Outcomes Report
SEPTEMBER 2011
Contents
1.Introduction
2.Background
2
4
6. Workshop Outcomes: Directions
49
22
9.2 Other Comments: Workshop Day 2
50
25
5
2.2Purpose of Workshop
5
6.3 Summarised Directions 2.3 Background Material
6
2.4 Online Survey
7
3.1 Workshop Participants
9
3.2 Workshop Ground Rules 9
3.3 Workshop Program
4. Workshop Outcomes: Vision
10
12
7. Workshop Outcomes: Actions
7.1
Actions about Governance
26
27
7.2 Actions about Structure
29
7.3 Actions about Functions
30
7.4 Actions about Finance
32
7.5 Actions about Capacity
34
7.6 Actions about Other Big Ideas
35
7.7 Summary of Actions
37
4.1Vision Elements from Discussion Paper and Online Survey 13
8. Workshop Outcomes: Models
8.1 Overview of Models
39
4.2Potential Additional Vision Elements Suggested in Online Survey
13
8.2 Governance Elements of Models
40
4.3 Potential Additional Vision Elements Suggested During the Workshop
14
8.3 Structure Elements of Models
40
4.4 Draft Vision 15
5.Workshop Outcomes: Challenges and Opportunities
16
5.1 Challenges and Opportunities from Joint Session
17
5.2 Challenges and Opportunities from Roadmap Session
18
48
9.1 Other Comments: Workshop Day 1
2.1 Reference Group
8
9. Other Comments
21
6.2 Prioritised Directions from Groups in Roadmap Session
3.Workshop Participants, Ground Rules and Program
20
6.1 Directions from Sub Groups in Roadmap Session 52
Suggested Actions about Functions 53
Suggested Actions about Structure
54
Suggested Actions about Governance
55
Suggested Actions about Finance
56
Suggested Actions about Capacity
57
11.Conclusion
58
Appendices62
38
8.4 Function Elements of Models
41
8.5 Finance Elements of Models
42
8.6 Capacity Elements of Models
42
8.7 Other Elements of Models
43
8.8 Example Model 1: Two Tier Model
44
8.9 Example Model 2: Corporate Model for 45
10. Suggested Actions
Medium to Large Urban Populations
8.10 Example Model 3: Formalised Resource
Sharing Model
47
8.11 Example Model 4: Rural Place Management Model 47
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 1
1. Introduction
2 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
The Destination 2036 Workshop could
accurately be described as a two day
event held in Dubbo on 17 and 18 August
2011 and attended by civic leaders from
across NSW. The Workshop was, however,
much more than this. It was a unique
event, which provided the opportunity for
local government leaders to talk together
about the future and plan for the kind
of councils that communities in NSW
require and deserve.
The key outcomes of the
Destination 2036 Workshop can be
found in Section 10 of this report.
Prior to the Workshop the Minister for Local Government,
the Hon Don Page MP, stated “Destination 2036 is a
fantastic opportunity – the first time ever that NSW has
seen this sort of strategic, creative and participatory
approach applied to the many issues that face local
government as we move further into the 21st century”.
Unique events or ideas always create questions - what
is this really about? This hasn’t happened before - why
is it happening in this way? Will it work? These questions
were asked many times in the lead in to Destination
2036. As the event drew to a close, there was widespread
acknowledgement that it had worked. The opportunity
provided by the Minister and the Division of Local
Government (DLG) was embraced by civic leaders who
worked constructively, thoughtfully and very, very hard
to develop consensus on the way forward for local
government in NSW. Almost unilateral support emerged
for a draft Vision for the future of local government. This
was complemented by some high level Directions, as
well as emerging consensus on priority actions over the
next four years. For a state with 152 councils, ranging
in geographic size from 10km2 to more than 40,000km2,
this is a significant achievement. It has provided a strong
foundation for the next steps in the journey.
This report details the outcomes of the Destination 2036
Workshop. After the introductory sections of the report
(Sections 1-3), it is structured in the same order as the
sessions and activities in the Workshop. Throughout
Sections 4-10 of the report, any text in quotation marks
is a direct quote taken from one of the recording sheets
used in the Workshop. Though it is not possible to include
every comment and idea made by every participant
“Destination 2036 will enable
the sector’s leaders to come
together to reflect on the future and
to plan for inevitable change in a holistic
and strategic way. This will enable change
in our communities to be well managed by
the tier of government with most effect on
peoples’ daily lives”
ROSS WOODWARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE DLG
throughout the process, these quotes are intended
to provide an indication of the breadth and depth of
perspective. They include opinions shared by the majority
of Workshop participants, as well as other perspectives
and ideas. This diversity of opinion is not considered
problematic – on the contrary, it is one of the factors
which makes local government truly reflective of its many
distinctive communities.
The Elton Consulting facilitation team would like
to express their sincere thanks to participants at
the Destination 2036 Workshop. The experience
and brainpower of the participants, combined with
the openness, commitment and good will that they
demonstrated not only towards the process, but also to
each other and to the members of the facilitation team,
were what made the Workshop such a success. We thank
the members of the Reference Group and the Presidents
for the generosity with which they shared their time,
perspectives, information, assistance and advice, and
Dubbo City Council for hosting the event. We thank the
speakers who made a significant contribution to the
generation of ideas. Finally, we thank the Minister and
the CEO and staff Division of Local Government for their
leadership in providing such a unique opportunity to local
government. We feel privileged to have been involved.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 3
2. Background
4 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
“Smart organisations
seek to anticipate
change and, where
possible, influence the
direction of change”
2.1 Reference Group
2.2 Purpose of Workshop
A Reference Group was established to assist with
planning for the Destination 2036 Workshop. The
Reference Group consisted of:
The purpose statement for the Workshop was prepared
initially by the Elton facilitation team and refined and
finalised with the Reference Group. The purpose of the
Destination 2036 Workshop was:
≥≥ Steve Orr (Chair), Deputy Chief Executive of the Division
of Local Government (DLG)
≥≥ Mark Ferguson, President of NSW Local Government
Managers Australia (LGMA NSW)
≥≥ Noel Baum, Director of the Policy Division at the NSW
Local Government and Shires Associations (LGSA)
≥≥ Melissa Gibbs, Assistant Director of Australian Centre
of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG).
The Reference Group was attended by staff from the DLG
and from Elton Consulting.
The specific role of the Reference Group was to:
≥≥ Provide advice on the proposed content and format of
the pre Workshop Discussion Paper
≥≥ Identify and facilitate the provision of any relevant data
≥≥ Provide strategic advice on the proposed agenda,
content and design of the Workshop
≥≥ Provide comment and input into the development
of key project management tools, including the
Communication Plan
≥≥ Promote awareness and understanding of the Workshop
≥≥ Identify and facilitate the involvement of any relevant
officers or office holders from their respective
organisations in the delivery of the Workshop.
THE HON DON PAGE MP,
MINISTER FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
≥≥ To create a bold Vision - a preferred future for local
government
≥≥ To identify the roadmap that will put us on a path to
this Vision
≥≥ To develop a shared view on the right models for local
government
≥≥ To develop and get excited about a short term
Action Plan: not a wish list but something clever and
achievable that focuses on priorities for 4 years
≥≥ To create an opportunity for new relationships of trust
within and between local and state government to help
deliver great local government into the future.
The purpose statement set an ambitious agenda for the
two day Workshop. In order to provide a clear foundation
for the Workshop, the purpose statement and a range of
background material was provided prior to the Workshop.
“In the current climate where NSW
councils face immediate and serious
economic, social, environmental and
governance challenges, it’s all the more
important for our two spheres of government
to set this time aside to think strategically,
and work together on the bigger picture and
long term future of Local Government”
KEITH RHOADES, PRESIDENT LGA
“The Minister’s willingness to
listen and his response has demonstrated
his understanding about the urgent need
for solid and immediate steps in the coming
four years to build toward a better longterm future”
RAY DONALD, PRESIDENT SA
Three meetings of the ERG were held between June and
August 2011.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 5
2.3 Background Material
Prior to the commencement of the Destination 2036
Workshop, a range of background material was prepared
and made available to participants - and in some cases
the wider local government sector.
