year. Other initiatives to assist the sector to achieve microeconomic
reforms and efficiencies included the establishment and implementation of the Victorian
State-Local Government Agreement and efforts to achieve greater efficiencies in local
government planning.
The third meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government occurred in Canberra
on 18 June 2010. The council, Australia’s largest gathering of mayors and shire presidents,
agreed with the national government on a range of measures. These included goals to:
• contribute to dialogue on issues of national significance that affect local
government and local communities;
• encourage innovation and best practice in local government; and
• improve the provision of information and data to support the long term
development of local government.
Victorian councils are well placed to deliver on the national requirements, and have made
substantial progress towards the agreed frameworks by the end of 2010. Indeed, both
financial performance and asset management have improved considerably over the past
decade. The Auditor-General audits each council’s accounts each year. Since 2003–04, the
Auditor-General has reported the following major trends. Six years ago, Victorian councils
were, on average, just breaking even on their operating result. Almost half of the councils
had operating deficits. By 2010, only 13 councils had underlying deficits, and the average
operating result was a surplus of 5.0 per cent of revenues. Within this significant improving
trend, there was some deterioration since 2009 (when only six councils had deficits and the
overall result was a surplus of 8.4 per cent).
From the mid 2000s, many reports noted that councils across Australia were facing financial
challenges, especially in funding community infrastructure. As well as documenting
the physical need for infrastructure investment, the reports also recommended that
councils should improve their information bases. Over the past four years, both the former
national Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council and the Australian Council
of Local Government have encouraged councils to adopt national frameworks for asset
management and financial planning.
Local governments face significant challenges in managing their infrastructure. A number
of programs have been established to address this issue. They include the Regional Growth
Fund where local governments are eligible for grants funding over four years through
the $100 million Local Government Infrastructure Account to support a range of council
initiatives including roads projects, bridges, new community assets such as sporting grounds
and libraries and upgrading existing facilities. Forty rural councils will also be able to apply for
a share of $160 million of funding from a Country Roads and Bridges Fund over the next four
years to ensure regional roads and bridges are renewed and maintained.
103
2010–11 Local Government National Report
The Public Libraries Capital Works Program will further improve Victoria’s public library
infrastructure, delivering new or upgraded library facilities. This will significantly improve
community access to public libraries, which are one of the most highly-used and valued
services in Victoria. This initiative will help build new libraries where one does not already
exist, replace libraries that are too small or no longer meet the needs of the community,
refurbish and modernise library buildings, and allow the replacement or refurbishment of
mobile libraries.
Measures undertaken to develop and implement
comparative performance measures between local
governing bodies
The Essential Services Commission, a statutory authority of the Victorian Government
undertook preliminary work in the development of performance measures in 2009–10.
Their final report was launched in mid 2010. It sought to develop indicators that provided
information about service delivery from the perspective of service recipients. The
Commission took an empirically-based approach to identifying those services and indicators
that are most relevant to most councils and their communities. The work was exploratory,
and formed a foundation for future developments in council performance measurement.
Measures undertaken during 2010 –11 to improve efficiency
and effectiveness of service delivery
The Councils Reforming Business (CRB) Program was delivered by Local Government
Victoria (LGV) in partnership with the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV). The CRB
Program supported councils 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.
Implementation of the Local Government Procurement Strategy included the
implementation of the Procurement Roadmaps. All 79 Victorian councils participated in
the process to map their procurement processes. Councils, supported by LGV, developed
a bespoke procurement improvement work plan to be endorsed by senior management.
Each roadmap took the council on a two year journey aimed at embedding a strategic
approach to procurement. Under the CRB, Victorian Councils also were granted access to
State Government Purchasing Contracts and the Construction Suppliers Register.
The Better Practice Local Laws Strategy prompted a suite of resources to support councils
to develop regulation in a robust and consistent manner. This has introduced the concept
of the Local Laws Community Impact Statement, which is envisaged as both a checklist
tool for Council to work through the local law processes and an explanatory document to
provide to the community about any proposed local law. Work also progressed in a project
to harmonise the regulatory environment for building and construction site management.
104
Appendix B – Vic.
The CRB program implemented a project to harmonise council engineering standards
across regional councils. Consultations between local governments and developers
identified the significant financial benefits, time savings and better outcomes that could
be achieved with the adoption of shared state-wide engineering and infrastructure
standards. These engineering standards are now being implemented in 24 councils across
the Gippsland region, north-central Victoria and throughout Melbourne’s six Growth Area
councils, with the assistance of the Councils Reforming Business program. The Growth Area
councils have worked together to create an agreed set of standards, with joint funding from
the Victorian Government and the Growth Areas Authority. The standards will be open for
adoption by other urban and interface councils.
The CRB also underwent an extensive evaluation in late 2011 to ascertain the savings
generated for business and local government. The evaluation is to be concluded in
2012 and will be an input into future discussions around policy and program design.
Bushfire and flood response
Through LGV, Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) delivered a
range of programs in 2010 –11 that supported councils in responding to natural disasters.
These included:
• the Bushfires Municipal Resourcing Program, which deploys additional emergency
management capacity to councils in conjunction with the Municipal Association
of Victoria
• the Community Assistance Gift Program, which administers payments to councils
made through the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund
• the Murrindindi Assistance Package, which assists Murrindindi Shire Council in
rebuilding its capacity following the Black Saturday bushfires
• the Building Permit Fees Reimbursement Program, which reimburses building permit
fees paid by property owners affected by the February 2009 bushfires
• the $5 million Local Government Clean Up Fund, which provides assistance to
councils affected by the floods in early 2011.
Legislative reform
The Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Act 2010 came into effect in
September 2010. The legislation includes amendments to the conflict of interest provisions
in the Local Government Act 1989 and changes to the provisions relating to local
government electoral representation reviews. LGV has also prepared and released a
short guide for councillors on the conflict of interest requirements in the Act and made
comprehensive material available on the Department’s website.
105
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service
delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
There are a number of initiatives between local government and Aboriginal communities
throughout Victoria. For example Glenelg Shire Council has developed a draft Aboriginal
partnership agreement. There is also considerable sector-wide interest in developing stronger
links with the Aboriginal community. Local Government Professionals recently established
an Indigenous Special Interest Group and the 2010 Local Government Connecting with
Aboriginal People Conference was well attended.
The Victorian government is funding an Aboriginal employment broker housed in the
Municipal Association of Victoria to assist local councils with employment and economic
development initiatives. There have been strong partnerships with local government to
deliver placed based initiatives, such as the establishment of Bubup Wilam (an early learning
centre specialising in Aboriginal culture and identity) with Whittlesea City Council. Local
Indigenous Networks are also working in partnership with local government with positive
results, such as the establishment of the Bendigo Indigenous Homework Centre.
The Victorian Government has also funded Reconciliation Victoria which is currently
undertaking the Reconciliation in Local Government Victoria project.
In June 2011, the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal Affairs announced the
establishment of the Local Government Aboriginal Partnership Project. The Partnership
project has four main objectives:
• To support local governments in their active engagement with
Aboriginal communities
• To support Aboriginal Communities as they strengthen their links with
local government
• To encourage partnerships between the two levels of government around
Aboriginal issues
• Improve and demonstrate outcomes for Aboriginal Victorians and local government
in relation to reconciliation, service delivery, employment, cultural heritage and
other opportunities as they emerge.
The Steering Committee for this project has met on two occasions and agreed the Terms
of Reference and developed the work plan for the next twelve months which includes
addressing issues of:
• Reconciliation, Respect and Recognition
• Community engagement
• Growing best practice
• Good decision and policy making
• Employment and economic development
• Health and wellbeing
• Land, heritage and culture.
106
Appendix B – Vic.
Report from the Municipal Association of Victoria
In preparing this submission, the Municipal Association of Victoria (the MAV) has focused
on programs and reforms that are driven by councils or the Association, rather than state
government reforms.
Step planning improvement project
The MAV has developed and commenced implementation of the STEP planning process
improvement program, which aims to equip councils with the tools and skills to be able to
improve their planning services. As an area of local government services that has been of
central importance to discussion on red tape reduction and efficiency improvement, along
with the inherent tensions involved in the development of the built environment, this program
is making a significant difference to the standards delivered by councils in Victoria.
The 22 councils involved in the program are showing leadership through self-reform;
improved relationships within their organisations; greater understanding of workload; and
improved negotiating ability. With their improvement plans in place they will be able to
measure the efficiencies produced by the program.
The development industry will benefit from the program through reduced timeframes for
decisions, with initial analysis suggesting a reduction of up to 16 to 26 days possible, clearer
communications with councils, and a focus of effort on the front end of processes.
The MAV developed the STEP program to assist councils to:
• Review planning processes and identify value and non-value adding tasks
• Understand the complexity of transactions
• Match skills to tasks
• Improve the use of performance and workflow data
• Reduce costs in administering permit processes
• Manage risk and compliance
• Set, monitor and improve levels of service
• Share experiences and learn from other like councils
• Access good practice ideas and procedures.
The STEP program was formally launched in August 2010. STEP gives councils the ability to
critically examine their processes and performance and take action.
Background
Planning decisions are often a source of conflict in the community as authorities balance the
competing rights of property owners. While less than two per cent of decisions cause real
controversy, planning decisions can impact on people’s enjoyment of their everyday lives. It
is because of this that perceptions of councils and the planning system can be so polarised.
The most common complaints about planning and councils’ involvement are about the
timeliness and consistency of decision making and the level of community participation in
the planning processes.
107
2010–11 Local Government National Report
There is also increasing pressure from Australian and state governments for councils to
demonstrate performance through national reporting standards and reviews by the
Victorian Auditor General’s office and the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission.
Some of the ‘speed humps’ that councils face are significant—the sheer cost and effort of
strategic planning work and competing priorities make it difficult for councils to keep their
planning schemes up to date; the variability of resources is dependent on the financial
viability of councils; the range of competing policy objectives; and the constantly changing
regulatory environment. There is also the volume, complexity and tension involved in the
processing of planning permit applications.
Complexities in the planning system
The STEP program has confirmed that there are:
• A high number of steps (179) in the planning scheme amendment process and even
higher for planning permits (278)
• A disproportionate number (66 per cent and 58 per cent) of non-value adding steps
(A value adding step is one that the customer would pay for if they knew about it)
• Not many technology enabled steps and those that are enabled do not lead to a
sequence of steps
• A high number of transfers to other team members and other organisational
functions with each party only undertaking an average of two steps each
• An average of 15 organisational functions involved in the planning processes.
Other common issues are:
• All planning scheme amendments and planning permit applications are treated
the same but the scale and scope is very wide. This delays those amendments and
applications that could have a much simpler process path
• Most process steps are sequential when concurrent processing would speed them
up significantly
• Planning processes are work flow intensive but IT is generally a low priority
• There is a lack of easily compiled key performance criteria
• Significant downtime and rework are evidenced in planning processes
• The failure demand is very high in planning processes—requests for further
information, progress chasing and amendments to applications all demonstrate
failures in process.
What does the program look like?
The STEP program operates on a voluntary basis through an expression of interest process
twice a year (March and August). The program is ongoing and has an annual cost for each
participating council based on volume of planning permit activity.
The planning process improvement program will result in different outcomes for participating
councils and result in progressive improvements over time.
108
Appendix B – Vic.
Methodology
The key components of the STEP program are:
Audit and review – The audit and review happens when a council first enters the program
to identify issues and improvement ideas. It then becomes a triennial exercise. The audit
and review is guided by business analysts (appointed by the MAV) and based on a cyclical
method of process review to define the review, measure changes, analyse data, improve
the processes and continue to imbed improvements.
Shared learning – In each intake to the STEP program councils work in a cooperative
workshop environment to share their issues and ideas. This is followed by a series of seminars
and an annual conference that bring together the results of the year, as well as the
providing the opportunity to learn about new process improvement concepts.
Management reports – Privileged access to analysed quarterly management information
from the Planning Permit Activity Report.
Improvement projects – MAV initiated sector-wide improvement projects based on issues
that have broader application than individual councils and that have been raised through
the STEP program. The first two projects were the introduction of management reports for
STEP councils and the joint MAV/DPCD project to review the DPCD component of the
planning scheme amendment process. A referral authority project is currently being scoped
for the Gippsland region with the aim of applying the learnings more broadly.
What are the benefits?
The STEP program is expected to bring significant benefits to individual councils, customers,
and the state government.
The primary benefit of involvement for councils is improved efficiencies that allow resources
to be focused on improving planning schemes and development outcomes. The program
will also enable councils to better manage their risks, and improve levels of compliance
and performance management. Importantly, the STEP program provides councils with
access to good practice ideas through a network of planners and the ability to
benchmark against other councils. It also puts participating councils in the box-seat to
access e-planning improvements.
Councils are expected to conservatively achieve annual savings per council of
$26 000 to $147 000 based on their volume of activity.
Benefits to the community of the STEP program include higher satisfaction levels, reduced
costs and timeframes for decisions. While the benefits for all community are difficult to
quantify, it is expected that the STEP program will bring $6.1 million in annual savings to the
development industry.
Sector benefits include increased credibility by taking a proactive sector-wide approach to
improvement. This, aided by far greater access to information and data, gives the MAV the
ability to respond to both government and media criticism.
109
2010–11 Local Government National Report
The state government benefits from the STEP program in a number of different ways.
Improved engagement and the identification of actions to improve the planning system
at a regional and state level are critical to the partnership arrangements that should exist
between state and local government. There is also the reduced need for Government
intervention if the planning system is operating efficiently and effectively. STEP provides
Government with a vehicle to achieve the consistent implementation of legislative changes
or initiatives, and leverage their existing investment, particularly in e-planning.
Councils face issues individual to their organisations and have targeted their improvement
plans to those issues. Each will monitor the outcomes of their improvement plans. As the
program is in its infancy the outcomes for each council have not yet been quantified.
From the pilot program with the Growth Area councils it is estimated that modified
procedures and an average time saving of 16 to 26 days can be expected.
A number of common qualitative outcomes have emerged from the STEP program so far:
Collaborative learning is effective and leads to convergence of practice – Collaborating in a
workshop environment enabled councils to share experiences and to hear new ideas.
Planning is recognised as a whole of council process – Planning needs to be treated as
a cross-organisational process. It is known that there is an average of 278 steps in the
planning permit process and 610 in the planning scheme amendment process—in both
of these processes, an average of 15 functions of council are involved. One council’s
process mapping revealed that it took three weeks from a planning permit application
arriving until it reached a planners desk and in that time it had gone through five different
organisational functions.
A planning team alone can only go so far in improving processes—change requires a wholeof-council focus for significant improvements and for an application or amendment to be
effectively ‘managed’ through council.
Applications/amendments are streamed – While there are statutory directions about the
processing of planning scheme amendments and planning permit applications, not all
planning permit applications follow the same path. Councils are identifying the stream
relevant to them, setting procedures and targets and monitoring the results.
Failure demand no longer drives planning processes – Failure demand is a term used by
process analysts to describe when something has gone wrong in the relationship between
the customer and supplier—something that didn’t happen that created more work or
rework to rectify. Both the planning scheme amendment and planning permit process
evidence very high levels of failure demand. STEP councils are working on significantly
reducing requests for information, amendments to permits and VCAT applications for review.
Workflow systems help rather than hinder – The MAV found that the planning processes
are workflow intensive but there is not a focus on how IT can help to manage the workflow
or how performance can be monitored. Council systems are very much focused on the
recording and storage of information and documents. Small improvements in this area can
make significant improvements.
110
Appendix B – Vic.
Engagement with Government and industry is improved – The MAV’s improvement projects
are joint exercises with the state government and resulted in increased involvement in reform
projects. Engagement with Government and industry is a key intent of the STEP program and
consistently improving with the benefit of information and data.
Performance based standards route assessment tool for heavy vehicles
The MAV is currently working with groups of councils to identify draft regional strategic
freight routes and the costs associated with works required to make these routes suitable
for usage by heavy vehicles (up to level 2A). These draft regional plans will be aggregated
and a state-wide funding proposal developed for Infrastructure Australia. This will focus on
local roads and will complement the work currently being completed by VicRoads
for arterial roads.
The major drivers for reforms for strategic freight routes include a growing emphasis on
national productivity, regional development and strategic connectedness.
The MAV and Victorian councils are currently working with the Australian Department of
Infrastructure and Transport and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) to develop,
through the ARRB Group, a Performance Based Standards (PBS) Route Assessment Tool for
local roads.
Victoria is the national pilot for this process which will be expanded nationally via the NHVR.
The process will be delivered through a web-based tool that will assist councils to apply the
complex, new PBS regulations in a user-friendly, timely and consistent manner. ARRB Group
has been requested to scope, design and implement an expert software-based online tool
and complementary assessment guidelines aimed at assisting council practitioners with the
classification of their roads and heavy vehicle routes according to the PBSs.
The software system consists of an online tool and dedicated website that allows a local
government representative to input the necessary data for a particular route of interest. It
is expected that the tool will analyse the information provided for the route and provide a
detailed output on the PBS classification for the route, points of interest, assumptions and
limitations of the classification. Concurrently, the project will develop local government
specific guidelines for the PBS Network classification for heavy vehicles which shall be
incorporated into the system.
While still in the pilot phase, the project aims to reduce the red tape associated with
heavy vehicle access to local roads and ensure strategic routes are able to be accessed
in a simple and effective manner. The project aims to achieve this while identifying the
infrastructure upgrades required to ensure the implementation is effective.
Local government reform fund
The MAV funded a pilot program to improve the quality of financial information produced
by councils as a means of providing a more reliable basis for measuring their financial
performance. An initial pilot program of 10 councils has been extended to include an
additional 17 councils and a majority of remaining Victorian councils have expressed their
support for the scheme.
111
2010–11 Local Government National Report
A report submitted in 2008 to the Minister for Local Government highlighted several factors
influencing the need to improve the quality financial information produced by councils.
As has long been acknowledge, a number of councils, particularly small shires and rural
cities, are experiencing financial sustainability challenges. Despite the general knowledge of
this phenomenon, accurate assessment of financial position is limited by:
• unreliable asset management information particularly relating to asset renewal;
• inconsistencies in the calculation of depreciation;
• insufficient attention given to predictions contained in Strategic Resource Plans; and
• inadequate co-operation between financial and engineering staff involved in
asset management.
This leads to the production of financial and asset management data that are generally
unreliable, undermining the claims of many councils that have identified financial difficulties.
Further, there is a relatively recent focus on improving the collection of performance data
on local government, with the now stalled Essential Services Commission performance
monitoring framework, likely to be replaced by alternative Victorian Government initiatives.
Further, there is a relatively recent focus on improving the collection of performance data
on local government, with the now stalled Essential Services Commission performance
monitoring framework, likely to be replaced by alternative Victorian Government initiatives.
Strategic resource plan
The project reviews and strengthens the suite of financial and corporate planning
documents required by all Victorian councils under the Local Government Act. The review
focuses on the Strategic Resources Plan, which is a requirement under the Act as a means of
achieving the Council Plan outcomes, through the following actions:
• review revenue raising strategies (rating, developer contributions, fees and charges,
special rates and charges)
• review 10 year financial plan, link to key performance indicators, service plans and
incorporate accurate projections for whole-of-life asset costs
• document the council’s strategy to fund renewal annuity
• develop a 10 year capital works program
• assess the opportunities of rate increases to fund the council’s asset
renewal requirements
• plan to achieve an underlying operating surplus in the short term.
112
Appendix B – Vic.
Review of asset management strategy
The participating councils’ asset management strategies are reviewed to ensure that:
• asset management systems estimates whole of life costs, ensuring decision-making is
based on the full cost of infrastructure
• the strategic asset management plan is incorporated into the council
planning process
• elected representatives and senior officers are well briefed on the
Moloney-modelling philosophy (condition ratings, standards of functionality
and presentation, inventory, interventions, unit rates) and the implications for
long-term financial sustainability as a means of building organisational knowledge
of the asset management strategy
• capital evaluation processes are reviewed so that new and renewal projects are
considered in context of promoting long-term financial sustainability for council
• processes are developed for determining asset rationalisation and redundancy so
that assets with limited service potential are earmarked and partitioned from longterm modelling.
Corporate approach
The program also reviews corporate processes of councils, including:
• the development of risk management framework through a corporate risk register
and raised awareness through educating staff on the processes to ensure broad
engagement in councils on the process
• review the council’s sustainability including a statement of intent in the strategic
resource plan and full disclosure of results in the Annual Report
• better alignment between the Budget, Council Plan and the long-term
financial plan
• apply appropriate overhead allocation model to understand and justify fees
and user charges.
Project outcomes
In the 27 councils already participating, the project has achieved greater accuracy,
consistency and reliability in recording and evaluating financial and technical infrastructure
information. This has led to a better understanding of the long-term financial sustainability
of the councils, with the production of good quality and consistent data and better
engagement with key decision-makers, both in and out of the councils.
Service provision is also enhanced by this project, as better alignment is achieved
between financial systems and infrastructure management, including a greater focus on
whole-of-life asset costs. Decisions about service qualities, pricing strategies and alternative
service options are better understood as better cost data are produced by councils.
The ultimate the benefit of this approach is a better understanding of the position of the
councils and the implications of various service delivery and infrastructure provision options
it is facing.
113
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Community engagement
The MAV is undertaking research that aims to improve the design and delivery of
government services such as Medicare, Centrelink and the Child Support Agency as part of
the Australian Government-funded Community Engagement Co-Design Prototype Project.
The research is the first phase of a co-design model used successfully overseas to engage
local government, community organisations and end-use customers with the Australian and
Victorian Governments to be part of the solution to improve delivery of services.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) is funding this Australian Government initiative and
research is being conducted at nine sites across Victoria.
The MAV is managing six of these sites, which includes holding a series of workshops with DHS,
the Victorian Government, councils, community organisations and residents.
At these workshops, issues are discussed around the delivery of services, focusing on
Medicare, Centrelink, the Child Support Agency and other services provided by government
departments and agencies.
The key questions being asked of the community at these workshops include:
• Where can improvements to services be made?
• Would co-located services improve delivery?
• Do services require better design to respond to the needs of service users?
The MAV has a key role to play in linking local government, community organisations and
residents within the six locations into the project research, and ultimately its design.
The involvement of all levels of government and the community is expected to result in
options for service improvements.
About co-design
Co-design principles have international recognition, following the work of Canadian
Dr Don Lenihan, who is advising the Australian Government on this project.
In principal, co-design is a systematic approach to understanding customers of government
services and working with them to design, shape and deliver these services better.
The co-design project sits within the service delivery reform agenda established by the
Australian Government and underpins DHS’ approach of putting people first to improve the
quality of interactions between the community and the government.
As well as engaging with customers, co-design draws on all key stakeholders’ combined
knowledge, ideas and insights.
114
Appendix B – Vic.
Project background
In 2010, a series of community and service staff forums were conducted by the Australian
Government to explore customer views and ideas for improving services.
A range of communications was developed to build an understanding with
managers and staff of government agencies about design philosophies and principles.
International research on other models of co-design and community engagement has
also been undertaken.
In July 2011, a methodology that defined a consistent approach to co-design was
developed. It includes governance, a resource toolbox, knowledge library, and training
and development.
During this process, the need to conduct site workshops to commence community
engagement was agreed on.
Community engagement
The MAV is engaging councils, community organisations and residents by holding workshops
within six allocated site areas.
These workshops aim to identify how services delivered by Centrelink, Medicare, the
Child Support Agency, state and local governments and community organisations can
be improved.
The sites focus on services delivered out of Benalla, Fountain Gate, Rosebud, Maryborough,
Epping and Ballarat.
Each of the sites is addressing a particular client group including:
• older Australians (Rosebud)
• families looking for work (Fountain Gate)
• families (Epping)
• young single parents (Benalla)
• young people (Ballarat)
• families (Maryborough)
The process at each site began with a workshop with DHS customers who were residents
within the site areas.
These workshops were followed by a series of four facilitated sessions using information about
services provided through earlier research undertaken by DHS, which forms a major part of
the research.
Once completed, an action plan for improving services, both short and long term,
will be developed.
Key outcomes will include identifying agreed actions in a number of areas that will enable
governments and community agencies to respond in a more coordinated way to the
specific service needs and expectations of those who use services in these locations.
115
2010–11 Local Government National Report
It is expected that the workshops will also identify stand-alone improvements to DHS and
other government services.
Local government food safety reporting project
Following changes to the Victorian Food Act 1984 in 2009, mandatory reporting of food
safety regulatory activities is now required of councils. To minimise the cost impost to councils
of these new reporting requirements, MAV managed a project, funded by the Department
of Health, to pay council IT software vendors to make the adjustments to council system to
enable councils to easily report their food safety regulatory activities. The technical changes
are almost complete, however there is a considerable body of work still to be undertaken
by council officers to bring their registration databases into line with the new definitions
introduced by the Department of Health that are contained in a Data Dictionary that
has been developed. Councils in Victoria register over 45,000 food businesses, and issue
many more permits for temporary events. The data they are reporting to the Department
of Health will be published in an annual report prepared by the Department. Councils also
have access to the data to enable them to compare their performance with regional or
state-wide data. The Department of Health has also developed an electronic classification
tool which will assist achieving consistency of interpretation of food businesses by different
councils. MAV assisted the Department in the development of this tool by project managing
the contractor and ensuring there was relevant local government input to its development.
Conclusion
This submission has outlined several examples of Victorian councils and the MAV improving
the efficiency of services and the production of comparative performance data.
The MAV is able to provide further information about any of the issues raised in the
submission, should the Commonwealth Government seek further clarifications.
Report from Queensland Department of Local
Government and Planning
Methodology for distributing financial assistance grants
for 2010 –11 in Queensland, including any changes in the
methodology from 2009–10
Identified road component
This component of the Financial Assistance Grant is allocated as far as practicable on the
basis of relative need of each local government for roads expenditure and to preserve its
road assets.
In the opinion of the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission, a formula based
on road length and population best meets this National Principle for Queensland. This
formula is:
• 62.85 per cent of the pool is allocated according to road length
• 37.15 per cent of the pool is allocated according to population.
116
Appendix B – QLD
General purpose component
The Queensland Local Government Grants Commission complies with National Principles
when developing and refining the methodology it uses to recommend the distribution of this
component of the Financial Assistance Grant.
Every local governing body in the state is entitled to a minimum grant under the National
Principles. This minimum grant is equivalent to 30 per cent of the general purpose pool
distributed on a per capita basis. In 2010 –11 this amount was $19.55 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 Queensland Local Government Grants Commission
develops averages for revenue raising and expenditure on services to be applied to all local
governments within the state.
After averages for revenue and expenditure are applied to each local government, the
Queensland Local Government Grants Commission alters the assessment for factors outside
a council’s control which 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 Queensland Local Government Grants Commission has determined that the normal
revenue functions of a council are:
• rates
• garbage charges
• fees and charges
• other grants.
The rating assessment formula adopted by the Queensland Local Government Grants
Commission in April 2004 was used again in allocating the 2010 –11 Financial Assistance
Grant. Further information on the rating assessment formula is available at
www.qlggc.qld.gov.au.
The rating formula is:
• 30 per cent weighting – A minimum rate ($400 for 2010 –11) applied to all rateable
properties in a council area
• 70 per cent weighting – An average cent in the dollar amount for a council’s
unimproved valuation 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 component of the Socio Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) produced by the Australian
Bureau of Statistics. For 2010 –11 a maximum cap of 5 per cent increase in the rating
assessment from the prior year was applied.
Fees and charges are averaged on a per capita basis.
Garbage revenue is averaged on the basis of the number of occupied urban properties.
117
2010–11 Local Government National Report
In accordance with the National Principle for other grant support, grants relevant to
the expenditure categories considered by the Queensland Local Government Grants
Commission are included as revenue according to the actual amounts received by councils
rather than a state average. Five grants are included by the Queensland Local Government
Grants Commission, as follows:
1.
Identified road grant (100 per cent)
2.
Library grant (100 per cent)
3.
Roads to recovery grant (50 per cent)
4.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island operating grants (20 per cent)
5.
Minimum general purpose grant (100 per cent).
Assessing expenditure
In assessing council expenditure, the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission
includes eight (non-roads) service categories:
1.administration
2.
public order and safety
3.
education, health, welfare and housing
4.
garbage and recycling
5.
street lighting
6.
community amenities, recreation, culture and libraries
7.
building control and town planning
8.
business and industry development.
The Queensland Local Government Grants Commission considers which cost adjustors are
relevant to which service categories.
Table B.10 outlines the expenditure categories, the units of measure and the cost adjustors
used in assessing services expenditure.
118
X
$8.67 per urban
capita
$27 361base amount
+ $87.58 per capita
$188.13 per
residential property
$50.26 per capita
Street Lighting
Community Amenities,
Recreation, Culture
and Libraries
Building Control and
Town Planning
Business and Industry
Development
X
X
X
Source: Queensland Local Government Grants Commission
1
N-RSE = non-resident service expenditure
X
$95.46 per urban
capita
Garbage and Recycling
Note:
X
$25.10 per capita
Education, Health
Welfare and Housing
X
$27.07 per capita
Public Order and Safety
X
$410 405 base
amount +
$395.52 per property
+$377.27 per capita
Administration
Services expenditure category
2010 –11
Unit of
measure
Location
X
X
X
X
X
Dispersion
X
X
X
Demography
age
Table B.10: Outline of expenditure assessment: 2010 –11—Queensland
X
X
Demography
indigenous
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N-RSE1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Scale
Services cost adjustors
X
X
X
Tourism
X
X
X
Growth
X
X
X
Urban
density
Appendix B – QLD
119
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Actual expenditure
Additionally, the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission considers each
local government’s actual expenditure or ‘effort positive’ expenditure in the categories of
environmental protection and other transport. The Queensland Local Government Grants
Commission does not believe there is a current cost driver relevant to these categories from
which an average can be determined.
Roads
The roads assessment model is based on an asset preservation assessment of the cost to
maintain a council’s road network, including bridges and hydraulics, in average condition.
The following two tables provide the standards used in the roads assessment model and
the cost adjustors applied. For example, a road with a volume of 150-250 vehicles per day is
assumed to be a sealed 4/8 road regardless of what is actually on the ground.
Allowances are given for heavy vehicles, and for the provision and barging of plant and
material to islands. The allowances are:
Light to medium trucks, 2 axles =
1 vehicle
Heavy rigid and/or twin steer tandem =
2 vehicles
Semi trailers =
3 vehicles
B Doubles =
4 vehicles
Road trains =
5 vehicles
Table B.11: Rural roads, standards and cost adjustors—Queensland
Soil–
subgrade Locality on-cost
Climate
Standard
Traffic volume
range
(adjusted
vehicles per
day)
Unformed
Formed
Paved
Sealed 4/8
6/8
< 1.0
Base Favourperson
cost
able Adverse
MR
/ per
($/km) (Th. –50) (Th. +100) reactive sq.km
250
-
+25%
Terrain
< 0.1
person
/ per
sq.km Undulating
Hilly Mountains
-
+5%
+10%
+2%
+5%
-
<40
500
-
+20%
-
+5%
+10%
+2%
+5%
-
40-150
2 300
-
+20%
+10%
+5%
+10%
+2%
+5%
-
150-250
4 650
-10%
+15%
+10%
+2½ %
+5%
+2%
+5%
+10%
250-1 000
6 600
-7½ %
+10%
+10%
+2½ %
+2½ %
+2%
+5%
+10%
7/10
1 000-3 000
8 100
-7½ %
+10%
+10%
+2½ %
+2½ %
+2%
+5%
+10%
8/12
>3 000
11 000
-7½ %
+10%
+10%
+2½ %
+2½ %
+2%
+5%
+10%
Source: Queensland Local Government Grants Commission
120
Appendix B – QLD
Table B.12: Urban roads, standards and cost adjustors—Queensland
Climate
Traffic volume range
(adjusted vehicles per
day)
<500
Base
cost
($/km)
Soil–
subgrade Locality on-cost
< 1.0
Favour- Adverse
person
able
(Th.
MR
/ per
(Th. –50)
+100) reactive sq.km
Terrain
< 0.1
person
/ per
sq.km Undulating
Hilly Mountains
8 500
-7½ %
+10%
+5%
+2½ %
+2½ %
-
+2%
+5%
500–1 000
15 500
-7½ %
+10%
+5%
+2½ %
+2½ %
-
+2%
+5%
1 000–5 000
25 400
-7½ %
+10%
+10%
+2½ %
+2½ %
-
+2%
+5%
5 000–10 000
41 800
-7½ %
+10%
+10%
+2½ %
+2½ %
-
+2%
+5%
>10 000
66 700
-7½ %
+10%
+10%
+2½ %
+2½ %
-
+2%
+5%
Source: Queensland Government Grants Commission
Cost adjustors
Cost adjustors are indices applied to expenditure categories to account for factors outside a
council’s control, that impact on its ability to provide services. Table 1 above identifies which
cost adjustors are applied to the service categories.
Averaging
The Queensland Local Government Grants Commission introduced averaging steps to
increase confidence in the results obtained due to previous concerns about data limitations
in the calculation methods for road expenditure assessment and rating capacity.
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 Queensland Local Government Grants Commission has decided
to average the outcomes of the methodology against population and road length. This
reduces potentially wide variations occurring between councils and allows for comparability
between councils based on population and road length.
121
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Commission judgments
The Queensland Local Government Grants Commission ensured that the Amalgamation
Principle was applied i.e. no amalgamated Council from March 2008 dropped below its
pre-amalgamation grant levels. Additionally an increase cap of 10 per cent was applied
to councils, except for Indigenous councils, which had a increase cap of 20 per cent.
The Queensland Local Government Grants Commission determined that two Queensland
Councils will receive a minimum grant only. These are Brisbane City Council and Gold Coast
City Council. Additionally, Ipswich City, Logan City, Redland City, Moreton Bay Regional,
Sunshine Coast Regional, Cairns Regional and Townsville City Councils were held at their
previous funding levels as they are tracking towards minimum grant.
The Queensland Local Government Grants Commission this year decided to continue using
20 per cent of Indigenous Councils’ State Government Financial Aid grants as revenue, as a
proxy for rate revenue.
Methodology review
In response to a recommendation of the Local Government Reform Commission’s
report, the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission undertook a review of the
methodology for the distribution of the Financial Assistance Grant. This process commenced
late in 2008, with the assistance of Queensland Treasury Corporation (QTC). A discussion
paper detailing the existing methodology and potential alternatives inputs and calculations
was distributed in September 2009, with submissions due in November 2009. The Queensland
Local Government Grants Commission expects an information paper to be released in
2011 and the new methodology to be in place for the distribution of the 2011–12 Financial
Assistance Grant.
Developments in relation to local government’s use of long
term financial and asset management plans, including
any developments in implementing the Local Government
Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks
Across Australian local government at this time, there is now a clear focus on asset
management planning and long term financial management planning.
For the first time, the Local Government Act 2009 and Local Government (Finance, Plans
and Reporting) Regulation 2010 require local governments to prepare long term asset
management plans, long term financial forecasts and long term community plans. The
emphasis of the Act is to shift local government planning processes from the short term
(annual budget) focus to a longer term perspective on the ongoing sustainability of the
local government.
In 2011, local government in Queensland is managing some $96 billion in infrastructure
assets. It also generates approximately $3.5 billion in net rates and utility charges per annum
and $1.2 billion in depreciation expense.
122
Appendix B – QLD
This is the second year of the state’s financial management (sustainability) evaluation
process. In 2010 –11 it included for the first time all 73 local governments.
The long term financial forecasts rely on a clear perspective of the long term infrastructure
funding needs of the council, including maintenance, operations and infrastructure
renewals. Without this, a long term financial forecast for a local government is indicative
at best.
The evaluation conducted by the Department of Local Government and Planning
recognises the current developmental phase for long term financial sustainability strategies.
The emphasis in 2010 was on assessing the capacity of local governments to develop
long term financial forecasts, and based on those, to develop coherent long term
sustainability strategies.
The emphasis in 2011 has been on assessing the financial sustainability of local governments
and those facing financial challenges.
The evaluation conducted by the Department has shown that the vast majority of local
governments are comfortable in preparing long term financial forecasts, and in developing
sustainability strategies. However, there is some work to be done in further developing asset
management plans and integrating these with the financial forecasts.
Local governments should look to ensure that:
• asset management plans are in place, and that the councillors have considered the
services, service levels, costs and risks associated with the services offered
• the financial forecasts associated with the assets have been linked to a long term
financial forecast (very few councils in Queensland have done this to this point)
• The council consistently reviews its operations, looking for more efficient ways of
delivering the service.
Financial sustainability is about local governments being able to maintain their infrastructure
and remain financially viable over the long term. The essence of the new Local Government
Act 2009 is achieving financial sustainability and improving planning in the long term.
The Local Government (Finance, Plans and Reporting) Regulation 2010 includes a series
of financial sustainability indicators that local governments calculate and disclose to the
community on a regular basis. These indicators, calculated for ten forward years, also form
the basis of the financial management (sustainability) evaluation process.
56 Local Governments submitted data and information to the Department in 2011 for
evaluation. The Returns for 4 councils indicated that those councils are struggling to develop
a reasonable financial forecast.
26 of the respondents have been identified as being in a strong financial position. A further
18 Councils are in a moderate position, with 12 facing financial challenges.
123
2010–11 Local Government National Report
A comparison with prior year forecasts has also been undertaken. This evaluation has
shown that:
• The forecasts for small local governments identify an expected improvement in the
financial sustainability outlook when compared to 2009–10
• The forecasts for medium-sized local governments identify a decline in the financial
sustainability outlook when compared to 2009–10
• The forecasts for large local governments identify no change in the financial
sustainability outlook when compared to 2009–10
• The forecasts for very large local governments identify no change in the financial
sustainability outlook when compared to 2009–10.
The data indicates that on average, all local governments are investing in infrastructure
renewals over the forecast period. For very large local governments however, the data
indicates that the level of investment reduces over time.
Asset Management and Financial Management (Sustainability) remain the primary areas
of evaluation, with most weighting of the overall sustainability evaluation given to results in
these two areas.
Currently the asset management evaluation emphasis is on the development of the asset
management plans. Once the plans are in place, the emphasis needs to change to being
an evaluation of the use of the data and information that is in the plans, e.g. the extent
to which the council is planning to fund the required level of forecast expenditure and
developing and assessing service level options.
Overall the evaluation of asset management planning in Queensland indicates:
• 12 councils have completed all asset management plans
• 16 councils made significant progress since 2010 and are nearing completion
• 16 councils have made some progress since 2010
• 11 councils have made no progress since 2010
• 18 councils did not provide information for evaluation.
Large and very large local governments are well advanced in establishing asset
management plans, and very large local governments have largely completed the task.
Small and medium sized local governments have not yet established asset management
plans for the significant infrastructure assets such as water, sewerage, roads, bridges and
stormwater and this represents a significant deficiency in asset related data and information
for these key assets.
It is expected that all local governments in Queensland will have completed the process of
developing asset management plans for all infrastructure assets by 31 March 2012.
124
Appendix B – QLD
Measures undertaken to develop and implement
comparative performance measures between local
governing bodies
The provision of information by the Queensland Government to the community through the
Queensland Local Government Comparative Information Report continued in 2010 –11. This
report assists local governments in their endeavours to develop new and more effective
ways to deliver their services by providing an effective tool by which they can monitor trends
over time and benchmark services performance both internally and with other councils.
The Local Government (Finance, Plans and Reporting) Regulation 2010 includes the relevant
measures of financial sustainability. These are also included in the City of Brisbane (Finance,
Plans and Reporting) Regulation 2010.
The measures are to be used to evaluate the financial sustainability of local governments
in Queensland. These measures are separately categorised as being related to the
sustainability of infrastructure capital and financial capital in accordance with the definition
in the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld).
Reforms undertaken to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of government service delivery
The essence of the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) is achieving financial sustainability and
improving planning in the long term.
Integrating the Council corporate planning process with robust long-term financial forecasts
and comprehensive asset management plans strengthens a Council’s capacity to plan and
determine the long-term requirements for services, service levels and associated costs.
In the Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament No. 1 for 2009 detailing the results of local
government audits for the 2007–08 financial year, the Auditor-General raised a number of
significant issues. A particular concern was the obvious decline in the timeliness and quality
of financial statements, highlighted by the fact that the financial statements of 10 of the
12 Aboriginal Shire Councils were overdue by more than six months. He further commented
that, despite the strategies implemented by the former Department of Local Government,
Sport and Recreation, there was little evidence of the success of these strategies in
improving the standard of financial reporting in Aboriginal Shire Councils.
In response to the Auditor-General’s Report, DLGP implemented a number of key initiatives
the first of which was the establishment of an Indigenous Council taskforce. The taskforce
comprised nine members, all with significant practical local government experience at a
senior management level.
125
2010–11 Local Government National Report
The short-term goals of the taskforce were to:
• improve the number of Indigenous Councils achieving the statutory 15 September
deadline for presentation of financial statements to their auditors
• where possible, assist Councils in improving the quality of their financial statements in
order for them to ultimately achieve an unqualified audit
• assist the Department in the financial management of high risk Councils by
supporting financial controllers that had been placed into the Lockhart River,
Mapoon and Pormpuraaw Aboriginal Shire Councils.
In addition to these short-term goals, the taskforce spent time assessing the governance
arrangements and financial management capacity at each local government.
Based on their experience, the taskforce was able to provide DLGP with advice and
recommendations on a continuing strategy to assist these local governments.
The key issues being progressed through the taskforce in 2010 –11 were:
• focus on improving the quality of the financial statements being presented for audit.
Whilst the Auditor-General has noted an improvement in the timeliness of statements,
there are still quality issues. Queensland Audit Office staff recently reported that, out
of a snapshot of eight financial statements presented for audit, one was rated as
poor, five were rated as satisfactory, three were rated as good and none were rated
as very good
• the ‘Matters Arising Report’ provided to each local government by the
Auditor-General is one of the key indicators that can be used to measure the
effectiveness of a Council’s governance and financial systems. The taskforce will
work with Councils to ensure that issues being identified in the audit are being
cleared up and appropriate systems and processes are established to mitigate the
risk of impacting future results
• work with Councils with ‘controlled entities’ (i.e. commercial companies owned
by Councils) to ensure they are operating those companies in accordance with
relevant statutory obligations. This is a priority as Council-owned companies which
are not performing will continue to affect the outcome of the local government
audit results
• assist local governments with implementation of asset management and long-term
financial management planning requirements
• encourage Indigenous local government’s participation in DLGP’s sustainability and
reporting process.
In addition, there are a number of other activities being undertaken by DLGP to support
Indigenous local governments.
The ability to attract and retain suitably qualified and experienced staff to work in remote
areas continues to have a major impact on Councils’ performance. In order to address
the issue of attraction and retention of experienced finance staff, particularly accountants,
eight of the 16 Indigenous Councils have established remote offices in Cairns. A further
two Councils have accountants working remotely from home offices. This initiative is also
contributing to significant improvements shown by some of these Councils mainly because
of the reduction in staff turnover in these critical positions.
126
Appendix B – QLD
To support this, DLGP has worked with Councils to establish a Cairns based Finance Officers
network. This network, which meets bi-monthly, is focused on building the capacity of
Indigenous Council finance officers through encouraging information sharing and joint
problem solving between the Councils as well as exploring and developing options for the
sharing of systems and resources across the Councils. Options for sharing include office and
IT facilities and possible staff exchange.
The Local Government Act 2009 also introduced new planning requirements, such as
community planning, asset management planning and long-term financial forecasts. To
support the introduction of these requirements, Financial Management and Sustainability
Workshops for Mayors, Councillors and CEOs were held across Queensland in 2009 and
2010. In 2009, workshops conducted in Cairns, Longreach, Redlands and Rockhampton
emphasised the sustainability and reporting process, community planning, long-term
financial planning and asset management. The 2010 workshops, conducted in Dalby,
Emerald, Brisbane, Cairns and Yarrabah emphasised identifying services, service levels
and costs, financial forecasts and integrated approaches to planning. Planning is currently
underway to continue these workshops in 2011 with the focus of these workshops being to
reinforce the previous messages and advancing the discussion in respect of the key themes.
In addition, DLGP has published a number of publications to support local governments,
these are available on DLGP’s website:
• A guide to asset accounting in local governments
• Asset management advancement program 2009–10
• Financial management (sustainability) guideline 2009
• Guidelines for local government administration of community grants
• A guide to community planning
• A guide to community engagement
• A guide to the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) for Mayors and Councillors.
The Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) includes new planning requirements, such as
community planning, asset management planning and long term financial forecasts.
The Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) also includes planning requirements for local
governments, such as priority infrastructure plans and planning schemes. The 2010 workshops
emphasised the relationship between the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) and the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld).
In June 2009, the then Prime Minister, the Honourable Kevin Rudd MP, announced the
$25 million Local Government Reform Fund to fast-track the implementation of nationally
consistent local government infrastructure financial and asset management and planning.
In November 2009, the state government in conjunction with the Local Government
Association of Queensland, lodged a formal submission with the Commonwealth
Government seeking funding from the Local Government Reform Fund.
Funding of $2 695 000 was ultimately approved to support the development of core asset
management plans for the key infrastructure assets managed by 45 non-Indigenous
Queensland local governments and to assist 16 Indigenous local governments to improve
their asset management capacity.
127
2010–11 Local Government National Report
This significant project promotes and accelerates the implementation of integrated asset
and financial management systems through the development of core asset management
plans for key infrastructure assets.
Initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service
delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
• The Queensland Government, through the Department of Local Government
and Planning, administers the legislation for local governments, including fourteen
Aboriginal Shire Councils and two Indigenous Regional Councils, and provides them
funding and support.
• A key role of the Department in helping improve local government service delivery
to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is to deliver a range of financial
and asset management capacity building initiatives for Queensland’s Indigenous
councils including:
-- a high level task force, comprising local government industry professionals, which
assists councils to plan and implement strategies that will lead to long-term
financial sustainability
-- enabling fourteen staff/councillors of Indigenous local governments to undertake
accredited training (including Certificate IV, Local Government Administration) in
2010 –11 through the Community Governance Improvement Strategy, initiated in
2004 to build capacity and provide skills to improve management practices
-- assisting councils, through the Local Government Reform Fund, to improve their
asset management and financial management capacity; the Queensland
Treasury Corporation (QTC) is working with Indigenous councils on development
of 10 year financial forecasts, and conducts workshops and provides individual
training for council staff as required
• Developing Indigenous councils’ capability in land use planning and development is
another key focus of the Department which:
-- continued to work with the Indigenous Land and Infrastructure Program Office
(Program Office) to assist Indigenous councils establish planning schemes for the
orderly development of land and investment in their community
-- participated with the Program Office and Infrastructure Australia on the
development of a discussion paper exploring options for a new funding model for
infrastructure planning and development in remote Indigenous communities
• The Department supported the ongoing delivery of essential services by Indigenous
local governments by:
-- continuing to provide essential infrastructure for water supply, sewerage
systems and waste management through the Indigenous Environmental Health
Infrastructure program
-- capacity building initiatives to assist Indigenous councils to plan for future asset
needs and management of those assets
-- partnering the Australian Government in the COAG Strategy on water and
wastewater services in remote (including Indigenous communities)
128
Appendix B – QLD
• The Department also provided (and will continue to provide) significant
financial and capacity building assistance to the Torres Strait Island Regional
Council to strategically:
-- address operational and alignment issues arising from the amalgamation of
15 smaller councils into one regional council
-- plan for improved and ongoing financial sustainability
• The Director-General and Associate Director-General of the Department
have adopted additional roles as Government Champions for the Indigenous
communities governed by the Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council and
the Mornington Shire Council respectively, their role being to partner with these
communities to harness combined agency resources to deliver better targeted and
more integrated services.
Report from the Local Government Association
of Queensland
Background
The Commonwealth Government has provided $2.695 million to Queensland councils
through the Advancing Asset in Local Government Project. The outputs of the project are
intended to meet the Commonwealth Government’s two main objectives (i.e. integration
and collaboration) and will improve the capability of Queensland’s local governments
to manage their assets to provide better outcomes for local communities through
management of assets, financial planning processes, and anticipating infrastructure needs.
The project’s implementation plan involves a program of activities to upgrade the
asset management capabilities of a total of 61 Queensland councils, comprising
44 non-Indigenous local governments and 17 Indigenous local governments. (There are
12 Queensland local governments that do not receive Local Government Reform Fund
(LGRF) funding under the project).
The project, which is delivered by the Local Government Association of Queensland
(LGAQ) in partnership with the Queensland Government, promotes and accelerates the
implementation of integrated asset and financial management systems through developing
core asset management plans for key infrastructure assets. The program of activities will:
• Measure the asset management competence of each council
• Develop action plans and core asset management plans (for key infrastructure
assets) for each council and bring whole of life costing, community planning
processes and asset management planning into council budgeting processes
• Develop the asset management skills of councillors and council officers
• Provide for specific activities, including the development of 10 year financial plans,
targeted to Indigenous councils.
The LGAQ has commenced the roll-out of the implementation plan under the conditions of
a funding agreement between it and the Queensland Government.
129
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Progress to date
The project commencement was delayed and the first project day was achieved in January
2011. All of the Queensland Councils covered by the project have had disaster declarations
during December 2010, and January / February 2011 which has impeded their ability to
commence participating in the project. The project continued to work around the impacts
of natural disasters, with basic communication only with the Councils severely impacted.
Efforts have focused on engaging these Councils and bringing them into the project as they
have progressed moving back to core business after the disaster declarations.
The project has gained momentum as many of these councils are re-focusing on core
business. Contact has been initiated with all Indigenous councils and the consultants
engaged to roll-out the project are concurrently progressing Stages 1–3 of the visit days. It is
expected the project will ultimately run to schedule.
For both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous Councils that have been engaged, a
significant amount of work has been undertaken to:
• Complete the initial assessment of their status in the 11 key elements of the National
Asset Management Assessment Framework (NAMAF). To date, 20 councils have
completed this assessment; and
• Progress the development of the Action Plans and Asset Management Plans
(AMPs) for individual asset classes. Assets and Services Management Plans have
been commenced for all Councils visited (where required). To date, 48 AMPs have
been completed for Indigenous councils and 187 AMPs have been completed for
non-Indigenous councils. (The number of AMPs to be prepared for each council
will fluctuate as the project continues to roll-out and the consultants improve their
understanding of the councils’ business).
Queensland Treasury Corporation (QTC) has conducted information and training sessions
across the state to assist the Indigenous Councils complete their 10-year financial models.
13 Indigenous Councils have commenced their 10-year financial models, with 2 Councils
having completed their models and several others having progressed their models to a
substantially advanced stage.
Issues identified during the NAMAF assessments
Through councils’ assessments against the NAMAF, the following systemic issues have been
identified as being the most prevalent throughout the state:
• Lack of Asset Data and Information Systems – there is lack of asset data and systems
to collect the data
• Questionable Data Quality – the quality and fitness for purpose of the data collected
is questionable
• Incorrect Classification and Recording of Asset Costs – Councils struggle with
correctly classifying and recording asset expenditures
• Lack of Corporate Direction On Asset Sustainability – there is a lack of corporate
direction being provided by Councils regarding long-term sustainability of assets
130
Appendix B – QLD
• Lack of Business Processes Incorporating AMPs into Councils’ Business – Few Councils
have business processes ensuring that once AMPs are developed, maintaining and
managing them is imbedded into their culture and everyday business
• Lack of Performance Reporting – There is very little performance reporting on assets
at both the strategic or operational level, and little evidence that councils analyse
and use asset performance data to drive organisational decisions.
Issues identified during the NAMAF assessments will be addressed as the project rolls out.
Independent evaluation of the project
The project has appointed an independent project evaluator. The independent project
evaluation report will be a stand-alone document that can be used for public information
dissemination purposes regarding the project. The report will evaluate the project and will
describe the conduct, benefits and outcomes of the project as a whole. The evaluation will
assess the extent to which the project objectives have been achieved and explain why any
aspects were not achieved.
The LGAQ regularly meets and/or communicates with Mayors, councillors and senior council
officers of Queensland’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island councils. Moreover, following
the demise of their peak organising body (the Aboriginal Coordinating Council), these
Councils have relied on LGAQ assuming a greater responsibility and a more visible presence
in representing and advocating on their behalf to other spheres of government and in the
public forum generally. LGAQ has also formed an Indigenous Leaders Forum comprising
Mayors of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island councils with this forum convening twice a
year to identify and discuss key issues affecting their councils.
The inaugural Indigenous Leaders Forum was convened in 2011 and identified the following
key issues:
• Sustainability of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Councils. Councils seek an
alternative funding model which they consider essential to secure their sustainable
future. In particular they seek funding certainty, a reduction in government resource
wastage, and more targeted spending on demand areas. Key to this model is
greater self-determination by Councils, enhanced local prioritisation of areas that
attract spending and service delivery managed and operated by Councils rather
than for councils.
• The significant reforms to CDEP without being critical of the reforms or reasons for the
reforms has lead to unintended consequences, social and employment, that need
to be addressed.
• Greater focus on economic development is needed that will lead to job creation
and in turn skill development through employment in lieu of current perceived focus
on “training” for jobs that in most cases do not exist.
• Greater recognition is needed for the additional roles that local government
councils play in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities. These additional roles
cover not only the myriad of additional services that fall within the responsibility of
these councils e.g. health , policing and so on but also the cultural leadership roles
expected of, and adopted by, the elected members particularly the Mayor within
these communities.
131
2010–11 Local Government National Report
LGAQ has advanced these matters to various stages with relevant government agencies
with the understanding that these changes require fundamental changes to the way that
federal and state government authorities perceive and interact with these councils.
In addition, Indigenous Leaders have raised the following areas of concern with other
Queensland local government councils seeking (and receiving) support for the Association
to raise these concerns with the various state and federal authorities as they are seen to
impact not only upon Indigenous councils but also directly or indirectly on adjoining
non-indigenous councils:
• Review of the Alcohol Management Plans imposed upon their communities.
Councils, while not trying to resile from the concerns that motivated the intervention
in the first place, vehemently oppose this imposition on their communities on the
basis that it firstly discriminates against their communities but moreover that it has
failed to adequately resolve the initial concerns and has lead to other negative
social outcomes for members of their communities.
• Less reliance by state and federal government on high-profile indigenous “experts”
and more heed given to democratically-elected indigenous leaders on indigenous
reform issues. Councils argue that as democratically-elected members who continue
to live and work in their communities, they are more suited to be able to provide
legitimate advice to governments on what works and what won’t work than some
of the current indigenous leaders who enjoy media acclaim but sometimes have lost
touch with the communities and often represent a minority view of reform needs.
• Greater involvement in land reform. The one size fits all approach to land reform
does not recognise the diversity that exists across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island
councils. More dialogue and genuine consideration of the community views needs
to be undertaken to ensure this crucial reform is managed correctly.
• Law and order remains an issue with greater collaboration on the issue of community
policing sought between councils and law enforcement authorities.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island councils continue to struggle with the sheer magnitude
of governance requirements thrust upon this group of small local governments who rely so
heavily on a plethora of grants, each of which require different forms of resource-intensive
acquittal. In too many cases, the level of acquittal requirements is discouraging councils
from accepting grants which are intended to benefit the community.
Councils continue to struggle to attract and retain high-level skilled personnel in key jobs
which impacts upon their capacity to deliver to the community. Reasons for this include their
remoteness and isolation, the working environment (absence of key resources, technology
etc) as well as the lack of capacity of the isolated councils to pay remuneration necessary
to attract skilled professionals. This in turn also impacts negatively on the capacity of council
to meet their governance obligations.
While there is ample evidence of improvements in many areas such as corporate
governance, most reviews indicate that the significant investment in government initiatives
in these communities is not matched with the recorded improvements in quality of life or
diminution in disadvantage for members of these communities. A re-think in strategy in so
many areas is clearly required and is being demanded by local government leaders of
these communities.
132
Appendix B – WA
In summary then, while they have made significant inroads and progress since being
established as local government councils with equal status as every other Queensland
local government council, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Councils continue to face
many challenges as local governments, over and above those of other local governments
as a direct consequence of their history, isolation and cultural environment. However,
there is a clear burgeoning emergence of strong and capable leadership in these
local governments that is taking up these challenges. This needs to be recognised and
acknowledged by all spheres of government and in particular requires the government
bureaucracy to review their perception of these local government authorities from
budget-dependent resource-intensive limited organisations to government councils in their
own right responsible for and capable at delivering a plethora of services to
their communities.
Report from Western Australian Department of
Local Government
Methodology for distributing financial assistance grants for
2010 –11, including any changes in methodology from
2009–10
General purpose grants
The Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission (WALGGC) uses the balanced
budget method for allocating General Purpose Grants and an Asset Preservation Model for
allocating the Identified Local Road Grant component.
The ‘balanced budget’ approach to horizontal equalisation is based on the formula:
assessed expenditure need – assessed revenue capacity
= assessed equalisation requirement
This applies to all 139 local governments in Western Australia.
Calculation of assessed revenue capacity is based on standardised mathematical formulae,
and involves assessing the revenue-raising capacity of each local government in the
categories of:
• Residential and commercial/industrial rates
• Agricultural rates
• Pastoral rates
• Mining rates
• Recreation and culture charges
• Building charges
• Investment earnings
• Other revenue
133
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Assessed expenditure need is based on standardised mathematical formulae, involving
the assessment of each local government’s operating expenditures in the provision of core
services and facilities under the ‘standard’ categories of:
• Governance
• Law, order and public safety
• Education, health and welfare
• Community amenities
• Recreation and culture
• Building control
• Transport.
For the 2010 –11 grant determinations, 31 local governments received the Minimum Grant
entitlement. Local governments that received a Minimum Grant in 2010 –11 had their
grant calculated on a per capita basis, in accordance with the Minimum Grant Principle
established under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth).
The WALGGC is still in the process of completing its review of the General Purpose Grant
methodology and, as such, the General Purpose Grants for 2010 –11 were pegged at
2009–10 levels, with an escalation factor applied, equivalent to the percentage increase
in the total WA pool, after deducting the Minimum Grant local governments.
For the 2010 –11 grant determinations, the WALGGC used the latest Australian Bureau of
Statistics’ estimated residential population data.
Methodology review
The methodology review is due for completion in December 2011 and will be applied to
the 2012–13 grant determinations. The Commission will reduce the number of disabilities it
currently applies to determinations. The balanced budget approach will be retained albeit
with some changes to the overall application of disabilities.
Local road grant funding
Under the current principles, 7 per cent of the Commonwealth funds provided for local
roads are allocated for special projects (one-third for roads servicing remote Indigenous
communities and two-thirds for bridges). The remaining 93 per cent is distributed in
accordance with road preservation needs, as determined by the WALGGC’s Asset
Preservation Model (APM). The model assesses the average annual costs of maintaining
each local government’s road network and has the capacity to equalise road standards
through the application of minimum standards. These standards help local governments
that have not been able to develop their road systems to the same standard as more
affluent local governments.
The road data used for the Asset Preservation Model is obtained from Main Roads WA and is
of a consistently high standard.
134
Appendix B – WA
For the 2010 –11 determinations, the average increase in local road grants for all
governments was 8.5 per cent. One hundred and twelve local governments received
an increase of less than 10 per cent, while 26 local governments received an increase of
more than 10 per cent, the largest being 17.1 per cent. One local government incurred a
decrease of 1.07 per cent in its Local Road Grant.
Table B.13: Local road funding allocations, 2010 –11—Western Australia
Allocation
Value ($)
Roads servicing remote Indigenous communities
$2 243 824
Bridges
$4 487 649
Distributed according to the APM*
$89 946 051
Total
$96 677 524
Source: Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission
Special Projects—Roads Servicing Remote Indigenous Communities
Table B.14: Special projects funds for indigenous access roads, 2010 –11—Western Australia
Special Project funds
Commonwealth funds from WALGGC
Value ($)
$2 243 824
State funds from Main Roads WA
$1 121 912
Total
$3 365 736
Source: Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission
The Indigenous Roads Committee advises the WALGGC on procedures for determining
the allocations of Commonwealth road funds for roads servicing remote Indigenous
communities, and recommends the allocations that are made each year.
Membership of the Committee is made up of one representative of each of the following:
• Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA)
• Main Roads WA
• Department of Indigenous Affairs
• Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
(FaHCSIA)
• WALGGC.
The Committee has established funding criteria based on factors including the number
of Indigenous people serviced by a road, the distance of a community from a sealed
road and the proportion of traffic servicing remote Indigenous communities. These criteria
provide an effective method of assessing priorities in developing a five-year program.
135
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Special projects—bridges
The WALGGC’s policy for allocating funds for bridges is influenced by the fact that there
are many local government bridges that are in poor condition, and that the preservation of
these bridges must be given a high priority.
The Special Project funds for bridges are allocated only to preservation type projects,
recognising that some of these projects may include some upgrading, and that preservation
includes replacement when the existing bridge has reached the end of its economic life.
Main Roads WA contributes a third of the cost of all projects funded under the Special
Projects program. Table B.15: Special project funds for bridge works 2010 –11—Western Australia
Special Project funds
Value ($)
Special project funds from WALGGC
$4 487 649
State funds from Main Roads WA
$2 243 824
Total
$6 731 473
Source: Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission
A Bridge Committee advises the WALGGC on priorities for allocating funds for bridges.
Membership of the Committee is made up of representatives of:
• Western Australian Local Government Association
• Main Roads WA
• WA Local Government Grants Commission.
The 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.
Developments in relation to local government’s use of
long-term financial and asset management plans
The Department of Local Government (the Department) has developed an Integrated
Planning and Reporting Framework and Guidelines that provide for the development of
key strategic management and planning tools informing core local government functions,
including long term financial and asset management planning. In addition, grant funding
was provided to local governments participating in structural reform within the state to assist
in the development of Strategic Community Plans, Long Term Financial Plans and Asset
Management Plans.
In 2011, local government responses to a survey relating to local government capability
indicated that:
• 83.6 per cent of local governments met the baseline level for Financial Planning
• 40.7 per cent of local governments met the baseline level for Asset Management.
136
Appendix B – WA
Developments in implementing the Local Government
Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks
The Department has developed the Long Term Financial Framework and the Asset
Management Framework, and supporting guidelines, two key components of the Integrated
Planning and Reporting Framework. These are aligned with the Local Government Financial
Sustainability Consistent Frameworks.
In partnership with Local Government Managers Australia WA Division (LGMA), the
Department has commenced a series of Master Classes relating to Integrated Planning,
Asset Management Planning and Long Term Financial Planning. These are being delivered
across the state to local government executives and officers.
Further, the Department has drafted amendments to a number of regulations under the
Local Government Act 1995 (Cwth), with a view to ensuring that asset management
planning and long term financial planning, as described in the Integrated Planning and
Reporting Framework, become standard business practices for all local governments.
It is envisaged that these statutory enhancements, coupled with the range of Integrated
Planning and Reporting tools now available, will assist local governments to become better
aligned with the Local Government Financial Sustainability Consistent Frameworks, and other
strategic planning improvements planned under the Reform Program.
Measures undertaken to develop and implement
comparative performance measures between local
governing bodies
In response to recommendations in the May 2010 Local Government Reform Steering
Committee report, the Department, in collaboration with the local government sector, has
developed a Performance Measurement Framework for local governments. This will align
with the proposed National Sustainability Framework, and will help guide improvements in
three key areas.
The Framework will:
• help individual local governments monitor and manage their own progress in
delivering community services and meeting community needs
• provide a common, reliable method of measuring progress sector-wide
• allow trends over time to be reliably measured
• provide information to direct state government capability building activities
• identify the changes arising from capacity building reforms.
137
2010–11 Local Government National Report
As a first step in implementing the Framework, Working Groups with membership from local
governments, WALGA, LGMA, other key stakeholders and the Department developed four
sets of performance measures to identify changes in local government capability in:
• integrated planning
• workforce planning
• financial planning
• asset management.
These measures will be used to collect information from every local government, which can
be aggregated to form a sector-wide Capability Index, showing the proportion of local
governments attaining the baseline level of capability.
In subsequent years, more detail will be collected, particularly from local governments who
have more sophisticated performance measurement processes in place. This will identify
the proportion of local governments able to demonstrate a higher level of capability. It is
intended that the measures will provide valuable information to the
individual local governments to drive continuous improvement, as well as showing
sector-wide performance.
Reforms undertaken during 2010 –11 to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of local government
service delivery
The Western Australian Government has continued to provide assistance to those local
governments that are voluntarily participating in structural reform, either through directly
pursuing amalgamations, or by joining a Regional Transition Group (RTG) or a Regional
Collaborative Group (RCG).
At the end of this reporting period, four local governments were directly pursuing
amalgamations, whilst another four had recommended amalgamation to the Local
Government Advisory Board but this was overturned through a poll. Sixteen local
governments had formed five RTGs, and a further 23 local governments had formed
five RCGs.
RTGs and RCGs are two distinct models where partnerships are formed between two or
more local governments to explore the costs and benefits of local government reform.
RTGs were offered to local governments that had seen the need for reform but were
not able to formalise amalgamation agreements with their proposed partners. Local
governments that form an RTG work together on a Regional Business Plan to consider
whether amalgamation would benefit their communities. Any local government resolution
to proceed with amalgamation is subject to review and recommendation by the Local
Government Advisory Board.
Local governments that form an RCG receive state government funding and support to
develop a Regional Business Plan, which examines whether a shared service arrangement
would benefit their communities. This model has been offered to local governments in
regional areas where vast distances between towns mean amalgamation is not a priority.
RCGs have been established in the Kimberley, Pilbara, Murchison and Goldfields regions.
138
Appendix B – WA
Initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service
delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
The Department continued to progress arrangements during 2010 –11 towards the planning
of local government services in Indigenous communities. This initiative stems from the Bilateral
Agreement on Indigenous Affairs 2006-10, in which the state and the Commonwealth
Government agreed to work towards a transition of responsibilities for municipal services
to the local government sector. Further to the Bilateral Agreement, the state and
Commonwealth Governments signed a National Partnership Agreement on Remote
Indigenous Housing (2009), which commits the governments to work together towards new
arrangements for municipal services in Indigenous communities, including clearer roles and
responsibilities and funding.
The Western Australian Government, through its Royalties for Regions program, made
Financial Assistance Grants to a number of local governments in remote and regional
Western Australia for the purpose of engaging specialist consultants to undertake the
scoping and costing of services in Indigenous communities, using the template developed
for the project.
Progress during the year included:
• the commissioning of a consulting firm, CAM Management Solutions Pty Ltd,
to produce a scoping and costing template for the project, designed to
comprehensively identify the likely costs, together with delivery mechanisms
that could be used, in relation to local government service delivery in
Indigenous communities;
• the completion of a pilot scoping and costing report by the Pilbara Regional
Council, which produced extensive information on local government service
delivery in a number of Indigenous communities across the region; and provided
feedback on the template to enable adjustments;
• funding has been provided to other remote area local governments to undertake
similar scoping and costing of services for their Indigenous communities; and
• the commissioning and completion of a research paper by the Australian Centre of
Excellence for Local Government into funding models for local government services
in Indigenous communities. The report will review service delivery models and
approaches in various jurisdictions and outline current responsibilities and options for
future funding and service delivery.
The development of these Scoping and Costing reports is being managed by a Planning
Committee, comprised of senior representatives of the State Departments of Local
Government, Indigenous Affairs, and Housing; FaHCSIA; local governments and WALGA.
The Department has also appointed specialist staff in policy and project management.
These appointments have been extended through the 2011–12 financial year due to
the increased work arising from the project and the importance of engaging with local
governments on these issues.
139
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Report from the South Australian Local
Government Grants Commission and the
Local Government Association
Methodology for distributing financial assistance grants for
2010 –11, including any changes from 2009–10
General purpose grant
The methodology used to assess the general-purpose component of the Local Government
Financial Assistance Grants is intended to achieve an allocation of grants to local governing
bodies in the state consistent with the National Principles. The over-riding principle is one
of Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation, which is constrained by a requirement that each local
governing body must receive a minimum entitlement per head of population as prescribed
in the Commonwealth legislation.
The South Australian Local Government Grants Commission uses a direct assessment
approach to the calculations. This involves the separate estimation of a component revenue
grant and a component expenditure grant for each council, which are aggregated to
determine each council’s overall equalisation need.
Available funds are distributed in accordance with the relativities established through
this process and adjustments are made as necessary to ensure the per capita minimum
entitlement is met for each council. For local governing bodies outside the incorporated
areas (the Outback Areas Community Development Trust and five Aboriginal Communities)
allocations are made on a per capita basis.
A standard formula is used as a basis for both the revenue and expenditure
component grants.
140
Appendix B – SA
Formulae
General financial assistance
The formula for the calculation of the raw revenue grants can be expressed as:
Similarly, the formula for the calculation of the raw expenditure grants can be expressed as:
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.
Expenditure or income
standard, be it cost or revenue =
U
S = RRI = Revenue Relativity Index
CRI = Cost Relativity Index (previously known as the disability factor). They are
centred around 1.00, i.e. RRIs or CRIs equals 1.00. If more than one CRI exists
for any function then they are multiplied together to give an overall CRI for
that function.
In the revenue calculations for both residential and rural assessments, the Commission has
calculated a revenue relativity index based on the SEIFA Index of Economic Resources
(from the Australian Bureau of Statistics). Where no revenue relativity index exists the
RRIc = 1.0. Currently in all expenditure calculations with the exception of roads and
stormwater there are no disability factors applied and consequently, CRIc = 1.0.
The raw grants, calculated for all functions using the above formulae, both on the revenue
and expenditure sides, are then totalled to give each council’s total raw grant figure.
Any council whose raw calculation per head is less than the per capita figure, ($19.38 for
2010 –11), 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 the calculation of the 2010 –11 grants, the Commission constrained
changes to Councils grants to between minus 5 and positive 12 percent. Changes in grant
for the majority of Councils were in the range of minus 1.5 per cent and positive 9 percent.
Grants to three councils were reduced at higher levels of minus 3, 3 and 5 percent as part of
a process of decreasing grants in a manageable way for these councils. An iterative process
is then undertaken until the full allocation is determined.
141
2010–11 Local Government National Report
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 of five land use categories, 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 i.e. they are effort neutral, are treated by the “inclusion approach”. That is,
subsidies such as those for library services and roads are included as a revenue function.
142
Appendix B – SA
Component expenditure grants
Component expenditure grants compensate or penalise councils according to whether the
costs of providing a standard range of local government services can be expected to be
greater than or less than the average cost for the state as a whole due to factors outside
the control of councils. The Commission assesses expenditure needs and a component
expenditure grant for each of a range of functions and these are aggregated to give a total
component expenditure grant for each council.
The methodology compares each council per capita against the state average. This
enables the comparison to be consistent and to compare like with like.
A main driver or unit of measure is identified for each function. This is divided into the total
expenditure on the function for the state as a whole to determine the average or standard
cost for the particular function. For example, in the case of the expenditure function built-up
sealed roads, “kilometres of built-up sealed roads” is the unit of measure.
Using this example, the length of built-up sealed roads per capita for each council is
compared with the state’s length of built-up sealed road per capita. The difference,
be it positive, negative or zero, is then multiplied by the average cost per kilometre for
construction and maintenance of built up sealed roads for the state as a whole (standard
cost). This in turn is multiplied back by the council’s population to give the component
expenditure grant for the function. As already indicated this grant can be positive, negative
or zero.
In addition, it is recognised that there may be other factors beyond a council’s control which
require it to spend more (or less) per unit of measure than the state average, in this example
to reconstruct or maintain a kilometre of road. Accordingly, the methodology allows for a
cost relativity index (CRI), to be determined for each expenditure function for each council.
Indices are centred around 1.0, and are used to inflate or deflate the component grant for
each council. In the case of roads, CRI’s measure relative costs of factors such as material
haulage, soil type, rainfall and drainage.
143
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Table B.16: Expenditure functions, standard cost and units of measure—South Australia
Expenditure function
Standard cost
Units of measure
Waste Management
Reported expenditures
Aged Care Services
Reported expenditures 1
Services to Families and
Children
Reported expenditures 1
Health Inspection
Reported expenditures 1
Establishments to inspect
Libraries
Reported expenditures
Number of library visitors
Sport and Recreation
Reported expenditures 1
Sealed Roads – Built-Up 5
Reported expenditures 1
Sealed Roads – Non-built-up 5
Reported expenditures 1
Sealed Roads – Footpaths etc
Reported expenditures 1
Unsealed Roads – Built-up 5
Reported expenditures 1
Unsealed Roads – Non-built-up 5
Reported expenditures 1
Unformed Roads 5
Reported expenditures 1
Kilometres of unformed road as reported in GIR
Stormwater Drainage
Maintenance 2, 3
Reported expenditures 1
Number of urban properties 4
Community Support
Reported expenditures 1
3 year average population * SEIFA Advantage/
Disadvantage CRI
Jetties and Wharves
Reported expenditures 1
Number of Jetties and Wharves
Public Order and Safety
Reported expenditures 1
Total number of properties
Planning and Building Control
Reported expenditures
1
Number of new developments and additions
Bridges
Reported expenditures
1
Number of bridges
Other Needs Assessments
Set at 1.00.
1
1
Number of residential properties
Population aged 65+ per ABS Census and
estimated resident population
Population aged 0-14 yrs per ABS Census and
estimated resident population
Population aged 5-49 years per ABS Census and
estimated resident population
Kilometres of built-up sealed road as reported
in GIR
Kilometres of non-built-up sealed road as
reported in GIR
Kilometres of built-up sealed road as reported
in GIR
Kilometres of built-up unsealed road as reported
in GIR
Kilometres of non-built-up unsealed road as
reported in GIR
Based on Commission determined relative
expenditure needs in a number of areas 6
To overcome fluctuations in the base data, inputs into the expenditure assessments (with the exception of the newly revised road
lengths) are averaged over three years. The following table details the approach taken to expenditure functions included in the
methodology.
1
Council’s expenditures reported in the Commissions’ Supplementary returns.
2
Includes both construction and maintenance activities.
3
The Commission has also decided, for these functions, to use CRI’s based on the results of a previous consultancy by
BC Tonkin and Associates.
4
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 CRI’s based on the results of a consultancy led by Emcorp and
Associates, in association with PPK Environment and Infrastructure. Tonkin Consulting has since refined the results.
6
Comprises Commission determined relative expenditure needs with respect to the following:
• Non-Resident Use/Tourism / Regional Centre – assessed to be high, medium or low;
•Duplication of Facilities – identified by the number of urban centres and localities (as determined by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS);
•Isolation – measured as distance from the GPO to the main service centre for the Council (as determined by
the RAA);
•Additional recognition of needs of Councils with respect to Aboriginal people – identified by the proportion of
the population identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander;
• Unemployment – identified by the proportion of the population unemployed;
Source: 144
•Capital City status – gives recognition to such things as the ability of the council to raise revenue from sources
other than rates i.e. car parking and from the Wingfield dump, and their extraordinary expenditure need i.e.
due to the requirement that they maintain the entire road network within the City, and due to the daily influx of
non-resident population;
• Environment and Coastal Protection – assessed to be high, medium or low; and
•The Provision of Cultural and Tourist Facilities – assessed to be high, medium or low.
This final factor Other Needs Assessment (also known as Function 50) originates from awareness by the 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 there are many factors, which may influence a council’s expenditure and that it is not
always possible to determine objectively the extent to which a council’s expenditure is affected by inherent or
special factors. Therefore, in determining units of measure and cost relativity indices, the Commission must exercise
its judgement based on experience, the evidence submitted to the Commission, and the knowledge gained by the
Commission during visits to council areas and as a result of discussions with elected members and staff.
South Australian Local Government Grants Commission.
Appendix B – SA
Table B.17: Calculated standards, by function—South Australia
Summary of figures by function
Total Population = 1 603 361
Function
Standard in
Dollars
Unit of
Measure per
Capita
Total Units of
Measure
Unit of Measure
Waste Management
139.32
0.40739
650 777
No of residential properties
Aged Care Services
113.07
0.15356
245 297
Population aged more than 65
Services To Families
And Children
49.20
0.18072
288 697
Population aged 0 to 14
296.22
0.01282
20 472
Establishments to inspect
5.46
7.46612
11 926 736
135.76
0.59868
956 364
Sealed Roads –
Built Up
8 464.62
0.00644
10 282
Sealed Roads –
Non Built Up
8 464.62
0.00452
7 218
Sealed Roads –
Footpaths etc
10 322.25
0.00644
10 282
Unsealed Roads –
Built Up
1 397.56
0.00047
746
Kilometres of formed and
surfaced, and natural surface
formed builtup road
Unsealed Roads –
Non Built Up
1 397.56
0.02955
47 197
Kilometres of formed and
surfaced, and natural surface
formed non-builtup road
313.35
0.00566
9 048
Kilometres of natural surfaced
unformed road
Stormwater Drainage
– Maintenance
51.60
0.44003
702 921
Community Support
25.95
0.99980
1 597 133
3yr average population * SEIFA
Advantage Disadvantage CRI
Jetties and Wharves
16 897.44
0.00005
78
Number of jetties and wharves
15.92
0.56130
896 644
741.59
0.03434
54 857
Expenditure Functions
Health Inspection
Libraries
Sport and Recreation
Roads – Unformed
Public Order and
Safety
Planning And Building
Control
Bridges
Other Special Needs
2 984.62
0.00073
1 166
1.00
28.50364
45 533 100
Number of visitors
Population aged 5 to 49
Kilometres of sealed builtup
Kilometres of sealed non-builtup
Kilometres of sealed builtup
No of urban, industrial and
commercial properties
including exempt
Total no of properties
No of new developments and
additions
Number of bridges
Total of dollars attributed
Revenue Functions
Rates – residential
0.0029
132 315
210 457 607 100
• commercial
0.0055
16 669
26 627 532 550
• industrial
0.0079
2 620
4 185 804 787
• rural
0.0030
19 279
30 448 830 144
Valuation of rural
• other
0.0020
9 237
14 755 350 412
Valuation of other
1.00
25.41816
40 604 211
Subsidies
Valuation of residential
Valuation of commercial
Valuation of industrial
The total of the subsidies
Source: South Australian Local Government Grants Commission
145
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Calculated standards by function
The South Australian Local Government Grants Commission uses the above table to enable
it to calculate a council’s raw grant for each of the given functions. To do this we calculate
each individual councils unit of measure per capita, compare it with the similar figure from
the table and then multiply the difference by the standard from the table and its own
population. If CRIs are applicable then they must be included as a multiplier against the
council’s unit of measure per capita.
It must be stressed that this only allows the calculation of the raw grant for the individual
function, not the estimated grant. The calculation of the estimated grant is not possible
as per capita minimums need to be applied and the total allocation apportioned to the
remaining councils.
Aggregated revenue and expenditure grants
Component grants for all revenue categories and expenditure functions, calculated for
each council using the method outlined above, are aggregated to give each council’s
total raw grant figure.
Where the raw grant calculation per head of population for a council is less than the per
capita minimum established as set out in the Local Government (Financial Assistance)
Act 1995 (Cwth), ($19.38 for 2010 –11), 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.
Limits determined by the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission may then
be applied to minimise the impact on council’s budgetary processes. In the calculation of
the 2010 –11 grants, constrained changes to Councils to between minus 5 and positive
12 per cent. An iterative process is then undertaken until the full allocation is determined.
Identified local road grant
In South Australia, the identified local road grants pool is divided into formula grants (85%)
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, allocations to individual councils are determined again by an
equal weighting of road length and population. In the non-metropolitan area, allocations
are made on an equal weighting of road length, population and the area of each council.
Distribution of the special local road grants is based on recommendations from the Local
Government Transport Advisory Panel. This Committee is responsible for assessing submissions
from regional associations on local road projects of regional significance.
146
Appendix B – SA
Outback communities authority
The Outback Areas Community Development Trust was replaced by the Outback
Communities Authority from 1 July 2010, and is prescribed as a local governing body for
the purposes of the Grants Commission’s recommendations, in the same way as the
previous Trust.
The Outback Communities Authority was established in July 2010 under legislation of
the South Australian Parliament. It has a broad responsibility for management and local
governance of the unincorporated areas of South Australia. The Authority has a particular
emphasis providing assistance in the provision of local government type services normally
undertaken by local councils elsewhere in the state.
Due to the lack of comparable data, the Commission is not able to calculate the grant to
the Authority in the same manner as grants to other local governing bodies. Rather, a per
capita grant has been established. The 2010 –11 per capita grant was $353.87.
Aboriginal communities
Since 1994–95 the Grants Commission has allocated grants to 5 Aboriginal communities
recognised as local governing authorities for the purposes of the Commonwealth Local
Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth).
The Aboriginal communities are Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Gerard Community
Council Inc., Maralinga Tjarutja, Nepabunna Community Council Inc., and Yalata
Community Council Inc.
Again due to the unavailability of data, grants for these communities are not calculated in
the same manner as grants to other local governing bodies.
Initially, the Commission utilised the services of a consultant, 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 in line with the increase in the general purpose
pool of funding for South Australia since the initial study. For the 2010 –11 financial year, the
per capita grant varied from $315.04 for the Nepabunna community to $1 393.82 for the
Yalata Community Council.
Changes to methodology for 2010 –11
In relation to updates for changes to the Commission’s methodology for the 2010 –11 year
(compared to 2009–10), there are no changes to any of tables 2.9, C3 or C4.
147
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Developments in relation to local government’s use of
long- term financial and asset management plans, including
any developments in implementing the Local Government
Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks
All SA Councils have developed and adopted Long-term Financial and Asset Management
Plans as required by the Local Government Act 1999 (SA). Many councils have found that
significant additional work is required to improve the rigour of their Asset Management
Plans. The Local Government Association of South Australia (LGASA) has assisted councils
by arranging and subsidising the cost of the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia
(IPWEA SA) providing training and additional support material for those councils.
Regional and local community infrastructure program
Throughout the year the LGASA continued to support councils’ efforts to access much
valued Australian Government funding for community infrastructure works. Round 3 of the
Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program RLCIP) was announced by the
Prime Minister in June 2010. SA councils shared $3.2 million of the $100 million national pool
of funding that was provided on an allocated basis to councils.
A particular emphasis in LGASA support information has been consistent reminders of the
importance of making careful decisions regarding infrastructure priorities based on longterm financial plans and the crucial difference between projects creating new infrastructure
(which involve additional ongoing operating expenses, including depreciation) and projects
renewing existing infrastructure (which do not involve any increase in operating expenses).
Financial sustainability
The LGASA maintained a focus on assisting councils with their financial sustainability reform
work, through its Financial Sustainability Program.
Significant improvements have been made in South Australia as a result of the introduction
of the legislative requirement in 2005 for councils to adopt long-term financial plans and
infrastructure asset management plans.
In late 2009 the LGASA worked closely with the Office for State/Local Government to submit
a funding proposal to the Commonwealth Government’s Local Government Reform Fund.
The proposal sought $2.5 million (supported by funding from the LGASA, councils and the
Office for State/Local Government Relations (OSLGR)) to implement an extensive program
aimed at improving councils’ asset and financial management practices. In February 2010
the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development
and Local Government, announced stage 1 funding of $1.65 million towards three of the six
components of this project.
148
Appendix B – SA
Local government financial sustainability nationally
consistent frameworks
In May 2009, the Local Government Planning Ministers’ Council (LGPMC) agreed to
enhance the nationally consistent frameworks on local government asset and financial
management to assist councils improve their asset and financial management and
planning. It also committed to the acceleration of the implementation of the frameworks.
The LGA’s Financial Sustainability Program is entirely consistent with the enhanced national
frameworks and SA is extremely well placed to ensure that all local governments fully
implement them.
Funding received from the Australian Government’s Local Government Reform Fund
program (see below) will accelerate the implementation of the LGPMC agreed asset
management and financial planning frameworks, build capacity and resilience in local
government and increase collaboration between councils in planning and service delivery.
Legislative reforms
The Local Government (Accountability Framework) Amendment Act 2009 (SA), contained
a range of amendments designed to ensure that Councils meet the standards of
accountability appropriate for public administration. The amendments came into effect on
1 July 2010. The Local Government (Accountability Framework) Amendment Act (SA) makes
it clear that councils must achieve and maintain standards of good public administration,
and provides guidance about what council policies, procedures and practices should be
implemented to comply in key areas such as prudential management and procurement as
well as council audits and internal controls. The measures will be progressively introduced.
During 2010 –11, the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations were
completely remade. The revised Regulations simplified and rationalised many of the previous
requirements on councils.
Infrastructure
The LGASA in consultation with IPWEA SA and with support from councils and OSLGR,
continues to help councils to develop infrastructure and asset management plans.
As noted above, significant additional work is underway to improve the rigour of existing
plans. Some councils have found that their earlier plans had not been based on financially
sustainable service levels.
Local government reform fund
As mentioned above, OSLGR/LGASA was successful in obtaining stage 1 funding of
$1.65 million from the Reform Fund. All of the projects in the OSLGR/LGASA proposal come
together in a planned approach using the principles of continuous improvement to ensure
their ongoing relevance. They include:
• The development of accepted standards of good asset and financial
management practices
• An audit of all South Australian councils based upon those standards
149
2010–11 Local Government National Report
• The development of individual improvement plans emphasising the principles of
financial and asset management, collaboration, workforce planning and climate
change adaptation
• The development of solutions based upon the results of the audit and content of
improvement plans.
While projects will be carried out under the auspices of the LGASA, OSLGR will have
oversight of funding outputs and outcomes to ensure projects are progressed according
to the submission.
The projects are consistent with legislative changes introduced in this state to improve the
financial and asset management of councils and with the broader policy approaches to
build capacity in the local government sector through collaborative approaches.
Any measures undertaken to develop and implement
comparative performance measures between local
governing bodies
Easy data
The Easy Data website, which provides access to comparative information on economic,
social and environmental information at Council, regional and state levels, was updated
during the year. The project was part funded by the Local Government Research and
Development Scheme in partnership with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and the
State Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED), which hosts the site.
With an easy to use software application, the site provides an entry point to a range of
Australian, state and local government information with both graphic and tabular report
downloads available to users. Regular updates of data are provided to refresh the site. The
software application is also regularly updated to meet the increasing demands of users. The
site won a 2009 South Australian Premier’s Award.
Workforce planning
The LGA conducts a sector wide workforce data collection on a three yearly cycle. Outside of this workforce planning statistics continue to be regularly extracted from Local
Government Grants Commission data and presented in graph and table from for Councils
seeking comparative statistics for their workforce planning.
Financial indicators
Each year, the LGA assembles an update report providing the latest values, history and
comparisons of key financial indicators for the local government sector as a whole.
During 2010 –11, the update report was enhanced so as to provide additional data on the
differences between categories of councils in respect of 2009–10 actual results against each
key indicator.
150
Appendix B – SA
Reforms undertaken during 2010 –11 to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of local government
service delivery
Governance
The LGA’s Governance Standards Advisory Committee (GSAC) continued to provide
advice on leading practice and continuing governance improvement across the Local
Government sector. It undertook a wide range of projects this financial year with emphasis
on the following areas:
• Legislative Review Program
• Local Government Governance Panel
• Good Governance Assessment Program
• Code of Practice for Access to Meetings and Associated Documents.
Education and training
During the year the LGASA Education and Training Service continued to provide its extensive
training and support program with 2142 council members and staff attending face to face
programs, 374 council member enrolments for the online training modules and 141 council
members using our online self assessment tool.
An expanded range of events and training courses were held in 2010 –11. The LGASA also
works with other service providers to promote programs that are of interest and benefit to
council staff and council members.
Regulatory services program
Councils now have access to a model Enforcement Policy and 11 standard operating
procedures for regulatory powers commonly exercised by council authorised persons. The
LGASA has enabled the development of procedures that not only comply with the legal
requirements but also with good administrative practice. In 2010 –11, a new Information
Paper: ‘Good Administrative Practice in Managing a Complaints and Investigations Process’
was produced as part of this program.
Libraries
During the year the LGASA endorsed a Libraries Board initiated project to explore the costs
and benefits of a common library management system across South Australia. The LGASA
began a program of consultation with councils based on the business case from the project
which was due to be concluded in July, 2010. The LGASA also worked with Public Library
Services and the Department of Education and Children’s Services in the development of a
draft agreement to cover arrangements for joint-use school-community libraries.
Libraries continue to be one of councils most important services with more than 11.5 million
visits and 18.5 million items borrowed each year. Libraries rely on a high level of networking
through the professional body Public Libraries South Australia and support based on the
five-year Library funding agreement between the LGASA and the South Australian
Government. In 2009–10 this agreement delivered $17.2 million of state funding for
public libraries.
151
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Public lighting savings
SA Councils annually contribute to community safety through public lighting on roads,
footpaths and local parks at a cost of over $12.6 million. Following negotiations with
ETSA Utilities, the LGA has been able to achieve significant savings for Councils.
Electronic services program
The Electronic Services Program continued its involvement in the eDAIS Land Division Pilot
Project delivering on the first stage of automation between the Department for Planning and
Local Government and South Australia Water. In addition the highly successful SA Council
Maps, winner of the Australian Government “Excellence in eGovernment Awards”, was
incorporated into the Electronic Services Program providing a sustainable pathway for this
valuable shared service.
Local government research and development scheme
The Local Government Research and Development Scheme continued to be a primary
source of funding for research in the Local Government sector. Funded through tax
equivalent payments by the LGFA, it is managed by an Advisory Committee comprising
representatives from the LGASA State Executive Committee, Metropolitan CEOs, Country
CEOs, Local Government Trade Unions, South Australian Universities, Office for State / Local
Government Relations, and the LGASA Secretariat.
Since its inception the Scheme has approved 449 projects with total approved funding
of $19.5 million and has attracted significant matching funds and in-kind support from
other sources.
Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government
Following the funding and establishment of the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local
Government (ACELG) in mid 2009 by the Australian Government, the LGASA recognised its
significance by commissioning two reports:
• a ‘Current State of Professional Development’ paper providing a ‘map’ of recent
past and current education, training and research activities being undertaken with,
for and about local government
• an ‘Issues, Challenges and Professional Development Priorities’ paper that identified
the current key issues, changes and challenges facing the local government sector
and their professional development priorities.