The background material included:
≥≥ A Discussion Paper, called Our Communities, Our
Councils, Our Future, which presented a snapshot
of NSW communities and their councils and brought
together key ideas from a range of work on local
government in NSW and Australia. It summarised
reforms in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and
South Africa and presented possible future models for
councils in NSW. The Discussion Paper also contained
some potential characteristics of the preferred future
for local government which could be included in a
Vision statement for the sector, as a starting point for
discussion before the Destination 2036 Workshop.
The Discussion Paper was sent directly to Workshop
participants and was also available on the DLG website.
≥≥ A Podcast filmed with the Sohail Inayatullah, the
Futurist presenting at the Workshop, in which he
introduced himself and provided a brief snapshot of the
role of a Futurist and what participants could expect
at the Workshop. The Podcast also discussed some
of the likely drivers of global change in the future and
identified which of these changes may be critical for
local government. The Podcast was viewable on the
DLG website.
≥≥ A Paper prepared by the Chief Executive of the DLG,
entitled Some Food for Thought. Like the Discussion
Paper, Some Food for Thought was sent directly to
Workshop participants and was also available on the
DLG website. It set out some personal thoughts from
the Chief Executive on the importance of Destination
2036, outlined how the event would be run and posed
some questions for consideration.
Our
≥
Destination 2036 Discussion Paper
PREPARED BY ELTON CONSULTING
17 JUNE 2011
NSW STATE PLAN
MID NORTH COAST
DELIVERING LOCAL ACTIONS 2010
The State Plan is the NSW Government’s long term plan to
deliver the best possible services to the people of NSW.
In response to the priority issues raised by the
communities of the Mid North Coast during the State
Plan consultations in 2009 the NSW Government has:
Destination 2036 Discussion Paper
• Planned for the future health care needs of the
growing population
• Diversified the regional economy, to create
new jobs and training opportunities
• Continued to deliver major upgrades to the
Pacific Highway
• Balanced urban development with the
protection of the environment
• Delivered more social housing through the
Nation Building Economic Stimulus Program.
Coastal Communities
The MID NORTh COAST INCluDeS
PORT MACQuARIe, COFFS hARBOuR
For more information on the challenges
facing coastal communities, see:
Some families,
particularly welfare
dependent, are moving
for cheaper living costs
Populations are
growing, sometimes
very quickly
≥≥ Information on the DLG Website, including data,
reports and linked to useful websites.
≥ NSW Department of Planning (2008)
New South Wales State and Regional
Population Projections, 2006-2036
≥ The Federal Government’s (2011)
Sustainable Population Strategy for
Australia
≥ National Sea Change Taskforce (2011)
NSW Coastal Policy Paper
Tourism is not
always leading to
new jobs
Housing can be getting
quite expensive
Lots of older
residents
16
Our Communities | Our Councils | Our Future
≥ University of Sydney Planning Research
Centre (2005) Meeting the Sea Change
Challenge: Sea Change Communities in
Coastal Australia
≥ DECCW (2010) Climate Impact Profile
There are big
fluctuations in
population from
summer to winter
6 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Communities
Councils
Future
Changes relating to
climate change are
already being felt
1
2.4 Online Survey
Workshop participants were also invited to complete
an Online Survey prior to attending Destination 2036.
The Online Survey was not available or intended for
completion by a wider audience. The purpose of the Online
Survey was to understand the views of participants on
some of the issues covered in the Discussion Paper and
to help prepare for the Workshop itself. The questions
included:
≥≥ What have been the two most important changes
affecting local government over the last 10 years?
≥≥ What do you think are the two most important
challenges facing councils like yours?
≥≥ What are the two biggest changes on the horizon for
NSW in the next 10 to 20 years?
The specific questions asked in the Online Survey are
contained in Appendix A.
The Online Survey was open for completion from 19 to
28 July 2011 and was completed by 207 respondents. The
first three survey questions related to the demographics
of respondents. In general, the Online Survey was
completed by a representative number of councils from
all parts of NSW. There was a slightly higher proportion
of General Managers and senior council staff who
responded as compared to Mayors and Councillors.
A summary of responses to the Online Survey questions
are included in Appendix A and are discussed in the
relevant sections of the Outcomes Report.
≥≥ What do you think the preferred characteristics of local
government in the future should be?
≥≥ What is your greatest hope for the Workshop?
≥≥ Do you have any fears about the Workshop?
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 7
3. Workshop Participants,
Ground Rules and
Program
8 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
3.1 Workshop Participants
The Division of Local Government invited the following
civic leaders to participate in the Destination 2036
Workshop:
≥≥ the Mayor of every Council in NSW, or another
nominated Councillor
≥≥ the General Manager of every Council in NSW, or
another nominated senior staff member
≥≥ the Chair of every County Council
≥≥ the Chief Executive of every County Council
≥≥ the Executive Officer of every Regional Organisation of
Councils (ROC)
≥≥ the Office Bearers from the Executive Committee of the
Local Government Association of NSW
≥≥ the Office Bearers from the Executive Committee of the
Shires Association of NSW
≥≥ the Chief Executive Officer of the Local Government
Managers Australia NSW
≥≥ a representative from the United Services Union
(USU), Development and Environmental Professionals’
Association (DEPA) and Association of Professional
Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia
(APESMA).
The Workshop was also attended by the Minister for Local
Government, the Hon Don Page MP, and his staff.
Representatives from relevant State Government
agencies, staff of the LGSA and the Commonwealth
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development
and Local Government were invited to attend the event as
observers.
A full list of all Workshop participants is included at
Appendix B. All councils in NSW were represented at the
Workshop, as were all County Councils and ROCs.
3.2 Workshop Ground Rules
The Online Survey completed by participants prior to
the Workshop asked “What is your greatest hope for
the Workshop?” and “Do you have any fears about the
Workshop?” In answering these questions, respondents
frequently mentioned hopes such as “frank discussions
all round”, “that people come with an open mind about the
future”, “genuine openness between Local and State” and
“a real world outcome, not pie in the sky”.
The most frequently mentioned fear was that the
Workshop would be a “talkfest”. Respondents also stated
they feared “that self interest, ego and ambition are not
put aside”, “too many different opinions – no consensus”,
“that it will be used to support a preconceived agenda”
and “that there will be no mood for change”.
These and other hopes and fears expressed by
respondents were used to prepare the ground rules for
the Workshop. The ground rules used at the Destination
2036 Workshop were that we:
≥≥ work as equals - creatively, openly, respectfully and
thoughtfully
≥≥ don’t grandstand
≥≥ build consensus
≥≥ act as sector leaders, beyond our own roles and
councils
≥≥ work strategically and think outside the square
≥≥ get a real world outcome - not a talkfest
≥≥ seize the opportunity.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 9
3.3 Workshop Program
In order to achieve its purpose, the Destination 2036
Workshop contained brief sessions designed to give
participants information or new ideas, as well as a
structured series of longer, interactive working sessions.
This section of the report briefly outlines the purpose
and content of both the informative and the interactive
sessions. The full Workshop program can be found
in Appendix C. It should be noted that the program
envisaged that the interactive sessions on Day 2 would
commence with the Models session and then to the
Actions session. This order was reversed during the
Workshop itself to address a technology issue, although
the expected content of the two sessions did not change.
“This is a rare opportunity. Every
council is in the room. The State
Government is keen to listen and act.
We in the DLG are restructuring so we
can deliver with you”
ROSS WOODWARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE DLG
“The words, ‘But, we have always done it
this way’, are the eight most expensive words
we will ever speak, things change. Therefore
we should not be led by convention alone and
avoid the key issues that face us”
MARK FERGUSON, PRESIDENT LGSA
Welcomes
The Destination 2036 Workshop was formally opened by
the Hon Don Page MP, Minister for Local Government. In
his opening address, the Minister stated, “I believe this
event, and the initiatives that will follow, provide a unique
opportunity for us to establish a relationship of mutual
trust, focused on strengthening the local government
sector”. He reminded participants that local government
has dealt with significant change over many years and
outlined his expectations for the Destination 2036
Workshop.