The LGASA contributes input on issues and priorities for ACELG to address. This is done
through consultation meetings with ACELG staff and through representation on the ACELG
Research Forum whose members include currently active local government researchers
from more than a dozen universities together with representatives from local government
associations and professional bodies, Commonwealth and local governments and the
Australian Services Union.
152
Appendix B – SA
Planning review
Reforms to the State’s Planning and Development system and the implementation of the
various volumes of the State’s Planning Strategy were again at the forefront of the LGA’s
planning agenda during the past 12 months.
LG Corporate Services
LGCS Pty Ltd trading as Local Government Corporate Services continued to make progress
over the past 12 months with a number of initiatives providing Councils with access to a wide
variety of value-added products and services.
LG Mutual Liability Scheme
The Local Government Association Mutual Liability Scheme continues to provide premium
civil liability protection for all Councils and other eligible members, in South Australia, through
a self-managed fund.
LG Workers Compensation Scheme
The LGA Workers Compensation Scheme has continued to deliver benefits to Councils, both
financially and operationally. The number of Local Government employees injured at work
continues to reduce which has assisted Councils deliver a more productive workforce.
Management of Trees on Public Land Inquiry
The Report from the Inquiry into the Management of Trees on Public Land was
presented to the LGA State Executive Committee in January 2011. The report contains
20 recommendations for the future management of trees on public land.
The LGA has deferred final determination on implementation strategies pending outcome of
a Coronial Inquest into the death of a citizen struck by a tree branch in January 2011.
Improvements in local government service delivery to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities
The LGA continue to provide support to Councils involved in Native Title processes—in
particular the 27 Councils involved in Indigenous Land Use Negotiations in the Kaurna region.
153
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Report from Tasmanian Department of Premier
and Cabinet
The following information has been prepared in consultation with the Local Government
Association of Tasmania (LGAT).
Methodology for distributing financial assistance grants
for 2010 –11, including any changes in methodology from
2009–10
The Tasmanian State Grants Commission operates a triennial review policy whereby major
changes to its assessment methodology are implemented every three years. Changes
identified during the previous review were implemented for the 2009–10 distribution. The
current review will therefore be implemented for the 2012–13 distribution.
The 2010 –11 distribution was a between-year assessment, meaning the Tasmanian State
Grants Commission only allowed data updates and minor method changes in both the
general purpose and road grant assessments. Most councils grants changed using this
methodology due to relative movements in the data used to assess councils.
The scope of equalisation of the Tasmanian State Grants Commission general purpose
models and grants treated by inclusion in general purpose grant allocations has not
changed since 2009–10.
Measures undertaken to develop and implement
comparative performance measures between local
governing bodies
As I advised previously, the Measuring Council Performance in Tasmania report is no longer
published. It is being replaced with the Sustainability Objectives and Indicators (SOI) project.
The SOI project is a key initiative of the Tasmanian Government to drive sustainability reform
and performance improvement, and to support and encourage councils to do the same.
The overall objective of the project is to promote excellence in council performance and to
support the long-term sustainability of the local government sector.
The project will allow councils to assess their performance in key strategic priority areas of
financial management, asset management, planning and development and community
satisfaction. It will enable better engagement between councils and communities. It will
also assist the state and local governments to set priorities for improved performance within
the sector.
Councils’ performance will be measured against sustainability indicators that have been
jointly developed through a comprehensive consultation process. Councils will be supported
and encouraged to continually improve performance by achieving the following outputs:
• identify and share best practice after analysing their performance against
the indicators
• track their performance over time, and against other similar councils
• communicate with their communities about their performance.
154
Appendix B – Tas.
The sustainability indicators for this project were approved by the Premier’s Local
Government Council at its meeting on 13 December 2011.
Core local government data continues to be provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics
for its Local Government Finance Statistics and to the Tasmanian State Grants Commission
for its distribution of Australian Financial Assistance Grants, and Identified Local Roads Funds
to local government.
Developments in relation to local government’s use of
long-term financial and asset management plans, including
any developments in implementing the Local Government
Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks
Tasmania received $870 000 under the Commonwealth Government’s Local Government
Reform Fund to assist with the development of a long-term financial and asset
management planning templates and the implementation of long-term financial and asset
management plans in all Tasmanian councils. The project is being delivered through LGAT.
Stage 1 of the project, the development of long-term financial and asset management
planning templates, was finalised in 2011. Stage 2, implementation of financial and asset
management plans in all Tasmanian councils, is scheduled to be completed by March 2012.
As a part of the same project, the Tasmanian Government, in association with LGAT, has
developed a local government asset management policy. The purpose of the policy is
to provide Tasmanian councils with high-level guidance in the development of their asset
management policies.
The templates and policy will form part of a broad framework for long-term financial and
asset management planning in the local government sector.
Initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service
delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities
The Local Government Division (LGD) of the Department of Premier and Cabinet facilitated
a forum involving the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania, the Flinders Council and
the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association to discuss the provision of services to the
Aboriginal community on Cape Barren Island. A key outcome of the forum was agreement
on waste management for Cape Barren Island.
Women in Local Government
The Tasmanian Government continued to work with local government to promote women in
senior management and leadership roles and to raise community and council awareness of
the importance of gender balance and diversity in councils. This was achieved by:
• supporting the 2010 Year of Women in Local Government to raise awareness of
the value and contribution of all women employed, elected and involved in Local
Government in Tasmania
155
2010–11 Local Government National Report
• providing support for the Tasmanian WomenCan campaign for the 2011 Tasmanian
local government elections to increase the number of women standing in local
government elections
• participating in the national strategy for increasing women’s representation in
Local Government—50:50: Councils for Gender Equity.
Report from Northern Territory Department of Local
Government and Housing
Methodology for distributing financial assistance grants
for 2010 –11, including any changes in methodology from
2009–10
The Northern Territory Grants Commission’s methodology conforms to the requirement for
horizontal equalisation as set out in section 6 (3) of the Commonwealth Local Government
(Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth).
The Northern Territory Grants Commission, in assessing relative need for allocating general
purpose funding, uses the balanced budget approach to horizontal equalisation based on
the formula:
assessed expenditure need - assessed revenue capacity
= assessed equalisation requirement.
The methodology calculates standards by applying cost adjustors and average
weightings to assess each local government’s revenue raising capacity and expenditure
need. The assessment is the Northern Territory Grants Commission’s measure of each
local government’s ability to function at the average standard in accordance with the
national principles.
Changes to the methodology
In 2005, the Northern Territory Grants Commission corrected a number of inconsistencies
in its methodology that had previously been identified by the Commonwealth Grants
Commission. These corrections included the manner in which the cost adjustors were
applied, the introduction of a budget term and the elimination of an economy of
scale factor.
As well as the foregoing revisions, an improved data gathering process first introduced
in 2004 for the collection of 2002–03 financial data enabled the Northern Territory Grants
Commission to use real financial information in the assessments.
During the 2005–06 year, the Northern Territory Grants Commission also looked at the
expenditure categories and cost adjustors in use in order to conclude the review of the
methodology. It was resolved that the expenditure categories be expanded to the nine
ABS categories and that the cost adjustors be re-arranged to apply to those categories.
156
Appendix B – NT
In 2006, the Minister for Local Government announced New Local Government in the
Northern Territory. As a result, the Northern Territory Grants Commission issued a discussion
paper to invite comments from interested local governing bodies on the options available
to the Commission in developing a methodology that adapts to the changed structure. The
paper highlighted the need for the Commission to re-visit and amend the cost adjustors used
in the methodology.
The Northern Territory Grants Commission determined that the cost adjustors of location,
dispersion and Aboriginality were to be used following an extensive review and data
collection process to ensure the adjustors could be explained and supported by meaningful
and relevant information. These new cost adjustors will be used for the 2008–09 allocations in
the fourth year of the phase-in period for the new methodology.
In previous years the methodology included 50 per cent of the Northern Territory Operational
Subsidy grants. During 2008, the Commission unanimously decided to cease using the
Northern Territory Operational Subsidy grants as part of the other grant support principle. The
Commission considered the Northern Territory Operational Subsidy was a special measure
to overcome disadvantage and consequently should not be assessed in a way that would
reduce the financial assistance grants entitlement.
When the grants were calculated for the 2009–10 year using the ‘pure’ methodology, the
trend continued of directing money from the ‘bitumen to the bush’, as well as reducing
the grants to small councils in the Top End. As the Northern Territory Grants Commission
was of the belief that these losses were too great for the councils to absorb in one year, it
implemented a three year phase-in arrangement. The rationale for implementing the phasein was that it was only applied to councils that stood to receive a 30 per cent or greater loss
in grant funding.
The 2010 –11 grant calculations once again placed the Katherine and Alice Springs councils
on the minimum per capita grant. The Northern Territory Grants Commission agreed that a
phase-in arrangement was again required to reduce the impact of the large losses on these
two councils.
Population
In previous years the Northern Territory Grants 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.
For the 2008–09 allocations the Commission resolved to use the latest ABS usual resident
population figures and then adjusts the figures for estimated residency to align with the
population total advised to Canberra from Northern Territory Treasury. The Northern
Territory’s funding is based on this total population figure. The same rationale was used for
the 2010 –11 calculations.
Revenue raising capacity
As the ownership of the land on which many communities are located is vested in Land
Trusts established pursuant to the Commonwealth Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory)
Act 1976, it is not, for all intents and purposes, feasible to use a land valuation system solely as
the means for assessing revenue raising capacity.
157
2010–11 Local Government National Report
The advent of actual accurate financial data enabled the Northern Territory Grants
Commission to dispense with the use of average annual incomes, which had been used
since 1992, for establishing a Northern Territory average revenue unit. Instead, a number of
revenue categories were introduced, including rates where applicable, domestic waste,
service charges and interest.
In addition, to accord with the National Principles, other grant support to local governing
bodies by way of the Roads to Recovery, library and local roads grants were considered
in the methodology. In the case of recipients of the Roads to Recovery grants, 50 per cent
of the grant was included. Recipients of library grants and local roads grants have the total
amount of the grant included.
The Northern Territory Grants Commission considers that, given unique circumstances within
the Territory, this overall revenue raising capacity approach provides a reasonable indication
of a council’s revenue raising capacity. For the 2010 –11allocations, financial data in respect
of the 2008–09 financial year was used.
Expenditure needs
The assessment of standard expenditure is based on the Territory average per capita
expenditure within the expenditure categories to which cost adjustors reflecting the assessed
disadvantage of each local government are applied.
As a result of the availability of actual accurate financial data, the Northern Territory Grants
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 the 2005–06
financial year, six expenditure categories were taken into account by the Commission.
As a result of the methodology review, the Northern Territory Grants Commission resolved
that the nine ABS expenditure categories be applied. Consequently, from the 2006–07
assessment and onwards, these nine categories have been used.
Cost adjustors
The Northern Territory Grants Commission uses cost adjustors to reflect a local
government’s demographics, geographical location, its external access, and the area over
which it is required to provide local government services. All these influence the cost
of service delivery.
As a result of the methodology review the Northern Territory Grants Commission, effective
from the 2005–06 assessments, changed the manner in which the cost adjustors were
applied. Expenditure assessments have as an outcome total standardised expenditure
equal to total actual expenditure, or ‘natural weighting’.
Natural weighting is achieved in the Northern Territory Grants Commission’s methodology
by re-scaling cost adjustors around one to ensure that total calculated standardised
expenditure does not exceed the total actual expenditure.
158
Appendix B – NT
Minimum grants
For most local governments, the assessed expenditure needs exceed the assessed revenue
capacity, meaning there is an assessed need. In seven cases, assessed revenue capacity is
greater than assessed expenditure need, meaning that there is no assessed need. However,
as the Commonwealth legislation requires that local governments cannot get less than
30 per cent of what they would have been allocated had the funding been distributed
solely on the basis of population, seven local government councils still receive a grant, or
what is referred to as the minimum grant.
Formulae
Revenue component
All councils:
Assessed revenue raising capacity
=
Total identified local government revenue
Total local government revenue
=
Assessed NT average revenue + other grant
support + budget term
Revenue category
=
Domestic waste, garbage, general rates,
general rates other, special rates parking,
special rates other, fines and interest
Domestic waste
=
Per capita
Garbage other
=
Actual
General rates
=
Average rate
Poll tax
=
Per capita
Interest
=
Actual
State income by revenue category 2006–07
=
Actual state local government gross income
Actual state local government gross income 2006–07
=
$103 040 417
Other grant support
=
Roads to Recovery Grant 2009-2010 50%,
Library Grant 2009–10 + Roads Grant 2009–10
Where
Budget term
Total local government revenue 2010 –11
Population x per capita amount
=
$252 966 148
159
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Expenditure components
Total local government expenditure of $252 966 148 is apportioned over each expenditure component.
(a) General public services ($103 681 041)
Community population/Northern Territory population x general public services expenditure x Aboriginality
(b) Public order and safety ($11 995 255)
Community population/Northern Territory population x public order and safety expenditure x
(location + dispersion + Aboriginality)
(c) Economic affairs ($35 461 621)
Community population/Northern Territory population x economic affairs expenditure x
(location + dispersion)
(d) Environmental protection ($4 613 764)
Community population/Northern Territory population x environmental protection expenditure
(e) Housing and community amenities ($44 928 844)
Community population/Northern Territory population x Housing and Community Amenities
expenditure x (location + dispersion + Aboriginality)
(f) Health ($585 231)
Community population/Northern Territory population x health expenditure x
(location + dispersion + Aboriginality)
(g) Recreation, culture and religion ($34 502 453)
Community population/Northern Territory population x recreation, culture and religion expenditure x
(location + dispersion)
(h) Education ($849 299)
Community population/Northern Territory population x education expenditure x
(location + dispersion + Aboriginality)
(i) Social protection ($16 348 640)
Community population/Northern Territory population x social protection expenditure x
(location + dispersion + Aboriginality)
Local road grant funding
To determine the local road grant, the Northern Territory Grants Commission applies a
weighting to each council by road length and surface type. These weightings are:
Road type
Kerbed and sealed
Weighting
10
Sealed
8
Gravel
4
Cycle path
2
Formed
1
Unformed
160
0.4
Appendix B – NT
Developments in relation to local government’s use of long
term financial and asset management plans, including
any developments implementing the Local Government
Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks
There has been significant advancements in asset management practices for local
government authorities in line with the National Partnership Agreement to Support Local
Government and Regional Development. The Commonwealth has approved financial
assistance of $1 350 000 to accelerate the implementation of frameworks to improve
financial sustainability and financial and asset management of Northern Territory councils.
Milestones achieved towards implementing an asset management framework include:
• The appointment of the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia Ltd as program
managers and key training delivery agency
• The procurement of NAMS.PLUS asset management software for all councils
• The facilitation of five workshops involving municipal and shire staff on NAMS.PLUS
software and Australian Infrastructure Financial Management Guidelines
• The organisation of seven “Sustainable Communities” workshops to elected
members of municipal and shire councils.
The project is continuing into 2012 with further workshops being hosted in remote
communities, additional training of relevant council staff and the collection and gap
analysis of data on council assets. The project in its entirety is expected to be completed by
May 2012.
The project meets many of the objectives outlined in Framework 2 Asset Planning and
Management of the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent
Frameworks.
Framework 1 Criteria for Assessing Financial Sustainability provides indicators that are used in
analysing council’s financial reports. These indicators and others will be utilised in analysing
the performance of councils in the Northern Territory since the local government reforms
and the establishment of the new shires as of 1 July 2008.
Framework 3 Financial Planning and Reporting details the elements of reporting for a
council’s strategic long term plans, budgets and annual reports. These elements were
embodied in the Northern Territory Local Government Act, which came into force
1 July 2008, as minimum requirements for reporting by local government bodies.
161
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Measures undertaken to develop and implement
comparative performance measures between local
governing bodies
Most municipal and shire councils in the Northern Territory are currently working together on
a regional basis to develop regional management plans (RMP) which will come into effect
in July 2012.
The Northern Territory has been divided into three regions and each region is required to
have a RMP which will be relevant for four years.
The RMPs are statutory plans that list the core services each shire council is to provide
and the communities where they will be supplied. As part of the development of these
plans, local governments in the Northern Territory are developing a common set of key
performance measures for each core service. The core services will be described in each
shire council’s shire plan and the performance of the council’s provision of the service will
be reported on in the annual report using the common set of key performance indicators. Reforms undertaken during the 2010 –11 to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of local government
service delivery
Through the Regional Management Planning processes councils are cooperatively working
together to identify ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery.
Each of the three regions will have different strategies to do this however there are some
common themes. These include;
• Joint procurement of insurance services, specialised machinery, building and
maintenance services and consultancy services
• Shared service delivery arrangements such waste management and animal
management services
• Sharing of specialised staff across a number of local governments.
• Joint tending for contacted services
• Reducing the need for cross subsidisation due to inadequate agency management
fees through joint negotiations with government service funders
• Jointly sharing administrative services such as human resources and
financial services.
162
Appendix B – NT
Initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service
delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
The majority of shire service delivery in the Northern Territory is to remote communities whose
population is nearly entirely Indigenous. A large number of these communities are on
Aboriginal land. A key reason for implementing local government reform was to improve the
quality of service delivery to these communities and anecdotal evidence to date indicates
that service delivery in many locations has improved significantly.
More recently, the funding guidelines for the special purpose and closing the gap grants
have been revised to achieve greater alignment with council strategic and operational
plans in relation to the delivery of core local government services.
This has seen increased funding being provided to councils for the replacement of plant and
equipment, the provision of key staff housing in remote communities and the resourcing of
more strategic projects such as feasibility studies into regional waste management facilities
between shire councils.
Report from the Local Government Association of the
Northern Territory
Measures undertaken during 2010 –11 to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of local government to
deliver services
Some of the more significant measures undertaken during the year were to do with:
• progressed the development of a template for shires to use to establish workforce
development plans for their employees
• engaged consultants to progress the development of rates impact statements
for councils to use as a means of better informing ratepayers of the rationales for
council rating strategies
• delivered training in September and November 2010 and April 2011 to 14 local
government employees who completed a Certificate IV in Workplace Training
and Assessment. The purpose of this training is to bring more resources to the effort
of delivering elected member training in-house in specific areas of need such as
induction training for new councillors
• organised for all 16 member councils to attend individual Emergency Management
and Disaster Recovery workshops and forums as part of the Northern Territory
Emergency Services “Natural Disaster Resilience Program” to assist member councils
to develop Emergency Recovery Plans
• continued to coordinate the delivery of waste management training to employees
in shires together with Charles Darwin University and Batchelor Institute of Indigenous
Tertiary Education
163
2010–11 Local Government National Report
• progressed the development of urban and rural subdivision guidelines to assist
councils to make assessments about standards at which infrastructure is required to
be built for local government to assume responsibility for it in new subdivisions
• progressed the development of swimming pool guidelines to assist councils with the
management of such facilities
• delivered training for airport reporting officers in shires to better handle their
responsibilities.
Developments in relation to local government’s use of
long-term financial and asset management plans
Asset and financial management and planning workshops for council staff were delivered
to six councils under the Commonwealth Government’s Local Government Reform Fund.
Training sessions were also organised for the elected members of five councils on long term
financial and asset management plans.
All councils in the Northern Territory either have long term financial and asset management
plans in place or are close to completing them.
Measures undertaken to develop and implement
comparative performance measures between local
governing bodies
All councils are required under the Local Government Act 2008 (NT) to report on their
service delivery efforts in their annual reports and all have done so. Some of the data
reported is comparable between councils and much of it was collected by the Northern
Territory Grants Commission.
Examples of continuous improvement that deliver significant
cost savings for local government
LGANT sought an exemption under Regulation 31 of the Local Government (Accounting)
Regulations from councils having to call tenders (and therefore incur savings) for mobile
garbage bins/industrial containers and associated products and services as well as tractors,
slashers, ride-on mowers and other associated equipment and to access such equipment
under the Local Government National Procurement Network tender using local suppliers.
164
Appendix B – ACT
Improvements in local government service delivery to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
All Northern Territory councils are involved in service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander communities. Municipal councils tend to provide core local government services
(for example, waste management, road construction and maintenance, public libraries and
swimming pools) whereas for shires the range of services is more diverse and includes:
• services provided under contract on behalf of the Northern Territory government
(for example, power, water and sewerage services in remote towns)
• services funded from grants provided by the Territory or Commonwealth
Governments (for example, aged care, child care, public housing and Centrelink).
All councils were involved to differing extents in improving in service delivery including:
• organisational changes including reviews of systems and processes that increase
councils’ capacities and efficiencies in delivering services
• the facilitation and involvement in National Aboriginal and Torries Stait Islander
Observance Day celebrations, local festivals and sporting days
• the upgrade or maintenance of community facilities including halls, offices,
multi-purpose centres and broadcasting facilities
• the upgrade and maintenance of public housing stock
• the upgrade and maintenance of local roads and causeways.
Report from the Australian Capital Territory Department
of Territory and Municipal Services
Developments in relation to local government’s use of
long-term financial and asset management plans, including
any developments in implementing the Local Government
Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks
Within the Australian Capital Territory, the Territory and Municipal Services Directorate (TAMS)
delivers a wide range of local government services. These include roads, footpaths, cycle
paths, a public transport system (ACTION), landfills, waste collection, recycling, public
libraries, parks and reserves, cemeteries and crematoria. Financial and asset management
are therefore core functions of the Directorate.
During 2010 –11 an Australian Capital Territory Expenditure Review and Evaluation
Committee engaged with TAMS to identify opportunities for improvements in its structure,
processes and work practices. The review consisted of four parts: TAMS overall structures
and processes; the underlying budget drivers; parks and city services; and expenditure
and contracts. Implementation of the recommendations has resulted in a more robust
financial framework and improved fiscal control throughout the Directorate. A number of
recommendations provide for a longer-term focus and have been incorporated into the
Directorate’s broader improvement program.
165
2010–11 Local Government National Report
In addition, during 2010 –11 TAMS commenced implementation of its Strategic Asset
Management Framework, which is overseen by a Strategic Asset Management Committee.
The goal is to implement a best practice approach to asset management that will deliver
greater transparency on the contribution of assets to service delivery, supporting more
optimal asset planning and investment decisions. A key deliverable of the project is to ensure
asset management plans are prepared and implemented across the Directorate.
The commencement of the project has been facilitated through a commitment of
$0.437 million from the Local Government Reform Fund of the Australian Government
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government. The
agreement signed with the Australian Government in April 2011 requires the completion of
the framework by May 2012. The project is currently on track to meet this schedule. Further
Australian Capital Territory Government support will see the project continue into 2012–13
with the implementation of the framework and its integration into TAMS’ business practices.
The output from the project will be improved asset management by TAMS, particularly in
the life cycle management of assets. Additionally, it will assist in future capital investment
decisions by articulating the service level to be delivered by the asset.
The principal asset management tool within TAMS is the Integrated Asset Management
System (IAMS), which is the repository of the majority of TAMS asset data within Roads ACT,
ACT NOWaste and Parks and City Services. In 2010 –11 there was further growth in the rollout
and utilisation of the system. IAMS now has 303 asset types and manages information about
nearly two million assets. A number of specific projects have continued migration to the new
system. Most notably 17 158 assets and 8 888 networks have been entered into the system, in
addition to an update of ownership information for Roads ACT.
Collectively these projects deliver more accurate and accessible information which supports
efficient reporting and management. Further projects such as the integration and rollout of
an electronic field capture device are expected to deliver increased benefits over the next
12 months as the full capacity of IAMS is realised.
Reforms undertaken during 2010 –11 to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery
Significant achievements for TAMs in 2010 –11 include the management one of the largest
infrastructure capital works programs since self government. TAMS delivered a significant
portion of the Australian Capital Territory Government’s Capital Program, with works totalling
$187 million.
Transport programs were designed to enhance traffic movement, improve safety
and provide access to new housing estates. Projects included completing the
multimillion-dollar Belconnen town centre improvements in partnership with Westfield,
completing the duplication of Lanyon Drive (stage 2) from Sheppard Street to
Tompsitt Drive and commencing stage 1 of road works for the Molonglo Valley
development, including the construction of the arterial road John Gorton Drive.
Several projects were also undertaken to improve sustainable transport options. In November
2010 ACTION implemented a new network (Network 10), which included the continuation
and extension of the popular REDEX service, renamed Red Rapid. Public transport in the
166
Appendix B – ACT
Australian Capital Territory was enhanced with the successful implementation of the new
MyWay smartcard ticketing system on ACTION buses.
The environment continued to be a key area of focus. Work progressed on the One Million
Trees initiative, with over 6 250 trees and shrubs planted in streets, parks and along suburban
roads during 2010 –11.
The Directorate also continued to work with the Commissioner for Sustainability and the
Environment to improve processes for removing dead and hazardous trees. In response
to strong grass-growing conditions as a result of above-average rainfall during spring and
summer, over 56 000 hectares of public land was mown across the Australian Capital
Territory, 75 per cent more than previous years. The Directorate also completed or
commenced 95 per cent of its bushfire management plan during 2010 –11.
A 12-month bulky waste collection trial was launched in April 2011. Under the trial, bulky
waste collection is provided to households on a fee-for-service basis, with one free collection
offered to eligible households and pensioners.
Another highlight for the year was the opening of the state-of-the-art new Gungahlin Library.
This new community facility is now the largest public library in the Australian Capital Territory,
holding over 70 000 books, magazines and DVDs.
The Directorate also worked with the Australian Government on numerous projects in
2010 –11 under the Nation Building Program, including:
• constructing a new skate park in Belconnen and upgrading the immediate
surrounding public realm (stage 1)
• installing new picnic facilities and shade structures at John Knight Memorial Park and
Western Foreshores District Park
• constructing two new bicycle cages and 31 bicycle parking rails as part of the
bike>park>ride initiative
• installing new traffic signals at the intersection of Anzac Parade and Blamey
Crescent as part of the Australian Government funded Black Spot Program to
improve traffic safety.
167
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Roads
Through Roads ACT, TAMS manages the construction, operation and maintenance of roads
and associated infrastructure such as bridges, community paths, driveways, street signs, line
marking, traffic signals, street lighting and stormwater.
During 2010 –11 Roads ACT carried out work funded under the Australian Government’s
Black Spot Program. The Australian Government provided $966 000 in 2010 –11 to the
Australian Capital Territory Government as part of the ongoing funding for the Black Spot
Nation Building Program package.
Roads ACT used the funding to install traffic lights at the intersection of Anzac Parade and
Blamey Crescent to improve traffic safety.
Several other intersections across Canberra were upgraded under the Black Spot Program,
including Athllon Drive–Drakeford Drive–Isabella Drive; Ginninderra Drive–Tillyard Drive;
Belconnen Way–Springvale Drive; and Mugga Lane–Long Gully Road. The works at these
locations ranged from improvements to signage, line marking to surface upgrades, street
lighting infrastructure improvements, intersection realignments and traffic light improvements.
During 2010 –11 Roads ACT managed one of the largest road infrastructure capital works
programs since self-government. This program was designed to reduce road congestion,
improve safety and provide more housing options for Canberrans. Highlights included:
• continuing the Gungahlin Drive extension stage 2 works to complete the duplication
from Barton Highway to Glenloch Interchange; this included the construction of nine
major bridges and a number of overpasses
• completing Lanyon Drive duplication stage 2 works from Sheppard Street to
Tompsitt Drive
• completing stage 2 of the Tharwa Bridge upgrade to strengthen its foundations and
commencing stage 3 to replace bridge decking and timber trusses
• starting stage 1 of road works for the Molonglo Valley development, including
constructing John Gorton Drive and the North Weston Pond and pedestrian bridge
• completing the Flemington Road duplication from Wells Station Drive to Hibberson
Street at the gateway to the Gungahlin town centre
• completing the Belconnen town centre improvements in partnership with Westfield;
this included demolishing the old Belconnen bus interchange, extending Cohen
Street through to Emu Bank and constructing a new pedestrian bridge providing
access from the Churches Centre to Westfield Belconnen
• completing the construction of the Flemington Road and Barry Drive bus lanes
• continuing the Fyshwick stormwater works
• commencing the construction of the Monaro Highway duplication from Canberra
Avenue to Newcastle Street
• commencing the construction of roads associated with the land release program
in Canberra’s north, including the Jacka–Bonner Distributor and Mulligans Flat Road
and completing the construction of the Forde access road and the Braybrooke
Street extension
168
Appendix B – ACT
• construction of intersections associated with the Lawson estate development
including the Ginninderra Drive–Alawoona Street intersection (completed); Baldwin
Drive–Maribyrnong Avenue intersection (nearing completion); the Aikman Drive–
Ginninderra Drive intersection (recently commenced); and associated signalisation
of the Aikman Drive–Joy Cummings Place intersection
• commencing the construction of the Kings Highway upgrade
• progressing the design of the Cotter Road upgrade, the Phillip Avenue–Majura
Avenue and Barry Drive–Clunies Ross Street intersection upgrades and the Namadgi
School pedestrian bridge
• progressing public transport infrastructure projects including those associated with
initiatives aimed at encouraging public transport patronage such as park and ride
and bike and ride, and the installation of bus shelters
• continuing the bridge-strengthening program and the installation of bridge
safety screens.
The 2010 –11 Australian Capital Territory Budget included additional funding for walking
and cycling infrastructure as part of the Transport for Canberra program. Projects
implemented included:
• directional signage, seats and drinking fountains around Lake Burley Griffin, Lake
Ginninderra, Lake Tuggeranong and Yerrabi Pond
• a link through Mouat Street–Ginninderra Drive–Riggall Place–Ellenborough Street
intersection to the existing path on the northern side of Ellenborough Street as part of
the Lyneham Sporting Precinct project upgrade of Riggall Place
• new signs on main community paths from the City to Belconnen, including around
Lake Ginninderra
• off-road community paths along Aikman Drive connecting Joy Cummings Place to
Ginninderra Drive, completing the circuit around Lake Ginninderra
• commencing the installation of community path lighting on key trunk routes into the
City and around Lake Ginninderra.
Roads ACT undertook a broad range of maintenance during 2010 –11, including assessment
of the condition of local streets and main roads, unsealed roads, community paths,
bridges, streetlights, road barriers and dams. Using this information, it identified defects and
set work priorities.
In November 2010 an updated asset management plan outlining how road assets will be
managed and maintained for the period 2010–13 was produced.
New technical innovations were also introduced in 2010 –11 which included the use of
a water-based, environmentally-friendly road resealing product. This product is safer for
users and the public and the Australian Capital Territory leads the country in the use of this
technology. Roads ACT also introduced the use of foamed bitumen stabilisation, which
enabled existing gravels on London Circuit to be reused.
169
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Public transport
TAMS administers many aspects of transport in the Australian Capital Territory,
including public transport services (ACTION) and infrastructure management
(roads, bridges and stormwater).
ACTION runs regular bus services and dedicated school services in Canberra suburbs.
It operates a special needs transport service for clients of the Education and Training
Directorate as well as charter services for schools, sporting bodies and other organisations
hosting events and festivals in the Australian Capital Territory. ACTION’s objective is to deliver
safe, reliable, accessible and responsive public transport in the Australian Capital Territory.
In August 2010 ACTION received an Auditor-General’s report on Canberra’s bus services.
The report’s 12 recommendations identified areas for improvement, primarily related to
compliance, safety and governance. ACTION has worked throughout the remainder of
2010 –11 to implement the recommendations within operational and budgetary constraints.
In 2010 –11 ACTION received $6.143 million over four years as part of the Transport for
Canberra program to deliver additional bus services. This funding assisted ACTION in
implementing a new network (Network 10) on 15 November 2010. The new network
continues and extends the popular REDEX service, renamed Red Rapid. This service travels
every 15 minutes from 7am to 7pm weekdays from Gungahlin through the City, Barton and
Kingston to Fyshwick. With the introduction of this new network, the following improvements
were also made:
• Westfield and Belconnen bus station was opened, providing direct and convenient
access to the Belconnen community precinct and the Westfield shopping centre
• new weekday routes were introduced for Franklin and West Macgregor
• additional trips were made to meet increased demand
• improved alignment of routes allowed for 15-minute departures from Kippax
to Belconnen
• wheelchair accessible buses were in greater use
• a ten minute driver comfort break was introduced on shifts of over three hours
• integration of minor network changes identified throughout the life of the
previous network.
The rapid growth in services associated with Transport for Canberra posed challenges for
ACTION during 2010 –11. Meeting service delivery targets, particularly at the start of the new
school year in 2011, tested all aspects of operations. A rolling recruitment program helped to
ease the pressure and service delivery results returned to target late in 2010 –11.
ACTION and the Australian Capital Territory Government continued their focus on asset
management and safety with investments of $1.565 million over two years. In 2010 –11, $0.670
million of this was used to retro-fit parkbrake alarm devices to 393 buses; replace
40 driver seats; replace bus wash facilities at Tuggeranong to improve water efficiency;
and commission a review of depots to establish a robust management plan for these major
assets into the future.
170
Appendix B – ACT
The new $8 million MyWay smartcard ticketing system was successfully implemented on
11 April 2011. This system will improve boarding times, deliver greater flexibility for patrons and
give ACTION the ability to better monitor passenger trends and adjust services accordingly.
As at 30 June 2011 ACTION had 458 buses in service, including 200 wheelchair accessible
buses and 155 Euro 3 or better emissions buses. During 2010 –11 ACTION continued its 100 bus
replacement program for which the Australian Capital Territory Government has provided
$49.5 million. As at 30 June 2011, 40 buses had been purchased as part of this program,
including 32 MANs and eight Euro 5 Scania steer tag buses. ACTION is aiming to achieve the
Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 requirement that 55 per cent of the fleet
be accessible by December 2012.
Parks and city services
TAMS is responsible for the management of the majority of Australian Capital Territory parks,
reserves, public open spaces and city places, including lakes and Canberra’s urban trees.
TAMS also manages Libraries ACT, biosecurity, the Domestic Animal Services (DAS) and other
licensing and compliance services, including ranger services and permits for public land use.
Following public comment and with the involvement of the Tidbinbilla Board of
Management, the Tidbinbilla revised draft plan of management was prepared. It was then
referred to the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Planning, Public Works and
Territory and Municipal Services in April 2011. The committee will conduct an inquiry into the
plan, which will be completed in October 2011.
The plans of management for Namadgi National Park and Jerrabomberra Wetlands Nature
Reserve were finalised, coming into effect in September and December 2010. A revised
draft management plan for Googong Foreshores, which is expected to be finalised early in
2011–12, has been prepared following public comment.
In 2010 –11 the Urban Forest Renewal Program was suspended while the Commissioner
for Sustainability and the Environment (CSE) investigated the Australian Capital Territory
Government’s management of urban trees and the need for an enhanced program of
urban tree renewal. The CSE’s report made 12 recommendations which highlighted the
need for improved maintenance of urban trees, including integrated programs of tree
planting and removal; clear notification procedures when trees require maintenance works;
and review of legislation, procedures and policies on tree management issues. The report
was tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly on 7 April 2011. A Government response is to be
prepared by September 2011. During 2010 –11 TAMS implemented a number of the CSE’s
recommendations in respect of community notification on tree removal and planting.
In 2010 –11 TAMS undertook a Canberra-wide audit of street and park trees to better
understand conditions and maintenance requirements. An additional tree maintenance
team was established in Gungahlin to improve the life and safety of trees in the region. In the
2011–12 ACT Budget an additional $1.150 million has been provided to improve tree care,
strategic planning and tree planting and removal activities.
As part of the One Million Trees initiative, 6 250 trees and shrubs were planted in streets, parks
and along suburban roads in 2010 –11. Approximately 4 000 more trees were planted around
Canberra’s lakes and in streets and parks to replace trees that were removed due to poor
condition, for safety reasons or to improve the amenity of the areas.
171
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Projects in 2010 –11 included:
• constructing a new Belconnen Skate Park in the Eastern Valley Way Inlet as part of a
jointly funded project by the Australian and Australian Capital Territory Governments
• improving picnic facilities at John Knight Memorial Park and
Western Foreshores District Park as part of a jointly funded project by the
Australian and ACT Governments
• completing the construction of eight community parks at former school sites;
including Macarthur, Holt, Cook, Weston, Rivett, Mount Neighbour, Chifley and
Village Creek
• completing the Lyons shopping centre upgrade: significant improvements were
made including better pedestrian access; more parking, including additional
disabled parking; and the introduction of seating, bins, a drinking fountain, bike racks
and a new shade structure; and lighting and bollards to enhance public security
and safety
• completing the Ainslie shopping centre upgrade: improvements were made to
stormwater management, pedestrian access and parking arrangements; the public
toilet facility was upgraded; new public artworks, public seating, bins, drinking
fountains, bike racks, landscaping, tree planting and new shade structure; and
lighting and bollards were introduced to enhance public security and safety
• replacing Glebe Park pavement to improve public access, safety and drainage
• completing the first phase of works in Tuggeranong Town Park, which included
construction of the stage platform, access path, drainage, electrical works and
surrounding landscaping
• progressing the first-stage upgrades of public parkland at Emu Inlet Precinct on the
Ginninderra Lake shore, which includes extension of stormwater pipes; construction
of a new curved lake wall to improve water circulation; more accessible
recreational space; new paths, lights, irrigation, and bollards; and tree planting
• commencing construction of the Gibraltar Trail, which will create a greater diversity
of day walking opportunities in the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve
• landscape upgrades, including rehabilitation of the track on Casuarina Trail Mount
Majura and Mugga Way to Summit Trail Red Hill; upgrade of Bonython underpass;
improvements to Eddison Park stormwater and softfall upgrades; construction of
Tidbinbilla Flints picnic area shelter and barbeque; installation of a new shade sail
at Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve Sheedy’s playground; construction of the Oaks Estate
community notice board; and upgrades to Woods Reserve campground
• planting over 2 000 trees, shrubs and native wild flowers on Mount Painter Nature
Reserve as part of a revegetation program
• a rabbit and fox control program at East and West Jerrabomberra Grasslands
and rabbit control programs at Jerrabomberra Wetlands and Mount Painter
Nature Reserve
• weed control focusing on St Johns Wort, Patterson’s Curse and woody weeds,
including willows seed collection, plant production and planting of 5 500 Drooping
She-oak trees within nature reserves to create Glossy Black Cockatoo habitat
172
Appendix B – ACT
• releasing six Southern Brush-tailed Rock Wallabies, captive bred at Tidbinbilla, into
the wild in Victoria as part of a national breeding program
• the first successful translocation phase of Tasmanian Bettongs to Tidbinbilla to
commence the critical captive breeding program
• research and logistical planning for the reintroduction of the Tasmanian Bettong into
the Mulligans Flat Woodland Sanctuary
• completing feral horse, wild dog and pig control programs in
Namadgi National Park.
Libraries ACT
Libraries ACT (formally ACT Library and Information Services) is made up of nine public
libraries, two mobile libraries, the home library service and the ACT Heritage Library (ACTHL).
In 2010 –11 Libraries ACT membership was 58 per cent of the Canberra population.
Libraries ACT continues to build a new model of library services, increasingly focusing
attention on literacy and lifelong learning made possible through books, electronic resources
and programs.
There was a 10 per cent increase in loans in 2010 –11 compared to the previous
year—evidence that the ACT Government’s investment in the library collection is being
realised. The use of online library resources is also growing.
Libraries ACT offered a wide range of programs in 2010 –11 on topics such as health and
wellness, writing, parenting, art, poetry and literature as well as an early literacy program
called Giggle and Wiggle for babies.
In early 2011 Libraries ACT launched its new website, which is designed to make full use of
social media sites. It contains prominent links to the library’s blog, Twitter account, YouTube
account and Flicker photosharing site. The website also has an events calendar and an
electronic newsletter.
In May 2011 the new Gungahlin Library opened. The library is a centre for lifelong learning
and offers a range of programs and experiences for the community. The library is collocated
with the new secondary college and the Canberra Institute of Technology Gungahlin
Flexible Learning Centre.
The ACTHL continues to implement the recommendations of the 2009–10 digital preservation
audit. This year the ACTHL has added 14 archival collections to its holdings including:
• personal papers of Robert Boden – forester, Director of the Australian National
Botanic Gardens and eucalypt expert
• archives of Canberra’s first bush regeneration group the ACT Red Hill
Bush Regenerators
• bushfire photographer Jeff Cutting’s photographic record and field journal of the
2003 Canberra bushfires
• records of Wrap Up Canberra – a group formed to organise hand-knitted rugs for the
2003 Canberra bushfire victims.
173
2010–11 Local Government National Report
The ACTHL was one of two state/territory libraries trialling improvements to archival collection
search ability in the National Library of Australia’s Trove Discovery Service. The trial has now
been taken up by all other state and territory libraries and many national institutions.
ACT NOWaste
ACT NOWaste manages the domestic rubbish and recycling collections for over
137 000 Canberra households. It manages three resource management centres, including
Canberra’s domestic Materials Recovery Facility and landfill at Mugga Lane and four
regional recycling centres that contain waste and recycling drop-off facilities. It supports the
recycling sector and helps Canberrans recycle more effectively through its industry support
programs, collection and analysis of data about waste and recycling, education and
promotional activities and the development of new recycling initiatives and facilities.
Resource recovery activities by the Australian Capital Territory Government and private
sector delivered excellent results in 2010 –11. 807 000 tonnes of material were recovered
and 268 000 tonnes sent to landfill, with the overall recovery of 75 per cent of all waste
generated, up from 72 per cent the previous year. Both resource recovery and overall
waste generation were significantly higher than predicted. One contributing factor was the
increase in garden waste generation and recycling, with the recovery of over
280 000 tonnes of garden waste reported, 50 per cent higher than last year.
Overall waste generation is increasing. According to the Environment Protection and
Heritage Council’s National Waste Report 2010, the Australian Capital Territory is one of the
highest generators of waste per capita in Australia, second only to Western Australia. Over
the last ten years, total waste generation in the Australian Capital Territory has grown at
over 5 per cent per annum on average, outstripping population growth. Increasing waste
generation leads to increases in both resource recovery and waste to landfill.
This year’s figures represent part of that trend. The resource recovery targets set in the ACT
Sustainable Waste Strategy 2010–2025 were for 80 per cent recovery by 2015, 85 per cent
recovery by 2020 and 90 per cent recovery by 2025. Resource recovery will need to be
expanded to offset city growth and increasing waste generation.
ACT NOWaste provides information and education aimed at increasing recycling and
ensuring services and facilities are used correctly. In 2010 –11, ACT NOWaste upgraded its
information page on the TAMS website (which received 12 per cent of all TAMS hits over the
year with over 234 000 page views), delivered presentations and tours to over 8 000 visitors
and provided around 1,000 email responses to waste and recycling queries. Data from the
Materials Recovery Facility that processes our kerbside recycling indicates that education
has been effective. Results for 2010 –11 show a recycling rate of 92 per cent of all material
collected, with over 50 000 tonnes of material despatched for recycling. The education
strategy is being revised in line with recent strategic work to further improve these results.
Overall community satisfaction with waste and recycling services remained high in
2010 –11 at 92 per cent.
Programs to make better use of landfill space at the Mugga Lane Resource Management
Centre (MLRMC) were implemented through the 2010 –11 capital works program. One of
these programs involved using a heavier compactor so that more waste can be buried in
the remaining space and the other involved a more efficient use of existing landfill areas to
create more space. The capital works program also completed several technical, feasibility
174
Appendix B – ACT
and design reports examining future landfill options for the coming decades as well as two
strategic master plans for the resource management centres at Mugga Lane and West
Belconnen. Major remediation and closure works were conducted at the West Belconnen
Resource Management Centre (WBRMC): old sullage ponds and the old borrow pit area
were remediated and old landfill cells were capped and closed to ensure this facility meets
best practice and environmental standards.
Waste disposal and resource recovery facilities were also improved by the installation of
a hazardous waste facility at the MLRMC for the appropriate disposal of paints, aerosols
and household chemicals and the improvement of leachate and grey water systems; and
the construction of an enlarged and improved resource recovery building at the Mitchell
Resource Management Centre.
The 12-month Bulky Waste Collection Service trial was launched in April 2011. The service
provided bulky waste collections to households on a fee-for-service basis, with one free
collection for eligible households. As of 30 June 2011, 413 free collections were provided
under the trial. The Australian Capital Territory Government will review the results of this trial
when considering whether to offer the service on a permanent basis.
Highlights in 2010 –11 included:
• the call for tenders to establish a dry commercial waste processing facility at the
Hume Resource Recovery Estate, which is expected to divert over 40,000 tonnes per
annum of commercial waste from landfill
• establishing land farming operations in the WBRMC to remediate material from old
service station sites around Canberra, freeing up those sites for future development
• seeking tenders to establish new contract arrangements at the Mitchell Transfer
Station site for reuse services and resource recovery, with new arrangements to
commence in 2011.
Initiatives undertaken in relation to local government service
delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people remain the most disadvantaged group in
Australian society. Life expectancy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is
shorter, health is worse, incomes are lower, education achievements are lower and crime
statistics are higher.
The Australian Capital Territory Government is committed to continuing its work in partnership
with the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community to promote social inclusion,
and to deliver services more equitably and effectively to improve life outcomes in critical
areas such as economic opportunity, health, education, early childhood and family safety.
Within the Australian Capital Territory, the Community Services Directorate has a leading role
in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. The ACT is the only jurisdiction with an elected
Indigenous representative body which is involved in the full spectrum of program delivery
from advice to Government on the early design of services right through to a review of their
effectiveness through an estimates process.
175
2010–11 Local Government National Report
In addition, an ACT Taskforce on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs drives the
delivery of improved services and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
of the Australian Capital Territory. The Taskforce is chaired by the Director-General or the
Community Services Directorate and includes the Directors-General from the Directorates of
Health; Education and Training; and Justice and Community Safety, as well as the ACT Chief
Police Officer. The Taskforce provided five bi-monthly reports to the Minister for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and met four times in 2010 –11.
The ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body was established in May 2008
to ensure maximum participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the
Australian Capital Territory, in the formulation, coordination and implementation of
government policies that affect them. In 2010-11, the Elected Body met formally on
six occasions.
In September 2010, the Elected Body conducted the second ‘estimates style’ hearings with
senior executives and provided the then Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Affairs with 16 key recommendations as an interim action pending the finalisation of their full
report. In April 2011, the Chair of the Elected Body provided the Minister for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs a copy of the final report which contained 30 recommendations.
The key features of the report were:
• ensuring ongoing consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected
Body for early involvement in policy development
• providing feedback to the Elected Body on the evaluation and monitoring of
programs and services have been embedded in high level frameworks including the
ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement, Community Services,
Education and Training and Health Directorates and Reconciliation Action Plans
• recommending a range of initiatives such as creating scholarships and or cadetships
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the areas of childcare, preschool, teaching
and nursing.
176
APPENDIX C
Comparison of local government grants commission
distribution models
Local government grants commissions in each state and the Northern Territory use
distribution models to determine the grant they recommend be allocated to councils. They
use one model for allocating the general purpose grant among councils and a separate
model for allocating the local road grant. This appendix provides a comparison of the
approaches the grants commissions used in 2010 –11.
General purpose grants
In allocating the general purpose grants between councils within a jurisdiction, commissions
are required under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth) (the
Act) to comply with agreed National Principles (see Appendix A). These Principles require
commissions to satisfy two main objectives:
• to allocate the general purpose grant pool between councils on a horizontal
equalisation basis (National Principle A1)
• to ensure that, when allocating the general purpose grant pool between councils,
all councils receive at least the minimum grant (National Principle A3).
In practice, commissions determine an allocation that ensures all councils receive at
least the minimum grant with the remaining grants allocated, as far as practicable, on a
horizontal equalisation basis.
177
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Usually, this results in commissions adopting a three-step procedure to determine general
purpose grant allocations.
Step 1Commissions determine an allocation of the general purpose grant between
councils on a horizontal equalisation basis.
Step 2All 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 3If grants to some councils are increased in step two, grants to other councils must
decrease relative to their horizontal equalisation grant. This is achieved by a process
called ‘factoring back’.
In Step 3, because grants to some councils are decreased, the resultant grant may be
less than the minimum grant. As a result, Steps 2 and 3 of this procedure may need to be
repeated until all councils receive at least the minimum grant and the general purpose
grant pool for the jurisdiction has been completely allocated. More details on the
approaches grants commissions use for Steps 1 and 3 are below.
Allocating on a horizontal equalisation basis
An allocation on a horizontal equalisation basis is defined in section 6 of the Act.
Horizontal equalisation:
… ensures that each local governing body in a State [or Territory] is able to function,
by reasonable effort, at a standard not lower than the average standard of other
local governing bodies in the State [or Territory]. [It] takes account of differences in the
expenditure required to be incurred by local governing bodies in the performance of
their functions and in their capacity to raise revenue.
The ‘average standard’ is a financial standard. It is based on the expenditure undertaken
and revenue obtained by all councils in the jurisdiction.
Horizontal equalisation, as defined in the Act, is about identifying advantaged and
disadvantaged councils and bringing all the disadvantaged councils up to the financial
position of a council operating at the average standard. This means the task of the
commissions is to calculate, for each disadvantaged council, the level of general purpose
grants it requires to balance its assessed costs and assessed revenues.
When determining grant allocations on a horizontal equalisation basis, commissions use one
of two distribution models:
• balanced budget – based on the approach of assessing the overall level of
disadvantage for a council using a notional budget for the council; or
• direct assessment – based on the approach of assessing the level of disadvantage
for a council in each area of expenditure and revenue.
178
Appendix C
Table C.1 shows the type of distribution model used by each grants commission.
Table C.1: D
istribution models used by grants commissions for general purpose grants for
2010 –11 allocations
State
Model used
NSW
Direct Assessment Model
Vic.
Balanced Budget Model after assistance for natural disaster relief is taken out of the pool
Qld
Balanced Budget Model
WA
Balanced Budget Model
SA
Direct Assessment Model after allocations for the Outback Areas Community Development Trust and
five Indigenous local governing bodies are determined separately and taken out of the pool
Tas.
Balanced Budget model
NT
Balanced Budget model
Source: Table 11–1 in Commonwealth Grants Commission Working Papers for the Review of the Local
Government (Financial Assistance) Act 199510 updated for subsequent changes based on information
provided by local government grants commissions.
The balanced budget model
Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory use the
balanced budget approach. Their models are based on making an assessment of each
council’s costs of providing services and its capacity to raise revenue, including its capacity
to obtain other grant assistance. The balanced budget model can be summarised as:
general purpose grant
10
equals
assessed costs of providing services
plus
assessed average operating surplus/deficit
less
assessed revenue
less
actual receipt of other grant assistance
The Commonwealth Grants Commission Working Papers are available at:
http://www.cgc.gov.au/publications2/other_inquiries2/local_government_inquiry2/final_report_of_the_local_government_inquiry
179
2010–11 Local Government National Report
The direct assessment model
New South Wales and South Australia use the direct assessment approach. Their models are
based on making an assessment of the level of advantage or disadvantage in each area of
expenditure and revenue and summing these assessments over all areas of expenditure and
revenue for all councils.
In each area of expenditure or revenue, an individual council’s assessment is compared to
the average council. The direct assessment model calculates an individual council’s level of
disadvantage or advantage for each area of expenditure and revenue, including for other
grant assistance. It can be summarised as:
general purpose grant
equals
an equal per capita share of general purpose grants
plus
expenditure needs
plus
revenue needs
plus
other grant assistance needs
The balanced budget and direct assessment models will produce identical assessments of
financial capacity for each council, if the assessed average operating surplus or deficit is
included in the balanced budget model.
Scope of equalisation
The scope of equalisation is about the sources of revenue raised and the types of
expenditure activities that a commission includes when determining an allocation of the
general purpose grants on a horizontal equalisation basis. Table C.2 shows the differences in
the scope of equalisation of the commissions.
180
Appendix C
Table C.2: The scope of equalisation in grants commissions’ models for general purpose grants
Function
Jurisdiction
NSW
Vic.
Qld
WA
SA
Tas.
NT
Administration
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Law, order and public safety
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Education, health and welfare
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Community amenities
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recreation and culture
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Transport:
– local roads
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
– airports
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
– public transport
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Expenditure
– other transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Building control
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Garbage
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Sewerage
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Electricity
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Capital
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Depreciation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Debt servicing
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Entrepreneurial activity
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Agency arrangements
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Rate revenue
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Operation subsidies
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Garbage charges
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water charges
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Sewerage charges
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Airport charges
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Parking fees and fines
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Other user charges
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Revenue
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. In addition
Queensland also uses two expenditure categories that are not included in the above table. These are
Environment and Business and Industry Development. Potentially, Business and Industry Development
could fall under Entrepreneurial Activity.
Source: Table 11–2 in the Commonwealth Grants Commission Working Papers for the Review of the Local
Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 updated for subsequent changes based on information
provided by local government grants commissions.
181
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Revenue assessments
Sources of revenue for local government are rates, user charges and government grants.
The treatment of government grants is discussed in the section below on the other grants
support National Principle.
New South Wales distinguishes between urban and non-urban properties. Non-rateable
properties are excluded from the calculations.
Land values per property for the council are compared to a state standard value and the
result is multiplied by a state standard rate-in-the-dollar. To reduce seasonal and market
fluctuations in the property market, the valuations are averaged over three years. In the
revenue allowance calculation, councils with low values per property are assessed as
being disadvantaged and are brought up to the average. Councils with high values per
property are assessed as being advantaged and are brought down to the average.
Under this approach, the revenue raising capacity of each council is equalised against
the state standard.
Victoria applies an average state-wide rate in the dollar to capital improved values,
averaged every three years. Each council’s relative revenue raising capacity is determined
by multiplying this average rate by each council’s valuation base on a capital improved
value basis.
The rate revenue raising capacity is calculated separately for each of the three major
property classes, that is, residential, commercial / industrial / other, and farm. The payments
in lieu of rates received by some councils for major facilities such as power stations and
airports have been added to their standardised revenue to ensure that all councils are
treated on an equitable basis.
For each of the nine areas of expenditure assessed, a separate assessment is made of each
council’s relative capacity to generate revenue from government recurrent grants. This is
incorporated on the expenditure side of the method and treated as negative expenditure.
On the revenue side of the method, an assessment is made of each council’s capacity
to generate own source revenue from user fees and charges for each of the nine
functional areas.
Queensland assesses rating revenue by using a state average cent in the dollar of valuation
figure multiplied by the total valuation of properties in each council. This rating figure is
then adjusted by an index derived from each council’s Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas
(SIEFA) rank. As Indigenous councils do not receive rate revenue, 20 per cent of the State
Government Financial Aid grant they receive is used as a proxy for rating revenue.
User fees and charges, and garbage revenue is also assessed using state averages. The
state average (using population and bins serviced as the unit of measure) is multiplied by
each council’s population and number of bins serviced respectively.
Grants relevant to the expenditure categories are included as revenue according to the
actual amounts received by each council rather than a State average.
182
Appendix C
Western Australia distinguishes urban properties, agricultural properties, pastoral properties
and mining property, and assesses the rate revenue capacity by different methods for each.
The rate revenue capacity of urban properties is estimated as the sum of two components:
• the product of gross rental values, averaged over three years, and a constant more
or less like an average rate in the dollar; and
• 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 also makes an assessment of revenue capacity for recreation and culture;
building control fees and charges; and transport.
South Australia estimates each council’s revenue raising capacity for each of five land use
categories: residential, commercial, industrial, rural, and other. To make these estimates, the
state average rate in the dollar is used, i.e. the ratio of total rate revenue to total improved
capital values of rateable properties. This result shows how much rate revenue a council is
able to raise relative to the average.
To overcome fluctuations in the base data, valuations, rate revenue and population are
averaged over three years.
Tasmania applies a state wide average rate in the dollar to each council’s total assessed
annual value (AAV) of rateable properties, averaged over three years. Individual council
shares of the state total AAV are used to distribute the total assessed revenue between
councils. For 2010 –11, water and sewerage revenue is excluded from the total assessed
revenue. This is because from 1 July 2009, responsibility for the provision of water and
sewerage services in Tasmania was transferred from councils to three council-owned
regional corporations.
In the Northern Territory, the local government amalgamations resulted in eight new shire
councils providing services almost exclusively to Aboriginal communities. Land trusts own the
land in the majority of Aboriginal communities and it is difficult determining distinct properties
and values for the assessment of rate revenue raising capacity.
A number of revenue categories are used, including rates where applicable, as well as
domestic waste, service charge and interest.
183
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Other grants support National Principle
The fourth National Principle for general purpose grants involves the revenue assessment
and states:
Other relevant grant support provided to local governing bodies to meet any of the
expenditure needs assessed should be taken into account using an inclusion approach.
(National Principle A4)
This National Principle requires commissions, when determining the allocation of grants
on a horizontal equalisation basis, to include all grants that are provided to councils from
governments as part of the revenue that is available to councils to finance their expenditure
needs. Only those grants that are available to councils to finance the expenditure of a
function that is assessed by commissions should be included. Both the grants received and
the expenditure it funds should be included in the allocation process.
Table C.3 provides details on the grants included by commissions in allocating the general
purpose grants in 2010 –11.
Table C.3: G
rants treated by inclusion in general purpose grant allocations for 2010 –11,
by jurisdiction
State
Grants treated by inclusion
NSW
Local road grant, Roads to Recovery grant and library grant.
For other recurrent grant support the grant is deducted from the council’s expenditure before
standard costs are calculated.
Vic.
All Australian and State Government recurrent grants. This includes each council’s local road grant
and 77 per cent of Roads to Recovery funding.
Qld
Allocation of previous year’s general purpose grant, 50 per cent of previous years local road grant,
20 per cent of the state Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils State Government Financial Aid
grant.
WA
93 per cent of the local road grant, 63 per cent of the Roads to Recovery grant, as well as other
relevant operating grants provided by the Australian and State Governments for community
amenities, recreation and culture, and education health and welfare.
SA
85 per cent of the local road grants, library grants, and the Roxby Downs unique extraordinary grant.
Tas.
Local road grant, Roads to Recovery grant and State motor taxes collected on the registration of
heavy vehicles.
NT
Local road grant, library grant, and 50 per cent of the Roads to Recovery grant.
Source: Based on information provided by local government grants commissions.
Expenditure assessments
In addition to expenditure on local roads, local governments’ main expenditures are on
general public services, including the organisation and financial administration of councils;
recreation facilities; and sanitation and protection of the environment, including disposal of
sewerage, stormwater drainage and garbage. Assessing local road expenditure needs for
the general purpose grant is discussed in the section below.
New South Wales assesses 21 expenditure categories, including three classes of
road maintenance.
Additionally, more than 40 disability factors are considered among the expenditure
categories. A disability factor is the estimate of the additional cost of providing a standard
service, due to inherent characteristics beyond a council’s control.
184
Appendix C
A standard expenditure is calculated based on average expenditures, excluding extreme
values. Differential expenditure needs are equal to the standard per service unit, most
commonly population, multiplied by the average number of service units and the disability
factors for the category. In most cases, if the differential expenditure needs per unit is
assessed to be negative, zero is substituted, so generally no reductions are made to the
standard assessments.
Victoria assesses nine expenditure categories, including recurrent expenditure and work
undertaken on behalf of and funded by VicRoads. These expenditure categories are
Governance, Family and Community Services, Aged and Disabled Services, Recreation and
Culture, Waste Management, Traffic and Street Management, Environmental Protection
Services and Business and Economic Services.
With the exception of local roads and bridges, standardised expenditure in each category
is calculated by multiplying the relevant unit of need, such as, population, by the average
council expenditure on that category. A composite cost adjuster is also applied, which takes
into account factors that make service provision cost more or less for individual councils.
Queensland assesses eight categories of expenditure in addition to local road needs. These
categories include Administration; Public Order and Safety; Education, Health Welfare and
Housing; Garbage; Building Control; Community Amenities, Recreation and Culture; and
Business and Industry Development. Water and sewerage services are not included in the
process. In addition, a combination of up to three cost adjustors are applied to expenditure
amounts, including one for indigenous descent.
Western Australia assesses seven expenditure categories. These categories include
Governance; Law, Order and Public Safety; Education, Health and Welfare; Community
Amenities; Recreation and Culture; Building Control; and Transport.
South Australia, in addition to assessing local road needs, assesses 13 expenditure categories.
These categories include Waste Management; Aged Care Services; Services to Families
and Children; Health Inspection; Libraries; Sport and Recreation; Stormwater Drainage
Maintenance; Community Support; Jetties and Wharves; Public Order and Safety; Planning
and Building Control; Bridges; and Other Needs Assessment.
Under the direct assessment method the available grant is initially allocated to councils in
proportion to their population and positive or negative adjustments are calculated for each
category. These adjustments are for factors outside the control of the council.
Tasmania assesses seven expenditure categories as well as assessing local road needs.
These categories include General Administration; Health, Housing and Welfare; Waste
Management and the Environment; Planning and Community Amenities; Recreation and
Culture; Law, Order and Public Safety; and Other.
Also a range of cost adjustors are applied that take into account factors that influence the
cost of service provision for individual councils.
The Northern Territory assesses nine expenditure categories, including one for local roads.
Cost adjustors are also used to reflect local governing bodies’ demographics, geographical
location, its external access, and the area over which it is required to provide local
government services.
185
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Assessing local road expenditure needs under the general
purpose grants
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 as for the local road grants (discussed below), while others use a
different methodology.
The main features of the models commissions use for assessing local road needs when
allocating general purpose grants in 2010 –11 are:
New South Wales uses a different model for assessing local road needs in the general
purpose grant to the model used for the local road grant.
Expenditure allowances are allocated for urban local roads, sealed rural local roads,
and unsealed rural local roads. Calculating these expenditure allowances involves the
application of disability factors for topography, climate, soils, materials, drainage, heavy
traffic, travel, and development. It also assesses needs with reference to the length of each
type of road per urban or rural property, as applicable, and with provision for bridge and
culvert needs per kilometre of local roads.
Victoria uses the same model for assessing local road needs in the general purpose grant as
for the local road grant.
The net standardised expenditure for local roads is calculated by subtracting other grant
support from gross standardised expenditure. Other grant support may come in the form
of the local road grant discussed in the next section and a proportion of Roads to
Recovery funding.
Queensland uses a different model for assessing local road needs in the general purpose
grant to the model used for the local road grant.
The asset preservation model uses costs to maintain a council’s road network,
including bridges and hydraulics, in average condition. It takes into account traffic volume,
including heavy vehicles; type of construction; and cost adjusters, such as, climate, soil,
terrain and location.
Western Australia uses the same model for assessing local road needs in the general purpose
grant as for the local road grant.
The asset preservation model 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 the need for kerbing and longitudinal drainage. The model
takes the road surface into account, such as, sealed, gravel, formed and unformed; and
the contribution that bridges make to the cost of local roads. Other expenditure needs that
are transport-related, such as street lighting and aerodromes, are also taken into account.
186
Appendix C
South Australia uses a different model for assessing local road needs in the general purpose
grant to that used for the local road grant.
Roads are divided into five categories: sealed roads – built-up; sealed roads – non built-up;
unsealed roads – built-up; unsealed roads – non built-up; and unformed roads. With road
lengths as the units of measure, cost relativity indices have been developed for each road
category. These indices are used to determine why it costs one council more than another
to reconstruct or maintain a kilometre of road. These indices involve factors such as soil,
terrain, drainage and materials haulage.
Tasmania uses the same model for assessing local road needs in the general purpose grant
as for the local road grant.
The road preservation component is assessed using four road classes: urban sealed, urban
unsealed; rural sealed, and rural unsealed. Based on councils’ self-reported road lengths
in each road class, performance standards and specific costs are applied in relation to
maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction tasks. Four cost adjusters (for rainfall, terrain,
traffic and remoteness) are then applied, as well as an allowance to account for increased
costs due to urbanisation.
The bridge expenditure component is based on relative bridge deck areas, including all
concrete and wooden bridges, and culverts over three metres total span.
The Northern Territory uses the same model for assessing local road needs in the general
purpose grant as for the allocation of local road grants.
Local road needs are assessed by calculating weighted road lengths. This is done by
applying different weights to different road types where the road types are sealed, kerbed
and guttered; sealed; gravel; formed; unformed; and cycle paths. Weighted road lengths
are calculated by applying these weightings to the road length of each road type.
Needs of Indigenous communities
The fifth National Principle for distribution of general purpose grants states:
Financial assistance shall be allocated to councils in a way which recognises the needs of
Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders within their boundaries (National Principle A5).
All commissions allocate funding to councils taking into account their population. The
Commonwealth Grants Commission (2001)11 stated that, in relation to this National Principle,
‘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’ (p. 27).
New South Wales councils with an above State-average proportion of Indigenous
Australians, receive recognition for the additional costs of providing services. This cost
adjustor is applied to its General Administration and Governance; and General Community
Services expenditure assessments.
11
Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001, Review of the Operation of the Local Government
(Financial Assistance) Act 1995, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
187
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Victoria applies a cost adjustor reflecting the proportion of each council’s population that
is Indigenous. This cost adjuster is applied to its Governance; and Family and Community
Services expenditure assessments.
Queensland applies a cost adjustor to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous councils
for Indigenous descent whereby the assessed expenditure per capita is increased in
accordance with the proportion of Indigenous population and, additionally, for Indigenous
people aged over 50.
The larger indigenous communities are located within the 16 Indigenous councils (including
Aurukun and Mornington Shires). Indigenous councils are assessed as having zero rating
capacity as the land in their areas is not rateable. In 2010 –11, 20 per cent of the State
Government Financial Aid grant for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils was
included as revenue as a proxy for rate income.
Western Australia applies three cost adjustors—Indigenous, socio-economic disadvantage
and population dispersion—to their expenditure assessments. In addition, 16 councils receive
an allowance that recognises the additional costs of providing environmental health
services (such as the inspection of food premises, water supply, waste disposal and dog
control) to remote Indigenous communities.
In addition, 2.3 per cent of the local road grant is allocated for roads servicing Indigenous
communities. The Indigenous Roads Committee advises on procedures for determining the
allocations of these funds.
In South Australia, the needs of Indigenous communities within mainstream councils
are addressed through allocating additional funding per capita. Additionally, special
consideration is given to councils that have a high non-resident use of their facilities, such as,
those councils that have high seasonal influxes of Indigenous Australians.
The five Indigenous local governing bodies also receive financial assistance grants.
Due to a lack of comparable data, general purpose grants for these communities cannot
be calculated in the same way as grants to other councils. In 1994–95, a study was
undertaken to determine the appropriate level of funding for these communities, which
determined a per capita funding level for each community. These per capita amounts
were established after comparisons were made with communities in other jurisdictions and
per capita grant funding provided to councils closest to each community. More recently,
general purpose funding has increased in line with increases in the pool of funds for the
state. For 2010 –11, the per capita grant varied from $316.61 for Nepabunna to $1400.80 for
Yalata Community Council.
Tasmania makes no special allowance for Indigenous people as there are very few
separately identifiable Indigenous communities in that State and there are no targeted
services provided by councils for these communities that are not also provided to other
residents.
The Northern Territory applies a cost adjustor based on the proportion of the population
that is Indigenous Australian to its expenditure assessments for General Public Services;
Public Order and Safety; Housing and Community Amenities; Health; Education; and
Social Protection. The majority of shire service delivery in the Northern Territory is to remote
communities whose population is almost entirely Indigenous Australian.
188
Appendix C
In all jurisdictions, while the special needs of Indigenous Australians are recognised when
assessing the expenditure of councils on services, it remains the decision of each council as
to how the grant will be spent and what services will be provided for its Indigenous residents.
Council Amalgamation National Principle
A sixth National Principle for general purpose grants applies to councils that amalgamate.
It took effect on 1 July 2006 and states:
Where two or more local governing bodies are amalgamated into a single body,
the general purpose grant provided to the new body for each of the four years following
amalgamation should be the total of the amounts that would have been provided to
the former bodies in each of those years if they had remained separate entities
(National Principle A6).
In addition to complying with the other National Principles for the general purpose grant,
grants commissions are required to treat the general purpose grant allocated to councils
formed as the result of amalgamation in a way that is consistent with this National Principle.
Factoring back and satisfying the Minimum Grant Principle
Once the revenue capacity and expenditure needs have been determined for each
council, the raw grant can be calculated by subtracting its revenue capacity from
expenditure needs.
There are two situations that require commissions to apply a ‘factoring back’ process to
obtain the assessed grants from the raw grants. The first situation is when the total raw grant
does not equal the available grant for the jurisdiction. This can occur when the commission:
• has not assessed all revenue and expenditure categories for councils in
the jurisdiction;
• has not ensured that the total assessed revenue and expenditure across all councils
in the jurisdiction equals the total actual revenue and expenditure for all councils in
the jurisdiction; or
• has not used a budget result term for each council when applying the balanced
budget approach.
This situation would not arise if commissions adopted the approach used by the
Commonwealth Grants Commission for allocating grants.
The second situation occurs when the raw grant allocation for a council does not comply
with the Minimum Grant National Principle. This Principle requires:
The minimum general purpose grant allocation for a local governing body in a year
will be not less than the amount to which the local governing body would be entitled if
30 per cent of the total amount of general purpose grants to which the State or Territory
is entitled under section 9 of the Act in respect of the year were allocated among local
governing bodies in the State or Territory on a per capita basis (National Principle A3).
Grants to councils with raw grant allocations below the minimum grant (including negative
grants) are increased to comply with the minimum grant National Principle. This requires
grants to other councils in the jurisdiction to be reduced through a factoring back process.
189
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Should the grant to one or more councils following the initial factoring back process reduce
their grant below the minimum grant, the factoring back process would be repeated. This
process would have to be repeated until both the minimum grant and available grant
constraints are simultaneously met.
Two approaches are used by commissions for factoring back the raw grant:
• The proportional method—each council’s raw grant is reduced by the same
proportion so that the total of the grants equals the available grant.
• The equalisation ratio method—each council’s grant is reduced such that all
councils can afford to fund the same proportion of their expenditure needs with
their total income (assessed revenue capacity plus other grant support and general
purpose grant).
Local road grants
The National Principles require the local road grants to be allocated 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 (National Principle B1).
For the local road needs assessment, the models are either relatively simple constructs or
more complex asset preservation models.
New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory use relatively simple
models to allocate the local road grant. New South Wales and South Australia firstly classify
local roads as either metropolitan or non-metropolitan, and then allocate funding based
mainly on the factors of population and road length. Queensland allocates funding directly
based on the factors of population and road length. The Northern Territory allocated funding
based on road length and road surface type. These approaches appear to have been
based on arrangements that were in place before 1991–92 when these grants were paid to
councils as tied grants.
Victoria, Western Australia, and Tasmania use asset preservation models to allocate
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 and
• the impact of traffic volume on the cost of maintaining these roads.
Prior to applying their grant allocation methodologies, Western Australia and South Australia
quarantine seven and 15 per cent respectively for funding priority local road projects. Expert
committees advise on the projects to be funded.
190
Appendix C
Table C.4 summarises the main features of the models used by the commissions for
allocating local road grants in 2010 –11.
Table C.4: F eatures of local government grants commission models for allocating local road grants,
2010 –11
State
Features of the distribution model
NSW
Based on a model developed by the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, councils in the Sydney,
Newcastle and Wollongong metropolitan areas receive 27.54 per cent of the grant pool with
38 per cent of this portion allocated on the basis of population, 57 per cent on the basis of road
length and 5 per cent on the basis of bridge length.
The remaining 72.46 per cent is allocated to councils outside the above metropolitan areas, with
19 per cent of the remaining portion allocated on the basis of population, 74 per cent on the basis
of road length and 7 per cent on the basis of bridge length.
Vic.
Allocation is based on an asset preservation model.
Qld
Allocation for 62.85 per cent of the pool is based on road length and 37.15 per cent on population.
WA
Allocation of 93 per cent of the road grant pool is based on an asset preservation model.
The remaining 7 per cent is set aside for special projects—with two-thirds of this portion for bridges
and one-third for access roads serving remote Indigenous communities.
SA
Allocation of 85 per cent of the road grant pool is split between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 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 nonmetropolitan councils are based on an equal weighting of population, road length and council
area.
The remaining 15 per cent of the pool is set aside for special projects.
Tas.
Allocation of 95 per cent of the road grant is based on an asset preservation model.
The remaining 5 per cent of the grant allocated on the basis of bridge deck area.
NT
Allocation is based on weights applied to road length and surface type.
Source: Information provided by local government grants commissions.
191
APPENDIX D
Distribution of financial assistance grants to local
governing bodies in 2010 –11
Table D.1 shows the distribution of local government financial assistance grants and
some basic information, such as population, area in square kilometres and road length in
kilometres for each local governing body in Australia.
For the financial assistance grants, the table shows the actual total grant entitlement for
2010 –11 and the estimated total grant entitlement for 2011–12. For each of these years, the
components of the financial assistance grants, including the general purpose grant and the
local road grant, are also given.
The councils are listed alphabetically by state and the Northern Territory. The Australian
Classification of Local Governments (ACLG) category for each council is listed in the second
column. An explanation of the ACLG is at Appendix F.
To facilitate comparison, the general purpose grant per capita and the local road grant per
kilometre are provided for 2010 –11. Additional comparative information on grants received
is provided in Chapter 2 as follows:
• Table 2.7 provides the average general purpose grant per capita for councils,
grouped by state and by ACLG.
• Table 2.8 provides the average local road grant per kilometre for councils, grouped
by state and by ACLG.
Councils receiving the minimum per capita grant in 2010 –11 are indicated with a hash (#)
beside their entry in the ‘General purpose grant per capita’ column. The per capita grant
of these councils differs slightly between jurisdictions because of different data sources for
population used by the Australian Government to calculate the state share of general
purpose grants and those used by the local government grants commissions for allocations
to individual councils. For further information on the minimum grant entitlement, see ‘What is
the minimum grant?’ and ‘Councils on the minimum grant’ in Chapter 2.
Indigenous local governing bodies are identified by an asterisk (*) against the name of
the council.
The source of the data is the relevant state or territory local government grants commission.
193
194
URM
URS
UDM
UDL
URM
RAM
UDV
URM
URM
RAV
RAL
UDV
RAL
RAL
UFL
RAM
RAM
RAM
UDM
RAM
RAS
URS
UDM
URM
Albury (C)
Armidale Dumaresq
Ashfield (M)
Auburn (C)
Ballina (S)
Balranald (S)
Bankstown (C)
Bathurst Regional
Bega Valley (S)
Bellingen (S)
Berrigan (S)
Blacktown (C)
Bland (S)
Blayney (S)
Blue Mountains (C)
Bogan (S)
Bombala
Boorowa
Botany Bay (C)
Bourke (S)
Brewarrina (S)
Broken Hill (C)
Burwood
Byron (S)
New South Wales
Council Name
ACLG
category
32 126
33 678
19 960
1 911
3 070
39 664
2 452
2 615
3 003
77 784
7 180
6 407
299 797
8 591
13369
33 481
39 339
186 108
2 479
42 432
76 519
4 2541
25 696
50 522
No.
Populationa
567
7
170
19 188
41 679
22
2 579
3 944
14 609
1 432
1 526
8 560
240
2 066
1 602
6 278
3 818
77
21 699
485
32
8
4 236
306
sq km
530
82
211
1 272
1 883
89
639
629
1 407
720
682
2 923
1 169
1 260
498
1 167
1 151
541
1 326
560
203
91
936
502
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
1 022 821
226 438
449 458
1 096 059
1 601 404
255 169
574 393
607 438
1 232 377
1 231 556
710 253
2 481 659
2 675 722
1 154 426
742 316
1 651 132
1 612 116
1 386 537
1 109 174
1 097 542
539 376
271 166
1 198 320
1 174 501
$
Local
Roads
grant
2 420 867
882 847
4 638 161
2 440 015
3 702 432
1 039 655
1 325 611
1 597 277
2 767 993
7 837 714
2 117 362
5 427 567
17 873 619
3 900 930
3 010 227
6 457 358
5 831 016
6 720 995
2 596 517
3 259 587
2 975 915
1 311 455
3 992 483
6 160 095
$
Total
grant
43.52
19.49 #
209.85
703.27
684.37
19.78
306.37
378.52
511.36
84.93
195.98
459.80
50.69
319.70
169.64
143.55
107.24
28.66
599.98
50.95
31.84
24.45
108.74
98.68
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
1 929.85
2 761.44
2 130.13
861.68
850.45
2 867.07
898.89
965.72
875.89
1 710.49
1 041.43
849.01
2 288.90
916.21
1 490.59
1 414.85
1 400.62
2 562.91
836.48
1 959.90
2 657.02
2 979.85
1 280.26
2 339 64
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
1 385 341
676 371
4 302 200
1 390 880
2 170 839
809 633
799 139
1 036 029
1 598 186
6 794508
1 490 976
3 053 218
16 151 651
2 882 680
2 381 748
4 943 066
4 430 693
5 749 256
1 545 232
2 216 172
2 657 738
1 030 835
2 815 827
5 139 229
$
General
Purpose
grant
1 085 179
233 980
464 034
1 143 611
1 673 495
267,374
599 416
632 913
1 285 603
1 273 649
739 838
2 590 110
2 802 296
1 204 640
807 366
1 721 918
1 718 927
1 440 346
1 158 666
1 174 636
554 907
280 476
1 248 884
1 227 205
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
2 470 520
910 351
4 766 234
2 534 491
3 844 334
1,077,007
1 398 555
1 668 942
2 883 789
8 068 157
2 230 814
5 643 328
18 953 947
4 087 320
3 189 114
6 664 984
6 149 620
7 189 602
2 703 898
3 390 808
3 212 645
1 311 311
4 064 711
6 366 434
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12
2010–11 Local Government National Report
ACLG
category
RAV
UFM
UFV
UDL
UDV
RAM
RTM
URM
URM
RTL
URL
RAS
RAM
RAV
RAM
RAL
RAV
RAV
URS
URM
RAL
URM
UDV
RAL
Council Name
Cabonne
Camden
Campbelltown (C)
Canada Bay (C)
Canterbury (C)
Carrathool (S)
Central Darling (S)
Cessnock (C)
Clarence Valley
Cobar (S)
Coffs Harbour (C)
Conargo (S)
Coolamon (S)
Cooma-Monaro (S)
Coonamble (S)
Cootamundra (S)
Corowa (S)
Cowra (S)
Deniliquin
Dubbo (C)
Dungog (S)
Eurobodalla (S)
Fairfield (C)
Forbes (S)
9 744
194 543
37 442
8 646
41 211
7 693
12 945
11 685
7 703
4 306
10 416
4 219
1 700
71 677
5 166
52 054
50 834
2 019
2 964
143 111
75 999
152 107
55 243
13 246
No.
Populationa
4 720
102
3 428
2 252
3 428
143
2 810
2 329
1 523
9 925
5 183
2 432
8 738
1 175
45 609
10 441
1 966
53 509
18 939
34
20
312
201
6 027
sq km
1 649
608
932
592
1 187
141
1 201
1 324
571
1 392
934
1 275
1 284
726
1 693
2 087
886
1 602
2 300
313
186
633
362
1 825
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
1 558 987
1 517 723
1 391 720
760 185
1 577 683
230 120
1 228 089
1 264 836
624 355
1 242 999
961 083
1 093 554
1 085 438
1 733 097
1 451 410
2 783 518
1 456 937
1 333 148
1 936 257
920 159
520 332
1 469 473
766 178
1 769 082
$
Local
Roads
grant
4 293 992
10 545 846
5 971 343
2 013 658
6 519 280
2 192 633
3 840 294
4 038 780
2 415 978
2 982 604
3 268 136
2 712 658
2 299 445
6 585 010
3 894 525
9 900 168
6 460 814
3 436 897
3 866 398
5 449 737
2 001 606
9 747 392
2 209 027
3 944 278
$
Total
grant
280.69
46.41
122.31
144.98
119.91
255.10
201.79
237.39
232.59
404.00
221.49
383.76
714.12
67.69
472.92
136.72
98.44
1,041.98
651.19
31.65
19.49 #
54.42
26.12
164.22
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
945.41
2 496.25
1 493.26
1 284.10
1 329.13
1 632.06
1 022.56
955.31
1 093.44
892.96
1 029.00
857.69
845.36
2 387.19
857.30
1 333.74
1 644.40
832.18
841.85
2 939.81
2 797.48
2 321.44
2 116.51
969.36
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
2 792 855
9 364 204
4 771 954
1 333 787
5 133 899
2 061 319
2 740 569
2 870 087
1 898 066
1 817 598
2 389 200
1 689 216
1 270 780
5 042 579
2 560 346
7 185 531
5 305 846
2 178 688
2 001 623
4 697 902
1 575 424
8 482 244
1 573 837
2 300 748
$
General
Purpose
grant
1 631 547
1 573 321
1 468 062
790 809
1 645 362
247 328
1 279 257
1 285 629
650 195
1 296 532
1 001 460
1 141 441
1 084 934
1 821 880
1 514 854
2 904 945
1 517 957
1 391 646
2 020 824
964 540
546 721
1 525 895
860 015
1 853 866
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
4 424 402
10 937 525
6 240 016
2 124 596
6 779 261
2 308 647
4 019 826
4 155 716
2 548 261
3 114 130
3 390 660
2 830 657
2 355 714
6 864 459
4 075 200
10 090 476
6 823 803
3 570 334
4 022 447
5 662 442
2 122 145
10 008 139
2 433 852
4 154 614
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
Appendix D
195
196
ACLG
category
RAM
RAL
RAL
UFV
URS
URM
RAV
URM
URS
RAM
RAV
RAM
RAL
RAM
UFM
RAM
UFV
UDL
UFV
UDS
UDL
RAV
RAS
RAL
URS
Council Name
Gilgandra (S)
Glen Innes Severn
Gloucester (S)
Gosford (C)
Goulburn Mulwaree
Great Lakes
Greater Hume (S)
Greater Taree (C)
Griffith (C)
Gundagai (S)
Gunnedah (S)
Guyra (S)
Gwydir (S)
Harden (S)
Hawkesbury (C)
Hay (S)
Hills (S)
Holroyd (C)
Hornsby (S)
Hunters Hill (M)
Hurstville (C)
Inverell (S)
Jerilderie (S)
Junee (S)
Kempsey (S)
29 331
6 283
1 676
16 703
79 648
14 467
162 216
100 122
176 487
3 370
63 552
3 624
5 380
4 521
12 162
3 870
25 703
48 503
10 400
35 487
28 349
166 626
5 094
9 257
4 669
No.
Populationa
3 379
2 031
3 372
8 606
23
6
462
40
401
11 328
2 776
1 869
9 274
4394
4 993
2 458
1 640
3 732
5 749
3 375
3 206
940
2 952
5 487
4 836
sq km
1 032
822
998
1 775
209
61
620
320
832
777
898
768
1 898
841
1 348
689
1 242
1 594
1 772
969
1 128
947
640
1 082
1 245
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
1 537 625
774 285
855 732
1 757 045
550 491
133 041
1 384 186
804 252
1 722 079
683 299
1 531 027
718 478
1 693 295
785 332
1 324 800
695 017
1 365 557
2 241 030
1 684 067
1 409 119
1 404 888
1 913 798
767 734
1 161 045
1 127 034
$
Local
Roads
grant
5 195 127
2 364 028
1 881 505
4 888 858
2 102 886
415 014
4 545 889
3 875 711
5 161 934
2 243 978
4 427 432
1 964 700
3 438 153
1 925 849
3 690 942
1 666 892
4 012 679
6 729 293
4 843 261
6 166 296
4 417 895
8 687 109
1 908 407
3 348 263
2 580 152
$
Total
grant
124.70
253.02
612.04
187.50
19.49 #
19.49 #
19.49 #
30.68
19.49 #
463.11
45.58
343.88
324.32
252.27
194.55
251.13
102.99
92.54
303.77
134.05
106.28
40.65
223.92
236.28
311.23
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
1 489.95
941.95
857.45
989.88
2 633.93
2 181.00
2 232.56
2 513.29
2 069.81
879.41
1 704.93
935.52
892.15
933.81
982.79
1 008.73
1 099.48
1 405.92
950.38
1 454.20
1 245.47
2 020.91
1 199.58
1 073.05
905.25
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
3 808 385
1 668 307
1 075 555
3 202 692
1 617 203
291 955
3 282 188
3 350 299
3 595 972
1 638 554
2 870 084
1 293 323
1 755 595
1 130 152
2 430 935
1 049 252
2 887 439
4 700 897
3 130 485
4 993 908
3 166 097
6 711 758
1 204 489
2 231 788
1 513 993
$
General
Purpose
grant
1 597 599
809 086
892 917
1 807 276
572 159
137 793
1 434 191
824 348
1 796 685
712 582
1 581 722
749 572
1 766 680
831 802
1 381 865
724 234
1 424 258
2 334 441
1 787 458
1 481 261
1 477 799
1 978 240
800 197
1 209 159
1 175 719
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
5 405 984
2 477 393
1 968 472
5 009 968
2 189 362
429 748
4 716 379
4 174 647
5 392 657
2 351 136
4 451 806
2 042 895
3 522 275
1 961 954
3 812 800
1 773 486
4 311 697
7 035 338
4 917 943
6 475 169
4 643 896
8 689 998
2 004 686
3 440 947
2 689 712
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
2010–11 Local Government National Report
ACLG
category
URS
UDM
UDL
RAL
RAL
URV
UDM
RAV
UDM
URM
URS
UFV
RAL
RAM
RTX
URM
UDM
UDL
URS
RAV
UDS
RAL
RAM
RAV
RAV
Council Name
Kiama (M)
Kogarah (C)
Ku-ring-gai
Kyogle
Lachlan (S)
Lake Macquarie (C)
Lane Cove (M)
Leeton (S)
Leichhardt (M)
Lismore (C)
Lithgow (C)
Liverpool (C)
Liverpool Plains (S)
Lockhart (S)
Lord Howe Island (Bd)
Maitland (C)
Manly
Marrickville
Mid-Western Regional
Moree Plains (S)
Mosman (M)
Murray (S)
Murrumbidgee (S)
Muswellbrook (S)
Nambucca (S)
19 186
16 391
2 556
7 236
28 767
14 406
22 677
78 271
40 939
69 154
364
3 299
7 941
182 261
20 980
45 645
54 525
11 906
32 501
199 277
6 872
9 824
111 400
58 137
20 641
No.
Populationa
1 493
3 406
3 507
4 344
9
17 929
8 758
16
14
392
16
2 895
5 087
306
4 514
1 290
11
1 167
10
648
14 973
3 589
85
16
258
sq km
649
575
590
1 363
85
2 640
1 913
190
105
602
-
1 483
1 200
766
877
1 125
134
876
92
1 254
3 460
1 083
444
153
258
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
1 007 189
770 831
515 941
1 297 309
210 793
2 443 260
2 011 008
521 618
279 900
1 099 615
-
1 345 619
1 164 117
1 730 473
1 060 919
1 730 777
371 620
877 425
233 080
2 422 097
2 936 998
1 413 283
978 044
402 377
464 728
$
Local
Roads
grant
3 366 055
3 140 875
1 479 248
3 314 134
771 483
5 492 548
5 485 924
3 194 714
1 077 830
6 286 749
164 318
3 022 194
2 909 159
7 684 160
4 300 037
6 402 821
1 434 351
3 430 301
866 548
15 182 610
6 399 209
3 624 365
3 149 308
1 535 508
1 273 195
$
Total
grant
122.95
144.59
376.88
278.72
19.49 #
211.67
153.24
34.15
19.49 #
75.01
451.42
508.21
219.75
32.67
154.39
102.36
19.49 #
214.42
19.49 #
64.03
503.81
225.07
19.49 #
19.49 #
39.17
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
1 551.91
1 340.58
874.48
951.80
2 479.92
925.48
1 051.23
2 745.36
2 665.71
1 826.60
-
907.36
970.10
2 259.10
1 209.71
1 538.47
2 773.28
1 001.63
2 533.48
1 931.50
848.84
1 304.97
2 202.80
2 629.92
1 801.27
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
2 448 883
2 465 641
1 021 606
2 190 902
584 909
3 176 574
3 601 822
2 648 804
838 886
5 315 397
171 080
1 726 491
1 788 262
6 492 916
3 366 488
4 675 985
1 112 432
2 735 399
667 007
13 223 391
3 585 633
2 245 372
2 283 889
1 184 545
801 120
$
General
Purpose
grant
1 057 814
808 696
538 336
1 363 339
219 200
2 542 638
2 080 841
541 434
292 346
1144388
-
1 403 295
1 208 243
1 837 811
1 103 397
1 769 461
394 445
914 601
244 845
2 524 977
3 064 861
1 452 549
1 019 770
418 976
482 542
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
3 506 697
3 274 337
1 559 942
3 554 241
804 109
5 719 212
5 682 663
3 190 238
1 131 232
6 459 785
171 080
3 129 786
2 996 505
8 330 727
4 469 885
6 445 446
1 506 877
3 650 000
911 852
15 748 368
6 650 494
3 697 921
3 303 659
1 603 521
1 283 662
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
Appendix D
197
198
URM
URL
RTX
URS
RAL
UDM
Shellharbour (C)
Shoalhaven (C)
Silverton Village (VC)
Singleton
Snowy River (S)
Strathfield (M)
36 489
8 061
23 822
57
95 812
66 905
104 955
102 211
22 934
131 714
40 661
UDL
58 818
Ryde (C)
Pittwater
184 611
UDL
UDM
Penrith (C)
167 431
URS
UFV
Parramatta (C)
15 052
Rockdale (C)
UDV
Parkes (S)
14 323
Richmond Valley
RAV
Palerang
5 391
38 685
UDV
RAV
Orange (C)
Randwick (C)
URM
Oberon
63 914
URM
RAL
North Sydney
154 777
Queanbeyan (C)
UDM
Newcastle (C)
6 818
6 262
66 754
URV
Narromine (S)
URM
RAL
Narrandera (S)
13 693
Port Stephens
RAL
Narrabri (S)
No.