As part of the opening session, the following sector
leaders also provided some opening remarks, including
their hopes for the Workshop:
≥≥ Keith Rhoades, President of the NSW Local
Government Association (LGA)
≥≥ Ray Donald, President of the NSW Shires Association
(SA)
≥≥ Mark Ferguson, President of LGSA.
In addition, the Chief Executive of the DLG gave a brief
presentation on his expectations for the Workshop and
encouraged participants to “think big and speak up”.
10 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Presentations
As part of the Workshop, five presenters were invited
to speak to Destination 2036 participants. In order of
presentation:
≥≥ Sohail Inayatullah, a Futurist, spoke about changing
images of the future and provided case studies of the
ways different organisations are thinking about their
futures. Professor Inayatullah presented six ways
forward to help participants consider the future and
nine critical factors for reducing risk and creating a
desired future.
≥≥ The Hon Kevin Humphries MP, the Minister for Western
NSW, spoke about his experiences and observations
with service delivery in remote Western NSW and
presented ideas for change. He used Central Darling
Shire as an example of a council considering new
approaches and models.
≥≥ Corin Moffatt, former Assistant Chief Executive of the
Local Government Association in England, provided
insights into current local government reform in
England and particularly the ways in which English
councils are attempting to deliver better services with
less funding.
≥≥ Brian Dollery, Director of the Centre for Local
Government at the University of New England,
presented some potential future directions for the
future of NSW local government. These included:
strategies to encourage financial sustainability;
greater regional collaboration; alternative models; and
leadership and governance options.
≥≥ Melissa Gibbs, Assistant Director of ACELG, provided
an overview of recent local government reform across
Australia and New Zealand. She also presented the
high level findings of the recent ACELG research report,
Consolidation in Local Government: A Fresh Look.
Participants also heard two short presentations from
Kim Anson of Elton Consulting summarising the views
of participants from the Online Survey results and the
elements of the models presented in the Discussion Paper.
Interactive Sessions
The interactive sessions were closely aligned with the
statement of Workshop purpose. There were four main
interactive sessions, which respectively focused on the:
≥≥ Vision for Local Government in NSW
≥≥ Roadmap to achieve the Vision, including the
opportunities and constraints, as well as the Directions
≥≥ Actions for the next four years
≥≥ Models for Local Government in NSW.
All participants worked in the one, main room of the
Workshop venue at tables of 10 during the Vision session.
For other interactive sessions, participants were divided
into five or six groups of 45-75 participants and then
sub groups of 8-10 participants. A volunteer participant
in each sub group acted as a discussion coordinator,
assisting with facilitation of the sub group and organising
recording and reporting. Each interactive session involved
reporting back by volunteer participants, firstly from the
sub group to the group and then to the joint group.
The processes used in the interactive sessions, as well as
the outcomes, are outlined in more detail in the remainder
of this report.
Electronic Feedback
In several of the interactive sessions with the joint group
in the main room of the Workshop venue, participants
used keypads to provide electronic feedback. Participants
also used the keypads to provide general demographic
information on: their role within local government; the
geographic location of their Council or ROC; and the number
of years they had been elected or employed within local
government. Individual participants could not, however,
be identified through the electronic feedback system.
Closing Remarks
The Destination 2036 Workshop was formally closed by
the Minister, with closing remarks also provided by the
Presidents of the LGA, SA and LGMA NSW all recognising
the success of the Workshop in achieving its purpose.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 11
4. W
orkshop Outcomes:
Vision
12 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
4.1 Vision Elements from Discussion Paper
and Online Survey
4.2 Potential Additional Vision Elements
Suggested in Online Survey
The following Vision elements were suggested to
participants in the Discussion Paper circulated prior to
the Workshop and then tested in the Online Survey. The
question in the Online Survey was “Looking at the preferred
characteristics of local government in the future, do you
think councils of the future should be…” As demonstrated
below, all of the Vision elements presented in the Online
Survey were overwhelmingly supported.
The following Vision elements were suggested by
Workshop participants who completed the Online Survey,
when answering the open question, “Do you have any
other comments you’d like to make about the preferred
characteristics of local government in the future?”
These potential additional elements were then put to the
participants during the Workshop for electronic feedback,
with results as follows:
≥≥ Democratically elected (96% agreed)
≥≥ Locally focussed and sustainable (79% agreed)
≥≥ Reflecting the diversity of their communities in their
Councillors and staff (88%)
≥≥ Professional and businesslike (79%)
≥≥ Responsibly governed and managed (99%)
≥≥ With greater autonomy (81%)
≥≥ Financially viable (97%)
≥≥ Adaptable and flexible (87%)
≥≥ Future focused (96%)
≥≥ Sufficiently funded and resourced (81%)
≥≥ Able to plan and act strategically (99%)
≥≥ Constitutionally recognised (81%)
≥≥ Providing highly valued services, facilities and
infrastructure (99%)
≥≥ Less political (62%)
≥≥ Undertaking a core set of functions (87%)
≥≥ Able to undertake additional functions which respond
to local needs (88%)
≥≥ Further rationalised and amalgamated (42%)
When the results of the electronic feedback were
analysed with the demographic information provided by
Workshop participants through the electronic feedback
system at the start of Day 1, it was found there was
significant agreement regardless of the demographic
characteristics of the participant. The only areas of
significant variation were:
≥≥ A larger proportion of General Managers/Senior
Officers (46%) than Mayors/Councillors (36%) who
agreed the Vision should include ‘further rationalised
and amalgamated’
≥≥ A considerable variation in the proportion of
participants who agreed the Vision should include
‘further rationalised and amalgamated’ by geographic
area, with 30% of participants from rural and remote
councils, 43% from inner/middle Sydney councils, 48%
from coastal councils and 56% from outer Sydney and
inland regional councils agreeing.
≥≥ Less bureaucratic and more efficient (74%)
≥≥ Increasing the services provided (23%)
≥≥ Engaging with their communities in new ways (94%)
≥≥ True collaborators and partners – with each other, with their
communities and with state and federal agencies (98%)
≥≥ Continually adapting (98%)
≥≥ Using a range of operating models enabled by
legislation (87%)
≥≥ Diverse in population size and geographic area (92%)
≥≥ True leaders of their communities (97%)
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 13
4.3 P
otential Additional Vision Elements
Suggested During the Workshop
The following Vision elements were suggested by
Workshop participants during the morning of Day 1 of the
Workshop in response to the question, “Does your table
feel there is an essential Vision element that has not been
captured by the previous suggestions?” This was then
subject to electronic feedback, with results as follows:
≥≥ Resource sharing with formal regional structures
(73% agreed)
≥≥ An employer of choice, with a skilled workforce (80%)
≥≥ Voluntarily rationalised and amalgamated (52%)
≥≥ Enhancing the image of the industry as a whole (70%)
≥≥ With a sense of community and local aspirations for
community health, wellbeing and the economy (73%)
≥≥ Environmentally sustainable (68%)
≥≥ With paid elected representatives (60%)
≥≥ Encouraging innovation (82%)
≥≥ Accountable for performance (80%)
≥≥ Continuously improving (75%)
≥≥ With the respect and trust of the State government (76%)
≥≥ Partners in a multi-level government system with
agreed roles (80%)
≥≥ Ethical (65%)
≥≥ Local champions (35%)
≥≥ Designed to be fit for purpose (42%)
≥≥ Participatory democracy (30%)
≥≥ Advocacy (45%)
14 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
When the results of the electronic feedback were
analysed with the demographic information provided by
Workshop participants through the electronic feedback
system at the start of Day 1, it was found there was
significant agreement regardless of the demographic
characteristics of the participant. The only areas of
significant variation were:
≥≥ A considerable variation in the proportion of
participants who agreed the Vision should include
‘resource sharing with formal regional structures’ by
geographic area, with 62% of participants from coastal
councils, 68% from outer Sydney councils, 70% from
rural and remote councils, 78% from inland regional
councils and 88% from inner/middle Sydney councils
agreeing
≥≥ A larger proportion of Mayors/Councillors (59%) than
General Managers/Senior Officers (45%) who agreed
the Vision should include ‘voluntarily rationalised and
amalgamated’
≥≥ A considerable variation in the proportion of
participants who agreed the Vision should include
‘voluntarily rationalised and amalgamated’ by
geographic area, with 38% of participants from inland
regional councils, 47% from inner/middle Sydney
councils, 56% from coastal councils, 57% from rural
and remote councils and 59% from outer Sydney
councils agreeing
≥≥ A significantly larger proportion of Mayors/Councillors
(76%) than General Managers/Senior Officers (44%)
who agreed the Vision should include ‘with paid elected
representatives’.
4.4 Draft Vision
At the conclusion of the electronic
feedback on the Vision elements, concern
was expressed by many participants that:
≥≥ Many of the proposed Vision elements,
while important in themselves, were
not suitable for inclusion in a Vision and
were more akin to directions or actions
≥≥ The total list of proposed Vision
elements was duplicative and could
result in a very long and unwieldy Vision
≥≥ Some of the Vision elements were not
new or bold enough.
Strong Communities through
Partnerships
By 2036, all NSW communities will be
healthy and prosperous – led and served
by strong, effective and democratically
elected local government.
Through leadership, local knowledge and
partnerships with community, government
and other sectors, we will plan our
futures and deliver quality services and
infrastructure. We will be recognised,
respected and responsible for:
≥≥ Upholding the highest ethical
standards
≥≥ Sound financial management
≥≥ Sensitive environmental stewardship
≥≥ Meaningful community engagement,
advocacy and leadership
≥≥ Our adaptability, innovation and
learning
≥≥ Developing the full potential of our
people
Workshop participants were then asked
to provide electronic feedback on the
following question: “Do you support
this draft Vision as a basis for further
consultation and development?” A total
of 270 participants responded to this
question, with 246 answering ‘yes’ and
24 answering ‘no’, resulting in overall
support for the draft Vision of 91% of
participants.
≥≥ Responding to our diverse cultures
and environments
≥≥ Creating places that people value
It was therefore proposed by the
facilitation team that one of the
concurrent sessions scheduled for Day
2 of the Workshop be used for a small
working group to use the proposed Vision
elements as the basis of a refined Vision
statement. During the Workshop dinner
participants were invited to nominate for
this working group, which then met on the
morning and early afternoon on Day 2 of
the Workshop. At the end of the Workshop,
a representative from the working group
then presented the draft Vision to all
participants in the main room. The draft
Vision was as follows.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 15
5. W
orkshop Outcomes:
Challenges and
Opportunities
16 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
5.1 C
hallenges and Opportunities from
Joint Session
As part of discussions on Day 1, Workshop participants
were asked to use their keypads to provide electronic
feedback on the challenges and opportunities facing
communities and councils in NSW. These questions
built on both the responses to the Online Survey and
information presented by the Futurist.
When asked to select from a potential list of the two
most important challenges likely to affect Australian
communities into the future, responses were as follows:
Challenge
Percentage
Number
Population change
20%
119
Demographic shifts
18%
110
Economic changes
17%
105
Technology change
16%
95
Changes to energy sources
and prices
12%
72
Climate change
9%
57
Changes in political
structures
6%
34
Other
2%
9
Total
100%
601
Notes: Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole
number. Participants could each select two responses. Some
particpants chose not to provide electronic feedback on some
questions and hence the total number of responses varies.
When asked to select from a potential list of the two most
important challenges for councils in NSW to plan for,
responses were as follows:
Challenge
Percentage
Number
Infrastructure and asset
issues
27%
166
Financial sustainability
26%
161
Population and
demographic changes
19%
116
Climate change, including
changes to water and
energy prices
7%
43
Economic changes
6%
36
Amalgamations
5%
31
Technology change
4%
22
Intergovernmental
recognition
3%
16
Changes in political
structures
2%
11
Other
1%
3
Total
100%
605
Notes: Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole
number. Participants could each select two responses. Some
particpants chose not to provide electronic feedback on some
questions and hence the total number of responses varies.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 17
5.2 Challenges and Opportunities from
Roadmap Session
For the Roadmap session on the afternoon of Day 1 of the
Workshop, participants were grouped according to the
geographic areas which had been used in the Discussion
Paper. These were: Inner and Middle Sydney; Outer
Sydney; Inland Regional Centres: Coastal Communities:
Rural and Remote Communities.
Each of these geographic groups were then divided into
sub groups of about 10 participants, with each sub group
asked to work intensively on a Roadmap to help achieve
the Vision for local government in NSW. Participants were
first prompted to identify challenges and opportunities
for the next 1-4 years, 5-10 years and 10+ years. The
recording sheet used by the sub groups during the
Roadmap session is contained in Appendix D.
18 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Challenges and opportunities identified for all councils
included:
≥≥ Changing demographics
≥≥ Financial sustainability
Particular challenges and opportunities identified for
Sydney Councils included:
≥≥ Development pressures
≥≥ Funding infrastructure
≥≥ Traffic and transport, including public transport,
freight and air transport
≥≥ Climate change
≥≥ Housing affordability
≥≥ Technological change
≥≥ Social housing
≥≥ Maintaining service levels
≥≥ Multiculturalism
≥≥ Increasing community expectations
≥≥ Increasing regulation and compliance demands
≥≥ Transport
≥≥ Impacts of the new Carbon Tax
≥≥ Global financial uncertainty
Particular challenges and opportunities identified for
Inland Regional Councils included:
≥≥ Aging population
≥≥ Skills shortages, including an aging workforce
≥≥ Mining
Particular challenges and opportunities identified for
Coastal Councils included:
Particular challenges and opportunities identified for
Rural and Remote Councils included:
≥≥ Climate change, sea level rise, coastal erosion and
flood mitigation
≥≥ Aging of population and hence need for health services
≥≥ Providing for peak seasonal population and impact on
infrastructure provision
≥≥ Funding for roads and bridges
≥≥ Servicing the aging population and sea/tree change
demographic
≥≥ Insufficient water and the Murray Darling Basin Plan
≥≥ Protection of agricultural land
≥≥ Social housing
≥≥ Provision of cultural infrastructure eg theatres,
museums, libraries
≥≥ Attracting and retaining skilled staff
≥≥ Loss of population and workers
≥≥ Expanding the economic base, including agricultural
diversification
≥≥ Protection of agricultural land
≥≥ Lifestyle and quality of life, including prompting the
benefits to “city dwellers”
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 19
6. W
orkshop Outcomes:
Directions
20 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
6.1 D
irections from Sub Groups in
Roadmap Session
≥≥ Developing new models for infrastructure funding and
“addressing the gap between what is needed for asset
renewal and replacement and what can be funded”
Other proposed Directions for the next 4 years
≥≥ Decentralising decision making
≥≥ Reviewing the Local Government Act
≥≥ Coordinating Federal, State and Local strategies for
infrastructure
≥≥ Increasing the integration of strategic planning
between all levels of government
≥≥ Developing regional coastal management, flooding and
disaster planning
≥≥ Increasing the ability and flexibility for councils to
undertake land use planning, as well as changes
to Section 94 arrangements and, for metropolitan
councils, increasing “community confidence in Metro
Strategy”
≥≥ Developing integrated plans for transport and
affordable and social housing in metropolitan areas
Frequently proposed Directions for next 1-4 years
≥≥ Defining core local government activities
≥≥ Defining the roles and responsibilities of the three
tiers of Government, through an intergovernmental
agreement, MOU or similar formal mechanism,
including the “removal of cost shifting”
≥≥ Gaining constitutional recognition
≥≥ Promoting population, business and industry growth in
rural and remote areas
After identifying the challenges and opportunities,
participants in their geographic sub groups were asked to
identify Directions for the next 1-4 years, 5-10 years and
10+ years. As many sub groups found it difficult within
the time available to specify Directions for the 10+ year
timeframe, the Directions listed below are for the next 1-4
and years and for 5-10 years and beyond. The recording
sheet used by the sub groups during the Roadmap session
is contained in Appendix D.