75 104
RAV
Council Name
Port Macquarie-Hastings URL
ACLG
category
Populationa
14
6 029
4 896
-
4 531
147
40
28
3 051
36
172
859
3 686
90
405
61
5 958
5 161
284
3 628
10
187
5 264
4 117
13 028
sq km
86
742
736
-
1 585
353
310
262
1 005
273
263
607
1 219
235
967
517
1 797
1 044
408
909
143
746
1 337
1 463
2 114
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
245 133
757 416
1 043 296
-
2 778 243
743 825
791 129
712 686
1 345 773
821 803
784 242
1 035 385
2 301 882
529 355
1 977 888
1 363 840
1 685 324
1 151 466
897 934
835 970
410 656
1 608 469
1 189 409
1 297 078
1 956 504
$
Local
Roads
grant
956 330
2 812 883
3 098 858
27 275
1 0072 383
4 539 964
2 836 776
2 704 850
4 494 720
3 389 001
2 980 525
5 099 323
8 163 352
1 675 760
11 196 562
7 786 383
4 977 419
2 634 618
4 475 784
2 062 017
1 656 385
12 573 193
3 423 214
3 472 460
5 434 855
$
Total
grant
19.49 #
254.99
86.29
478.51
76.13
56.74
19.49 #
19.49 #
137.30
19.49 #
54.01
60.88
78.04
19.49 #
49.94
38.36
218.71
103.55
92.49
227.42
19.49 #
70.84
327.63
347.39
254.02
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
2 850.38
1 020.78
1 417.52
-
1 752.83
2 107.15
2 552.03
2 720.18
1 339.08
3 010.27
2 981.91
1 705.74
1 888.34
2 252.57
2 045.39
2 637.99
937.85
1 102.94
2 200.82
919.66
2871.72
2 156.12
889.61
886.59
925.50
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
738 560
2 164 601
2 126 208
28 386
7 761 485
3 938 351
2 126 757
2 064 228
3 222 426
2 663 544
2 176 324
4 361 123
6 177 270
1 197 491
9 134 899
7 005 609
3 412 740
1 518 292
3 683 212
1 307 845
1 296 496
11 445 302
2 336 121
2 255 717
3 619 507
$
General
Purpose
grant
254 331
797 456
1 081 175
-
2 900 927
780 438
818 460
741 150
1 404 019
852 419
825 654
1 099 026
2 445 820
550 199
2 056 270
1 424 937
1 759 118
1 212 299
942 712
833 051
426 697
1 668 125
1 241 083
1 353 318
2 042 358
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
992 891
2 962 057
3 207 383
28 386
10 662 412
4 718 789
2 945 217
2 805 378
4 626 445
3 515 963
3 001 978
5 460 149
8 623 090
1 747 690
11 19169
8 430 546
5 171 858
2 730 591
4 625 924
2 140 896
1 723 193
13 113 427
3 577 204
3 609 035
5 661 865
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
2010–11 Local Government National Report
ACLG
category
UDV
UCC
URM
RAL
RAL
RTX
RAM
RAV
URL
RAV
RAL
RAL
RAS
URM
RAM
RAM
RAL
RAM
UDV
RAV
UDM
RAM
RAL
RAL
UDM
Council Name
Sutherland (S)
Sydney (C)
Tamworth Regional
Temora (S)
Tenterfield (S)
Tibooburra (VC)
Tumbarumba (S)
Tumut (S)
Tweed (S)
Upper Hunter (S)
Upper Lachlan (S)
Uralla (S)
Urana (S)
Wagga Wagga (C)
Wakool (S)
Walcha
Walgett (S)
Warren (S)
Warringah
Warrumbungle (S)
Waverley
Weddin (S)
Wellington
Wentworth (S)
Willoughby (C)
69 269
7 127
8 904
3 751
68 316
10 323
144 092
2 833
7 209
3 286
4 427
62 904
1 269
6 238
7 512
14 043
88 993
11 396
3 735
128
7 024
6 158
58 515
177 920
219 828
No.
Populationa
22
26 268
4 112
3 410
9
12 381
149
10 763
22 335
6 267
7 521
4 825
3 357
3 230
7 128
8 103
1 309
4 566
4 392
-
7 332
2 802
9 892
27
334
sq km
199
1 941
1 236
968
113
2 276
473
960
1 950
792
1 274
2 131
881
818
1 706
1 577
1 091
563
473
-
1 456
1 134
2 974
301
781
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
516 463
1 702 397
1 163 003
852 828
388 812
2 076 100
1 144 090
871 590
1 771 371
762 515
1 232 595
2 766 879
751 094
817 488
1 590 945
1 635 879
2 364 620
687 141
499 846
-
1 413 457
1 036 399
3 526 236
1 069 687
1 803 589
$
Local
Roads
grant
1 866 564
4 338 864
3 336 778
2 227 945
1 993 677
5 543 175
3 952 544
2 020 541
4 795 784
1 521 446
3 131 486
9 491 454
1 701 854
2 020 164
3 461 795
3 872 142
8 747 991
3 001 457
1 712 703
61 249
3 711 255
2 729 121
9 735 873
5 600 138
6 088 190
$
Total
grant
19.49 #
369.93
244.13
366.60
23.49
335.86
19.49 #
405.56
419.53
230.96
428.93
106.90
749.22
192.80
249.05
159.24
71.73
203.08
324.73
478.51
327.14
274.88
106.12
25.46
19.49 #
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
2 595.29
877.07
940.94
881.02
3 440.81
912.17
2 418.79
907.91
908.40
962.77
967.50
1 298.39
852.55
999.37
932.56
1 037.34
2 167.39
1 220.50
1 056.76
-
970.78
913.93
1 185.69
3 553.78
2 309.33
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
1 400 804
2 726 541
2 256 283
1 428 420
1 590 281
3 546 800
2 918 641
1 228 738
3 154 953
773 515
1 993 694
7 043 931
990 749
1 235 140
1 984 705
2 302 530
6 509 046
2 439 486
128 8449
63 744
236 8754
1 782 562
6 317 583
4 506 254
4 418 729
$
General
Purpose
grant
535 482
1 775 984
1 204 162
890 108
404 755
2 164 949
1 187 076
912 360
1 847 468
811 507
1 289 512
2 854 405
689 390
852 227
1 657 521
1 705 504
2 459 261
730 178
513 117
-
1 470 302
1 081 563
3 641 640
1 118 163
1 865 100
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
1 936 286
4 502 525
3 460 445
2 318 528
1 995 036
5 711 749
4 105 717
2 141 098
5 002 421
1 585 022
3 283 206
9 898 336
1 680 139
2 087 367
3 642 226
4 008 034
8 968 307
3 169 664
1 801 566
63 744
3 839 056
2 864 125
9 959 223
5 624 417
6 283 829
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
Appendix D
199
200
ACLG
category
URM
UFM
URV
UDM
UFV
RAV
RAV
RAV
RAV
URL
UDV
UFS
URM
UDL
RAV
UDV
UDV
RAL
URM
UFM
UDV
RAV
URS
Council Name
Wingecarribee (S)
Wollondilly (S)
Wollongong (C)
Woollahra (M)
Wyong (S)
Yass Valley
Young (S)
Victoria
Alpine (S)
Ararat (RC)
Ballarat (C)
Banyule (C)
Bass Coast (S)
Baw Baw (S)
Bayside (C)
Benalla
Boroondara (C)
Brimbank (C)
Buloke (S)
Campaspe (C)
Cardinia (S)
Casey (C)
Central Goldfields (S)
Colac Otway (S)
21 817
12 899
247 357
68 641
38 790
7 078
185 890
168 090
14 208
96 329
41 335
29 584
123 521
94 088
11 913
13 191
12 861
14 796
149 382
55 228
201 438
43 278
46 364
No.
Populationa
3 433
1 534
813
1 281
4 519
8 004
123
60
2 352
37
4 028
864
63
740
4 210
4 787
2 694
3998
740
12
684
2 557
2 689
sq km
1 675
1 129
1 366
1 389
4 137
5 313
874
578
1 336
354
1 779
1 041
544
1 309
2 286
788
1 035
1 049
1 016
140
885
706
1 028
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
2 278 169
953 894
1 918 847
2 309 762
3 620 720
1 921 888
1 436 963
750 366
1 218 697
449 197
2 425 147
1 262 000
810 804
1 796 044
1 987 553
1 015 655
1 066 948
1 109 852
1 953 097
386 627
2 031 226
1 160 490
1 529 668
$
Local
Roads
grant
5 602 197
3 191 483
15 508 122
8 320 766
9 748 672
4 814 013
12 676 621
4 037 839
3 392 286
2 333 182
7 568 034
5 124 096
4 215 398
10 301 162
4 965 224
3 331 008
3 220 199
2 672 533
10 562 690
1 463 060
15 154 266
2 906 952
3 980 918
$
Total
grant
152.36
173.47
54.94
87.57
157.98
408.61
60.46
19.56 #
152.98
19.56 #
124.42
130.55
27.56
90.40
249.95
175.53
167.42
105.62
57.63
19.49 #
65.15
40.35
52.87
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
1 360.10
844.90
1 404.72
1 662.90
875.20
361.73
1 644.12
1 298.21
912.20
1 268.92
1 363.21
1 212.30
1 490.45
1 372.07
869.45
1 288.90
1 030.87
1 058.01
1 922.34
2 761.62
2 295.17
1 643.75
1 488.00
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
3 436 563
2 321 153
1 4213 936
6 596 992
6 675 708
2 970 385
11 703 793
3 396 770
2 272 142
1 949 465
5 473 226
4 207 028
3 426 197
8 761 866
3 068 397
2 377 882
2 249 678
1 604 857
9 332 109
1 120 615
14 134 990
1 894 184
2 542 456
$
General
Purpose
grant
2 362 270
1 026 957
1 984 640
2 416 270
4 085 870
1 987 239
1 497 953
775 881
1 252 908
464 471
2 536 167
1 309 922
837492
1 879 264
2 055 256
1 074 814
1 131 227
1 157 060
2 041 155
401 596
2 143 698
1 194 656
1 598 111
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
5 798 833
3 348 110
16 198 576
9 013 262
10 761 578
4 957 624
13 201 746
4 172 651
3 525 050
2 413 936
8 009 393
5 516 950
4 263 689
10 641 130
5 123 653
3 452 696
3 380 905
2 761 917
11 373 264
1 522 211
16 278 688
3 088 840
4 140 567
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
2010–11 Local Government National Report
ACLG
category
RAV
UDV
URM
UDV
RAV
UDV
URS
RAV
URL
UDV
URV
URM
RAV
RAL
UDL
URS
UFV
RAV
UDV
UDV
URL
RAL
URM
Council Name
Corangamite (S)
Darebin (C)
East Gippsland (S)
Frankston (C)
Gannawarra (S)
Glen Eira (C)
Glenelg (S)
Golden Plains (S)
Greater Bendigo (C)
Greater
Dandenong (C)
Greater Geelong (C)
Greater
Shepparton (C)
Hepburn (S)
Hindmarsh (S)
Hobsons Bay (C)
Horsham (RC)
Hume (C)
Indigo (S)
Kingston (C)
Knox (C)
Latrobe (C)
Loddon (S)
Macedon Ranges (S)
42 015
8 079
75 259
155 969
147 214
15 945
167 540
20 042
87 486
6 202
14 803
62 368
216 330
137 600
102 373
18 173
21 146
136 354
11 665
128 576
43 615
139 608
17 500
No.
Populationa
1 747
6 694
1 426
114
91
2 044
504
4 249
64
7 550
1 470
2 422
1 247
130
2 999
2 703
6 210
39
3 732
130
2 0931
53
4 404
sq km
1 552
4 717
1 535
708
594
1 859
1 028
2 942
421
3 257
1 395
2 497
2 019
636
3 013
1 843
2 649
428
-
663
2 881
508
2 723
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
1 837 394
2 926 236
2 194 830
965 954
1 141 856
1 497 710
1 673 778
1 830 678
615 734
1 446 242
1 268 456
2 637 586
2 677 465
1 185 955
2 802 022
1 827 071
2 934 044
517 661
1 779 205
1 062 744
4 104 061
810 880
2 984 358
$
Local
Roads
grant
5 958 580
6 645 252
11 032 272
7 591 114
4 021 040
4 043 269
11 183 081
5 102 716
2 326 769
3 797 088
3 787 638
9 830 041
18 502 789
10 361 939
13 866 454
4 688 292
6 689 141
3 184 446
4 590 066
8 521 470
12 872 492
4 647 156
6 458 282
$
Total
grant
98.09
460.33
117.43
42.48
19.56 #
159.65
56.76
163.26
19.56 #
379.05
170.18
115.32
73.15
66.69
108.08
157.44
177.58
19.56 #
240.97
58.01
201.04
27.48
198.51
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
1 183.89
620.36
1 429.86
1 364.34
1 922.32
805.65
1628.19
622.26
1462.55
444.04
909.29
1 056.30
1 326.13
1 864.71
929.98
991.36
1 107.60
1 209.49
-
1 602.93
1 424.53
1 596.22
1 095.98
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
4 279 152
3 805 130
9 015 785
6 662 771
2 982 421
2 616 805
10 431 728
3 431 388
1 764 504
2 410 392
2 614 600
7 551 287
16 285 953
9 223 174
11 332 070
2 982 332
3 948 724
2 759 627
2 953 718
7 569 268
9 150 007
3 910 666
3 618 300
$
General
Purpose
grant
1 941 262
3 021 895
2 280 494
1 002 067
1 196 809
1 548 940
1 748 831
1 898 284
636 672
1 508 983
1 311 587
2 730 136
2 766 488
1 235 048
2 896 728
1 884 419
3 144 201
535 262
1 880 984
1 092 908
4 365 036
838 453
3 113 308
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
6 220 414
6 827 025
11 296 279
7 664 838
4 179 230
4 165 745
12 180 559
5 329 672
2 401 176
3 919 375
3 926 187
10 281 423
19 052 441
10 458 222
14 228 798
4 866 751
7 092 925
3 294 889
4 834 702
8 662 176
13 515 043
4 749 119
6 731 608
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
Appendix D
201
202
ACLG
category
UDL
RAL
UDL
UDL
UCC
UFL
URM
URM
URS
UDV
UDL
URS
UDV
UFV
RAV
RAV
RAV
UFM
RAV
UDL
RAL
UFS
URS
Council Name
Manningham (C)
Mansfield
Maribyrnong (C)
Maroondah (C)
Melbourne (C)
Melton (S)
Mildura (RC)
Mitchell (S)
Moira (S)
Monash (C)
Moonee Valley (C)
Moorabool (S)
Moreland (C)
Mornington
Peninsula (S)
Mount Alexander (S)
Moyne (S)
Murrindindi (S)
Nillumbik (S)
Northern
Grampians (S)
Port Phillip (C)
Pyrenees (S)
Queenscliffe (B)
South Gippsland (S)
27 776
3 318
6 885
96 110
12 340
63 827
13 377
16 684
18 293
148 394
149 122
27 896
111 268
176 069
29 127
34 119
53 877
100 000
93 105
106 224
71 523
8 151
118 544
No.
Populationa
3 295
36
3 433
21
5 728
433
3 873
5 478
1 529
723
51
2 110
44
81
4 045
2 862
22 087
527
36
61
31
3 843
113
sq km
2 099
46
2 026
212
3 420
782
1 223
2 961
1 303
1 691
516
1 481
411
727
3 626
1 393
5 185
810
203
476
276
844
592
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
3 011 668
51 723
1 912 995
349 044
2 299 044
1 072 918
1 546 602
3 580 718
1 289 790
2 181 128
836 875
1 730 827
584 431
1 002 666
3 077 979
1 580 967
3 178 665
1 269 143
588 795
680 306
425 275
871 455
733 182
$
Local
Roads
grant
7 627 321
241 346
4 555 319
2 228 745
5 785 373
2 941 550
4 159 079
6 972 028
3 842 304
5 525 909
5 465 122
5 285 080
2 760 590
4 446 190
8 269 082
5 778 017
11 371 649
9 843 407
2 409 725
4 735 280
2 753 484
2 561 049
3 051 644
$
Total
grant
166.17
57.15
383.78
19.56 #
282.52
29.28
195.30
203.27
139.54
22.54
31.04
127.41
19.56 #
19.56 #
178.22
123.01
152.07
85.74
19.56 #
38.17
32.55
207.29
19.56 #
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
1 434.81
1 124.41
944.22
1 646.43
672.24
1 372.02
1 264.60
1 209.29
989.86
1 289.85
1 621.85
1 168.69
1 421.97
1 379.18
848.86
1 134.94
613.05
1 566.84
2 900.47
1 429.21
1 540.85
1 032.53
1 238.48
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
4 744 416
226 723
2 735 877
1 952 391
3 532 883
1 867 444
2 732 557
3 531 682
2 585 404
3 813 875
4 660 800
3 768 127
2 260 492
3 561 472
5 283 678
4 414 744
8 553 628
9 408 410
1 934 817
4 156 246
2 422 430
1 737 819
2 388 462
$
General
Purpose
grant
3 114 910
53 482
1 966 566
360 912
2 377 219
1 104 842
1 614 977
3 718 760
1 331 965
2 286 731
845 315
1 802 551
606 170
1 036 121
3 111 814
1 655 888
3 300 110
1 350 402
610 213
703 464
430 386
903 672
762 819
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
7 859 326
280 205
4 702 443
2 313 303
5 910 102
2 972 286
4 347 534
7 250 442
3 917 369
6 100 606
5 506 115
5 570 678
2 866 662
4 597 593
8 395 492
6 070 632
1 1853 738
10 758 812
2 545 030
4 859 710
2 852 816
2 641 491
3 151 281
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
2010–11 Local Government National Report
UDL
RAV
UFS
URS
RAL
URS
URM
URM
RAM
UDV
UFV
URM
UFV
UDL
UFV
RAL
Stonnington (C)
Strathbogie (S)
Surf Coast (S)
Swan Hill (RC)
Towong (S)
Wangaratta (RC)
Warrnambool (C)
Wellington (S)
West Wimmera (S)
Whitehorse (C)
Whittlesea (C)
Wodonga
Wyndham (C)
Yarra (C)
Yarra Ranges (S)
Yarriambiack (S)
RTM
RAM
RAV
RTL
Aurukun*
Balonne
Banana
Barcaldine
Queensland
RAV
Southern
Grampians (S)
Council Name
ACLG
category
3 376
15 597
4 847
1 209
7 681
148 912
78 041
143 879
35 733
146 132
155725
4613
43 197
33 374
28 663
6 340
22116
25 458
9974
99 110
17 564
No.
Populationa
53705
28 628
31 136
7 402
7 310
2 470
20
542
433
490
64
9 106
10 809
121
3 639
6 673
6 117
1 552
3 302
26
6 652
sq km
3 156
3 749
2 319
184
4 814
1 762
216
1 016
480
940
609
2 810
3 114
310
1 925
1 217
3 486
1 047
-
257
2 661
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
1 578 801
1 990 928
1 183 717
102 153
1 686 211
3 368 176
359 883
1 438 534
790 535
1 469 217
754 405
2 132 634
4 194 436
589 161
2 048 009
1 300 750
1 819 237
1 207 257
1 809 202
358 611
2 715 534
$
Local
Roads
grant
7 009 724
6 990 797
4 510 862
1 491 094
4 266 163
13 190 826
1 886 194
10 608 145
4 283 406
9 709 626
3 800 045
4 698 310
11 046803
3 408 767
6 019 467
3 462 536
5 765 448
3 100 140
4 243 274
2 296 986
6 401 274
$
Total
grant
1 608.69
320.57
686.43
1 148.83
335.89
65.96
19.56 #
63.73
97.75
56.39
19.56 #
556.18
158.63
84.49
138.56
340.98
178.43
74.35
244.04
19.56 #
209.85
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
500.25
531.06
510.44
555.18
350.27
1 911.56
1 666.13
1 415.88
1 646.95
1 563.00
1 238.76
758.94
1 346.96
1 900.52
1 063.90
1 068.82
521.87
1 153.06
-
1 395.37
1 020.49
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
5 416 624
5 734 711
3 643 843
1 593 077
2 709 145
10 160 867
1 593 911
10 484 290
3 631 271
9 157 761
3 142 073
2 637 755
6 970 228
2 880 311
4 086 988
2 266 727
4 013 364
2 026 489
2 493 301
2 010 945
3 754 433
$
General
Purpose
grant
1 636 023
2 223 669
1 226 065
105 768
1 753 057
3 489 818
372 120
1 565 379
849 215
1 577 423
780 057
2 209 379
4 312 233
612 301
2 132 074
1 350 171
1 878 772
1 269 274
1 860 976
370 805
2 807 996
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
7 052 647
7 958 380
4 869 908
1 698 845
4 462 202
13 650 685
1 966 031
12 049 669
4 480 486
10 735 184
3 922 130
4 847 134
11 282 461
3 492 612
6 219 062
3 616 898
5 892 136
3 295 763
4 354 277
2 381 750
6 562 429
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
Appendix D
203
204
ACLG
category
RTX
RTM
RTS
UCC
RTX
URL
RAV
RTS
URV
RTM
URS
URS
RAV
URS
RTL
RTL
RTX
RTX
RTM
RTS
RTM
URL
URM
Council Name
Barcoo
Blackall-Tambo
Boulia
Brisbane
Bulloo
Bundaberg
Burdekin
Burke
Cairns
Carpentaria
Cassowary Coast
Central Highlands
Charters Towers
Cherbourg*
Cloncurry
Cook
Croydon
Diamantina
Doomadgee*
Etheridge
Flinders
Fraser Coast
Gladstone
59 644
99 514
1 834
939
1 240
319
273
3 899
3 380
1 215
12 696
30 403
30 992
2 123
164 356
555
18 431
95 132
374
10 52 458
448
2 069
353
No.
Populationa
10 874
7 166
41 501
39 352
1 862
94 853
29 575
106 387
48 161
32
68 345
59 960
4 678
64 403
4 115
40 245
5 049
6 458
73 859
1 350
61 139
30 476
62 002
sq km
2 612
2 213
2 273
1 657
45
1 039
861
2 590
1 836
70
4 371
4 666
1 210
1 685
1 649
1 191
1 161
3 078
2 087
5 560
1 321
1 867
1 768
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
1 874 325
2 077 098
1 131 111
820 598
34 413
511 851
424 248
1 306 875
932 605
46 402
2 266 620
2 587 927
901 846
846 129
2 448 447
588 622
752 432
2 456 825
1 025 672
13 231 113
650 954
934 691
869 089
$
Local
Roads
grant
6 288 523
6 928 917
4 081 385
3 078 311
795 106
4 649 157
2 155 233
6 463 865
3 841 375
365 519
7 038 502
9 715 959
2 953 693
4 046 566
6 024 290
2 688 695
2 497 154
7 806 303
3 985 137
33 861 641
2 920 026
3 835 230
3 228 783
$
Total
grant
74.01
48.76
1 608.66
2 404.38
613.46
12 969.61
6 340.60
1 322.64
860.58
262.65
375.86
234.45
66.21
1 507.51
21.76
3 783.92
94.66
56.23
7 913.01
19.60 #
5 064.89
1 401.90
6 684.69
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
717.58
938.59
497.63
495.23
764.73
492.64
492.74
504.58
507.95
662.89
518.56
554.64
745.33
502.15
1 484.81
494.23
648.09
798.19
491.46
2 379.70
492.77
500.64
491.57
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
4 987 217
4 058 558
3 383 883
2 589 534
872 494
1 992 997
1 985 392
5 914 925
3 336 279
366 019
5 284 279
7 109 265
2 353 412
3 619 307
3 566 429
2 408 726
2 001 147
5 659 860
3 394 424
21 417 054
2 037 517
2 892 902
2 652 254
$
General
Purpose
grant
1 857 199
2 984 348
1 173 867
850 152
35 948
530 717
439 631
1 409 060
966 071
48 377
2 348 027
2 693 234
1 075 733
896 234
2 556 078
609 931
778 208
2 611 013
1 062 930
13 742 696
675 022
975 146
900 561
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
6 844 416
7 042 906
4 557 750
3 439 686
908 442
2 523 714
2 425 023
7 323 985
4 302 350
414 396
7 632 306
9 802 499
3 429 145
4 515 541
6 122 507
3 018 657
2 779 355
8 270 873
4 457 354
35 159 750
2 712 539
3 868 048
3 552 815
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
2010–11 Local Government National Report
ACLG
category
URV
RAV
URM
RAV
RTS
UFV
URS
RTM
RTS
URM
UFV
RTL
URL
RTX
RAV
RTS
UFV
RTM
URS
RTL
RTS
RAV
Council Name
Gold Coast
Goondiwindi
Gympie
Hinchinbrook
Hope Vale*
Ipswich
Isaac
Kowanyama*
Lockhart River*
Lockyer Valley
Logan
Longreach
Mackay
Mapoon Aboriginal
Council*
Maranoa
McKinlay
Moreton Bay
Mornington*
Mount Isa
Murweh
Napranum*
North Burnett
10 787
930
4 871
21 838
1 103
371 162
944
13 223
266
116 123
4 298
277 568
35 633
619
1 156
22 417
162 383
832
12 283
48 282
11 188
515 157
No.
Populationa
19 708
1 995
40 760
43 312
1 274
2 032
40 883
58 823
530
7 613
40 608
959
2 273
3 595
2 576
59 904
1 089
1 118
2 809
6 900
19 314
1 312
sq km
5 062
63
2 750
2 033
560
3 297
1 978
6 777
35
2 461
3 193
2 115
1 354
323
352
3 455
1 465
100
700
2 370
2 486
3 284
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
2 585 926
40 129
1 394 962
1 213 359
285 174
5 320 276
977 800
3 449 867
19 792
2 364 359
1 606 122
3 807 040
1 018 687
164 313
184 098
1 915 072
2 338 663
57 265
465 360
1 642 396
1 328 792
6 751 744
$
Local
Roads
grant
10 355 233
648 386
5 521 979
3 781 213
1 853 079
13 016 556
3 709 528
12 911 485
739 521
6 774 477
6 877 892
9 759 265
3 010 711
1 053 288
1 137 796
6 840 027
5 969 056
788 645
1548157
5 484 997
6 463 132
16 849 973
$
Total
grant
720.25
654.04
847.26
117.59
1 421.49
20.74
2 893.78
715.54
2 705.75
37.98
1 226.56
21.44
55.90
1 436.15
825.00
219.70
22.36
879.06
88.15
79.59
458.91
19.60 #
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
510.85
636.97
507.26
596.83
509.24
1 613.67
494.34
509.06
565.49
960.73
503.01
1 800.02
752
508.71
523.01
554.29
1 596.36
572.65
664.80
692.99
534.51
2 055.95
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
6 540 925
697 654
4 679 128
2 945 257
1 741 737
7 671 201
3 133 216
10 319 024
825 509
4 398 507
5 693 556
5 686 555
2 284 796
1 019 630
1 093 865
4 911 989
3 373 879
645 493
1 241 938
3 832 484
5 120 822
10 591 908
$
General
Purpose
grant
2 678 593
41 671
1 449 741
1 255 982
295 365
5 603 275
1 013 212
2 827 548
20 483
2 461 697
1 579 767
3 948 788
1 072 652
170 423
191 056
1 983 694
2 464 034
59 383
471 280
1 704 512
1 370 206
7 026 315
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
9 219 518
739 325
6 128 869
4 201 239
2 037 102
13 274 476
4 146 428
13 146 572
845 992
6 860 204
7 273 323
9 635 343
3 357 448
1 190 053
1 284 921
6 895 683
5 837 913
704 876
1 713 218
5 536 996
6 491 028
17 618 223
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
Appendix D
205
206
2 282
2 187
RTM
URS
RTM
RTS
RTM
UDV
RTS
URL
UFM
UFS
URM
URM
URV
URM
URV
RTL
RTL
URV
URM
URM
RTM
RTS
URS
RTM
Peninsula Area*
Palm Island*
Paroo
Pormpuraaw*
Quilpie
Redland
Richmond
Rockhampton
Scenic Rim
Somerset
South Burnett
Southern Downs
Sunshine Coast
Tablelands
Toowoomba
Torres
Torres Strait Island*
Townsville
Western Downs
Whitsunday
Winton
Woorabinda*
Wujal Wujal
Yarrabah*
2 628
352
965
1 407
34 195
31 469
181 743
4 913
3 642
159 098
46 366
323 423
35 456
32 495
21 608
37 419
114 105
962
140 691
1 016
676
1 946
No.
Council Name
Northern
ACLG
category
Populationa
158
11
391
53 964
23 905
37 981
3 738
483
691
12 972
65 001
3 136
7 122
8 399
5 382
4 256
18 949
26 614
524
67 568
4 433
47 719
72
1 030
sq km
50
20
80
2 566
1 805
7 555
1 607
213
84
7 673
4 235
3 671
3 055
3 241
1 779
1 696
3 255
1 385
1 026
2 041
570
2 138
39
363
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
50 720
13 307
48 753
1 270 292
1 225 124
4 012 945
2 601 498
153 190
77 490
5 345 126
2 536 316
5 026 690
1 849 681
1 911 176
1 086 942
1 203 953
2 732 928
687 664
1 907 141
1 009 307
285 806
1 066 137
40 784
200 281
$
Local
Roads
grant
550 773
278 695
338 276
5 974 370
3 964 176
16 314 254
7 305 346
7 210 388
2 491 750
15 356 649
9 780 351
11 792 233
7 381 663
8 165 190
3 229 815
3 318 784
9 375 679
2 865 922
4 875 858
4 068 803
1 053 145
4 332 489
721 841
2 680 000
$
Total
grant
190.28
753.94
300.02
3 343.34
80.10
390.90
25.88
1 436.43
662.89
62.93
156.24
20.92
156.02
192.46
99.17
56.52
58.22
2 264.30
21.10
3 011.31
1 135.12
1 678.50
311.41
1 086.64
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
1 014.40
665.35
609.41
495.05
678.74
531.16
1 618.85
719.20
922.50
696.61
598.89
1 369.30
605.46
589.69
610.98
709.88
839.61
496.51
1 858.81
494.52
501.41
498.66
1 045.74
551.74
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
573 546
304 392
332 075
3 748 209
3 141 617
13 740 392
4 691 464
8 094 411
2 769 090
11 272 671
7 224 963
6 640 842
6 345 030
6 237 548
2 137 231
2 109 263
6 625 262
2 498 401
2 866 005
3 509 157
880 117
3 619 331
781 154
2 844 169
$
General
Purpose
grant
53 153
13 761
50 756
1 305 688
1 270 660
4 132 121
2 711 542
194 881
80 386
5 585 269
2 580 118
5 240 512
1 903 704
2 001 929
1 156 106
1 251 480
2 903 762
712 413
1 984 484
1 046 262
296 325
1 103 655
42 306
208 332
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
626 699
318 153
382 831
5 053 897
4 412 277
17 872 513
7 403 006
8 289 292
2 849 476
16 857 940
9 805 081
11 881 354
8 248 734
8 239 477
3 293 337
3 360 743
9 529 024
3 210 814
4 850 489
4 555 419
1 176 442
4 722 986
823 460
3 052 501
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
2010–11 Local Government National Report
ACLG
category
URM
UFM
RTL
RAL
UDS
UDM
UDM
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAM
RAS
URS
RAS
RAS
URM
URM
UDS
UDL
RSG
RAS
Council Name
Western Australia
Albany (C)
Armadale (C)
Ashburton (S)
Augusta-Margaret
River (S)
Bassendean (T)
Bayswater (C)
Belmont (C)
Beverley (S)
Boddington (S)
Boyup Brook (S)
BridgetownGreenbushes (S)
Brookton (S)
Broome (S)
Broomehill Tambellup (S)
Bruce Rock (S)
Bunbury (C)
Busselton (S)
Cambridge (T)
Canning (C)
Capel (S)
Carnamah (S)
763
12 687
87 562
26 622
30 514
33 979
1 033
1 282
15 857
1 031
4 466
1 624
1 581
1 749
34 466
61 264
14 508
12 212
6 674
58 153
35 550
No.
Populationa
2 835
554
65
22
1 454
61
2 772
2 810
56 000
1 626
1 691
2 838
1 900
2 310
40
33
11
2 370
105 647
560
4 315
sq km
642
477
561
172
1 074
322
1 175
971
834
529
707
1 030
260
690
225
345
95
879
2 186
584
1 616
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
353 347
574 859
1 178 510
335 058
1 266 901
815 713
697 498
568 213
829 052
610 515
708 762
638 185
168 878
408 706
456 627
677 455
195 705
910 382
1 187 005
1 031 096
1 686 145
$
Local
Roads
grant
973 772
1 437 378
2 894 067
856 650
1 864 746
1 481 446
1 752 191
1 388 892
3 542 256
1 036 674
1 572 747
934 939
430 470
1 007 975
1 131 902
1 877 770
479 953
1 149 645
4 490 479
3 278 837
3 400 465
$
Total
grant
813.14
67.98
19.59 #
19.59 #
19.59 #
19.59 #
1 021.00
640.16
171.10
413.35
193.46
182.73
165.46
342.64
19.59 #
19.59 #
19.59 #
19.59 #
494.98
38.65
48.22
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
550.38
1 205.16
2 100.73
1 948.01
1 179.61
2 533.27
593.62
585.18
994.07
1 154.09
1 002.49
619.60
649.53
592.33
2 029.45
1 963.64
2 060.05
1 035.70
543.00
1 765.58
1 043.41
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
650 088
903 757
1 777 324
541 821
638 452
695 852
1 105 119
859 917
2 842 927
446 534
905 293
310 942
274 099
627 921
705 077
1 243 361
297 249
251 406
3 461 418
2 355 209
1 796 285
$
General
Purpose
grant
367 089
509 020
1246 072
352 595
1 694 145
821 849
725 128
553 347
879 506
300 738
614 752
622 702
175 531
1 247 924
478 990
705 329
203 564
898 800
1 245 195
1 123 519
2 018 859
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
1 017 177
1 412 777
3 023 396
894 416
2 332 597
1 517 701
1 830 247
1 413 264
3 722 433
747 272
1 520 045
933 644
449 630
1 875 845
1 184 067
1 948 690
500 813
1 150 206
4 706 613
3 478 728
3 815 144
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
Appendix D
207
208
ACLG
category
RAL
RAS
RAM
UDS
UDL
RAL
URS
RAS
RAS
UDS
RAS
RAS
RTX
RAS
RAS
RAM
RSG
RAL
RTL
RAL
RAS
RAS
RTM
UDS
Council Name
Carnarvon (S)
Chapman Valley (S)
Chittering (S)
Claremont (T)
Cockburn (C)
Collie (S)
Coolgardie (S)
Coorow (S)
Corrigin (S)
Cottesloe (T)
Cranbrook (S)
Cuballing (S)
Cue (S)
Cunderdin (S)
Dalwallinu (S)
Dandaragan (S)
Dardanup (S)
Denmark (S)
Derby-West
Kimberley (S)
DonnybrookBalingup (S)
Dowerin (S)
Dumbleyung (S)
Dundas (S)
East Fremantle (T)
7 448
1 204
669
765
5 360
7 940
5 322
12 709
3 252
1 352
1 263
302
866
1 144
8 152
1 275
1 185
3 968
9 332
88 702
9 822
4 310
1 069
6 166
No.
Populationa
3
92 725
2 553
1 867
1 541
102 706
1 842
518
6 934
7 187
1 872
13 716
1 250
3 390
4
3 095
4 137
30 400
1 685
148
5
1 220
4 007
53 000
sq km
37
624
988
939
660
1 807
617
393
1 231
1 910
781
744
558
1 015
47
1 076
876
843
413
726
47
401
872
1 525
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
66 414
439 855
512 861
478 330
661 424
1 011 205
409 887
417 950
1 072 873
1 001 594
468 839
403 337
357 679
576 837
91 969
690 951
502 033
444 085
407 153
1 186 356
92 801
508 586
439 799
991 152
$
Local
Roads
grant
212 339
1 385 603
1 154 357
1 071 625
1 526 190
6 070 228
1 079 275
1 134 896
1 600 221
1 967 769
1 114 546
1 231 152
905 810
997 345
251 687
1 480 790
1 185 612
829 714
2 129 347
2 924 250
285 238
986 990
659 695
3 971 889
$
Total
grant
19.59 #
785.50
958.89
775.55
161.34
637.16
125.78
56.41
162.16
714.63
511.25
2 741.11
632.95
367.58
19.59 #
619.48
576.86
97.18
184.55
19.59 #
19.59 #
111.00
205.70
483.42
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
1 794.97
704.90
519.09
509.40
1 002.16
559.60
664.32
1 063.49
871.55
524.39
600.31
542.12
641.00
568.31
1 956.79
642.15
573.10
526.79
985.84
1 634.10
1 974.49
1 268.29
504.36
649.94
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
151 418
990 965
672 167
621 662
906 112
5 300 902
701 392
751 224
552 561
1 012 369
676 579
867 394
574 338
440 613
165 246
827 602
716 261
404 066
1 804 535
1 835 206
198 789
501 277
230 410
3 123 250
$
General
Purpose
grant
69 138
455 882
535 302
528 436
640 869
996 344
465 526
877 067
887 049
1 044 092
477 844
419 701
807 463
1 013 492
96 284
600 268
521 492
464 065
424 618
1 308 618
97 939
404 398
453 617
1 036 111
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
220 556
1 446 847
1 207 469
1 150 098
1 546 981
6 297 246
1 166 918
1 628 291
1 439 610
2 056 461
1 154 423
1 287 095
1 381 801
1 454 105
261 530
1 427 870
1 237 753
868 131
2 229 153
3 143 824
296 728
905 675
684 027
4 159 361
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
2010–11 Local Government National Report
RAV
RTM
UDS
URM
RAM
RAS
RAS
UDL
URM
RTL
URS
RAM
RAS
UDV
UFM
URM
RAM
RAS
RAS
RAM
RAS
East Pilbara (S)
Esperance (S)
Exmouth (S)
Fremantle (C)
GeraldtonGreenough (C)
Gingin (S)
Gnowangerup (S)
Goomalling (S)
Gosnells (C)
Greater
Geraldton (C)
Halls Creek (S)
Harvey (S)
Irwin (S)
Jerramungup (S)
Joondalup (C)
Kalamunda (S)
Kalgoorlie/
Boulder (C)
Katanning (S)
Kellerberrin (S)
Kent (S)
Kojonup (S)
Kondinin (S)
RAS
RTL
Council Name
Koorda (S)
ACLG
category
Population
473
1 035
2 228
601
1 324
4 653
32 365
54 729
162 195
1 162
3 595
23 468
3 349
-
104 022
1 044
1 393
4 983
37 895
28 105
2 424
14 553
7 954
No.
a
2 662
7 340
2 937
6 552
1 852
1 523
95 229
349
99
6 540
2 223
1 766
143 025
-
127
1 845
5 000
3 325
1 776
19
6 261
44 500
371 696
sq km
1 088
1 334
1 133
1 305
939
693
1 341
601
1 007
1 093
430
836
1 414
-
721
587
1 010
850
790
167
287
4 233
3 237
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
595 844
652 666
605 080
594 390
498 009
444 600
1 510 495
953 380
1 947 747
518 336
347 947
1 214 695
939 078
-
1 338 934
332 314
543 026
773 738
1 151 549
342 925
364 615
2 400 954
2 079 084
$
Local
Roads
grant
1 576 686
1 215 474
1 096 639
919 303
1 420120
1 543 972
2 544 607
2 025 658
5 125 551
903 444
723 844
2 339 219
4 812 980
-
3 376 984
654 041
975 319
1 444 336
3 972 980
893 572
1 619 315
3 912 737
5 406 400
$
Total
grant
2 073.66
543.78
220.63
540.62
696.46
236.27
31.95
19.59 #
19.59 #
331.42
104.56
47.92
1 156.73
-
19.59 #
308.17
310.33
134.58
74.45
19.59 #
517.62
103.88
418.32
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
547.65
489.25
534.05
455.47
530.36
641.56
1 126.39
1 586.32
1 934.21
474.23
809.18
1 452.98
664.13
-
1 857.05
566.12
537.65
910.28
1 457.66
2 053.44
1 270.44
567.20
642.29
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
1 027 738
589 717
515 061
340 448
966 199
1 151 935
1 083 554
1 121 748
3 305 012
403 520
393 869
1 178 289
4 059 119
3 219 345
2 144 936
337 109
452 962
702 660
-
575 325
1 314 689
1 584 064
3 486 400
$
General
Purpose
grant
619 174
678 600
634 034
617 792
520 599
463 938
1 579 293
1 014 589
2 029 846
539 332
309 615
902 705
889 110
1 801 011
1 419 880
331 544
567 137
808 363
-
373 692
378 678
2 497 707
2 052 594
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
1 646 912
1 268 317
1 149 095
958 240
1 486 798
1 615 873
2 662 847
2 136 337
5 334 858
942 852
703 484
2 080 994
4 948 229
5 020 356
3 564 816
668 653
1 020 099
1 511 023
-
949 017
1 693 367
4 081 771
5 538 994
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
Appendix D
209
210
ACLG
category
RAS
UDS
RAS
RTS
RTM
UFM
RAL
RTM
UDL
RTX
RAM
RAS
RAM
RAS
UDS
RTM
RAS
RAS
RAS
UFM
RTX
RSG
RAS
RAS
RAS
URS
UDS
Council Name
Kulin (S)
Kwinana (T)
Lake Grace (S)
Laverton (S)
Leonora (S)
Mandurah (C)
Manjimup (S)
Meekatharra (S)
Melville (C)
Menzies (S)
Merredin (S)
Mingenew (S)
Moora (S)
Morawa (S)
Mosman Park (T)
Mount Magnet (S)
Mount Marshall (S)
Mukinbudin (S)
Mullewa (S)
Mundaring (S)
Murchison (S)
Murray (S)
Nannup (S)
Narembeen (S)
Narrogin (S)
Narrogin (T)
Nedlands (C)
22 404
4 731
909
854
1 304
14 763
114
38 264
878
568
686
664
9 392
882
2 575
457
3 362
250
101 052
1 218
10 162
68 269
1 666
760
1 482
28 044
902
No.
Populationa
21
13
1 618
3 821
2 953
1 821
49 500
644
10 707
3 414
10 134
13 877
4
3 528
3 788
1 927
3 372
128 353
53
100 733
7 028
174
31 743
183 198
10 747
118
4 790
sq km
150
67
724
1 412
436
706
1 860
650
1 176
905
1 719
707
43
950
937
456
1 282
2 087
529
2 524
1 305
627
1 332
4 113
2 282
331
1 438
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
280 649
141 323
370 483
714 874
436 902
930 909
727 028
916 815
589 742
468 378
825 716
422 227
75 506
498 636
813 041
279 321
745 431
835 688
992 360
994 698
1 315 683
1 092 975
616 285
787 423
1 084 921
552 754
700 106
$
Local
Roads
grant
719 599
1 040 768
818 803
1 553 507
1 063 964
2 344 436
2 556 968
3 308 055
840 758
1 248 253
1 821 209
1 565 773
259 518
1 213 100
1 324 663
546 744
1 839 550
2 094 333
2 972 221
2 718 509
3 171 479
2 430 535
1 039 850
1 935 864
1 713 554
1 102 206
1 224 904
$
Total
grant
19.59 #
190.12
493.20
982.01
480.88
95.75
16 052.11
62.49
285.90
1 373.02
1 451.16
1 722.21
19.59 #
810.05
198.69
585.17
325.44
5 034.58
19.59 #
1 415.28
182.62
19.59 #
254.24
1 511.11
424.18
19.59 #
581.82
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
1 870.99
2 109.30
511.72
506.28
1 002.07
1 318.57
390.88
1 410.48
501.48
517.54
480.35
597.21
1 755.95
524.88
867.71
612.55
581.46
400.43
1 875.92
394.10
1 008.19
1 743.18
462.68
191.45
475.43
1 669.95
486.86
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
452 365
942 449
469 755
878 729
657 042
1 481 110
1 917 432
2 505 569
-
817 162
1 043 089
1 198 221
189 725
748 623
536 084
280 209
1 146 430
1 318 823
2 058 716
1 806 229
1 944 525
1 415 159
443 816
1 203 350
658 689
583 424
549 890
$
General
Purpose
grant
293 428
149 227
386 151
746 085
434 650
755 412
745 475
926 827
-
488 076
858 261
296 590
78 481
519 156
616 567
451 843
775317
855 990
1 029 258
1 019 980
1 440 248
1 155 725
555 711
754 793
1 126 377
605 405
727 701
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
745 793
1 091 676
855 906
1 624 814
1 091 692
2 236 522
2 662 907
3 432 396
-
1 305 238
1 901 350
1 494 811
268 206
1 267 779
1 152 651
732 052
1 921 747
2 174 813
3 087 974
2 826 209
3 384 773
2 570 884
999 527
1 958 143
1 785 066
1 188 829
1 277 591
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
2010–11 Local Government National Report
ACLG
category
RTM
RAM
RAM
RAS
UDS
RAS
UCC
RAS
RAM
URS
RAS
RAM
UDL
URS
RTX
RSG
RTS
UDM
UDV
UDS
UFL
RAS
RAS
Council Name
Ngaanyatjarraku (S)*
Northam (S)
Northampton (S)
Nungarin (S)
Peppermint Grove (S)
Perenjori (S)
Perth (C)
Pingelly (S)
Plantagenet (S)
Port Hedland (T)
Quairading (S)
Ravensthorpe (S)
Rockingham (C)
Roebourne (S)
Sandstone (S)
SerpentineJarrahdale (S)
Shark Bay (S)
South Perth (C)
Stirling (C)
Subiaco (C)
Swan (S)
Tammin (S)
Three Springs (S)
Population
732
460
110 051
18 625
198 803
43 776
962
16 492
133
18 828
100 231
2 402
1 129
14 072
5 064
1 260
17 093
536
1 741
241
3 541
11 044
1 559
No.
a
2 629
1 087
1 043
7
100
20
25 000
905
28 218
15 196
261
12 872
2 000
11 844
4 792
1 223
9
8 214
2
1 145
12 499
1 443
159 948
sq km
713
504
1 293
89
1 024
191
573
651
1 152
601
879
1 295
891
649
1 299
566
91
1 444
9
506
1 047
740
1 317
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
376 871
262 316
1 940 562
201 363
1 922 851
355 112
367 602
769 717
585 803
1 034 389
1 466 176
662 623
503 781
630 600
760 635
316 051
346 244
665 459
18 220
262 273
575 944
797 602
1 043 232
$
Local
Roads
grant
804 807
820 288
4 096 735
566 273
5 817 898
1 212 793
1 404 949
2 271 468
1 823 389
3 670 657
3 429 951
1 304 250
1 277 346
2 758 996
1 213 825
885 608
681 139
1 375 337
52 331
926 015
1 135 761
2 652 862
3 922 483
$
Total
grant
584.61
1 212.98
19.59 #
19.59 #
19.59 #
19.59 #
1 078.32
91.06
9 305.16
140.02
19.59 #
267.12
685.18
151.25
89.49
452.03
19.59 #
1 324.40
19.59 #
2 754.12
158.10
167.99
1 846.86
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
528.57
520.47
1 500.82
2 262.51
1 877.78
1 859.23
641.54
1 182.36
508.51
1 721.11
1 668.00
511.68
565.41
971.65
585.55
558.39
3 804.88
460.84
2 024.44
518.33
550.09
1 077.84
792.13
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
448 396
584 649
2 270 267
379 088
4 060 072
882 462
1 086 944
1 573 552
1 296 757
2 762 312
2 092 802
672 304
810 551
2 230 157
474 858
596 788
360 859
743 818
35 151
695 476
586 582
1 943 963
3 016 912
$
General
Purpose
grant
391 719
268 916
2 067 580
207408
2 018 062
380108
381602
797 041
421 578
785 050
1 581 986
688 617
518 487
966 756
818 725
378 399
358 900
783 756
18 937
273 299
649 165
753 019
1 126 684
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
840 115
853 565
4 337 847
586 496
6 078 134
1 262 570
1 468 546
2 370 593
1 718 335
3 547 362
3 674 788
1 360 921
1 329 038
3 196 913
1 293 583
975 187
719 759
1 527 574
54 088
968 775
1 235 747
2 696 982
4 143 596
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
Appendix D
211
212
ACLG
category
RAM
RAS
RTX
UDM
RAS
UDM
RAS
RAS
UFV
RAM
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RTS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RTL
RTX
RAS
RAM
Council Name
Toodyay (S)
Trayning (S)
Upper Gascoyne (S)
Victoria Park (T)
Victoria Plains (S)
Vincent (T)
Wagin (S)
Wandering (S)
Wanneroo (C)
Waroona (S)
West Arthur (S)
Westonia (S)
Wickepin (S)
Williams (S)
Wiluna (S)
Wongan-Ballidu (S)
Woodanilling (S)
Wyalkatchem (S)
Wyndham-East
Kimberley (S)
Yalgoo (S)
Yilgarn (S)
York (S)
3 539
1 544
265
7 863
533
452
1 469
755
1 006
771
208
900
3 772
144 148
422
1 910
30 870
941
32 256
313
400
4 629
No.