≥≥ Improving relationships between Local and State
Government to “create a respectful, honest and
professional partnership based upon agreed values”
≥≥ Reviewing and developing new, stronger models of
regional cooperation, including improved partnership
arrangements between councils and the sharing of
back of house services
≥≥ Identifying and implementing alternative models for
local governance and service delivery, without a “one
size fits all mentality”
≥≥ Reviewing rating and revenue raising structures,
including removing rate pegging, establishing a “fairer
and more realistic share of Federal taxation” and
identifying alternative sources of revenue
≥≥ Increasing Federal Assistance Grants
≥≥ Managing community expectations
≥≥ Sharing staff including General Managers and
administrations and addressing the lack of technical
and skilled staff, particularly in regional, rural and
remote areas
≥≥ “Harnessing new technologies” and taking advantage
of the National Broadband Network to improve service
delivery and capacity, particularly in coastal, rural and
remote areas
≥≥ Improving aged care facilities in rural and remote
areas, with “whole of life care to keep retirees in the
community”
≥≥ The heads of State Government departments to meet
regularly with ROCs “to discuss solutions to local
problems”
≥≥ Lobbying to ensure that the Federal Government’s
Roads to Recovery Program continues indefinitely
≥≥ Using volunteers and retirees to help provide services
≥≥ Developing criteria to identify sustainable vs
unsustainable councils
≥≥ Formalising opportunities to share knowledge and
learnings between councils
≥≥ Improving access to and monitoring of data, including
demographics and data from State Government
agencies – “know thyself”
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 21
Frequently proposed Directions for 5-10 years
and beyond
Other proposed Directions for 5-10 years
and beyond
≥≥ Realigning Federal, State and Local Government
boundaries
≥≥ Responding to Federal Government policies “eg water,
coal, mining, energy”
≥≥ Creating a hierarchy of planning which links Community
Strategic Plans to the State Plan via Regional Plans
≥≥ Pursuing more workforce flexibility, including
“telecommuting, incentives, extending working years,
encouraging new and younger workers, sharing
workers between councils”
≥≥ ”Dealing with challenges as identified in community
strategic plans”
≥≥ Identifying State Government services that Local
Government “can undertake more effectively - but with
funding”, particularly in rural and remote areas
≥≥ Ensuring staff and Councillors are appropriately
trained
≥≥ Changing the Electoral Act
≥≥ Implementing succession planning for new Councillors
and staff
≥≥ “Looking at elected members: quality, professionalism,
discipline process for recalcitrant Councillors”
≥≥ Providing incentives for doctors to move to or remain in
rural and remote areas
≥≥ Implementing “new structures for community
engagement and decision making”
≥≥ Using social media to promote council services
≥≥ Improving the image of local government
≥≥ Developing models for addressing social isolation
≥≥ Promoting the effectiveness of local government to the
local community, potentially in a media campaign
≥≥ Considering “virtual councils”
22 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
≥≥ Localising food production
6.2 Prioritised Directions from Groups in
Roadmap Session
After discussing the Directions, each of the sub groups
reported back to their group of 45- 75 participants from
the same geographic area. Each group then developed a
list of the highest priority Directions for their geographic
area. These key Directions were reported back to the joint
group and are detailed below. As there are a large number
of rural and remote councils, participants from those
councils were divided into two groups, each of which
reported on their key Directions.
Inner/Middle Sydney Councils
Outer Sydney Councils
Inland Regional Councils
Key Directions 1-4 years
Key Directions 1-4 years
Key Directions 1-4 years
≥≥ Define and align roles of local, state and federal
governments and align policy and resource allocation
≥≥ Redesign the legislative framework to be more enabling
for local government
≥≥ Planning for population growth eg. new delivery models
≥≥ Clearly define roles, functions and relationships
≥≥ Collaborative review of Act – core functions, proactive
role of Division, functional funding model, models of
local government
≥≥ Ongoing engagement with community to agree
priorities and direction
≥≥ Examine what it takes to ensure councils sustainability
and reform the funding model for local government
≥≥ Financial sustainability – emphasis on asset
management, assured funding sources eg % GST
Key Directions 5-10 years
Key Directions 5-10 years
≥≥ Develop new shared service models on a regional /
state basis
≥≥ Continue a process of monitoring success and review
≥≥ Roles responsibilities and funding across all levels of
government – get relationship right
Key Directions 10+ years
Key Directions 10+ years
≥≥ More discussion required
≥≥ Councils have the capacity to adapt to changing
demographics
≥≥ Implement sustainable councils
Key Directions 5-10 years
≥≥ Rationalising service delivery and non-sustainable
councils
≥≥ Alternative service delivery models
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 23
Coastal Councils
Key Directions 1-4 years
≥≥ Undertake financial reforms to address infrastructure
backlog
≥≥ Improved governance/structure models
≥≥ Substantive relationships/partnerships based on trust
≥≥ Land use planning (climate change eg sea level rise,
coastal erosion, bushfires)
Rural and Remote Councils
(Pink Group)
Rural and Remote Councils
(Red Group)
Key Directions 1-4 years
Key Directions 1-4 years
≥≥ Work towards greater autonomy and sustainability,
including financial autonomy (remove rate pegging, fair
share of Commonwealth funding) and new models of
governance
≥≥ A review of rates, revenue and new streams of funding
(State, Federal and private)
Key Directions 5-10 years
≥≥ Improve state/local relationship (partnership, strategic
planning together, coordinated service delivery, Inter
Governmental Agreement)
≥≥ Diversify services for a changing population
≥≥ Skills shortages and training
≥≥ Responsive planning framework (demo change, food
security)
Key Directions 5-10 years
≥≥ Maximising NBN opportunities
Key Directions 10+ years
≥≥ Sustainable local government/good governance and
social equity
≥≥ Other models of service delivery
≥≥ Asset management/infrastructure gap
≥≥ Impact of outside State and Federal policy decisions
and role of local government in ensuring consistency
with local aspirations and planning
≥≥ Utilising alliances, ROCs and inter-regional
partnerships for service provision, training and skills
enhancement etc
≥≥ Define roles of government at all levels and agree to
these through an MOU as the basis of a respectful
partnership
≥≥ Explore role of local councils in human services
≥≥ Protection of agricultural land
≥≥ Greater local control of planning instruments –
importance of food and fibre, balanced against mining
≥≥ Asset management funding and audit
Key Directions 5+ years
Key Directions 10+ years
≥≥ One size doesn’t fit all: flexible and adaptable models
to allow councils to respond to local needs and
aspirations
24 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
6.3 Summarised Directions
The Directions reported back by the groups were
summarised overnight by the Elton facilitation team into
six statements and reported back to the wider group
on Day 2 of the Destination 2036 Workshop to provide
content for the interactive Day 2 session building four year
Actions. The draft Direction statements were as follows:
≥≥ Define roles and relationships of local, state and
federal government
≥≥ An improved partnership relationship between state
and local government
≥≥ Increased financial sustainability, with a reformed
funding models and new revenue sources
≥≥ Development of flexible, adaptable and sustainable
models of service delivery to respond to local needs
and aspirations eg regional delivery, corporations
The draft Direction statements as presented to
participants were accompanied by a series of questions.
These questions were intended to prompt discussion
and possible ideas for the four year Actions. The Elton
facilitation team analysing the recording sheets overnight
identified the questions as a possible bridge from the
draft Directions to the Actions.
“Right relationships
Right structures
Financial sustainability”
≥≥ What would a respectful and trusting partnership
between local and state government look like?
≥≥ What actions are required by both parties to achieve it?
≥≥ What would a good process look like to achieve and
determine the right models? Action?
≥≥ How do we identify sustainable vs unsustainable
councils? Action?
≥≥ How do we appropriately involve all parties in the
discussion about required changes? Action?
≥≥ Redesign the legislative framework
≥≥ More responsive planning frameworks to address
demographic change, population growth, food security
and land use decisions
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 25
7. Workshop Outcomes:
Actions
26 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
“Better brand – make it more
attractive to be a Councillor, lifting
profiles and standards and allowing
for broader representation”
This section of the report summarises the outcomes of
the Actions session, the first interactive session on Day
2 of Workshop. The Actions session was undertaken with
participants allocated randomly to five groups, each of
which contained representatives from all parts of NSW.
Participants in each group were further divided into six
sub groups, each of which was asked to focus on one
potential category of action. These categories were:
≥≥ Governance
≥≥ Structure
7.1 A
ctions about Governance
There were a large number of potential actions suggested
by all groups under the ‘governance’ heading. Groups
gave specific and wide ranging suggestions in relation to
Councillors and Mayors. These included:
≥≥ Considering half term elections
≥≥ Decreasing the number of Councillors, potentially
to 7-9
≥≥ Investigating terms for Councillors and Mayors,
including the possibility of a minimum two year term
for Mayors
≥≥ Functions
≥≥ Finances
One group suggested that NSW should “look more
to Queensland – more responsibility, better $ and
portfolio responsibility”, while another succinctly
stated “less Councillors, pay more”. One group warned
against “popularly elected Mayor danger” and another
commented “GMs too much power”.
There were also a number of suggested actions about
the way in which Councillors and Mayors are elected,
including that the ward system be re-examined. Reasons
for this action included “remove parochialism and
involvement in operational issues”, “no wards – represent
one whole council” and “tyranny of distance – size
relevance to Councillor numbers”. In addition, several
groups thought that there should be reform to the process
for local government elections, particularly the inclusion
of postal and electronic voting.
A potential overarching action relating to these
suggestions, proposed by several groups, was to explore
different models of local governance for NSW. It was
suggested that there should be pilot programs run for
various models, with “nominees to test, government
support”. It was also frequently reiterated that one size or
model of local governance “doesn’t fit all”.
There were far fewer suggested actions in relation to
the role of General Managers. One group thought that a
corporate model of governance should be investigated
for larger councils, with General Managers as CEOs.
The rationale for this action was that having leaders
with director duties could potentially lead to “better
decision makers”.
≥≥ Mandating an odd number of Councillors
≥≥ Capacity
≥≥ Other big ideas.
For each element, the sub groups were asked to consider
the most important actions for 2011-15 and the reasons
for those actions. The recording sheet used in this
process is contained in Appendix D.
After each sub group had compiled a list of actions for
their element, participants were asked to move to a
second category and to review and build upon the work of
the previous participants.
“Mayor to bring
community together”
There was general agreement between most of the
groups that there needed to be a review of Councillor
training arrangements, and potentially the requirement
for compulsory training after the 2012 local government
elections. In general, it was suggested that training
should “emphasise strategic component and policy” – and
potentially be a “professionally recognised qualification”.
There were also more specific suggestions, from several
groups, for “Australian Institute of Directors training as
a prerequisite for Councillors”. Another group thought,
however, that “training does not need to be the same for
each council”.
≥≥ Reconsidering popularly elected Mayors
≥≥ Reviewing remuneration for Councillors and Mayors.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 27
“Review legislation options
for ROCs: provide legitimacy
for activity and action”
Another of the most frequently mentioned actions across
all groups was to review the Local Government Act. In
general, groups thought that the Act should be “enabling
instead of prescriptive” and “clearly establishing
definitions of good governance (Councillor/staff roles
and responsibilities)”. There were a number of suggested
objectives or outcomes of the review of the Act, including:
≥≥ Allowing councils to establish corporate entities
≥≥ Incorporating new processes for boundary changes
≥≥ Limiting legal liability
≥≥ Providing for the dismissal of individual Councillors,
rather than only an entire council
≥≥ Providing legislative options for ROCS, including the
ability to incorporate.
In regards to procurement, one group suggested the
legislation should be aligned to the Companies Code ,
while another suggested New Zealand provided a good
model for limiting legal liability. It was also suggested by
several groups that other related legislation should be
reviewed along with the Local Government Act – and that
the Local Government Act should “talk to other Acts”.
Several groups proposed that the Code of Conduct needs
to be reviewed – and one group considered this in the
context of the review of the Local Government Act. It was
thought that the Code currently “places undue emphasis
on the General Manager to make an initial call on whether
to seek external review” and that it could be perceived as
a “tool for maverick Councillors – vexatious claims”.
Many groups suggested actions relating to the
role and structure of state government under the
‘governance’ heading. It was frequently thought there
should be stronger and more universal commitment
by state government agencies to IPR – and even a
more fundamental reform of how agencies relate to
local government. One group proposed an audit of all
community strategic plans, while others suggested
community strategic plans be integrated on a regional
basis, along with plans by state government agencies,
and that there should be an “alignment of effort – look at
Tasmanian partnership”. It was also frequently suggested
there should be consistent state government definitions
of regional and sub regional boundaries – or even a
“county council model to manage all policy development:
transport, hospital, planning for the whole of Sydney
region using the Mayor of London model”.
In relation to the Division of Local Government, it was
thought by several groups there should be a review of
its structure to move to a more “facilitative role, not
regulatory”. Another group agreed the role of the “Division
of Local Government [should be] becoming more policy
and strategy based rather than regulatory”.
Once each of the five breakout groups had considered
actions relating to governance, each group was asked to
nominate its highest priority action to report back to the
main group. It was not intended that these priority actions
be the sole actions relating to governance included in
the draft Action Plan, but rather that they provide an
indication of the relative priority of actions suggested by
each group.
The highest priority action nominated by each of the five
groups in relation to governance was then incorporated
into a single list in the electronic feedback system for
further prioritisation by all participants in a joint group
session, with each participant able to nominate two
priorities. The results of this process are shown in the
table below.
“Divide the state into regions
and sub regions based on
communities of interest”
28 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
“Urgency: enabling new
business models including
arms length entities, business
services, corporation model,
county councils”
7.2 Actions about Structure
The most important 4 year actions
about governance
Responses
Percentage
Number
Review of Local Government
Act
38%
199
Pilot program with volunteer
councils to test new models,
with government support
23%
122
Community determines
how Mayor is elected,
half council elections to
maintain continuity
17%
88
Compulsory training and
re‑training for Councillors
and senior staff
16%
84
Allow for broader
representation and
more representation of
community
6%
34
100%
527
Total
Note: Some particpants chose not to provide electronic
feedback on some questions and hence the total number of
responses varies.
There were fewer actions proposed by most groups
under the ‘structure’ heading than under the ‘governance’
heading, although many were interrelated. As with other
headings, there was some overlap of actions suggested
under the ‘structure’ heading, particularly with those
proposed under the ‘governance’ heading. These included
the proposal to review the way in which boundary changes
occur, potentially with “local councils to facilitate the
engagement” as the “process results in high level of
community anxiety [leading to] no real outcome”. In
addition, actions were proposed under the ‘structure’
heading to improve the capacity of councils to engage
in higher level planning and to enable new business
enterprise models, which were also captured under the
‘governance’ and capacity’ headings.
The most frequently suggested action under the
‘structure’ heading was to further develop and refine
the models for local government, including community
consultation. This was proposed by virtually all groups,
with details including “engage with stakeholders
(community, government)”, “there needs to be a cap on
number”, “determine who/what makes final decision”
and, alternatively, “council should be the final decision
maker”. Several groups again noted that, when it comes to
local government, “one size does not fit all”, while another
group suggested that “structural changes may need a
reorganisation of government”.
Several groups raised the issue of amalgamations
under the ‘structure’ heading. One group stated “need
to bring on the debate about amalgamation” with the
“Minister leading and setting parameters”. The same
group also suggested an action to “investigate existing
amalgamations and cost/benefit analysis”. The issue was
also alluded to in the comments “size – match economic/
community needs (bigger is better)” and “V.A. word – can’t
ignore it!” Conversely, another group stated “redefine
boundaries (not amalgamation)” and there was a proposal
to “review the Local Government Act with respect to
boundaries in the event of amalgamations’.