Populationa
2 010
30 720
33 258
121 189
1 743
1 126
3 368
184 000
2 295
1 989
3 268
2 850
835
688
1 955
1 950
11
2 563
18
46 602
1 632
1 683
sq km
674
2 713
1 188
1 082
721
521
1 321
1 943
488
873
882
850
335
1 170
356
786
143
804
160
1 867
764
635
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
570 663
1 064 176
558 255
1 038 752
389 001
262 981
704 425
742 473
700 667
462 994
443 990
785 381
361 391
2 034 504
868 162
432 665
317 037
419 556
319 585
752 486
409 244
594 098
$
Local
Roads
grant
1 186 019
1 517 143
1 776 604
4 312 732
1 080 775
631 853
1 517 607
1 819 404
771 773
1 127 288
941 006
1 064 184
1 035 380
4 858 723
1 039 325
1 096 242
921 858
665 736
951 560
2 645 681
1 121 315
1 311 154
$
Total
grant
173.88
293.37
4 597.54
416.38
1 297.89
816.09
553.56
1 426.40
70.68
861.60
2 389.50
309.78
178.68
19.59 #
405.60
347.42
19.59 #
261.62
19.59 #
6 048.55
1 780.18
154.91
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
846.68
392.25
469.91
960.03
539.53
504.76
533.25
382.13
1 435.79
530.35
503.39
923.98
1 078.78
1 738.89
2 438.66
550.46
2 217.04
521.84
1 997.41
403.05
535.66
935.59
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
644 779
474 626
1 276 603
3 430 515
724 849
386 509
852 061
1 128 420
74 505
696 055
520 779
292 133
706 213
3 016 827
179 346
695 303
627 238
257 951
662 389
1 983 711
746 117
751 340
$
General
Purpose
grant
565 241
1 130 045
580 250
1 074 596
405 790
648 077
733 974
782 551
284 392
469 080
461 622
975 417
352 762
2 216 763
201 708
450 514
330 533
469 896
329 622
869 695
426 585
509 120
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
1 210 020
1 604 671
1 856 853
4 505 111
1 130 639
1 034 586
1 586 035
1 910 971
358 897
1 165 135
982 401
1 267 550
1 058 975
5 233 590
381 054
1 145 817
957 771
727 847
992 011
2 853 406
1 172 702
1 260 460
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
2010–11 Local Government National Report
ACLG
category
UCC
UFM
UFS
URS
UFS
RAM
RAV
UDM
UDV
RAM
UDL
RAL
RAS
URS
RAL
RAV
RAS
RAS
RAS
UFS
RTX
Council Name
South Australia
Adelaide (C)
Adelaide Hills
Alexandrina
Anangu Pitjantjatjara*
Barossa
Barunga West (DC)
Berri Barmera
Burnside (C)
Campbelltown (C)
Ceduna (DC)
Charles Sturt (C)
Clare and
Gilbert Valleys
Cleve (DC)
Coober Pedy (DC)
Coorong (DC)
Copper Coast (DC)
Elliston (DC)
Flinders Ranges
Franklin Harbour (DC)
Gawler (M)
Gerard*
83
20 730
1 355
1 784
1 169
12 901
5 825
1 913
1 908
8 743
106 995
3 797
49 281
44 300
11 240
2 631
22 514
2 388
23 160
39 852
19 444
No.
Populationa
0
41
3 278
4 106
6 679
776
8 863
78
4 488
1 886
56
5 433
24
27
507
1 581
891
0
1 826
792
15
sq km
10
178
935
1 261
1 147
943
1 884
421
1 395
1 826
565
1 709
254
233
414
1 014
963
707
1 337
1 088
130
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
17 467
654 729
227 962
267 180
364 341
271 041
590 226
42 430
1 083 650
341 097
1 033 888
393 806
471 612
427 977
197 162
183 414
403 990
131 101
488 241
886 470
210 433
$
Local
Roads
grant
57 941
1 592 363
1 132 346
1 323 664
1 115 466
1 926 279
2 673 930
806 799
1 998 634
737 113
3 117 834
2 491 679
1 431 460
1 290 810
2 396 157
508 505
842 496
1 168 190
991 359
1 662 669
589 145
$
Total
grant
487.64
45.23
667.44
592.20
642.54
128.30
357.72
399.57
479.55
45.30
19.48 #
552.51
19.48 #
19.48 #
195.64
123.56
19.48 #
434.29
21.72
19.48 #
19.48 #
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
1 746.70
3 678.25
243.81
211.88
317.65
287.42
313.28
100.78
776.81
186.80
1 829.89
230.43
1 856.74
1 836.81
476.24
1 80.88
419.51
185.43
365.18
814.77
1 618.72
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
42 024
1 022 021
985 779
1 151 568
739 858
1 630 410
2 143 827
833 162
952 796
443 538
2 163 390
2 159 968
992 829
887 647
2 274 657
354 349
457 473
1 076 810
563 492
800 238
396 924
$
General
Purpose
grant
18 203
267 678
237 429
959 143
379 121
295 990
613 646
44 099
773 685
355 810
1 078 328
410 578
489 249
443 295
203 987
184 735
422 654
136 626
514 588
659 745
214 587
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
60 227
1 289 699
1 223 208
2 110 711
1 118 979
1 926 400
2 757 473
877 261
1 726 481
799 348
3 241 718
2 570 546
1 482 078
1 330 942
2 478 644
539 084
880 127
1 213 436
1 078 080
1 459 983
611 511
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
Appendix D
213
214
82
UDM
RAM
RAS
RAS
RAM
RSG
RAM
RAV
RAL
RTX
UDL
RAL
UDM
URS
URS
RAM
RAV
RAL
RTX
Grant (DC)
Holdfast Bay (C)
Kangaroo Island
Karoonda-East
Murray (DC)
Kimba (DC)
Kingston (DC)
Light
Lower Eyre
Peninsula (DC)
Loxton Waikerie (DC)
Mallala (DC)
Maralinga*
Marion (C)
Mid Murray
Mitcham (C)
Mount Barker (DC)
Mount Gambier (C)
Mount
Remarkable (DC)
Murray Bridge
Naracoorte Lucindale
Northern Areas
*
RAM
RAL
Goyder
Nipapanha
8 489
RAM
Council Name
4 866
19 402
2 951
25 216
29 864
65 315
8 511
84 142
110
8 385
12 043
4 820
13 658
2 469
1 125
1 193
4 612
35 683
8 652
4 285
No.
ACLG
category
Populationa
2 974
-
4 531
1 824
3 412
27
593
76
6 252
56
-
932
7 964
4 755
1 273
3 351
3 966
4 409
4 434
14
1 924
6 688
sq km
2 197
10
1 614
974
2 064
198
724
395
3 381
470
147
955
2 315
1 378
1 453
741
1 716
1 298
1 363
171
1 598
3 247
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
361 001
1 7391
430 739
405 333
324 849
337 433
1 535 791
671 787
576 186
835 194
46 905
220 635
1 424 421
361 502
356 029
223 735
268 726
492 849
1 152 772
330 665
481 435
600 620
$
Local
Roads
grant
1 481 218
43 353
2 170 094
3 291 932
1 787 751
2 072 457
2 117 453
1 943 931
3 396 908
2 474 032
131 474
1 113 866
4 424 650
735 377
622 046
814 536
1 146 314
1 588 386
2 523 748
1 025 665
1 236 856
2 916 237
$
Total
grant
230.21
316.61
204.90
148.78
495.73
68.81
19.48 #
19.48 #
331.42
19.48 #
768.81
106.53
249.13
77.57
19.48 #
239.29
780.08
918.30
297.26
19.48 #
87.31
540.40
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
164.32
1 739.10
266.88
416.15
157.39
1 704.21
2 121.26
1 700.73
170.42
1 777.01
319.08
231.03
615.30
262.34
245.03
301.94
156.60
379.70
845.76
1 933.71
301.27
184.98
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
1 221 036
26 957
1 895 897
3 081 327
1 594 563
1 891 176
609 884
1 311 869
3 074 587
1 705 398
87 808
973 621
3 270 249
407 524
279 260
583 378
956 571
1 164 732
1 370 976
717 382
823 409
2 524 022
$
General
Purpose
grant
375 056
18 124
563 910
421 926
338 130
567 698
1 589 402
697 826
600 255
870 238
48 881
418 628
1 301 362
377 238
373 344
232 791
279 845
315 018
1 014 390
343 080
312 683
625 016
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
1 596 092
45 081
2 459 807
3 503 253
1 932 693
2 458 874
2 199 286
2 009 695
3 674 842
2 575 636
136 689
1 392 249
4 571 611
784 762
652 604
816 169
1 236 416
1 479 750
2 385 366
1 060 462
1 136 092
3 149 038
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
2010–11 Local Government National Report
UDM
UFV
RAS
RTL
RTL
RAM
UFL
UDL
URS
URS
RAV
UDS
RAL
RAS
URS
UDV
RAM
RAM
RAL
UDL
RAM
Norwood Payneham
and St Peters (C)
Onkaparinga
Orroroo/
Carrieton (DC)
Outback Areas
Community
Developm’t Trust*
Outback Communities
Authority
Peterborough (DC)
Playford (C)
Port Adelaide
Enfield (C)
Port Augusta (C)
Port Lincoln (C)
Port Pirie
Prospect (C)
Renmark
Paringa (DC)
Robe (DC)
Roxby Downs (M)
Salisbury (C)
Southern Mallee (DC)
Streaky Bay (DC)
Tatiara (DC)
Tea Tree Gully (C)
Tumby Bay (DC)
Council Name
ACLG
category
2 757
1 00 155
7 118
2 181
2 189
130 022
4 484
1 480
9 882
20 910
18 076
14 593
14 669
111 455
77 469
1 973
-
3 690
938
160 404
36 128
No.
Populationa
2 670
95
6 525
6 241
5 702
158
109
1 098
900
8
1 783
32
1 189
94
344
3 006
-
-
3 306
519
15
sq km
1 108
586
1 932
1 729
1 335
744
38
434
495
87
1 173
157
408
664
776
1 230
-
-
1 627
1 436
157
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
233 959
1 011 136
854 475
409 375
358 168
1 304 893
64 268
96 915
201 534
182 351
388 332
199 900
259 923
1 140 538
1 050 693
247 346
-
-
227 032
2 215 362
321 390
$
Local
Roads
grant
784 514
2 961 860
2 710 688
1 683 208
1 394 152
9 029 382
151 603
125 741
2 361 038
589 616
4 230 303
1 067 101
3 147 692
3 311 352
8 635 979
144 7397
-
1 312 312
995 985
8 390 749
1 025 057
$
Total
grant
199.69
19.48 #
260.78
584.06
473.27
59.41
19.48 #
19.48 #
218.53
19.48 #
212.55
59.43
196.86
19.48 #
97.91
608.24
-
355.64
819.78
38.50
19.48 #
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
211.15
1725.49
442.27
236.77
268.29
1 753.89
1 691.26
223.31
407.14
2 095.99
331.06
1 273.25
637.07
1 717.68
1 353.99
201.09
-
-
139.54
1 542.73
2 047.07
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
542 297
2 008 842
2 023 272
1 388 478
1 084 744
7 338 261
89 426
29 995
2 353 859
421 467
4 075 442
945 249
2 844 453
2 261 742
7 697 165
1 298 110
1 362 573
-
838 159
5 990 126
728 865
$
General
Purpose
grant
243 363
1 053 491
522 246
900 614
372 518
1 366 003
66 178
101 009
208 643
189 479
404 157
207 711
270 034
1 189 984
1 629 635
229 167
-
-
611 251
2 129 480
334 135
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
785 660
3 062 333
2 545 518
2 289 092
1 457 262
8 704 264
155 604
131 004
2 562 502
610 946
4 479 599
1 152 960
3 114 487
3 451 726
9 326 800
1 527 277
1 362 573
-
1 449 410
8 119 606
1 063 000
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
Appendix D
215
216
UDM
URS
RAL
UDS
RAV
UDM
URS
RAS
RTX
RAM
RAV
Council Name
Unley (C)
Victor Harbor (C)
Wakefield
Walkerville (M)
Wattle Range
West Torrens (C)
Whyalla (C)
Wudinna (DC)
Yalata
Yankalilla (DC)
Yorke Peninsula (DC)
RAL
URS
URS
URS
RAM
RAL
UFM
RAV
URS
RAL
RAS
RAL
RAM
Break O’Day (M)
Brighton (M)
Burnie (C)
Central Coast (M)
Central Highlands (M)
Circular Head (M)
Clarence (C)
Derwent Valley (M)
Devonport (C)
Dorset (M)
Flinders (M)
George Town (M)
Glamorgan Spring Bay (M)
Tasmania ACLG
category
4 500
6 830
897
7 377
25 518
10 036
52 140
8 300
2 324
21 732
19 877
15 807
6 410
11 736
4 577
104
1 345
23 028
55 620
12 554
7 338
6 756
13 608
38 465
No.
Populationa
2 587
653
1 994
3 223
111
4 103
377
4 891
7 976
931
610
171
3 521
5 928
757
-
5 369
1 072
37
3 946
4
3 462
386
14
sq km
354
273
385
739
249
330
456
769
752
663
346
171
547
3 884
543
64
1 707
280
290
2 456
35
2 682
376
164
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
901 839
709 536
551899
1 469 552
1 092 200
604 225
1 516 980
1 449 078
1 053 856
1 761 247
1 152 212
486 208
1 283 825
727 188
134 380
37 764
350 587
356 890
534 226
491 605
67 926
686 707
222 254
339 321
$
Local
Roads
grant
1 107 024
1 590 028
1 139 737
2 880 994
1 942 893
1 701 130
2 530 536
2 428 981
1 790 139
3 723 401
2 269 719
1 607 881
2 264 252
2 005 241
241 557
183 447
1 614 546
4 543 255
1 617 540
1 949 774
210 848
2 084 184
487 298
1 088 506
$
Total
grant
45.60
128.92
655.34
191.33
33.34
109.30
19.44
118.06
316.82
90.29
56.22
70.96
152.95
108.90
23.42
1 400.80
939.75
181.79
#
19.48 #
116.15
19.48 #
206.85
19.48 #
19.48 #
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
2 547.57
2 599.03
1 433.50
1 988.57
340 272
908 362
630 088
1 438 504
828 957
1 216 054
1 830.98
4 386.35
1 056 702
891 669
731 983
2 101 693
1 341 650
1 107 301
1 026 231
1 385 313
105 569
151 263
1 304 387
4 123 569
1 121 695
1 589 405
147 938
1 523 250
279 001
774 177
$
General
Purpose
grant
3 326.71
1 884.37
1 401.40
2 656.48
3 330.09
2 843.32
2 347.03
187.23
247.48
590.06
205.38
1 274.61
1 842.16
200.16
1 940.74
256.04
591.10
2 069.03
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
869 727
732 872
588 041
1 502 793
1 236 791
631 875
1 585 203
1 491 826
1 099 445
1 826 945
1 177 548
500 139
1 322 524
756 529
140 366
39 355
365 536
370 661
554 807
511 059
70 554
465 593
234 153
425 279
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
1 209 999
1 641 234
1 218 129
2 941 297
2 065 748
1 847 929
2 641 905
2 383 495
1 831 428
3 928 638
2 519 198
1 607 440
2 348 755
2 141 842
245 935
190 618
1 669 923
4 494 230
1 676 502
2 100 464
218 492
1 988 843
513 154
1 199 456
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
2010–11 Local Government National Report
ACLG
category
UFM
UCC
RAV
RAL
RAS
UFM
RAL
URM
RAV
RAV
RAV
RAL
RAM
RAV
RAL
UFS
Council Name
Glenorchy (C)
Hobart (C)
Huon Valley (M)
Kentish (M)
King Island (M)
Kingborough (M)
Latrobe (M)
Launceston (C)
Meander Valley (M)
Northern
Midlands (M)
Sorell (M)
Southern
Midlands (M)
Tasman (M)
Waratah Wynyard (M)
West Coast (M)
West Tamar (M)
22 223
5 242
14 117
2 374
6 054
13 127
12 602
19 547
65 548
9 616
33 464
1 700
6 281
15 134
49 887
44 628
No.
Populationa
690
9 574
3 526
659
2 611
583
5 126
3 320
1 411
600
719
1 094
1 155
5 497
78
121
sq km
454
195
529
257
803
396
982
846
732
286
534
436
443
775
312
311
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
1 018 439
596 830
1 132 732
415 939
1 183 808
825 510
2 016 571
1 882 681
2 701 310
687 674
1 185 124
641 749
915 430
1 140 806
1 803 697
1 433 976
$
Local
Roads
grant
2 515 758
1 907 290
2 922 614
844 669
2 757 170
2 241 747
3 525 399
3 799 695
3 975 505
1 497 820
1 835 636
1 186 650
2 352 726
2 812 442
2 773 456
2 301 505
$
Total
grant
67.38
249.99
126.79
180.59
259.89
107.89
119.73
98.07
19.44 #
84.25
19.44 #
320.53
228.83
110.46
19.44 #
19.44 #
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
2010 –11 actual entitlement
2 243.26
3 060.67
2 141.27
1 618.44
1 474.23
2 084.62
2 053.53
2 225.39
3 690.31
2 404.45
2 219.33
1 471.90
2 066.43
1 472.01
5 781.08
4 610.86
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
1 346 705
1 273 111
1 850 372
535 682
1 591 522
1 719 323
1 500 056
1 934 900
1 589 871
714 058
682 130
577 076
1 449 393
1 503 022
999 670
892 632
$
General
Purpose
grant
1 056 883
614 402
1 190 228
434 424
1 228 915
881 242
2 097 612
1 950 191
2 817 068
705 247
1 225 040
670 551
980 876
1 232 587
1 930 590
1 470 447
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
2 403 588
1 887 513
3 040 600
970 106
2 820 437
2 600 565
3 597 668
3 885 091
44 06 939
1 419 305
1 907 170
1 247 627
2 430 269
2 735 609
2 930 260
2 363 079
2011–12 estimated entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
Appendix D
217
218
RTL
RAS
RTL
RAS
UCC
RTL
URS
RAV
RTL
UFS
RTL
RTM
n/a
RTL
UFS
RTL
Alice Springs
Barkly*
Belyuen*
Central Desert*
Coomalie
Darwin
East Arnhem*
Katherine
Litchfield
MacDonnell*
Palmerston
Roper Gulf*
Tiwi Islands*
Trust Account
Victoria – Daly*
Wagait
West Arnhem*
6 862
335
6 924
-
2 546
6 962
29 587
7 200
19 001
10178
9 967
76 530
1 306
4 782
207
8 143
28 105
No.
49 698
6
167 575
-
7 501
185 176
56
268 784
3 072
7 421
33 302
142
1 512
282 090
42
322 693
327
sq km
1 065 620
51 309
1 405 409
1 116 985
810 952
873 595
654 636
745 940
2 232 003
561 449
1 032 648
1 780 967
377 495
793 574
30 169
438 812
887 472
$
Local
Roads
grant
2 070 888
60 337
2 658 796
1 116 985
1 032 265
2 438 943
1 252 786
2 495 052
2 616 140
972 163
3 673 738
3 328 149
403 898
1 845 780
46 572
1 993 379
1 586 736
$
Total
grant
146.50
26.95
181.02
-
86.93
224.84
20.22 #
242.93
20.22 #
40.35
264.98
20.22 #
20.22 #
220.03
79.24
190.91
24.88
$ per
capita
General
Purpose
grant #
903.83
3 946.85
1 249.25
513.56
876.70
937.33
3 273.18
433.43
2 825.32
3 119.16
834.13
3 590.66
2 301.80
375.75
359.15
706.62
3 507.79
$ per km
Local
Roads
grant
1 091 829
6 824
1 312 779
-
268 986
1 667 251
625 616
1 800 604
402 973
373 982
2 795 405
1 604 322
27 441
1 070 006
23178
1 610 635
580 939
$
General
Purpose
grant
1 085 371
52 260
1 454 449
1 177 632
825 984
898 900
713 561
958 302
2 269 352
571 857
1 051 789
1 843 248
384 493
816 165
30 728
451 574
908 621
$
Local
Roads
grant
$
Total
grant
2 177 200
59 084
2 767 228
1 177 632
1 094 970
2 566 151
1 339 177
2 758 906
2 672 325
945 839
3 847 194
3 447 570
411 934
1 886 171
53 906
2 062 209
1 489 560
2011–12 estimated entitlement
C
=
CityS= Shire#
=
Minimum Grant
DC =
District Council
CG =
Community Government
M
=
Municipal
T
=
Town
B
=
Borough
RC =
Regional City
R
=
Regional
Bd =
Board
n/a =
not applicable
*
=
Indigenous local governing body
1 179
13
1 125
2 175
925
932
200
1 721
790
180
1 238
496
164
2 112
84
621
253
km
Council Total Road
Area
Length
Population estimates are as at 31 December 2009
URS
Northern Territory
Council Name
Key to symbols in Table D.1
a
ACLG
category
Populationa
2010 –11 actual entitlement
Table D.1: Distribution of financial assistance grants to local governing bodies by classification and population 2010 –11 and 2011–12 cont.
2010–11 Local Government National Report
APPENDIX E
Ranking of local governing bodies on a relative needs
basis 2010 –11
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
Australian Classification of Local Government (ACLG) category is also provided
(see Appendix F).
Councils are ranked from the council in the greatest assessed relative need to the council in
the least assessed relative need. For each state and the Northern Territory, the 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. For instance, Appendix D shows that in Victoria, Banyule
City Council received $3 404 594 in general purpose grants in 2010 –11 while Frankston
219
2010–11 Local Government National Report
City Council received $7 458 726. This translates in to Banyule’s grant being $27.56 per
capita, while Frankston’s grant $58.01. 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 54th among
Victoria’s councils for general purpose grants while Banyule is ranked 64th.
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
220
Hay (S)
Bland (S)
Lord Howe Island (Bd)
Wakool (S)
Walgett (S)
Warren (S)
Coonamble (S)
Coolamon (S)
Bombala
Murrumbidgee (S)
Wentworth (S)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Weddin (S)
Cobar (S)
26
Tibooburra (VC)
Bogan (S)
9
14
Balranald (S)
8
13
Jerilderie (S)
7
Silverton Village (VC)
Carrathool (S)
6
12
Bourke (S)
5
Lachlan (S)
Brewarrina (S)
4
11
Conargo (S)
3
Lockhart (S)
Urana (S)
2
10
Central Darling (S)
RAM
RAL
RAM
RAM
RAM
RAM
RAM
RAL
RAM
RTX
RAL
RAM
RTL
RTX
RTX
RAL
RAM
RAM
RAM
RAS
RAM
RAM
RAS
RAS
RAS
RTM
Classification
366.60
369.93
376.88
378.52
383.76
404.00
405.56
419.53
428.93
451.42
459.80
463.11
472.92
478.51
478.51
503.81
508.21
511.36
599.98
612.04
651.19
684.37
703.27
714.12
749.22
1 041.98
$ per capita
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Rank
Fairfield (C)
Holroyd (C)
Lane Cove (M)
Ryde (C)
Bankstown (C)
Willoughby (C)
Kogarah (C)
Hurstville (C)
Parramatta (C)
Auburn (C)
Manly
Rockdale (C)
Marrickville
Burwood
Woollahra (M)
Leichhardt (M)
Canada Bay (C)
Strathfield (M)
Botany Bay (C)
North Sydney
Canterbury (C)
Ashfield (M)
Queanbeyan (C)
Randwick (C)
Waverley
Sydney (C)
Council name
UDV
UDL
UDM
UDL
UDV
UDM
UDM
UDL
UDV
UDL
UDM
UDL
UDL
UDM
UDM
UDM
UDL
UDM
UDM
UDM
UDV
UDM
URM
UDV
UDM
UCC
Classification
Roads Grant
Council name
General Purpose Grant
1
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010 –11
2 496.25
2 513.29
2 533.48
2 552.03
2 562.91
2 595.29
2 629.92
2 633.93
2 637.99
2 657.02
2 665.71
2 720.18
2 745.36
2 761.44
2 761.62
2 773.28
2 797.48
2 850.38
2 867.07
2 871.72
2 939.81
2 979.85
2 981.91
3 010.27
3 440.81
3 553.78
$ per km
Appendix E
221
222
Narrandera (S)
Harden (S)
Warrumbungle (S)
Narromine (S)
Tenterfield (S)
Tumbarumba (S)
Gwydir (S)
Berrigan (S)
Gilgandra (S)
Boorowa
Greater Hume (S)
Forbes (S)
Murray (S)
Temora (S)
Deniliquin
Snowy River (S)
Narrabri (S)
Junee (S)
Guyra (S)
Gundagai (S)
Upper Lachlan (S)
Wellington
Corowa (S)
Glen Innes Severn
Cootamundra (S)
Walcha
Oberon
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
RAL
RAM
RAL
RAL
RAV
RAL
RAL
RAM
RAM
RAL
RAV
RAL
URS
RAL
RAL
RAL
RAV
RAM
RAM
RAL
RAL
RAM
RAL
RAL
RAV
RAM
RAL
Classification
227.42
230.96
232.59
236.28
237.39
244.13
249.05
251.13
252.27
253.02
254.02
254.99
255.10
274.88
278.72
280.69
303.77
306.37
311.23
319.70
324.32
324.73
327.14
327.63
335.86
343.88
347.39
$ per capita
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
Rank
Port Macquarie-Hastings
Wyong (S)
Byron (S)
Lake Macquarie (C)
Ballina (S)
Gosford (C)
Penrith (C)
Hills (S)
Shellharbour (C)
Camden
Broken Hill (C)
Newcastle (C)
Tweed (S)
Hunters Hill (M)
Orange (C)
Ku-ring-gai
Hornsby (S)
Pittwater
Liverpool (C)
Blacktown (C)
Wollongong (C)
Sutherland (S)
Campbelltown (C)
Albury (C)
Coffs Harbour (C)
Warringah
Mosman (M)
Council name
URL
UFV
URM
URV
URM
UFV
UFV
UFV
URM
UFM
URS
URV
URL
UDS
URM
UDL
UFV
UDM
UFV
UDV
URV
UDV
UFV
URM
URL
UDV
UDS
Classification
Local Roads Grant
Council name
General Purpose Grant
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010 –11 cont.
1 888.34
1 922.34
1 929.85
1 931.50
1 959.90
2 020.91
2 045.39
2 069.81
2 107.15
2 116.51
2 130.13
2 156.12
2 167.39
2 181.00
2 200.82
2 202.80
2 232.56
2 252.57
2 259.10
2 288.90
2 295.17
2 309.33
2 321.44
2 339.64
2 387.19
2 418.79
2 479.92
$ per km
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Parkes (S)
Leeton (S)
Moree Plains (S)
Broken Hill (C)
Tumut (S)
Cowra (S)
Blayney (S)
Gunnedah (S)
Uralla (S)
Inverell (S)
Bellingen (S)
Young (S)
Cabonne
Upper Hunter (S)
Lithgow (C)
Mid-Western Regional
Dungog (S)
Muswellbrook (S)
Bega Valley (S)
Richmond Valley
Clarence Valley
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Kempsey (S)
Liverpool Plains (S)
57
80
Cooma-Monaro (S)
56
Great Lakes
Gloucester (S)
55
79
Kyogle
54
URS
URM
URM
URS
URM
RAV
RAL
URS
URS
RAV
RAV
RAV
RAV
RAV
RAL
RAV
RAL
RAV
RAV
URS
RAV
RAV
RAV
RAL
RAV
RAL
RAL
Classification
124.70
134.05
136.72
137.30
143.55
144.59
144.98
153.24
154.39
159.24
164.22
167.42
169.64
187.50
192.80
194.55
195.98
201.79
203.08
209.85
211.67
214.42
218.71
219.75
221.49
223.92
225.07
$ per capita
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
Rank
Dungog (S)
Wagga Wagga (C)
Kyogle
Dubbo (C)
Clarence Valley
Richmond Valley
Muswellbrook (S)
Bathurst Regional
Greater Taree (C)
Bega Valley (S)
Singleton
Great Lakes
Wingecarribee (S)
Kempsey (S)
Bellingen (S)
Eurobodalla (S)
Lismore (C)
Nambucca (S)
Deniliquin
Wollondilly (S)
Cessnock (C)
Hawkesbury (C)
Port Stephens
Blue Mountains (C)
Shoalhaven (C)
Kiama (M)
Maitland (C)
Council name
RAL
URM
RAL
URM
URM
URS
RAV
URM
URM
URM
URS
URM
URM
URS
RAV
URM
URM
RAV
URS
UFM
URM
UFM
URM
UFL
URL
URS
URM
Classification
Local Roads Grant
Council name
General Purpose Grant
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010 –11 cont.
1 284.10
1 298.39
1 304.97
1 329.13
1 333.74
1 339.08
1 340.58
1 400.62
1 405.92
1 414.85
1 417.52
1 454.20
1 488.00
1 489.95
1 490.59
1 493.26
1 538.47
1 551.91
1 632.06
1 643.75
1 644.40
1 704.93
1 705.74
1 710.49
1 752.83
1 801.27
1 826.60
$ per km
Appendix E
223
224
Orange (C)
Singleton
Blue Mountains (C)
Port Macquarie-Hastings
96
97
98
99
Lake Macquarie (C)
Port Stephens
Wyong (S)
106
107
108
UFV
URM
URV
URL
URV
URL
URM
URL
URL
UFL
URS
URM
URM
Greater Taree (C)
95
URM
URM
State average
Cessnock (C)
94
URV
Albury (C)
93
URM
Wollongong (C)
Lismore (C)
92
URS
Coffs Harbour (C)
Griffith (C)
91
RAV
105
Palerang
90
RAV
URM
104
Yass Valley
89
Newcastle (C)
Tamworth Regional
88
URS
103
Goulburn Mulwaree
87
URM
Tweed (S)
Wagga Wagga (C)
86
URM
102
Bathurst Regional
85
URS
Maitland (C)
Armidale Dumaresq
84
URM
URM
101
Dubbo (C)
83
Shoalhaven (C)
Eurobodalla (S)
82
RAV
100
Nambucca (S)
81
Classification
57.63
60.88
64.03
64.97
65.15
67.69
70.84
71.73
75.01
76.13
78.04
84.93
86.29
92.49
92.54
98.44
98.68
102.36
102.99
103.55
105.62
106.12
106.28
106.90
107.24
108.74
119.91
122.31
122.95
$ per capita
108
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
Rank
Wakool (S)
Cabonne
Liverpool Plains (S)
Tenterfield (S)
Gunnedah (S)
Inverell (S)
Uralla (S)
Leeton (S)
Gundagai (S)
Snowy River (S)
Cowra (S)
Cooma-Monaro (S)
Young (S)
Upper Hunter (S)
Blayney (S)
Mid-Western Regional
Tumbarumba (S)
Yass Valley
Glen Innes Severn
Cootamundra (S)
Griffith (C)
Palerang
Tamworth Regional
Gloucester (S)
Lithgow (C)
Tumut (S)
RAM
RAV
RAL
RAL
RAV
RAV
RAL
RAV
RAM
RAL
RAV
RAV
RAV
RAV
RAL
URS
RAM
RAV
RAL
RAL
URS
RAV
URM
RAL
URS
RAV
URS
State average
Goulburn Mulwaree
URS
Classification
Armidale Dumaresq
Council name
Local Roads Grant
Council name
General Purpose Grant
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010 –11 cont.
967.50
969.36
970.10
970.78
982.79
989.88
999.37
1 001.63
1 008.73
1 020.78
1 022.56
1 029.00
1 030.87
1 037.34
1 041.43
1 051.23
1 056.76
1 058.01
1 073.05
1 093.44
1 099.48
1 102.94
1 185.69
1 199.58
1 209.71
1 220.50
1 245.47
1 263.60
1 280.26
$ per km
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Queanbeyan (C)
Wingecarribee (S)
Ballina (S)
Blacktown (C)
Penrith (C)
Fairfield (C)
Hawkesbury (C)
Byron (S)
Gosford (C)
Wollondilly (S)
Kiama (M)
Parramatta (C)
Marrickville
Liverpool (C)
Auburn (C)
Canterbury (C)
Holroyd (C)
Bankstown (C)
Camden
Sydney (C)
Ashfield (M)
Waverley
Botany Bay (C)
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Hunters Hill (M)
Campbelltown (C)
110
134
Shellharbour (C)
109
UDS
UDM
UDM
UDM
UCC
UFM
UDV
UDL
UDV
UDL
UFV
UDL
UDV
URS
UFM
UFV
URM
UFM
UDV
UFV
UDV
URM
URM
URM
UFV
URM
Classification
19.49
19.78
23.49
24.45
25.46
26.12
28.66
30.68
31.65
31.84
32.67
34.15
38.36
39.17
40.35
40.65
43.52
45.58
46.41
49.94
50.69
50.95
52.87
54.01
54.42
56.74
$ per capita
134
133
132
131
130
129
128
127
126
125
124
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
116
115
114
113
112
111
110
109
Rank
Narromine (S)
Gwydir (S)
Coonamble (S)
Boorowa
Gilgandra (S)
Lockhart (S)
Warren (S)
Walgett (S)
Warrumbungle (S)
Temora (S)
Berrigan (S)
Oberon
Moree Plains (S)
Narrabri (S)
Upper Lachlan (S)
Guyra (S)
Harden (S)
Parkes (S)
Wellington
Junee (S)
Forbes (S)
Greater Hume (S)
Murray (S)
Corowa (S)
Walcha
Bombala
Council name
RAL
RAL
RAM
RAM
RAM
RAM
RAM
RAL
RAV
RAL
RAL
RAL
RAV
RAV
RAL
RAM
RAM
RAV
RAL
RAL
RAL
RAV
RAL
RAV
RAM
RAM
Classification
Local Roads Grant
Council name
General Purpose Grant
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010 –11 cont.
889.61
892.15
892.96
898.89
905.25
907.36
907.91
908.40
912.17
913.93
916.21
919.66
925.48
925.50
932.56
933.81
935.52
937.85
940.94
941.95
945.41
950.38
951.80
955.31
962.77
965.72
$ per km
Appendix E
225
226
Mosman (M)
Burwood
Lane Cove (M)
Strathfield (M)
Pittwater
Woollahra (M)
Leichhardt (M)
North Sydney
Manly
Ryde (C)
Canada Bay (C)
Kogarah (C)
Rockdale (C)
Warringah
Ku-ring-gai
Randwick (C)
Hills (S)
Hornsby (S)
Sutherland (S)
Hurstville (C)
Willoughby (C)
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
UDM
UDL
UDV
UFV
UFV
UDV
UDL
UDV
UDL
UDM
UDL
UDL
UDM
UDM
UDM
UDM
UDM
UDM
UDM
UDM
UDS
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
19.49
$ per capita
155
154
153
152
151
150
149
148
147
146
145
144
143
142
141
140
139
138
137
136
135
Rank
Tibooburra (VC)
Silverton Village (VC)
Lord Howe Island (Bd)
Central Darling (S)
Balranald (S)
Carrathool (S)
Conargo (S)
Lachlan (S)
Bland (S)
Bourke (S)
Urana (S)
Cobar (S)
Jerilderie (S)
Coolamon (S)
Brewarrina (S)
Murrumbidgee (S)
Bogan (S)
Wentworth (S)
Hay (S)
Weddin (S)
Narrandera (S)
Council name
RTX
RTX
RTX
RTM
RAM
RAM
RAS
RAL
RAL
RAM
RAS
RTL
RAS
RAM
RAS
RAM
RAM
RAL
RAM
RAM
RAL
Classification
Local Roads Grant
Classification
General Purpose Grant
Council name
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010 –11 cont.
0.00
0.00
0.00
832.18
836.48
841.85
845.36
848.84
849.01
850.45
852.55
857.30
857.45
857.69
861.68
874.48
875.89
877.07
879.41
881.02
886.59
$ per km
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Mansfield
Moyne (S)
East Gippsland (S)
Corangamite (S)
Murrindindi (S)
Swan Hill (RC)
Moira (S)
Glenelg (S)
Alpine (S)
Central Goldfields (S)
Hepburn (S)
South Gippsland (S)
Horsham (RC)
Indigo (S)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Ararat (RC)
9
14
Northern Grampians (S)
8
13
Yarriambiack (S)
7
Southern Grampians (S)
Towong (S)
6
12
Hindmarsh (S)
5
Gannawarra (S)
Pyrenees (S)
4
11
Buloke (S)
3
Strathbogie (S)
Loddon (S)
2
10
West Wimmera (S)
Council name
RAV
URS
URS
RAV
RAV
RAV
URS
URS
URS
RAV
RAV
URM
RAV
RAL
RAV
RAV
RAL
RAV
RAV
RAL
RAL
RAL
RAL
RAL
RAL
RAM
Classification
159.65
163.26
166.17
170.18
173.47
175.53
177.58
178.22
178.43
195.30
198.51
201.04
203.27
207.29
209.85
240.97
244.04
249.95
282.52
335.89
340.98
379.05
383.78
408.61
460.33
556.18
$ per capita
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Rank
Casey (C)
Wyndham (C)
Moonee Valley (C)
East Gippsland (S)
Maroondah (C)
Latrobe (C)
South Gippsland (S)
Hobsons Bay (C)
Banyule (C)
Maribyrnong (C)
Whittlesea (C)
Melton (S)
Darebin (C)
Frankston (C)
Moreland (C)
Hume (C)
Brimbank (C)
Port Phillip (C)
Wodonga
Cardinia (S)
Yarra (C)
Greater Dandenong (C)
Warrnambool (C)
Yarra Ranges (S)
Kingston (C)
Melbourne (C)
Council name
UDV
UFV
UDL
URM
UDL
URL
URS
UDL
UDV
UDL
UFV
UFL
UDV
UDV
UDV
UFV
UDV
UDL
URM
UFM
UDL
UDV
URM
UFV
UDV
UCC
Classification
Local Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
1
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.2: Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010 –11
1 404.72
1 415.88
1 421.97
1 424.53
1 429.21
1 429.86
1 434.81
1 462.55
1 490.45
1 540.85
1 563.00
1 566.84
1 596.22
1 602.93
1 621.85
1 628.19
1 644.12
1 646.43
1 646.95
1 662.90
1 666.13
1 864.71
1 900.52
1 911.56
1 922.32
2 900.47
$ per km
Appendix E
227
228
Benalla
Colac Otway (S)
Mildura (RC)
Mount Alexander (S)
Wangaratta (RC)
Bass Coast (S)
Moorabool (S)
Baw Baw (S)
Mitchell (S)
Latrobe (C)
Greater Shepparton (C)
Greater Bendigo (C)
Macedon Ranges (S)
Wodonga
Ballarat (C)
Cardinia (S)
Melton (S)
Warrnambool (C)
Surf Coast (S)
Greater Geelong (C)
Greater Dandenong (C)
Yarra Ranges (S)
State average
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Wyndham (C)
Golden Plains (S)
29
52
UFV
Campaspe (C)
28
UFV
UDV
URV
UFS
URM
UFL
UFM
URL
URM
URM
URL
URM
URL
URM
URM
URS
UFS
URS
RAV
URM
URS
RAV
RAV
URM
URM
Wellington (S)
Classification
Council name
27
63.73
65.19
65.96
66.69
73.15
74.35
84.49
85.74
87.57
90.40
97.75
98.09
108.08
115.32
117.43
123.01
124.42
127.41
130.55
138.56
139.54
152.07
152.36
152.98
157.44
157.98
158.63
$ per capita
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
Rank
Towong (S)
Corangamite (S)
Glenelg (S)
Queenscliffe (B)
Mitchell (S)
Surf Coast (S)
Moorabool (S)
Macedon Ranges (S)
Moyne (S)
Glen Eira (C)
Bass Coast (S)
Manningham (C)
Whitehorse (C)
Murrindindi (S)
Bayside (C)
Alpine (S)
Mornington Peninsula (S)
Boroondara (C)
Greater Geelong (C)
Wellington (S)
Colac Otway (S)
Baw Baw (S)
Knox (C)
Nillumbik (S)
Ballarat (C)
Monash (C)
Stonnington (C)
Council name
RAL
RAV
URS
UFS
URM
UFS
URS
URM
RAV
UDV
UFS
UDL
UDV
RAV
UDL
RAV
UFV
UDV
URV
URM
URS
URM
UDV
UFM
URL
UDV
UDL
Classification
Local Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.2: Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11 cont.
1 068.82
1 095.98
1 107.60
1 124.41
1 134.94
1 153.06
1 168.69
1 183.89
1 209.29
1 209.49
1 212.30
1 238.48
1 238.76
1 264.60
1 268.92
1 288.90
1 289.85
1 298.21
1 326.13
1 346.96
1 360.10
1 363.21
1 364.34
1 372.02
1 372.07
1 379.18
1 395.37
$ per km
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Hume (C)
Whittlesea (C)
Casey (C)
Knox (C)
Maroondah (C)
Maribyrnong (C)
Moreland (C)
Nillumbik (S)
Banyule (C)
Darebin (C)
Mornington Peninsula (S)
Manningham (C)
Bayside (C)
Moonee Valley (C)
Hobsons Bay (C)
Stonnington (C)
Boroondara (C)
Kingston (C)
Melbourne (C)
Whitehorse (C)
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
Monash (C)
Queenscliffe (B)
54
67
Brimbank (C)
Frankston (C)
53
Council name
UDV
UDV
UCC
UDV
UDV
UDL
UDL
UDL
UDL
UDL
UFV
UDV
UDV
UFM
UDV
UDL
UDL
UDV
UDV
UFV
UFV
UFS
UDV
UDV
Classification
19.56
19.56
19.56
19.56
19.56
19.56
19.56
19.56
19.56
19.56
22.54
27.48
27.56
29.28
31.04
32.55
38.17
42.48
54.94
56.39
56.76
57.15
58.01
60.46
$ per capita
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
Rank
Buloke (S)
Hindmarsh (S)
Swan Hill (RC)
Mildura (RC)
Loddon (S)
Horsham (RC)
Northern Grampians (S)
West Wimmera (S)
Indigo (S)
Central Goldfields (S)
Moira (S)
Ararat (RC)
Campaspe (C)
Hepburn (S)
Benalla
Greater Bendigo (C)
Pyrenees (S)
Mount Alexander (S)
Golden Plains (S)
Southern Grampians (S)
RAL
RAL
URS
URM
RAL
URS
RAV
RAM
RAV
RAV
URS
RAV
URM
RAV
RAV
URL
RAL
RAV
RAV
RAV
RAL
State average
Mansfield
URM
URS
Classification
Greater Shepparton (C)
Wangaratta (RC)
Council name
Local Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.2: Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11 cont.