There were also actions proposed to redefine the role
of ROCs, “not limited to advocacy”. These included the
specific suggestions that ROCs or regional bodies take on
responsibilities for service delivery and procurement.
Other suggested actions related to structure included
increasing the flexibility of staff engagement, “to enable
new structure/models”, and research innovation in NSW
and other places, “to better understand/learn what we
are already doing well”
“Structure should relate to
community of interest”
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 29
Once each of the five breakout groups had considered
actions relating to structure, each group was asked to
nominate its highest priority action to report back to the
main group. It was not intended that these priority actions
be the sole actions relating to governance included in
the draft Action Plan, but rather that they provide an
indication of the relative priority of actions suggested by
each group.
The highest priority action nominated by each of the five
groups in relation to structure was then incorporated into
a single list in the electronic feedback system for further
prioritisation by all participants in a joint group session,
with each participant able to nominate two priorities. The
results of this process are shown in the table below.
“Voluntary amalgamation with
capital incentives to address
infrastructure backlogs”
7.3 Actions about Functions
The most important 4 year actions
about structure
Responses
Percentage
Number
One size does not fit
all; ‘menu modelling’.
Models from State/Local
Government partnership
30%
157
Review the current
model and involve
ROCs in development
of major strategies and
infrastructure issues
22%
117
Investigate different models
including corporate entities
16%
82
Establish a high level
panel to determine logical
boundaries for Local
Government in NSW
16%
81
Before reform, determine
who/how the final decision
about council structures is
made
11%
56
Enable new enterprise
models
5%
28
100%
521
Total
Note: Some particpants chose not to provide electronic
feedback on some questions and hence the total number of
responses varies.
30 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
The actions suggested in relation to functions were less
specific than those proposed under other headings,
although some clear areas of agreement did emerge.
Many groups proposed that a compact, MOU or other
formal agreement be developed between the three
tiers of Government on their respective roles and
responsibilities. This was seen as a key step in improving
relationships between the levels of Government – and
particularly between State and Local Government.
Similarly, most groups proposed that there be a process
for “managing any devolution of functions” and associated
costs, with Queensland given as an example in this
context.
Most groups thought that there should be a process to
“identify mandatory functions and enable discretionary
functions for individual councils based on community
need and response”. This was echoed in comments
that functions should be “flexible but not duplicative”
and should include “traditional eg R, R, R” with “other
functions unique to community”. There were multiple
calls to establish taskforces or working groups to review
all council functions and/or services – or to “set up joint
teams (ie State/Local) to carry out any reviews”. It was
also proposed by one group that ROCS review services “to
determine collaboration opportunities”.
Responsibility for, and funding of, several specific
functions was mentioned as requiring clarification
between State and Local Government. These included
the State Emergency Service, Rural Fire Service and, less
frequently, child care and land clearing compliance.
It was also proposed by several groups that councils be
funded to provide some State Government services,
particularly in regional, rural and remote areas. It was
thought that this would help to increase the efficiency
of service provision, as well as increase integration and
reduce duplication. Services which it was proposed that
councils might provide included health, education and
community welfare. One group listed “child care, meals
on wheels, aged care, community care/operations”, while
another mentioned local health boards. The example
of Central Darling was mentioned by one group in this
context and another suggested that the sector should
“cut out duplication of services by different service
organisation eg council libraries, school, uni, community
colleges, citizenship, immunisation etc”.
The alignment of strategic planning between State and
Local Government was also raised again in this context,
with one group arguing for the “mandatory alignment
of state, regional and strategic plans embedded in
performance agreements of council GMs and State
Department Director Generals”.
Once each of the five breakout groups had considered
actions relating to functions, each group was asked to
nominate its highest priority action to report back to the
main group. It was not intended that these priority actions
be the sole actions relating to governance included in
the draft Action Plan, but rather that they provide an
indication of the relative priority of actions suggested by
each group.
The highest priority action nominated by each of the five
groups in relation to functions was then incorporated into
a single list in the electronic feedback system for further
prioritisation by all participants in a joint group session,
with each participant able to nominate two priorities. The
results of this process are shown in the table below.
“Councils enabled to give
community whatever they
want as long as they are
prepared to pay for it”
The most important 4 year actions
about functions
Responses
Percentage
Number
Establish mandatory
functions at State level with
discretionary functions
determined by local
communities
28%
140
Carry out service review to
identify needs/wants of the
community and decide who
provides what services
26%
131
New sustainable financial
model delivered by
independent panel with
Transition Team
21%
105
On a local basis review all
functions – traditional and
other
16%
81
Explore further prescribed v
non prescribed functions
9%
43
100%
500
Total
“More clearly describe
the roles of State/Local
Government and underpin
with appropriate funding”
Note: Some particpants chose not to provide electronic
feedback on some questions and hence the total number of
responses varies.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 31
“Better base for income than
rates – alternative sources
eg bonds, business operations,
deregulate fees and charges,
increased autonomy”
7.4 Actions about Finance
As might be expected, there were a large number of
actions suggested under the ‘finance’ heading. The most
common related to rating, including frequent calls to
remove rate pegging. Reasons given for the cessation
of rate pegging included “to improve local autonomy,
community awareness and better aligned with community
strategic planning”, “more autonomy and accountability
for councils”, “NSW is only state to apply – IPR is solution
for appropriate level of rates” and “be accountable
through community and benchmarking (New Zealand
model)”.
There was, however, considerable nuance and variation
in the actions proposed in relation to rating. Specific
proposals included:
≥≥ Establishing more flexible rating categories
≥≥ Listing State Government levies on rates bills, including
for fire services and the SES
≥≥ Moving from valuations based on land value to those
based on improved value, as “rates are skewed
because of land valuation process”
≥≥ Reviewing pensioner rate rebates, with the suggestion
that “pensioner rate rebate to be fully funded by
Federal Government”
≥≥ Seeking removal of rate exemption categories for lands
such as National Parks, forestry plantations, schools,
universities, churches, Crown land and Department of
Housing holdings.
32 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Some groups questioned whether IPART is the most
appropriate body to oversee the process for considering
rate rise applications, with one stating “is IPART really
the body that should be doing this? Is their model
appropriate?”
It was also suggested that there should be a broad
sweeping review of all local government finances to
“establish new funding formulas”, and to “investigate
the successful SA model of local government banking
system”.
Another large, and potentially interrelated, set of
actions revolved around alternate models for funding
infrastructure. Suggestions included:
≥≥ Establishing an infrastructure fund, “similar to Roads
to Recovery”
≥≥ Establishing low or no interest loans for infrastructure,
as “local government is paying commercial rates –
should be paying low rates”
≥≥ Establishing infrastructure bonds
≥≥ Investigating the ability for councils to borrow against
assets.
One group proposed that there should be “full funding
of national infrastructure – roads and bridges – to come
from Federal Government”.
An action raised by many groups, was to pursue
“reasonable and fixed allocation of Federal tax revenue
for local government”. It was thought that this would
“improve financial sustainability through a growth tax
revenue base” – and one group suggested that it should
be implemented at a fixed proportion of the GST. Another
group proposed a process for this action to be pursued,
stating “take to COAG that local government get a share of
GST”.
As under the ‘functions’ heading, many groups mentioned
cost shifting between levels of government and “the need
to stop putting more costs on Local Government”.
In relation to Federal Government funding, there were
also multiple suggestions to reconsider the Federal
Assistance Grant (FAG) model and/or to review the Grants
Commission formula for disadvantage, which is used in
determining the grants. It was also suggested that there
be special funding for large rural and remote areas
from Federal, and potentially State, Governments, as
“amalgamation and resource sharing won’t meet the gap.
Distance and remoteness precludes these and would be
at odds with social responsibilities/fabric contribution”.
Interestingly, there were fewer actions related to
resource sharing proposed here than the discussions
on models (see Section 8) might suggest. However, many
groups did note generic actions related to facilitating
and encouraging resource sharing, “to achieve greater
efficiencies through economies of scale and scope with
improved service provision”.