361.73
444.04
521.87
613.05
620.36
622.26
672.24
758.94
805.65
844.90
848.86
869.45
875.20
909.29
912.20
929.98
944.22
989.86
991.36
1 020.49
1 032.53
1 048.44
1 056.30
1 063.90
$ per km
Appendix E
229
230
Yarra (C)
Port Phillip (C)
Glen Eira (C)
67
67
Council name
UDV
UDL
UDL
Classification
19.56
19.56
19.56
$ per capita
79
78
77
Rank
Strathbogie (S)
Gannawarra (S)
Yarriambiack (S)
Council name
RAL
RAV
RAL
Classification
Local Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
67
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.2: Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11 cont.
0.00
0.00
350.27
$ per km
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Barcaldine
Flinders
Carpentaria
Torres Strait Island
Lockhart River
Mornington
Blackall-Tambo
Cook
Longreach
Aurukun
Pormpuraaw
Northern Peninsula Area
Hope Vale
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
McKinlay
9
Paroo
Quilpie
8
Richmond
Winton
7
13
Burke
6
12
Boulia
5
Etheridge
Croydon
4
11
Barcoo
3
Mapoon Aboriginal Council
Bulloo
2
10
Diamantina
Council name
RTS
RTM
RTS
RTM
RTL
RTL
RTM
RTM
RTS
RTL
RTM
RTM
RTL
RTM
RTS
RTS
RTX
RTS
RTM
RTM
RTS
RTS
RTX
RTX
RTX
RTX
Classification
879.06
1 086.64
1 135.12
1 148.83
1 226.56
1 322.64
1 401.90
1 421.49
1 436.15
1 436.43
1 507.51
1 608.66
1 608.69
1 678.50
2 264.30
2 404.38
2 705.75
2 893.78
3 011.31
3 343.34
3 783.92
5 064.89
6 340.60
6 684.69
7 913.01
12 969.61
$ per capita
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Rank
Whitsunday
Gympie
Toowoomba
Scenic Rim
Gladstone
Torres Strait Island
Cassowary Coast
Lockyer Valley
URM
URM
URV
UFM
URM
RTL
URS
URM
RTM
State average
Doomadgee
URL
URL
RTL
URL
URL
RTM
URS
URV
URV
UFV
UFV
URV
UFV
UFV
URV
UCC
Classification
Bundaberg
Rockhampton
Torres
Fraser Coast
Mackay
Yarrabah
Palm Island
Sunshine Coast
Cairns
Ipswich
Moreton Bay
Townsville
Logan
Redland
Gold Coast
Brisbane
Council name
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
1
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.3: Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11
678.74
692.99
696.61
709.88
717.58
719.20
745.33
752.35
764.73
778.95
798.19
839.61
922.50
938.59
960.73
1 014.40
1 045.74
1 369.30
1 484.81
1 596.36
1 613.67
1 618.85
1 800.02
1 858.81
2 055.95
2 379.70
$ per km
Appendix E
231
232
Cloncurry
Murweh
Kowanyama
Wujal Wujal
North Burnett
Maranoa
Balonne
Torres
Napranum
Doomadgee
Goondiwindi
Western Downs
Charters Towers
Banana
Palm Island
Woorabinda
Cherbourg
Central Highlands
Isaac
South Burnett
Yarrabah
Tablelands
Southern Downs
Mount Isa
Somerset
Burdekin
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Council name
RAV
UFS
URS
URM
URM
RTM
URM
URS
URS
URS
RTS
URS
RAV
RAV
URM
RAV
RTM
URS
RTL
RAM
RAV
RAV
URS
RTM
RTL
RTL
Classification
94.66
99.17
117.59
156.02
156.24
190.28
192.46
219.70
234.45
262.65
300.02
311.41
320.57
375.86
390.90
458.91
613.46
654.04
662.89
686.43
715.54
720.25
753.94
825.00
847.26
860.58
$ per capita
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
Rank
Maranoa
Mornington
Balonne
North Burnett
Charters Towers
Kowanyama
Banana
Western Downs
Goondiwindi
Northern Peninsula Area
Isaac
Central Highlands
Aurukun
Mapoon Aboriginal Council
Hope Vale
South Burnett
Mount Isa
Tablelands
Southern Downs
Woorabinda
Somerset
Napranum
Burdekin
Cherbourg
Hinchinbrook
Wujal Wujal
Council name
RAV
RTM
RAM
RAV
RAV
RTM
RAV
URM
RAV
RTM
URS
URS
RTM
RTX
RTS
URM
URS
URM
URM
RTS
UFS
URS
RAV
URS
RAV
URS
Classification
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
27
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.3: Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11 cont.
509.06
509.24
510.44
510.85
518.56
523.01
531.06
531.16
534.51
551.74
554.29
554.64
555.18
565.49
572.65
589.69
596.83
598.89
605.46
609.41
610.98
636.97
648.09
662.89
664.80
665.35
$ per km
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Scenic Rim
Bundaberg
Lockyer Valley
Fraser Coast
Mackay
Townsville
Ipswich
Cairns
Logan
Redland
Sunshine Coast
Moreton Bay
Gold Coast
Brisbane
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
72
State average
Rockhampton
Cassowary Coast
57
Toowoomba
Gladstone
56
59
Gympie
55
58
URS
Whitsunday
54
UCC
URV
UFV
URV
UFV
UFV
URV
UFV
URV
URL
URL
URM
URL
URM
URL
URV
URM
URM
URM
RAV
Hinchinbrook
Classification
Council name
53
19.60
19.60
20.74
20.92
21.10
21.44
21.76
22.36
25.88
37.98
48.76
55.90
56.23
56.52
58.22
62.93
65.34
66.21
74.01
79.59
80.10
88.15
$ per capita
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
Rank
Bulloo
Barcoo
Diamantina
Croydon
Boulia
Burke
McKinlay
Quilpie
Winton
Etheridge
Richmond
Flinders
Paroo
Barcaldine
Blackall-Tambo
Pormpuraaw
Carpentaria
Longreach
Cook
Murweh
Cloncurry
Lockhart River
Council name
RTX
RTX
RTX
RTX
RTS
RTS
RTS
RTM
RTM
RTS
RTS
RTM
RTM
RTL
RTM
RTS
RTM
RTL
RTL
RTL
RTL
RTS
Classification
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.3: Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11 cont.
491.46
491.57
492.64
492.74
492.77
494.23
494.34
494.52
495.05
495.23
496.51
497.63
498.66
500.25
500.64
501.41
502.15
503.01
504.58
507.26
507.95
508.71
$ per km
Appendix E
233
234
Mount Marshall (S)
Wiluna (S)
Meekatharra (S)
Mukinbudin (S)
Perenjori (S)
Wyalkatchem (S)
Tammin (S)
Halls Creek (S)
Shark Bay (S)
Bruce Rock (S)
Narembeen (S)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Koorda (S)
9
Laverton (S)
Westonia (S)
8
14
Cue (S)
7
13
Nungarin (S)
6
Mount Magnet (S)
Yalgoo (S)
5
12
Menzies (S)
4
Trayning (S)
Upper Gascoyne (S)
3
11
Sandstone (S)
2
Ngaanyatjarraku (S)
Murchison (S)
10
Council name
1
RAS
RAS
RTS
RTL
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RTM
RTS
RAS
RTS
RTM
RAS
RTM
RAS
RAS
RTX
RAS
RTX
RTX
RTX
RTX
RTX
Classification
982.01
1 021.00
1 078.32
1 156.73
1 212.98
1 297.89
1 324.40
1 373.02
1 415.28
1 426.40
1 451.16
1 511.11
1 722.21
1 780.18
1 846.86
2 073.66
2 389.50
2 741.11
2 754.12
4 597.54
5 034.58
6 048.55
9 305.16
16 052.11
$ per capita
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Rank
Armadale (C)
East Fremantle (T)
Gosnells (C)
South Perth (C)
Nedlands (C)
Melville (C)
Stirling (C)
Joondalup (C)
Cambridge (T)
Cottesloe (T)
Bayswater (C)
Claremont (T)
Victoria Park (T)
Peppermint Grove (S)
Belmont (C)
Fremantle (C)
Bassendean (T)
Canning (C)
Narrogin (T)
Vincent (T)
Subiaco (C)
Wandering (S)
Bunbury (C)
Perth (C)
Council name
UFM
UDS
UDL
UDM
UDS
UDL
UDV
UDV
UDS
UDS
UDM
UDS
UDM
UDS
UDM
UDS
UDS
UDL
URS
UDM
UDS
RAS
URM
UCC
Classification
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11
1 765.58
1 794.97
1 857.05
1 859.23
1 870.99
1 875.92
1 877.78
1 934.21
1 948.01
1 956.79
1 963.64
1 974.49
1 997.41
2 024.44
2 029.45
2 053.44
2 060.05
2 100.73
2 109.30
2 217.04
2 262.51
2 438.66
2 533.27
3 804.88
$ per km
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Council name
Dumbleyung (S)
Wickepin (S)
Woodanilling (S)
Carnamah (S)
Morawa (S)
Dundas (S)
Dowerin (S)
Dalwallinu (S)
Kellerberrin (S)
Quairading (S)
Broomehill - Tambellup (S)
Derby-West Kimberley (S)
Cuballing (S)
Corrigin (S)
Mingenew (S)
Three Springs (S)
Kulin (S)
Coorow (S)
Wongan-Ballidu (S)
Kondinin (S)
Kent (S)
Exmouth (S)
Cunderdin (S)
Ashburton (S)
Narrogin (S)
Carnarvon (S)
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
RAL
RAS
RTL
RAS
RTM
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RTL
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RTM
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
Classification
483.42
493.20
494.98
511.25
517.62
540.62
543.78
553.56
576.86
581.82
584.61
585.17
619.48
632.95
637.16
640.16
685.18
696.46
714.63
775.55
785.50
810.05
813.14
816.09
861.60
958.89
$ per capita
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
Rank
Augusta-Margaret River (S)
Albany (C)
Dardanup (S)
Northam (S)
Waroona (S)
Kalgoorlie/Boulder (C)
Brookton (S)
Busselton (S)
Serpentine-Jarrahdale (S)
Capel (S)
Chittering (S)
Exmouth (S)
Murray (S)
Mundaring (S)
Williams (S)
Harvey (S)
Geraldton-Greenough (C)
Swan (S)
Kalamunda (S)
Cockburn (C)
Rockingham (C)
Kwinana (T)
Roebourne (S)
Wanneroo (C)
Mandurah (C)
Mosman Park (T)
Council name
RAL
URM
RSG
RAV
RAM
URM
RAS
URM
RSG
RSG
RAM
RTM
RSG
UFM
RAS
URS
URM
UFL
UFM
UDL
UDL
UDS
URS
UFV
UFM
UDS
Classification
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11 cont.
1 035.70
1 043.41
1 063.49
1 077.84
1 078.78
1 126.39
1 154.09
1 179.61
1 182.36
1 205.16
1 268.29
1 270.44
1 318.57
1 410.48
1 435.79
1 452.98
1 457.66
1 500.82
1 586.32
1 634.10
1 668.00
1 669.95
1 721.11
1 738.89
1 743.18
1 755.95
$ per km
Appendix E
235
236
Nannup (S)
Pingelly (S)
Lake Grace (S)
East Pilbara (S)
Wyndham-East Kimberley (S)
Brookton (S)
Wandering (S)
Cranbrook (S)
Wagin (S)
Beverley (S)
Jerramungup (S)
Merredin (S)
Gnowangerup (S)
West Arthur (S)
Goomalling (S)
Yilgarn (S)
Mullewa (S)
Ravensthorpe (S)
Victoria Plains (S)
Leonora (S)
Katanning (S)
Kojonup (S)
Chapman Valley (S)
Moora (S)
Bridgetown-Greenbushes (S)
Narrogin (T)
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Council name
URS
RAM
RAM
RAS
RAM
RAM
RTM
RAS
RAM
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAM
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RTL
RTL
RAS
RAS
RAS
Classification
190.12
193.46
198.69
205.70
220.63
236.27
254.24
261.62
267.12
285.90
293.37
308.17
309.78
310.33
325.44
331.42
342.64
347.42
367.58
405.60
413.35
416.38
418.32
424.18
452.03
480.88
$ per capita
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
Rank
Shark Bay (S)
Katanning (S)
Corrigin (S)
East Pilbara (S)
Boddington (S)
Carnarvon (S)
Halls Creek (S)
Denmark (S)
RTS
RAM
RAS
RTL
RAS
RAL
RTL
RAL
RTM
State average
Dundas (S)
RTM
RAM
RAM
RAM
RAM
RAM
RAS
RAM
RTL
URS
RAL
URS
RAS
RAL
RAM
RAL
Classification
Ngaanyatjarraku (S)
Irwin (S)
York (S)
Moora (S)
Dandaragan (S)
Gingin (S)
West Arthur (S)
Toodyay (S)
Wyndham-East Kimberley (S)
Port Hedland (T)
Collie (S)
Broome (S)
Nannup (S)
Donnybrook-Balingup (S)
Bridgetown-Greenbushes (S)
Manjimup (S)
Council name
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
51
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11 cont.
641.54
641.56
642.15
642.29
649.53
649.94
664.13
664.32
704.90
756.86
792.13
809.18
846.68
867.71
871.55
910.28
923.98
935.59
960.03
971.65
985.84
994.07
1 002.07
1 002.16
1 002.49
1 008.19
$ per km
2010–11 Local Government National Report
York (S)
Broome (S)
Northam (S)
Boddington (S)
Dandaragan (S)
Donnybrook-Balingup (S)
Northampton (S)
Toodyay (S)
Port Hedland (T)
Roebourne (S)
Gingin (S)
Denmark (S)
Chittering (S)
Irwin (S)
Esperance (S)
Coolgardie (S)
Murray (S)
Serpentine-Jarrahdale (S)
Plantagenet (S)
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Williams (S)
Waroona (S)
80
101
Manjimup (S)
79
Geraldton-Greenough (C)
Boyup Brook (S)
78
100
Collie (S)
Council name
RAS
URM
RAM
RSG
RSG
URS
RAV
RAM
RAM
RAL
RAM
URS
URS
RAM
RAM
RAL
RAM
RAS
RAM
URS
RAM
RAM
RAL
RAS
RAL
Classification
70.68
74.45
89.49
91.06
95.75
97.18
103.88
104.56
111.00
125.78
134.58
140.02
151.25
154.91
158.10
161.34
162.16
165.46
167.99
171.10
173.88
178.68
182.62
182.73
184.55
$ per capita
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
Rank
Gnowangerup (S)
Wyalkatchem (S)
Cue (S)
Ashburton (S)
Koorda (S)
Northampton (S)
Carnamah (S)
Wagin (S)
Pingelly (S)
Derby-West Kimberley (S)
Quairading (S)
Goomalling (S)
Esperance (S)
Cranbrook (S)
Coorow (S)
Merredin (S)
Broomehill - Tambellup (S)
Plantagenet (S)
Beverley (S)
Bruce Rock (S)
Mount Magnet (S)
Cunderdin (S)
Mingenew (S)
Boyup Brook (S)
Cuballing (S)
Council name
RAS
RAS
RTX
RTL
RAS
RAM
RAS
RAS
RAS
RTL
RAS
RAS
RAV
RAS
RAS
RAM
RAS
RAM
RAS
RAS
RTM
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
Classification
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
77
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11 cont.
537.65
539.53
542.12
543.00
547.65
550.09
550.38
550.46
558.39
559.60
565.41
566.12
567.20
568.31
573.10
581.46
585.18
585.55
592.33
593.62
597.21
600.31
612.55
619.60
641.00
$ per km
Appendix E
237
238
Mundaring (S)
Dardanup (S)
Albany (C)
Harvey (S)
Armadale (C)
Kalgoorlie/Boulder (C)
Peppermint Grove (S)
Perth (C)
Cambridge (T)
Vincent (T)
East Fremantle (T)
Bayswater (C)
Kalamunda (S)
Cockburn (C)
Bassendean (T)
Kwinana (T)
Belmont (C)
Melville (C)
Stirling (C)
Wanneroo (C)
Mandurah (C)
South Perth (C)
Cottesloe (T)
Fremantle (C)
104
105
106
107
108
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
UDS
UDS
UDM
UFM
UFV
UDV
UDL
UDM
UDS
UDS
UDL
UFM
UDM
UDS
UDM
UDS
UCC
UDS
URM
UFM
URS
URM
RSG
UFM
State average
103
RSG
Capel (S)
102
Classification
Council name
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
31.95
38.65
47.92
48.22
56.41
62.49
65.31
67.98
$ per capita
126
125
124
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
116
115
114
113
112
111
110
109
108
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
Rank
Mount Marshall (S)
Kulin (S)
Kondinin (S)
Mullewa (S)
Westonia (S)
Chapman Valley (S)
Woodanilling (S)
Narembeen (S)
Sandstone (S)
Dowerin (S)
Ravensthorpe (S)
Narrogin (S)
Mukinbudin (S)
Nungarin (S)
Dumbleyung (S)
Tammin (S)
Victoria Plains (S)
Dalwallinu (S)
Morawa (S)
Coolgardie (S)
Three Springs (S)
Wickepin (S)
Kellerberrin (S)
Wongan-Ballidu (S)
Kojonup (S)
Trayning (S)
Council name
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RTX
RAS
RAM
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
URS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
RAM
RAS
Classification
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11 cont.
480.35
486.86
489.25
501.48
503.39
504.36
504.76
506.28
508.51
509.40
511.68
511.72
517.54
518.33
519.09
520.47
521.84
524.39
524.88
526.79
528.57
530.35
530.36
533.25
534.05
535.66
$ per km
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Council name
Rockingham (C)
Joondalup (C)
Gosnells (C)
Swan (S)
Bunbury (C)
Nedlands (C)
Subiaco (C)
Canning (C)
Busselton (S)
Victoria Park (T)
Augusta-Margaret River (S)
Claremont (T)
Mosman Park (T)
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
UDS
UDS
RAL
UDM
URM
UDL
UDS
UDS
URM
UFL
UDL
UDV
UDL
Classification
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
$ per capita
139
138
137
136
135
134
133
132
131
130
129
128
127
Rank
Laverton (S)
Wiluna (S)
Murchison (S)
Yilgarn (S)
Meekatharra (S)
Menzies (S)
Upper Gascoyne (S)
Kent (S)
Perenjori (S)
Leonora (S)
Yalgoo (S)
Jerramungup (S)
Lake Grace (S)
Council name
RTS
RTS
RTX
RAS
RTM
RTX
RTX
RAS
RAS
RTM
RTX
RAS
RAS
Classification
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11 cont.
191.45
382.13
390.88
392.25
394.10
400.43
403.05
455.47
460.84
462.68
469.91
474.23
475.43
$ per km
Appendix E
239
240
RAL
RTL
Mount Remarkable (DC)
Gerard
Cleve (DC)
Southern Mallee (DC)
Anangu Pitjantjatjara
Coober Pedy (DC)
Coorong (DC)
Outback Areas Community
Developm’t Trust
Mid Murray
Nipapanha
Kangaroo Island
Tatiara (DC)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RAL
RAM
RTX
RAL
URS
URS
RAM
RAS
RTX
RAM
RAM
RAM
RAM
RAS
RAM
RAS
14
Peterborough (DC)
9
Goyder
Elliston (DC)
8
RAS
RTX
13
Franklin Harbour (DC)
7
Ceduna (DC)
Maralinga
6
RAS
12
Kimba (DC)
5
RAS
Streaky Bay (DC)
Orroroo/Carrieton (DC)
4
RAS
RAS
11
Karoonda-East Murray (DC)
3
Flinders Ranges
Wudinna (DC)
2
RTX
Classification
10
Yalata
Council name
260.78
297.26
316.61
331.42
355.64
357.72
399.57
434.29
473.27
479.55
487.64
495.73
540.40
552.51
584.06
592.20
608.24
642.54
667.44
768.81
780.08
819.78
918.30
939.75
1 400.80
$ per capita
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Rank
Port Lincoln (C)
Whyalla (C)
Playford (C)
Onkaparinga
Adelaide (C)
Roxby Downs (M)
Mitcham (C)
Mount Gambier (C)
Port Adelaide Enfield (C)
Tea Tree Gully (C)
Nipapanha
Gerard
Salisbury (C)
Marion (C)
Charles Sturt (C)
Burnside (C)
West Torrens (C)
Campbelltown (C)
Holdfast Bay (C)
URS
URS
UFL
UFV
UCC
URS
UDM
URS
UDL
UDL
RTX
RTX
UDV
UDL
UDL
UDM
UDM
UDV
UDM
UDS
UDM
Norwood Payneham and
St Peters (C)
Walkerville (M)
UDM
UDS
URM
UFS
Classification
Unley (C)
Prospect (C)
Mount Barker (DC)
Gawler (M)
Council name
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
1
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.5: South Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11
1 273.25
1 274.61
1 353.99
1 542.73
1 618.72
1 691.26
1 700.73
1 704.21
1 717.68
1 725.49
1 739.10
1 746.70
1 753.89
1 777.01
1 829.89
1 836.81
1 842.16
1 856.74
1 933.71
1 940.74
2 047.07
2 069.03
2 095.99
2 121.26
3 678.25
$ per km
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Whyalla (C)
Murray Bridge
Copper Coast (DC)
Barunga West (DC)
Wattle Range
Yorke Peninsula (DC)
Mallala (DC)
Playford (C)
Grant (DC)
Lower Eyre Peninsula (DC)
Mount Gambier (C)
State average
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Gawler (M)
Berri Barmera
35
Clare and Gilbert Valleys
Port Augusta (C)
34
50
Tumby Bay (DC)
33
49
Naracoorte Lucindale
32
Salisbury (C)
Wakefield
31
48
Port Pirie
30
Port Lincoln (C)
Renmark Paringa (DC)
29
47
URS
Northern Areas
28
UFS
RAL
UDV
URS
RAM
RAL
UFL
RAL
RAV
RAV
RAM
RAV
RAV
URS
RAV
URS
RAM
RAL
RAL
RAV
RAL
RAM
RAM
Kingston (DC)
27
RAV
Classification
Loxton Waikerie (DC)
Council name
45.23
45.30
59.41
59.43
64.94
68.81
77.57
87.31
97.91
106.53
108.90
116.15
123.56
128.30
148.78
181.79
195.64
196.86
199.69
204.90
206.85
212.55
218.53
230.21
239.29
249.13
$ per capita
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
Rank
Wakefield
Lower Eyre Peninsula (DC)
Naracoorte Lucindale
Southern Mallee (DC)
Copper Coast (DC)
Grant (DC)
Kingston (DC)
Coorong (DC)
Elliston (DC)
Maralinga
Port Pirie
Alexandrina
Karoonda-East Murray (DC)
Renmark Paringa (DC)
Murray Bridge
Barossa
RAL
RAM
RAL
RAM
RAV
RAL
RAM
RAL
RAS
RTX
RAV
UFS
RAS
RAL
RAV
UFS
RAL
State average
Tatiara (DC)
RAV
RTX
URS
RAV
URS
RAS
UFM
RAM
Classification
Berri Barmera
Yalata
Victor Harbor (C)
Loxton Waikerie (DC)
Port Augusta (C)
Cleve (DC)
Adelaide Hills
Kangaroo Island
Council name
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
26
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.5: South Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11 cont.
256.04
262.34
266.88
268.29
287.42
301.27
301.94
313.28
317.65
319.08
331.06
365.18
379.70
407.14
416.15
419.51
442.27
462.22
476.24
590.06
591.10
615.30
637.07
776.81
814.77
845.76
$ per km
Appendix E
241
242
UDM
UDM
Yankalilla (DC)
Alexandrina
Victor Harbor (C)
Adelaide (C)
Holdfast Bay (C)
West Torrens (C)
Mitcham (C)
Unley (C)
Norwood Payneham and
St Peters (C)
Marion (C)
Tea Tree Gully (C)
Port Adelaide Enfield (C)
Prospect (C)
Burnside (C)
Charles Sturt (C)
Adelaide Hills
Campbelltown (C)
Barossa
Roxby Downs (M)
Mount Barker (DC)
Robe (DC)
Light
Walkerville (M)
52
53
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
UDS
RSG
RAS
URM
URS
UFS
UDV
UFM
UDL
UDM
UDS
UDL
UDL
UDL
UDM
UDM
UDM
UCC
URS
UFS
RAM
UFV
Onkaparinga
Classification
Council name
51
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
19.48
21.72
23.42
38.50
$ per capita
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
Rank
URS
RTL
Outback Areas Community
Development Trust
RAS
RAS
RAM
RAM
RAL
RAM
RAM
URS
RAL
RAV
RAV
RAM
RAS
RAM
RAS
RAS
RAM
RAL
RAM
RAS
RSG
RAM
Classification
Coober Pedy (DC)
Orroroo/Carrieton (DC)
Kimba (DC)
Mount Remarkable (DC)
Northern Areas
Mid Murray
Barunga West (DC)
Goyder
Anangu Pitjantjatjara
Clare and Gilbert Valleys
Yorke Peninsula (DC)
Wattle Range
Peterborough (DC)
Wudinna (DC)
Tumby Bay (DC)
Flinders Ranges
Robe (DC)
Ceduna (DC)
Mallala (DC)
Streaky Bay (DC)
Franklin Harbour (DC)
Light
Yankalilla (DC)
Council name
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.5: South Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11 cont.
0.00
100.78
139.54
156.60
157.39
164.32
170.42
180.88
184.98
185.43
186.80
187.23
200.16
201.09
205.38
211.15
211.88
223.31
230.43
231.03
236.77
243.81
245.03
247.48
$ per km
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Flinders (M)
King Island (M)
Central Highlands (M)
Southern Midlands (M)
West Coast (M)
Kentish (M)
Dorset (M)
Tasman (M)
Break O’Day (M)
George Town (M)
Waratah - Wynyard (M)
Northern Midlands (M)
Circular Head (M)
Huon Valley (M)
Derwent Valley (M)
Sorell (M)
Meander Valley (M)
Central Coast (M)
Latrobe (M)
Brighton (M)
West Tamar (M)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Council name
UFS
URS
RAL
URS
RAV
RAV
RAV
RAV
RAL
RAV
RAV
RAL
RAL
RAM
RAL
RAL
RAL
RAL
RAM
RAS
RAS
Classification
67.38
70.96
84.25
90.29
98.07
107.89
109.30
110.46
118.06
119.73
126.79
128.92
152.95
180.59
191.33
228.83
249.99
259.89
316.82
320.53
655.34
$ per capita
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Rank
Northern Midlands (M)
Kentish (M)
Sorell (M)
Waratah - Wynyard (M)
Kingborough (M)
Meander Valley (M)
RAV
RAL
RAV
RAV
UFM
RAV
UFS
State average
West Tamar (M)
RAL
RAL
RAM
RAL
URS
URS
RAL
UFM
URS
URM
URS
UFM
UCC
Classification
Break O’Day (M)
Latrobe (M)
Glamorgan - Spring Bay (M)
George Town (M)
Central Coast (M)
Brighton (M)
West Coast (M)
Clarence (C)
Burnie (C)
Launceston (C)
Devonport (C)
Glenorchy (C)
Hobart (C)
Council name
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
1
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.6: Tasmanian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11
2 053.53
2 066.43
2 084.62
2 141.27
2 219.33
2 225.39
2 243.26
2 346.59
2 347.03
2 404.45
2 547.57
2 599.03
2 656.48
2 843.32
3 060.67
3 326.71
3 330.09
3 690.31
4 386.35
4 610.86
5 781.08
$ per km
Appendix E
243
244
Burnie (C)
Glamorgan - Spring Bay (M)
Devonport (C)
Kingborough (M)
Clarence (C)
Glenorchy (C)
Launceston (C)
Hobart (C)
24
25
25
25
25
25
UCC
URM
UFM
UFM
UFM
URS
RAM
URS
State average
23
Classification
Council name
19.44
19.44
19.44
19.44
19.44
33.34
45.60
56.22
64.80
$ per capita
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
Rank
Central Highlands (M)
Flinders (M)
King Island (M)
Huon Valley (M)
Southern Midlands (M)
Tasman (M)
Derwent Valley (M)
Circular Head (M)
Dorset (M)
Council name
RAM
RAS
RAS
RAV
RAL
RAM
RAV
RAL
RAL
Classification
Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
22
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.6: Tasmanian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11. cont.
1 401.40
1 433.50
1 471.90
1 472.01
1 474.23
1 618.44
1 830.98
1 884.37
1 988.57
$ per km
2010–11 Local Government National Report
RAS
Roper Gulf
Central Desert
Barkly
Victoria - Daly
West Arnhem
Tiwi Islands
Belyuen
State average
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Darwin
Litchfield
Palmerston
Trust Account
13
13
13
not applicable
n/a
Coomalie
13
n/a
UFS
Alice Springs
12
RAV
UCC
RAS
URS
UFS
Wagait
11
URS
Katherine
10
RTM
RTL
RTL
RTL
RTL
RTL
RTL
MacDonnell
RTL
East Arnhem
Classification
2
Council name
-
20.22
20.22
20.22
20.22
24.88
26.95
40.35
67.39
79.24
86.93
146.50
181.02
190.91
220.03
224.84
242.93
264.98
$ per capita
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Rank
Belyuen
Central Desert
MacDonnell
Trust Account
Barkly
East Arnhem
Tiwi Islands
West Arnhem
RAS
RTL
RTL
ZZZ
RTL
RTL
RTM
RTL
RTL
State average
Roper Gulf
RTL
RAS
RAV
URS
UFS
URS
UCC
UFS
Classification
Victoria - Daly
Coomalie
Litchfield
Katherine
Palmerston
Alice Springs
Darwin
Wagait
Council name
Local Roads Grant
General Purpose Grant
1
Rank
Council ranked by funding per kilometre
Council ranked by funding per capita
Table E.7: Northern Territory councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding 2010–11
359.15
375.75
433.43
513.56
706.62
834.13
876.70
903.83
937.33
1 045.82
1 249.25
2 301.80
2 825.32
3 119.16
3 273.18
3 507.79
3 590.66
3 946.85
$ per km
Appendix E
245
APPENDIX F
Australian classification of local governments
The Australian Classification of Local Governments (ACLG) was first published in September
1994 and has proved a useful way to categorise local governing bodies across Australia.
The ACLG categorises councils using the population, the population density and the
proportion of the population that is classified as urban for the council.
The local governing bodies included in the classification system are those that receive
general purpose financial assistance grants as defined under the Local Government
(Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwth). Therefore, bodies declared by the federal minister
on the advice of the state minister to be local governing bodies for the purposes of the Act,
are included in the ACLG. These include community councils. However, county councils,
voluntary regional organisations of councils and the Australian Capital Territory are excluded.
The classification system generally involves three steps. Each step allocates a prefix formed
from letters of the alphabet to develop a three-letter identifier for each class of local
government. There are a total of 22 categories. For example, a medium-sized council in
a rural agricultural area would be classified as RAM—rural, agricultural, medium. If it were
remote, however, it would be classified as RTM—rural, remote, medium. Table F.1 provides
information on the structure of the classification system.
The system developers recognised that, with so many different types of local governing
bodies in Australia, and with changing population distribution patterns, there will be
occasions where a council’s profile does not fully match the characteristics of the class into
which it has been placed. When this occurs, a local governing body may be reallocated to
a classification that more accurately reflects its circumstances.
Notwithstanding the capacity of the ACLG system to group like councils, it should be noted
that there remains considerable scope for divergence within these categories, 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.
247
2010–11 Local Government National Report
To ensure the ACLG is kept up to date, at the end of each financial year local government
grants commissions advise of any changes in the classification of councils in their state.
Table F.2 provides details of the number of local governing bodies at July 2010, by ACLG
category and by state. As there were changes to the ACLG reported for local governing
bodies in 2010 –11, Table F.3 gives changes to local governing body classifications and
reasons for the change.
Local government grants commissions do not take the ACLG classification of a council into
account when determining the level of general purpose grant.
Further details of the classification system can be found in the original report on the ACLG,
published by the Department of Housing and Regional Development in 1994.
Table F.1: Structure of the classification system
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Identifiers
Category
Population more
than 20 000
CAPITAL CITY (CC)
Not applicable
OR
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
SIGNIFICANT GROWTH (SG)
Average annual population
growth more than 3 per cent,
population more than 5 000 and
not remote
Not applicable
AGRICULTURAL (A)
SMALL (S)
MEDIUM (M)
LARGE (L)
VERY LARGE (V)
up to 2 000
2 001–5 000
5 001–10 000
10 001–20 000
RAS
RAM
RAL
RAV
REMOTE (T)
EXTRA SMALL (X)
SMALL (S)
MEDIUM (M)
LARGE (L)
up to 400
401–1 000
1 001–3 000
3 001–20 000
RTX
RTS
RTM
RTL
URBAN (U)
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
UCC
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
248
RSG
Appendix F
Table F.2: ACLG category listing of local governments, by state, July 2009
State
NSW
VIC
QLD
WA
SA
TAS
NTa
Urban Capital City (UCC)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Urban Development Small (UDS)
2
0
0
11
2
0
0
15
14
1
0
5
6
0
0
26
Urban Development Medium (UDM)
Urban Development Large (UDL)
Total
8
8
0
5
4
0
0
25
Urban Development Very Large (UDV)
13
12
0
2
2
0
0
29
Urban Regional Small (URS)
11
8
8
7
10
4
2
50
Urban Regional Medium (URM)
20
10
9
4
1
1
0
45
Urban Regional Large (URL)
4
3
4
0
0
0
0
11
Urban Regional Very Large (URV)
4
1
5
0
0
0
0
10
Urban Fringe Small (UFS)
0
2
1
0
2
1
2
8
Urban Fringe Medium (UFM)
2
2
0
4
1
3
0
12
Urban Fringe Large (UFL)
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
4
Urban Fringe Very Large (UFV)
1
6
4
1
1
0
0
13
Rural Significant Growth (RSG)
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
5
Rural Agricultural Small (RAS)
5
0
0
51
9
2
2
69
Rural Agricultural Medium (RAM)
20
1
1
16
13
3
0
54
Rural Agricultural Large (RAL)
25
8
0
6
9
9
0
57
Rural Agricultural Very Large (RAV)
20
15
7
1
7
5
1
56
Rural Remote Extra Small (RTX)
3
0
5
6
3
0
0
17
Rural Remote Small (RTS)
0
0
9
3
0
0
0
12
Rural Remote Medium (RTM)
0
0
12
6
0
0
1
19
Rural Remote Large (RTL)
1
0
7
5
1
0
7
21
155
79
73
139
74
29
16
565
Total
Note
a
NT Total excludes Roads Trust Account
249
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Table F.3: Changes in ACLG category for 2010–11: reasons for change by state, July 2010
Council Name
Classification
Reason for change
The Hills
UFV
4
Liverpool
UFV
4
New South Wales
Victoria
Horsham
URS
2
Knox
UDV
4
Maribynong
UDL
2
URM
2
RAM
2
RAV
2
Western Australia
Busselton
South Australia
Peterborough
Tasmania
Derwent Valley
Key: Reasons for Changes
1 Amalgamations/Splits/Boundary Changes
2 Changes due to population movements
3 Declared council
4 Revision of classification to more adequately reflect circumstances
250
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics], Government Finance Statistics, Australia, 2009–10,
cat. no. 5512.0 at www.abs.gov.au.
– Australian Demographic Statistics, cat. no. 3101.0.
– Community Housing and Infrastucture Needs Survey, 2006, cat. no. 4710.0.
– Employment and Earnings, Public Sector, Australia, 2009–10, cat. no. 6248.0.55.002.
– P
opulation Characteristics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006, cat. no.
4713.0 reissued.
– Taxation Revenue Australia, 2009–10, cat. no. 5512.0.
– Wage and Salary Earners, Public Sector, Australia, cat. no. 6248.0
Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, Annual Report 2009.
Australian Local Government Women’s Association 2009, 50:50 Vision—Councils for
Gender Equity.
Industry Commission, 1997, Performance Measures for Councils: improving local government
performance indicators, AGPS, Melbourne, October.
K Sproats, 1996, Comparison of agendas and processes in Australian Local Government,
paper presented to the Local Government in Queensland Centenary Conference.
251
GLOSSARY
balanced budget approach
A method of general purpose grant assessment whereby gross expenditure needs
and revenue capacity for each council are assessed with the difference between the
expenditure and revenue assessments being the equalisation need.
capping
Capping, for the purposes of this report, is the stabilising of component factors to bring a
council’s grant to within a set range of that council’s grant in a previous year.
Commonwealth Grants Commission
A statutory authority established by the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 whose
main task is to recommend to the Australian Government, for consideration by the Ministerial
Council for Commonwealth-State Financial Relations, the shares for each state and territory
of the pool of funds that includes goods and services tax revenue.
cost adjustors
See ‘disability factor’
direct assessment approach
A method of grant assessment whereby a positive or negative assessment of expenditure
need or revenue capacity is made for each council relative to a standard assessment. The
sum of positive and negative assessments is the equalisation need.
disability factor
A measure of underlying influences that would lead a council to spend more (or less) per
capita than the state average, expressed as an adjusting ratio of the state average. In some
states, these are called ‘cost adjustors’ and ‘cost relativity indexes’.
effort neutral or neutrality
The assessment of a financial assistance grant is effort neutral when it neither rewards nor
penalises a council where expenditure or revenue-raising patterns vary from the state
average because of policy differences, differences in efficiency or levels of self help.
253
2010–11 Local Government National Report
escalation factor
The ratio by which the level of financial assistance grant nationally is adjusted, and which the
Treasurer determines according to the requirements of the Act.
estimated factor
This is the escalation factor, as determined by the Treasurer at the start of the financial year,
to determine the levels of grant payments, according to the requirements of the Act that will
be paid to local government for that year.
final factor
This is the escalation factor, as determined by the Treasurer at the end of the financial year,
according to the requirements of the Act. It will determine the final entitlement payable
for local government financial assistance for that year. Determination of the final factor will
(usually) require adjustments to be made to the actual payments, which were based on the
estimated factor at the beginning of the year.
financial assistance grants
These are ‘untied’ funds (not tied to a specific purpose) the Australian Government grants to
local governments under the Act through the state governments.
Financial assistance grants to local government are supplied to states as ‘tied’ (for a
specific purpose) but once distributed to local government are ‘untied’. They comprise two
components: ‘general purpose’ and ‘local road’.
full horizontal equalisation
Distribution of general purpose grants to local government, with the objective of ensuring
each council is able to function, by reasonable effort, at a standard not lower than the
average standard in the state and takes account of differences in expenditure required in
performing its functions and in the capacity to raise revenue [subsections 6.3(a) and 6.3(b)
of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 Cwth)]
general purpose grant
This is one of the 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 Report
The Report of the inquiry into local government and cost shifting by the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration
chaired by Mr David Hawker MP. The report is entitled Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share
for Responsible Local Government, and was published by the Parliament of the
Commonwealth of Australia in October 2003.
inclusion approach
The inclusion, in calculating a council’s general purpose grant, of all assessed expenditure
and grants, including that related to commonwealth and state specific-purpose funding.
254
Glossary
local governing bodies
The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995(Cwth) defines the term ‘local
governing bodies’ and includes local governments established under state and
Northern Territory legislation as well as ‘declared bodies’. The term ‘council’ is often used
synonymously with ‘local government’. ‘Municipality’ generally refers to councils governing
urban areas, and ‘shires’ to councils governing rural areas.
local government grants commissions
In each state and the Northern Territory, local government grants commissions have been
established under state and territory law. Their primary role is to make recommendations to
the state or territory minister on distributing available financial assistance grants to councils in
that state or territory.
local road grant
This is one of the two components (the other being the general purpose grant) of the
financial assistance grant to local government. It was formerly provided as a tied grant and
became untied from 1 July 1991. It continues to be identified and distributed according to
the former tied grant arrangements. It is distributed between states on the basis of historical
shares and within states on the basis of road expenditure needs.
minimum grant
Every council is entitled to receive a minimum grant which is not less than the amount it
would receive if 30 per cent of the available general purpose grant for that state were
distributed on a per capita basis.
negative allowances
Allowances that equalise the financial capacity of ‘advantaged’ councils to that of the
average level for that state, by accordingly reducing the level of the financial assistance
grant. Councils assessed as being ‘advantaged’ may, for example, enjoy high values per
property.
operational subsidy
Grant provided to councils that do not have access to significant other revenue, such as
that from rates.
positive allowances
Allowances that equalise the financial capacity of ‘disadvantaged’ councils to that of the
average level for that state, by accordingly increasing the level of the financial assistance
grant. Councils assessed as being ‘disadvantaged’ may, for example, suffer low values per
property.
rate capacity
A measure of a council’s capacity to raise revenue from rateable property, having regard to
activities on that property, such as agriculture or mining.
rate pegging
Action by state governments to limit any variation in rates levied by councils, usually by
placing a ceiling or allowable limit on the percentage increase from year to year.
255
2010–11 Local Government National Report
specific-purpose grant
Payments made by the Commonwealth to the state or territory governments for a specific
purpose. These payments cover most functional areas of state and local government
activities.
standardised revenue and expenditure
The assessed (as distinct from actual) revenue and expenditure for each council,
determined by its local government grants commission as required for horizontal equalisation
purposes, which takes into account each council’s expenditure needs, revenue-raising
capacity and disabilities.
structural reform
A change to the external relationships between council including boundary changes and
amalgamation of councils. Cooperative service provision, major resource sharing initiatives
and joint service delivery.
256
ABBREVIATIONS
AAV
Assessed annual value
ACELG
Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government
ACLG
Australian Classification of Local Governments
ALGA
Australian Local Government Association
APM
Asset Preservation Model
APY
Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara
COAG
Council of Australian Governments
CPI
Consumer price index
CRI
Cost relativity index
eDAIS
electronic Development Assessment Interoperability Standard
GIR
Geographic Information Retrieval
IPWEA
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia
257
2010–11 Local Government National Report
KPI
Key performance indicator
LGASA
Local Government Association of South Australia
LGANT
Local Government Association of the Northern Territory
LGAQ
Local Government Association of Queensland
LGAT
Local Government Association of Tasmania
LGMA
Local Government Managers
LGPMC
Local Government Planning Ministers Council
LGRF
Local Government Reform Fund
MAV
Municipal Association of Victoria
NAIDOC
National Aboriginal Islander Day of Observance Committee
NAMAF
National Asset Management Assessment Framework
OSLGR
Office for State/Local Government Relations
RCG
Regional Collaborative Group
RLCIP
Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program
RMP
Regional Management Plan
RRI
revenue relativity index
RTG
Regional Transition Group
SEIFA
Socio-Economic Index for Areas produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics
258
Abbreviations
TAMS
Territory and Municipal Services Directorate
WALGGC
Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission
WALGA
Western Australian Local Government Association
259
INDEX OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
A
Adelaide, 213, 241, 242
Adelaide Hills, 213, 241,242
Albany, 207, 235, 238
Albury, 194, 223, 225
Alexandrina, 213, 241, 242
Alice Springs, 157, 218, 245
Alpine, 99, 200, 228, 229
Anangu Pitjantjatjara, 66, 67, 147, 213, 240, 242, 253
Ararat, 200, 228, 230
Armadale, 7, 207, 234, 238
Armidale Dumaresq, 194, 224, 225
Ashburton, 207, 235, 237
Ashfield, 194, 222, 226
Auburn, 194, 222, 226
Augusta–Margaret River, 207, 235, 239
Aurukun, 66, 188, 203, 231, 232
B
Ballarat, 115, 200, 229
Ballina, 194, 223, 226
Balonne, 203, 232
Balranald, 194, 222, 227
Banana, 203, 232
Bankstown, 194, 222, 226
Banyule, 200, 220, 228, 230
Barcaldine, 203, 231, 233
Barcoo, 204, 231, 233
Barkly, 218, 245
Barossa, 213, 241, 242
Barunga West, 213, 241, 242
Bass Coast, 200, 229
Bassendean, 207, 234, 238
Bathurst Regional, 194, 224, 225
Baw Baw, 200, 229
Bayside, 98, 200, 229, 230
Bayswater, 207, 234, 238
Bega Valley, 194, 224
Bellingen, 194, 224
Belmont, 207, 234, 238
Belyuen, 218, 245
Benalla, 115, 200, 229, 230
Berri Barmera, 213, 241
Berrigan, 194, 223, 226
Beverley, 207, 236, 237
Blackall-Tambo, 204, 231, 233
Blacktown, 194, 223, 226
Bland, 194, 222, 227
Blayney, 194, 224, 225
Blue Mountains, 194, 224, 225
Boddington, 207, 236, 237
Bogan, 194, 222, 227
Bombala, 194, 222, 226
Boorowa, 194, 223, 226
Boroondara, 98, 200, 229, 230
Botany Bay, 194, 222, 226
Boulia, 204, 231, 233
Bourke, 194, 221, 226
Boyup Brook, 207, 237
Break O’Day, 216, 243
Brewarrina, 194, 222, 227
Bridgetown-Greenbushes, 207, 236
Brighton, 217, 243
Brimbank, 200, 228, 229,
Brisbane, 7, 122, 125, 127, 204, 231, 233
Broken Hill, 194, 223, 224
Brookton, 207, 235, 236
Broome, 207, 236, 237
Broomehill - Tambellup, 207, 235, 237
Bruce Rock, 208, 234, 237
Bulloo, 204, 231, 233
Buloke, 200, 228, 230
Bunbury, 208, 234, 239
Bundaberg, 204, 231, 233
261
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Burdekin, 204, 232
Burke, 204, 231, 233
Burnie, 217, 243, 244
Burnside, 6, 7, 213, 240, 242
Burwood, 194, 222, 227
Busselton, 208, 235, 239, 250
Byron, 194, 222, 225
C
Cabonne, 195, 223, 224
Cairns, 122, 126, 227, 204, 231, 233
Cambridge, 208, 234, 238
Camden, 195, 223, 226
Campaspe, 200, 228, 230
Campbelltown (NSW), 195, 223, 226
Campbelltown (SA), 213, 240, 242
Canada Bay, 195, 222, 227
Canning, 208, 234, 239
Canterbury, 195, 222, 226
Capel, 7, 208, 235, 238
Cardinia, 7, 200, 228, 229
Carnamah, 208, 235, 237
Carnarvon, 208, 235, 236
Carpentaria, 204, 231, 233
Carrathool, 195, 222, 227
Casey, 200, 228, 230
Cassowary Coast, 204, 231, 233
Ceduna, 213, 240, 242
Central Coast, 217, 243
Central Darling, 195, 222, 227
Central Desert, 218, 245
Central Goldfields, 200, 228, 230
Central Highlands (Qld), 204, 232
Central Highlands (Tas.), 217, 243, 244
Cessnock, 195, 224, 225
Chapman Valley, 208, 236, 238
Charles Sturt, 214, 240, 242
Charters Towers, 204, 232
Cherbourg, 204, 232
Chittering, 208, 235, 237
Circular Head, 217, 243, 244
Clare and Gilbert Valleys, 214, 241, 242
Claremont, 208, 234, 239
Clarence, 217, 243, 244
Clarence Valley, 195, 224
Cleve, 214, 240, 241
Cloncurry, 204, 232, 233
Cobar, 195, 222, 227
Cockburn, 208, 235, 238
Coffs Harbour, 195, 223, 225
Colac Otway, 200, 229
Collie, 208, 236, 237
Conargo, 195, 222, 227
Coober Pedy, 214, 240, 242
Cook, 172, 204, 231, 233
262
Coolamon, 195, 222, 227
Coolgardie, 208, 237, 238
Cooma–Monaro, 195, 224, 225
Coomalie, 6, 7, 218, 245
Coonamble, 195, 222, 226
Coorong, 214, 240, 241
Coorow, 208, 235, 237
Cootamundra, 195, 223, 225
Copper Coast, 214, 241
Corangamite, 201, 228, 229
Corowa, 195, 223, 226
Corrigin, 208, 235, 236
Cottesloe, 208, 234, 238
Cowra, 195, 224, 225
Cranbrook, 208, 236, 237
Croydon, 204, 231, 233
Cuballing, 208, 235, 237
Cue, 208, 234, 237
Cunderdin, 208, 235, 237
D
Dalwallinu, 208, 235, 238
Dandaragan, 208, 236, 237
Dardanup, 209, 235, 238
Darebin, 201, 228, 230
Darwin, 163, 218, 245
Deniliquin, 195, 223, 224
Denmark, 209, 236, 237
Derwent Valley, 217, 243, 244, 250
Devonport, 7, 217, 243, 244
Diamantina, 204, 231, 233
Donnybrook-Balingup, 209, 236, 237
Doomadgee, 204, 231, 232
Dorset, 217, 243, 244
Dowerin, 209, 235, 238
Dubbo, 195, 224, 225
Dumbleyung, 209, 235, 238
Dundas, 209, 235, 236
Dungog, 195, 224
E
East Arnhem, 218, 245
East Fremantle, 209, 234, 238
East Gippsland, 7, 201, 228
East Pilbara, 209, 236
Elliston, 214, 240, 241
Esperance, 209, 237
Etheridge, 204, 231, 233
Eurobodalla, 195, 224, 225
Exmouth, 209, 235
Index of local governments
F
H
Fairfield, 195, 222, 226
Flinders (Qld), 204, 231, 233
Flinders (Tas.), 6, 7, 64, 155, 217, 243, 244
Flinders Ranges, 214, 240, 242
Forbes, 7, 195, 223, 226
Franklin Harbour, 214, 240, 242
Frankston, 201, 220, 228, 230
Fraser Coast, 204, 231, 233
Fremantle, 209, 234, 238
Halls Creek, 209, 234, 236
Harden, 196, 223, 226
Harvey, 209, 235, 238
Hawkesbury, 196, 224, 226
Hay, 196, 222, 227
Hepburn, 201, 228, 230
Hills, 196, 223, 227, 250
Hinchinbrook, 205, 232, 233
Hindmarsh, 201, 228, 230
Hobart, 217, 243, 244
Hobson’s Bay, 98, 201, 228, 230
Holdfast Bay, 214, 240, 242
Holroyd, 196, 222, 226
Hopevale, 205, 231, 232
Hornsby, 196, 223, 227
Horsham, 201, 228, 230, 250
Hume, 201, 228, 230
Hunters Hill, 196, 223, 226
Huon Valley, 217, 243, 244
Hurstville, 196, 222, 227
G
Gannawarra, 201, 228, 230
Gawler, 214, 240, 241
George Town, 217, 243
Geraldton–Greenough, 209, 235, 237
Gerard, 147, 214, 240
Gilgandra, 197, 223, 226
Gingin, 209, 236, 237
Gladstone, 204, 231, 233
Glamorgan-Spring Bay, 217, 243, 244
Glen Eira, 98, 201, 229, 230
Glen Innes Severn, 196, 223, 225
Glenelg, 106, 201, 228, 229
Glenorchy, 217, 243, 244
Gloucester, 196, 224, 225
Gnowangerup, 209, 236, 237
Gold Coast, 122, 205, 233
Golden Plains, 201, 229, 230
Goomalling, 209, 226, 237
Goondiwindi, 205, 232
Gosford, 6, 7, 196, 223, 226
Gosnells, 209, 234, 239
Goulburn Mulwaree, 196, 225
Goyder, 7, 214, 240, 242
Grant, 214, 241
Great Lakes, 196, 224
Greater Bendigo, 201, 229, 230
Greater Dandenong, 201, 228, 229
Greater Geelong, 201, 229
Greater Hume, 196, 223, 226
Greater Shepparton, 201, 229, 230
Greater Taree, 196, 224, 225
Griffith, 196, 225
Gundagai, 196, 223, 225
Gunnedah, 196, 224, 225
Guyra, 196, 223, 226
Gwydir, 196, 223, 226
Gympie, 205, 231, 233
I
Indigo, 201, 228, 230
Inverell, 196, 224, 225
Ipswich, 122, 205, 231, 233
Irwin, 209, 236, 237
Isaac, 205, 232
J
Jerilderie, 196, 222, 227
Jerramungup, 209, 236, 239
Joondalup, 210, 234, 239
Junee, 196, 223, 226
K
Kalamunda, 210, 235, 238
Kalgoorlie/Boulder, 210, 235, 238
Kangaroo Island, 214, 240, 241
Karoonda-East Murray, 214, 240, 241
Katanning, 210, 236
Katherine, 157, 218, 245
Kellerberrin, 210, 235, 238
Kempsey, 196, 224
Kent, 210, 235, 239
Kentish, 217, 243
Kiama, 197, 224, 226
Kimba, 214, 240, 242
King Island, 217, 243, 244
Kingborough, 218, 243, 244
Kingston (SA), 214, 241
263
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Kingston (Vic.), 98, 201, 227, 229
Knox, 201, 228, 229, 250
Kogarah, 197, 221, 226
Kojonup, 209, 236, 238
Kondinin, 209, 235, 238
Koorda, 209, 234, 237
Kowanyama, 205, 232
Ku-ring-gai, 197, 222, 226
Kulin, 210, 235, 238
Kwinana, 210, 235, 238
Kyogle, 197, 223
L
Lachlan, 197, 221, 226
Lake Grace, 210, 236, 239
Lake Macquarie, 197, 222, 224
Lane Cove, 197, 222, 226
Latrobe (Tas.), 217, 243
Latrobe (Vic.), 201, 227, 228
Launceston, 217, 243, 244
Laverton, 210, 234, 239
Leeton, 197, 223, 224
Leichhardt, 197, 221, 226
Leonora, 210, 236, 239
Light, 214, 242
Lismore, 197, 223, 224
Litchfield, 218, 245
Lithgow, 197, 223, 224
Liverpool, 197, 222, 225, 250
Liverpool Plains, 197, 222, 224
Lockhart, 197, 221, 225
Lockhart River, 126, 205, 231, 233
Lockyer Valley, 205, 231, 233
Loddon, 201, 227, 229
Logan, 122, 205, 231, 233
Longreach, 127, 205, 231, 233
Lord Howe Island, 3, 55, 197, 221, 226
Lower Eyre Peninsula, 214, 241
Loxton Waikerie, 214, 241
M
MacDonnell, 218, 245
Macedon Ranges, 201, 228
Mackay, 205, 231, 235
Maitland, 197, 223, 224
Mallala, 214, 241, 242
Mandurah, 210, 235, 238
Manjimup, 210, 236, 237
Manly, 197, 221, 226
Manningham, 69, 98, 202, 228, 229
Mansfield, 202, 227, 229
Mapoon Aboriginal Council, 126, 205, 231, 232
Maralinga, 66, 67, 147, 214, 240, 241
264
Maranoa, 205, 232
Maribyrnong, 202, 227, 229
Marion, 214, 240, 242
Maroondah, 202, 227, 229
Marrickville, 6, 7, 197, 221, 225
McKinlay, 205, 231, 233
Meander Valley, 217, 243
Meekatharra, 210, 234, 239
Melbourne, 3, 98, 105, 202, 227, 225
Melton, 202, 227, 228
Melville, 210, 234, 238
Menzies, 210, 234, 239
Merredin, 210, 236, 237
Mid Murray, 214, 240, 242
Mid-Western Regional, 197, 223, 224
Mildura, 202, 228, 229
Mingenew, 210, 235, 237
Mitcham, 214, 240, 242
Mitchell, 202, 228
Moira, 202, 227, 229
Monash, 98, 222, 228, 229
Moonee Valley, 98, 202, 227, 229
Moora, 210, 236
Moorabool, 202, 228
Morawa, 210, 235, 238
Moree Plains, 197, 223, 225
Moreland, 202, 227, 229
Moreton Bay, 122, 205, 231, 233
Mornington, 66, 129, 188, 205, 231, 232
Mornington Peninsula, 202, 228, 229
Mosman, 197, 222, 226
Mosman Park, 210, 235, 239
Mount Alexander, 202, 228, 229
Mount Barker, 214, 240, 242
Mount Gambier, 214, 240, 241
Mount Isa, 205, 232
Mount Magnet, 210, 234, 237
Mount Marshall, 210, 234, 238
Mount Remarkable, 214, 240, 242
Moyne, 202, 227, 228
Mukinbudin, 210, 234, 238
Mullewa, 210, 236, 238
Mundaring, 210, 235, 238
Murchison, 138, 210, 234, 239
Murray (NSW), 197, 222, 225
Murray (WA), 210, 235, 237
Murray Bridge, 214, 241
Murrindindi, 97, 99, 105, 202, 227, 228
Murrumbidgee, 197, 221, 226
Murweh, 205, 232, 233
Muswellbrook, 197, 223
Index of local governments
N
Nambucca, 197, 223, 224
Nannup, 210, 236
Napranum, 205, 232
Naracoorte Lucindale, 214, 241
Narembeen, 210, 234, 238
Narrabri, 70, 198, 222, 225
Narrandera, 198, 222, 226
Narrogin Shire, 210, 235, 238
Narrogin Town, 220, 234, 236
Narromine, 198, 222, 225
Nedlands, 210, 234, 239
Nepabunna, 147, 188
Newcastle, 84, 191, 198, 222, 224
Ngaanyatjarraku, 66, 211, 234, 236
Nillumbik, 99, 202, 228, 229
North Burnett, 205, 232
North Sydney, 198, 221, 226
Northam, 211, 235, 237
Northampton, 211, 237
Northern Areas, 214, 241, 242
Northern Grampians, 99, 202, 227, 229
Northern Midlands, 217, 243
Northern Peninsula Area, 129, 206, 231, 232
Norwood Payneham and St Peters, 215, 240, 242
Nungarin, 211, 242, 238
O
Oberon, 198, 222, 225
Onkaparinga, 215, 240, 242
Orange, 198, 222, 224
Orroroo/Carrieton, 215, 240, 242
Outback Areas Community Development Trust, 3,
55, 140, 147, 179, 215, 240, 242
P
Palerang, 198, 224
Palm Island, 206, 231, 232
Palmerston, 218, 245
Parkes, 198, 223, 225
Paroo, 206, 231, 233
Parramatta, 198, 221, 225
Penrith, 198, 222, 225
Peppermint Grove, 211, 234, 238
Perenjori, 211, 234, 239
Perth, 211, 234, 238
Peterborough, 215, 240, 242, 250
Pingelly, 211, 236, 237
Pittwater, 198, 222, 226
Plantagenet, 211, 237
Playford, 215, 240, 241
Pormpuraaw, 126, 206, 231, 233
Port Adelaide Enfield, 215, 240, 242
Port Augusta, 215, 241
Port Hedland, 211, 236, 237
Port Lincoln, 215, 240, 241
Port Macquarie-Hastings, 198, 222, 224
Port Phillip, 98, 202, 227, 230
Port Pirie, 215, 241
Port Stephens, 198, 223, 224
Prospect, 215, 240, 242
Pyrenees, 202, 227, 229
Q
Quairading, 211, 235, 237
Queanbeyan, 198, 221, 225
Queenscliffe, 98, 202, 228, 229
Quilpie, 206, 231, 233
R
Randwick, 198, 221, 226
Ravensthorpe, 211, 236, 238
Redland, 122, 214, 231, 233
Renmark Paringa, 215, 241
Richmond, 206, 231, 233
Richmond Valley, 198, 223
Robe, 215, 242
Rockdale, 198, 221, 226
Rockhampton, 206, 231, 233
Rockingham, 211, 235, 239
Roebourne, 211, 235, 237
Roper Gulf, 218, 245
Roxby Downs, 184, 215, 240, 242
Ryde, 198, 221, 226
S
Salisbury, 215, 240, 241
Sandstone, 211, 234, 238
Scenic Rim, 206, 231, 233
Serpentine-Jarrahdale, 211, 235, 237
Shark Bay, 211, 234, 236
Shellharbour, 198, 222, 225
Shoalhaven, 198, 223, 224
Silverton Village, 3, 55, 198, 221, 226
Singleton, 198, 223, 224
Snowy River, 198, 222, 224
Somerset, 206, 232
Sorell, 217, 243
South Burnett, 206, 232
South Gippsland, 202, 227
South Perth, 211, 234, 238
Southern Downs, 206, 232
Southern Grampians, 203, 227, 229
Southern Mallee, 215, 240, 241
Southern Midlands, 217, 243, 244
265
2010–11 Local Government National Report
Stirling, 211, 234, 238
Stonnington, 98, 203, 228, 229
Strathbogie, 203, 227, 230
Strathfield, 198, 221, 226
Streaky Bay, 215, 240, 242
Subiaco, 211, 234, 239
Sunshine Coast, 122, 206, 231, 233
Surf Coast, 203, 228
Sutherland, 199, 222, 226
Swan, 68-9,211, 235, 239
Swan Hill, 203, 227, 229
Sydney, 3, 77-9, 82, 84, 191, 199, 221, 225
T
Tablelands, 206, 232
Tammin, 211, 234, 238
Tamworth Regional, 199, 224
Tasman, 217, 243, 244
Tatiara, 215, 240, 241
Tea Tree Gully, 215, 240, 242
Temora, 199, 222, 225
Tenterfield, 199, 222, 225
Three Springs, 211, 235, 238
Tibooburra, 3, 55, 199, 221, 226
Tiwi Islands, 218, 245
Toodyay, 212, 236, 237
Toowoomba, 206, 231, 233
Torres, 206, 231, 232
Torres Strait Island, 63, 129, 206, 231
Townsville, 122, 206, 231, 233
Towong, 203, 227, 228
Trayning, 212, 234, 238
Trust Account, 3, 32, 55, 67, 218, 245, 249
Tumbarumba, 199, 222, 224
Tumby Bay, 215, 241, 242
Tumut, 199, 223, 224
Tweed, 199, 222, 224
U
Unley, 216, 240, 242
Upper Gascoyne, 212, 234, 239
Upper Hunter, 199, 223, 224
Upper Lachlan, 199, 222, 225
Uralla, 199, 223, 224
Urana, 199, 221, 226
V
Victor Harbor, 216, 241, 242
Victoria - Daly, 218, 245
Victoria Park, 212, 234, 239
Victoria Plains, 212, 236, 238
Vincent, 212, 234, 238
266
W
Wagait, 7, 218, 245
Wagga Wagga, 199, 223, 224
Wagin, 212, 236, 237
Wakefield, 216, 241
Wakool, 199, 221, 224
Walcha, 199, 222, 225
Walgett, 199, 221, 225
Walkerville, 216, 240, 242
Wandering, 212, 234, 236
Wangaratta, 203, 228, 229
Wanneroo, 212, 235, 238
Waratah - Wynyard, 217, 243
Waroona, 212, 235, 237
Warren, 199, 221, 225
Warringah, 199, 222, 226
Warrnambool, 203, 227, 228
Warrumbungle, 199, 222, 225
Wattle Range, 216, 241, 242
Waverley, 199, 221, 225
Weddin, 199, 221, 226
Wellington (NSW), 199, 222, 225
Wellington (Vic.), 99, 203, 228
Wentworth, 199, 221, 226
West Arnhem, 218, 245
West Arthur, 212, 236
West Coast, 217, 243
West Tamar, 217, 243
West Torrens, 216, 240, 242
West Wimmera, 203, 227, 229
Western Downs, 206, 232
Westonia, 212, 234, 238
Whitehorse, 98, 203, 228, 229
Whitsunday, 206, 231, 233
Whittlesea, 106, 203, 227, 229
Whyalla, 216, 240, 241
Wickepin, 212, 235, 238
Williams, 212, 235, 238
Willoughby, 199, 221, 226
Wiluna, 6, 7, 212, 234, 239
Wingecarribee, 200, 223, 225
Winton, 206, 231, 233
Wodonga, 203, 227, 228
Wollondilly, 200, 223, 225
Wollongong, 84, 191, 200, 202, 224
Wongan-Ballidu, 212, 235, 238
Woodanilling, 212, 235, 238
Woollahra, 200, 221, 226
Woorabinda, 206, 232
Wudinna, 216, 240, 242
Wujal Wujal, 206, 232
Wyalkatchem, 212, 234, 237
Wyndham, 203, 227, 228
Wyndham-East Kimberley, 212, 236
Wyong, 200, 222, 224
Index of local governments
Y
Yalata, 147, 188, 216, 240, 241
Yalgoo, 212, 234, 239
Yankalilla, 216, 242
Yarra, 98, 203, 227, 230
Yarra Ranges, 203, 227, 228
Yarrabah, 127, 206, 231, 232
Yarriambiack, 203, 227, 230
Yass Valley, 200, 224
Yilgarn, 212, 236, 239
York, 212, 236, 237
Yorke Peninsula, 216, 241, 242
Young, 200, 223, 224
267
ALPHABETICAL INDEX
A
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities, 21, 59, 60, 65, 68, 71, 76, 90,
106, 128, 139, 153, 155, 163, 165, 175
Aboriginal communities, 90, 91, 106, 140, 147
see also Indigenous communities
Aboriginal Land Council, 64, 155
Aboriginal Mentoring Program (NSW), 63, 90
Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders
National Principle, 72, 193
ACELG, 54-56, 65, 66
ACLG, 193-218, 247-250
see also Australian Classification of Local
Governments
ACT, see Australian Capital Territory
ACT NOWaste, 174, 175
actual grant entitlement, 20,21, 27
adjustments, 25, 26
affordable housing, see housing
ALGA, 8, 65
see also Australian Local Government
Association
allocation of grants, see grants
amalgamations, 32, 55
National Principle, 73
Northern Territory, 183
Western Australia, 54, 138
annual reports, 34, 51, 161, 164
assets and liabilities, 16, 17
see also financial and asset management
planning
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 5, 10-12, 14,
15, 17, 27, 28, 52, 59, 85, 87, 98, 117, 141, 150,
155-158
Australian Capital Territory, 3, 5, 8, 12, 19, 20, 30,
49, 65
calculation of grants actual entitlements
and adjustments, 23, 24
submission from, 165-176
Australian Capital Territory Department of
Territory and Municipal Services, 165-176
Australian Centre of Excellence for Local
Government, 54, 56, 65, 139, 152
Australian Classification of Local Governments
(ACLG), 50, 193-218
changes in category for 2009–10, 248-251
minimum grant by, 37
relative needs basis ranking, 219–245
Australian Council of Local Government, 8, 103
Australian Government funding, see grants
Australian Local Government Association,
8, 52, 65
awards and recognition, 68, 70
B
balanced budget model, 179, 180
benchmarking, see performance measures
bilateral agreements, see intergovernmental
agreements
brought-forward payments, 21-26
bushfires, 97, 105, 173
269
2010–11 Local Government National Report
C
D
Canberra, see Australian Capital Territory
capital cities, see classification of bodies
capping policies, 43
Victoria, 92, 98
children, 50, 60, 76
Christmas Island Shire Council, 33
classification of bodies, 193-218
see also Australian Classification of Local
Governments; Indigenous councils;
minimum grant
climate change, 50, 150
Closing the Gap initiative, 60-62, 65, 163
see also Indigenous communities
COAG, see Council of Australian Governments
Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council, 33
collaborative arrangements, see resource
sharing
Commonwealth funding, see grants
Commonwealth Grants Commission,
42, 156, 187, 189
communications technology,
see online services
Community Governance Improvement
Strategy (Qld), 128
community planning
New South Wales, 88
Queensland, 127, 129
see also Indigenous communities
Comparative Information on New South Wales
Government Councils 2009-10, 87
comparative performance, see
performance measures
computing, see online services
consumer price index (CPI), 20
contracts, see purchasing
cooperation, see resource sharing
cost saving, see resource sharing
‘council’ (term), use of, 3
Council of Australian Governments (COAG),
8, 47, 60
Intergovernmental Agreement on
Federal Financial Relations, 8, 9
Local Government Reform Fund agreement,
46, 47, 49, 111, 127-129, 149, 155, 164, 166
National Indigenous Reform Agreement
(Closing the Gap), 60-62
Council Reforming Business Program (Vic),
104, 105
CPI, 20
CRB see Council Reforming Business Program
current arrangements, Overview, 20
declared local governing bodies, 3, 32
Indigenous, 67
Department of Families, Housing, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs, 61, 68, 135
Determining the grant, 20, 21
Determining entitlements, 22-26
direct assessment, 76, 140, 178, 179
distribution of grants, 30
see grants
diversity, 6, 91, 92, 132, 155
domestic waste, see waste management
270
E
early (brought-forward) payments, 23, 24
eDAIS, 152
Efficiency and effectiveness, 19, 21, 53, 71, 75
Australian Capital Territory, 76, 166
New South Wales, 53, 86, 87
Northern Territory, 162, 163
Queensland, 53, 125
South Australia, 151
Tasmania, 54
Victoria, 104
Western Australia, 138
effort neutrality principle, 117
employees, 5
promoting diversity, 91
workers compensation, 153
Engaging With Local Aboriginal Communities
resource kit (NSW), 90
escalation (final/estimated) factors, 25, 26
estimated grant entitlement, 21-24, 26
expenditure,
assessments, 72-74
Alphabetical index
F
I
factoring back, 178, 189, 190
final (escalation) factor, 21-24, 25
finance, 10-17
assessments, 72-74
Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal
Financial Relations, 8, 9
Local Government Reform Fund, 46, 47, 49,
111, 127-129, 149, 155, 164, 166
see also grants; resource sharing
financial and asset management planning, 46
Australian Capital Territory, 49, 165
New South Wales, 86
Northern Territory, 49, 161,164
Queensland, 63, 122, 127
South Australia, 49, 148, 150
Tasmania, 49, 155
Victoria, 103, 112
Western Australia, 136
Financial assistance grants to local
government, 19-43
funding, see finance; grants
identified local road grants, see road grants
Indian Ocean Territories, 32
Indigenous communities, 56-68
Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders
National Principle, 72, 193
Australian Capital Territory, 175
New South Wales, 90
Northern Territory, 163
Queensland, 128
Victoria, 106
Western Australia, 139
information technology and online services
Australian Capital Territory Library and
Information Services, 173
grants commission addresses, 34
infrastructure,50, 61
Australian Capital Territory, 166, 168-170
New South Wales, 79
Queensland, 48, 122-129
South Australia, 49, 148, 149
Victoria, 48, 53, 103, 105
see also financial and asset management
planning; housing; library services; roads;
water and sewerage
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia,
148, 149, 161
Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework
(NSW), 88, 91
Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework
(WA), 48, 136, 137
Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal
Financial Relations, 8, 9
intergovernmental agreements, 8, 9
inter-governmental structures, 8, 9
Internet, see online services
Initiatives, 59, 63
Australian Capital Territory, 169, 174
New South Wales, 53, 63, 91
South Australia, 153
Victoria, 63, 103, 112
IPWEA, see Institute of Public Works Engineering
Australia
G
general purpose grants, see grants
grant distribution methods, 30-34
see also National Principles
grants, 19-43, 193-245
see also minimum grant; National Principles;
road grants
grants commissions, 20, 30, 31, 34
see also Commonwealth Grants
Commission; grant distribution methods
H
Hawker (House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Economics, Finance and
Public Administration) Report, 19
horizontal equalisation, 72, 74
House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Economics, Finance and
Public Administration, 19
household waste, see waste management
J
Jerrabomberra Wetlands Nature Reserve,
172, 173
Jervis Bay Territory, 32, 33
271
2010–11 Local Government National Report
L
land taxes, 11
see also rates
landfill, see waste management
legislation, 3, 4, 6, 31, 66, 67
Australian Capital Territory, 171
establishing state grants commissions, 31
Queensland, 48, 128
South Australia, 49, 147
Victoria, 92, 105
Western Australia, 48
see also Local Government (Financial
Assistance) Act 1995
LGMA, see Local Government Managers
Australia
Liabilities and assets, 16, 17
liability protection, 153
library services
Australian Capital Territory, 173
New South Wales, 76, 78
South Australia, 142, 151
Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), 31, 88
Local Government Act 2008 (NT), 31, 161, 164
Local Government Act 1993 (Qld), 31
Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), 122-127
Local Government Act 1999 (SA), 31, 148
Local Government Act 1978 (WA), 31
Local Government Act 1995 (WA), 137
Local Government (Accountability Framework)
Amendment Act 2009 (SA), 149
Local Government and Planning (Amendment)
Act 2010 (Vic), 105
Local Government and Planning Ministers’
Council (LGPMC), 9, 46, 47, 88, 103
Local Government and Shires Associations of
New South Wales, 85, 89-91
Local Government Association Mutual Liability
Scheme, 153
Local Government Association of Queensland
(LGAQ), 64, 127-133
Local Government Association of South
Australia (LGASA), 55, 148
Local Government Association of Tasmania
(LGAT), 154
Local Government Association of the Northern
Territory (LGANT), 163-165
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act
1986 (Cwth), 19
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act
1995 (Cwth), 19, 20-22, 25-27, 30-33, 37, 42,
45, 59, 67, 71, 75
annual report requirement, 1
brought-forward payments, 21-26
272
Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001
review, 42
grant distribution requirements, 30-37
grant quantum requirements, 20-27
‘local governing bodies’ definition, 32
see also National Principles
Local Government (Finance, Plans and
Reporting) Regulation 2010 (Qld), 122,
123, 125
Local Government Financial Sustainability
Nationally Consistent Frameworks, 45, 75
Australian Capital Territory, 165
New South Wales, 86
Northern Territory, 161
Queensland, 122
South Australia, 148, 149
Tasmania, 155
Victoria, 103
Local Government Grants Act 1978 (WA), 31
Local Government Grants Commission Act 1986
(NT), 31
Local Government Grants Commission Act 1992
(SA), 31
local government grants commissions, 31, 33,
34, 42, 43, 71, 177, 193, 220, 248
see also grant distribution methods
Local Government Managers Australia, 8
NSW Branch, 53, 89, 91
WA Branch, 137
Local Government Procurement Strategy (Vic.),
53, 104
Local Government Reform Commission (Qld),
122
Local Government Reform Fund, 46
Australian Capital Territory, 49, 166
Northern Territory, 49, 164
Queensland, 128, 129, 148
South Australia, 49, 149
Tasmania, 49, 155
Local Government Reform Program (NSW),
53, 87
Local Government Reform Steering Committee
(WA), 137
Local Government Research and Development
Scheme (SA), 150, 152
Local Government Victoria, 104, 106
local roads, see roads
Alphabetical index
M
Main Roads WA, 134-136
MAV, see Municipal Association of Victoria
Measuring Council Performance in Tasmania
report, 154
mergers, see amalgamations
methodology, see grant distribution methods
minimum grant, 37-43, 72, 177, 178
factoring back process, 189, 190
New South Wales, 38
Northern Territory, 41, 159
Queensland, 39, 117, 122
South Australia, 40
symbol indicating in Appendix D, 193
Tasmania, 40
Victoria, 38, 98
Western Australia, 39, 134
ministerial councils, 8, 9, 47
see also Council of Australian Governments;
Local Government and Planning Ministers’
Council
Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV),
63, 104-116
municipal libraries, see library services
municipal rates, see rates
Mutual Liability Scheme (SA), 153
N
NAMAF, see National Asset Management
Assessment Framework
National Asset Management Assessment
Framework, 130, 131
National Awards for Local Government, 68-70
national conference of local government
grants commissions, 34
National Frameworks for Local Government
Financial Sustainability, 88
National Indigenous Reform Agreement, 9
see also Indigenous communities
National Partnership Agreements, 61
National Principles, 71-74
horizontal equalisation, 74
other grant support, 72
see also minimum grant
national representation, 8
Native Title, 64, 153
net worth, 16, 17
New South Wales, 76-92
classification (types) of bodies receiving,
34-36; ACLG categories, 193-200, 219-226,
247-250
Amalgamations, 55
Awards, 70
comparative performance indicators, 51
efficiency and effectiveness, 53
employees and population served, 5, 6
expenditure by purpose, 14
financial and asset management planning,
47, 48; assets and liabilities, 17
financial assistance grants, see New South
Wales financial assistance grants
Indigenous communities, 63, 90
Initiatives, 53, 63, 89
revenue sources, 10-14
roads, see New South Wales road network
New South Wales Department of Premier and
Cabinet, 76
New South Wales Division of Local Government,
76-92
New South Wales financial assistance grants,
193-200
distribution methods, 33, 76-83; comparison
with other grants commission models, 177191
entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
minimum grant, 37, 38; symbol indicating in
Appendix D, 193
relative needs ranking, 219-226
New South Wales Local Government Act 1993,
31, 88
New South Wales Local Government and Shires
Associations, 90, 91
New South Wales Local Government Grants
Commission, 33, 76-92
comparison with other grants commission
models, 177-191
Internet address, 34
methodology reviews, 42
New South Wales Local Government Reform
Program, 47, 48, 53, 87
New South Wales Promoting Better Practice
Review Program, 88
New South Wales Promoting Diversity in Local
Government project, 91, 92
New South Wales road network, 81
average grant per kilometre, 36, 221-226
grant distribution method, 81-85; status of
methodology reviews, 42
grant entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
relative needs ranking, 221-226
New South Wales Strategic Alliance Network,
53, 88, 89
Northern Territory, 156-165
amalgamations, 55
classification (types) of bodies receiving,
34-36; ACLG categories, 218, 245, 249
Amalgamations, 58
comparative performance measures, 162
efficiency and effectiveness, 54, 162
273
2010–11 Local Government National Report
employees and population served, 5
expenditure by purpose, 15
financial and asset management planning,
49, 161; assets and liabilities, 17
financial assistance grants, see Northern
Territory financial assistance grants
Indigenous communities, 64, 67, 69, 163
revenue sources, 10-14
roads, see Northern Territory road network
Northern Territory Department of Local
Government and Housing, 156-163
Northern Territory financial assistance grants,
30, 218
distribution methods, 33, 42, 156-163;
comparison with other grants commission
models, 177-191
entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
minimum grant, 37, 41; symbol indicating in
Appendix D, 193
relative needs ranking, 245
Northern Territory Grants Commission, 33,
156-163
comparison with other grants commission
models, 177-191
Internet address, 34
methodology reviews, 42, 156, 157
Northern Territory Local Government
Association, 163-165
Northern Territory Local Government Grants
Commission Act 1995, 31
Northern Territory road network,
average grant per kilometre, 36, 245
grant distribution method, 156; status of
methodology reviews, 42
grant entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
relative needs ranking, 245
NSW, see New South Wales
P
O
Q
Office for State/Local Government Relations,
148-150
online services see information technology
OSLGR, see Office for State/Local Government
Relations
other grant support National Principle, 72
274
parliamentary inquiries,
House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Economics, Finance and
Public Administration (Hawker) Report, 19
per capita grants, 193-218
average, 35, 36
minimum grant local government
bodies, 37-41
per capita rate revenue, 12
per capita state grants, 14
per kilometre local road grants, 193-218
average grant, 35, 36
performance measures, 51, 52
Australia Local Government Association, 52
New South Wales, 51, 87
Northern Territory, 52, 162
Queensland, 51, 125
South Australia, 52, 150
Tasmania, 52, 154
Victoria, 51, 104
Western Australia, 51, 137
population, 4, 5
see also per capita state grants
principles, see National Principles
Productivity Commission, 51, 52, 79
Promoting Better Practice Review Program
(NSW), 88
Promoting Diversity in Local Government
project (NSW), 91, 92
property taxes, 11
see also rates
public libraries, see library services
publications,
New South Wales, 90, 91
Queensland, 127
quantum of allocations, 28, 29
quantum of grant, 23, 24
Queensland, 115-133
assets and liabilities, 17
classification (types) of bodies receiving, 3436; ACLG categories, 203-206, 231-233, 249
amalgamations, 55
comparative performance measures, 51,
125
efficiency and effectiveness, 53, 125
employees and population served, 5
expenditure by purpose, 15
financial and asset management planning,
48
Alphabetical index
financial assistance grants, see Queensland
financial assistance grants
Indigenous councils and communities, 63,
64, 128
Initiatives, 63, 64, 128, 132
revenue sources, 10-14
roads, see Queensland road network
Queensland financial assistance grants, 28,
203-206
distribution methods, 116-129; comparison
with other grants commission models,
177-191
entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
minimum grant, 37, 39; symbol indicating in
Appendix D, 193
relative needs ranking, 231-233
Queensland Local Government Act 1993, 31
Queensland Local Government Act 2009,
122-125, 127
Queensland Local Government Association,
129-133
Queensland Local Government Comparative
Information Report 2010-11, 125
Queensland Local Government Grants
Commission, 31, 116-129
comparison with other grants commission
models, 177-191
Internet address, 34
methodology reviews, 42
Queensland road network,
average grant per kilometre, 36
grant distribution method, 116-122; status of
methodology reviews, 42
grant entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
relative needs ranking, 231-233
R
rates, 10-12, 182
New South Wales, 78, 83, 87
Northern Territory, 158, 163, 183
Queensland, 117, 122
South Australia, 142, 183
Tasmania, 183
Victoria, 94, 96, 98, 182
Western Australia, 133
RCG, see Regional Collaborative Group
recycling, see waste management
Regional and Local Community Infrastructure
Program, 49, 50, 148
regional bodies, see classification of bodies
Regional Collaborative Group (WA), 138
Regional Management Plan, 162
Regional Transition Group (WA), 138
relative need, 42, 73, 190
allocation on basis, 219-245
Queensland, 116, 117
Northern Territory, 156
South Australia, 141
Victoria, 94, 99
remote bodies, see classification of bodies
reporting, 46, 59
Australian Capital Territory, 165-176
New South Wales, 47, 53, 76-92
Northern Territory, 156-165
Queensland, 53, 116-133
South Australia, 140-153
Tasmania, 154-156
Victoria, 92-116
Western Australia, 48, 133-139
see also performance measures
resource sharing (NSW), 90
see also structural reform
revenue and revenue sources, 4, 5, 10-14, 33,
37, 68, 72, 74
see also grants; rates
RLCIP, see Regional and Local Community
Infrastructure Program
RMP, see Regional Management Plan
road grants, 23, 24, 28
average per kilometre, 36
Indian Ocean Territories, 33
National Principle, 73
relative needs basis, 219-245
road grants distributions methods, 73
New South Wales, 81-85
Northern Territory, 160
Queensland, 120, 121
reviews, 42
South Australia, 146
Victoria, 99-102
Western Australia, 134, 135
roads, 190, 191
Australian Capital Territory, 168, 169
New South Wales, 184, 186
Northern Territory, 185, 187
Queensland, 185, 186
South Australia, 185, 187
Tasmania, 185, 187
Victoria, 185, 186
Western Australia, 185, 186, 188
Roads ACT, 166, 168, 169
roles, see functions and roles
RTG, see Regional Transition Group
rural bodies, see classification of bodies
275
2010–11 Local Government National Report
S
SA, see South Australia
sales of goods and services, 11, 12
scope of equalisation, 180, 181
sewerage, see water and sewerage
shared services, see resource sharing
size of bodies, see classification of bodies
Social Justice Initiatives Survey (NSW), 63, 90
software, see online services
solid waste management, see waste
management
South Australia, 140-153
classification (types) of bodies receiving,
34-36; ACLG categories, 213-216, 240-249,
258
assets and liabilities, 16, 17
comparative performance measures, 52,
150
efficiency and effectiveness, 54, 151
employees and population served, 5, 6
expenditure by purpose, 15
financial and asset management planning,
148, 149
financial assistance grants, see South
Australian financial assistance grants
Indigenous councils and communities,
64, 153
revenue sources, 10-14
roads, see South Australian road network
South Australian financial assistance grants, 34,
213-216
distribution methods, 33, 140-147;
comparison with other grants commission
models, 177-191
entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
minimum grant, 37; symbol indicating in
Appendix D, 193
relative needs ranking, 240-244
South Australia Local Government
(Accountability Framework) Amendment
Act 2009, 149
South Australian Local Government Association
(LGASA), 148-154
South Australian Local Government Association
Mutual Liability Scheme, 153
South Australian Local Government Grants
Commission, 31, 34
comparison with other grants commission
models, 177-191
Internet address, 34
methodology reviews, 42
South Australian Local Government Grants
Commission Act 1992, 31
South Australian Local Government Transport
Advisory Panel, 146
276
South Australian Local Government Workers
Compensation Scheme, 153
South Australian road network, 213-216
average grant per kilometre, 36
grant distribution method, 140-147; status of
methodology reviews, 42
grant entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
relative needs ranking, 240-244
supplementary funding, 19, 22
Special Premiers’ Conference 1990, 19
specific purpose payments, 9, 12, 13, 82
staff, see employees
state grants, 13, 14
State Grants Commission Act 1976 (Tas.), 31
Strategic Alliance Network, 53, 89, 90
streets, see roads
Strengthening Indigenous Communities Award,
68
structural reform
Australian Capital Territory, 166
Northern Territory, 55
Queensland, 55
Western Australia, 54, 55, 136, 138
see also amalgamations
T
TAMS, see Territory and Municipal Services
Directorate
Tasmania, 154-156
classification (types) of bodies receiving, 3436; ACLG categories, 216, 217, 243, 244, 249,
250
efficiency and effectiveness, 54
employees and population served, 5, 6
expenditure by purpose, 15
financial and asset management planning,
155; assets and liabilities, 17
financial assistance grants, see Tasmanian
financial assistance grants Indigenous
communities, 64, 155
revenue sources, 10-14
roads, see Tasmanian road network
Tasmanian Department of Premier and Cabinet,
154, 155
Tasmanian financial assistance grants, 216, 217
distribution methods, 33, 43, 154-156;
comparison with other grants commission
models, 154, 177-191
entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
minimum grant, 37-41; symbol indicating in
Appendix D, 193
relative needs ranking, 243, 244
Alphabetical index
Tasmanian Local Government Association
(LGAT), 154
Tasmanian Local Government Division, 154
Tasmanian road network, 216, 217
average grant per kilometre, 36
grant distribution method, 154; status of
methodology reviews, 42
grant entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
relative needs ranking, 243, 244
Tasmanian State Grants Commission, 34, 154-156
comparison with other grants commission
models, 154, 177-191
Internet address, 34
methodology reviews, 42
Tasmanian State Grants Commission Act 1976,
31
taxation revenue, 10-14
see also rates
territories, see also Australian Capital Territory;
Northern Territory
Territory and Municipal Services Directorate, 49,
165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 174
Tharwa Bridge, 168
Tidbinbilla, 171-173
Torres Strait Islander communities, see
Indigenous communities
Townsville, 122
training programs,
Australian Capital Territory, 170,176
indigenous, 66
Northern Territory, 161, 163, 164
Queensland, 128
South Australia, 148, 151, 152
Western Australia, 48, 66
tree planting, 171, 172
Two Ways Together, Partnerships: a new way of
doing business with Aboriginal people
2003–12, 90
V
Victoria, 92-116
bushfires, 97, 105
classification (types) of bodies receiving, 3436; ACLG categories, 200-203, 227-230
comparative performance measures, 51
efficiency and effectiveness, 48
employees and population served, 5, 6
expenditure by purpose, 15
financial and asset management planning,
48, 103, 104; assets and liabilities, 17
financial assistance grants, see Victorian
financial assistance grants
Indigenous communities, 63
revenue sources, 10-14
roads, see Victorian road network
Victoria Grants Commission, 34, 92-116, 200-203
comparison with other grants commission
models, 177-191
Internet address, 34
methodology reviews, 42
Victoria Grants Commission Act 1976 (Vic.), 31
Victorian financial assistance grants, 34, 92-116,
200-203
distribution methods, 92-116; comparison
with other grants commission models, 179191
entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
minimum grant, 37, 38; symbol indicating in
Appendix D, 193
relative needs ranking, 227-230
Victorian Municipal Association, see Municipal
Association of Victoria
Victorian road network, 200-203
average grant per kilometre, 36
grant distribution method, 92-102; status of
methodology reviews, 42
grant entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
relative needs ranking, 227-230
U
urban bodies, see classification of bodies
Urban Forest Renewal Program (ACT), 171
277
2010–11 Local Government National Report
W
WALGA, see Western Australian Local
Government Association
waste management
Northern Territory, 162, 163, 165
Queensland, 128
South Australia, 185
Tasmania, 64, 155, 185
Victoria, 94, 185
see also water and sewerage
water and sewerage, 4
New South Wales, 89, 181
Queensland, 124, 128
websites, see online services
Western Australia, 133-139
classification (types) of bodies receiving, 3436; ACLG categories, 207-212, 234-239
comparative performance measures, 51,
137
efficiency and effectiveness, 54, 138
employees and population served, 5,6
expenditure by purpose, 15
financial and asset management planning,
48, 137 assets and liabilities, 16, 17
financial assistance grants, see Western
Australian financial assistance grants
Indigenous communities and councils, 64,
67, 139
revenue sources, 10-14
roads, see Western Australian road network
Western Australian Department of Local
Government, 133-139
Western Australian financial assistance grants,
34, 133-139
distribution methods, 133-137; comparison
with other grants commission models, 177191
entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
minimum grant, 37, 40; symbol indicating in
Appendix D, 193
relative needs ranking, 234-239
Western Australian Local Government Advisory
Board, 138
Western Australian Local Government
Association, 135, 136
Western Australian Local Government Grants
Act 1978, 31
Western Australian Local Government Grants
Commission, 34, 133-139
comparison with other grants commission
models, 177-191
Internet address, 34
methodology reviews, 42
278
Western Australian road network, 207-212
average grant per kilometre, 36
grant distribution method, 133–137; status of
methodology reviews, 42
grant entitlement, calculation of, 21-28
relative needs ranking, 234-239
women, 69, 92, 155, 156
workers, see employees
workers compensation, 153
Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council,
32, 33
Y
young people, 60, 70, 115