“There is enormous expertise
in local councils to share
resources/share infrastructure
- this is also a potential revenue
stream as well”
There were a small number of suggested ways in which
councils could be more entrepreneurial. These included
allowing the sale of council services, the establishment of
council enterprises and council investment in businesses.
It was noted that these would need to be “subject to
appropriate legal mechanisms” or “managed via APRA
ATSIC regulations” – and the actions suggested here
related closely to others proposed for the review of the
Local Government Act.
There were a range of other suggested actions in relation
to finance, including:
≥≥ Considering the implications of the Henry Tax Review
for local government – and taking advantage of its
outcomes
Once each of the five breakout groups had considered
actions relating to finance, each group was asked to
nominate its highest priority action to report back to the
main group. It was not intended that these priority actions
be the sole actions relating to governance included in
the draft Action Plan, but rather that they provide an
indication of the relative priority of actions suggested by
each group.
The highest priority action nominated by each of the five
groups in relation to finance was then incorporated into
a single list in the electronic feedback system for further
prioritisation by all participants in a joint group session,
with each participant able to nominate two priorities. The
results of this process are shown in the table below.
≥≥ Deregulating fees and charges, including some Section
94 funds, as “below cap funds should not be regulated”
≥≥ Ensuring there is a clear definition of roles to avoid cost
shifting, such as for fire services and waste
≥≥ Implementing a Royalties for Regions model similar to
that in WA, “to ensure financial resources are returned
to those communities which experience the service
impacts of the mining industry”
≥≥ Rationalising State Government grant funding
processes to reduce duplication, as “local government
spends a lot of time, money and effort on grant
applications”
“Raise low cost capital for
infrastructure renewal”
The most important 4 year actions about finance
Responses
Percentage
Number
Review of tax system to
ensure LG gets equitable
share of revenue
31%
160
Establish Working Group
(State/Local Government
and other) to review LG
finances and develop new
financing formula
22%
116
Get a better income base
than rates e.g. Bonds,
business operations,
deregulated fees and
charges, scrap rate pegging
19%
96
Remove rate pegging
15%
79
Establish task force led
by LG that facilitates and
ensures proper financing
9%
45
Phase out rate pegging
4%
22
100%
518
Total
Note: Some particpants chose not to provide electronic
feedback on some questions and hence the total number of
responses varies.
≥≥ Reviewing the PPP model and exploring its application
to local government services, such as child care, aged
services and pools.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 33
“Be fair dinkum about
resource sharing – high
order not crumbs”
7.5 Actions about Capacity
There were a smaller number of suggested actions in
relation to capacity than some of the other headings
considered in the Actions session of the Destination 2036
Workshop. The largest group of suggested actions under
this heading related to increasing staff capacity. Many
groups suggested councils should share professional
staff, both for “making best use of available staff/
resources” and for “sharing of staff for the benefit of
cross over knowledge”. One group suggested a taskforce
of industry and education providers be established to
“provide scholarships and traineeships as an industry –
‘indentured’ to the industry not the council”. It was also
thought that increasing staffing capacity would assist
with the larger goals of “keeping Gen Y” and making
councils “more attractive places to work”, while one group
suggested that “flexibly enabling child care” could help
attract both staff and elected representatives.
More generally, it was thought that there could be
a greater number of partnering and mentoring
arrangements between larger and smaller councils,
as well as “city councils to country councils”. It was
suggested that this could “strengthen skills, staffing” as
well as helping to improve capacity in other areas.
34 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
A number of groups identified resource sharing as a way of
increasing the capacity of councils. It was suggested that
local government identify and remove barriers to effective
resource sharing and shared service provision, particularly
in relation to back office functions. One group suggested
that resource sharing could be extended beyond the back
office, to include entire administrations, including General
Managers. The current arrangements in relation to
resource sharing were seen by many groups as, to quote
one group, “too cumbersome, limited and restrictive”.
As in the ‘governance’ heading, several groups identified
training as a way of increasing Councillor capacity.
Another area of overlap with the ‘governance’ heading
was the suggestion that strategic regional planning be
undertaken, in conjunction with community strategic
plans. As elsewhere throughout the Workshop, it was also
suggested that improving the relationship between State
and Local Government would help to improve the capacity
of both levels of government.
Several groups nominated shared information
technology platforms as an area in which local
government could increase capacity, as this “will increase
our buying power and ultimately our capacity”. It was also
suggested that a unified digital strategy be developed
across local government, to “avoid duplicating effort’”.
Community engagement and social media were also
nominated as areas in which local government could
improve its capacity, although with relatively little detail in
the suggested actions.
Once each of the five breakout groups had considered
actions relating to capacity, each group was asked to
nominate its highest priority action to report back to the
main group. It was not intended that these priority actions
be the sole actions relating to governance included in
the draft Action Plan, but rather that they provide an
indication of the relative priority of actions suggested by
each group.
The highest priority action nominated by each of the five
groups in relation to capacity was then incorporated into
a single list in the electronic feedback system for further
prioritisation by all participants in a joint group session,
with each participant able to nominate two priorities. The
results of this process are shown in the table below.
“State Government to see
Local Government as a
resource – not a problem”
The most important 4 year actions about capacity
Responses
Percentage
Number
Review and change
legislation that
applies to LG to enable
increased capacity and
corporatisation of service
delivery
33%
172
Simplify and determine
corporate governance
arrangements between
and in partnership with the
three levels of government
26%
132
Establish a task force
to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of all levels
of government
24%
123
Pursue financial security
to enable an appropriate
training and retention of
staff/Clrs
7%
37
Review staff capacity and
sharing professional staff
7%
34
Flexible system to
encourage new Councillors
3%
18
100%
516
Total
7.6 Actions about Other Big Ideas
Groups suggested a large number of other ideas as part
of the Actions session of the Workshop. Several groups
proposed not only reviewing the Local Government Act
in NSW, but also creating uniform legislation for local
government across Australia. Constitutional recognition
was also frequently nominated, often with the intention
that recognition lead to increased Federal Government
funding. In relation to systems of governance, several
groups also suggested that there be “two tiers of
government” and that NSW should “eliminate State
Government” and “establish regional councils to run”.
One group thought that the Division of Local Government
should regain “full Departmental recognition’, while
another encouraged the development of long term (20-30
year) State Plans, which would “let local government make
better decisions”. One group thought that not only should
councils share services with each other, but that they
should also share services such as payroll with State and
Federal Government.
Committees, and particularly the formalisation of Section
355 Committees, were also mentioned by a small number
of groups.
It was proposed by one group that an audit should be
undertaken of all NSW councils to determine their
viability, while a small number of groups suggested that
the industrial Award be modernised, in order to “increase
productivity” and also to provide a “better work/family
balance”.
Several groups also suggested that the local government
should improve learning across the sector or, more
specifically, establish a ‘think tank’ to exchange ideas and
promote innovation and best practice.
Note: Some particpants chose not to provide electronic
feedback on some questions and hence the total number of
responses varies.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 35
36 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Other suggested actions included:
≥≥ Encouraging volunteering
Responses
≥≥ Establishing cross-border economic zones, such as at
Albury/Wodonga
≥≥ Formulating a united local government response to
the ETS, so that “local government [becomes] more
engaged with energy debate”
≥≥ Rebranding local government.
Once each of the five breakout groups had considered
actions about other big ideas, each group was asked to
nominate its highest priority action to report back to the
main group. It was not intended that these priority actions
be the sole actions relating to governance included in
the draft Action Plan, but rather that they provide an
indication of the relative priority of actions suggested by
each group.
The highest priority action nominated by each of the
five groups in relation to actions about other big ideas
was then incorporated into a single list in the electronic
feedback system for further prioritisation by all
participants in a joint group session, with each participant
able to nominate two priorities. The results of this process
are shown in the table below.
7.7 Summary of Actions
The most important 4 year actions
about other big ideas
Percentage Number
Establish a formal contractual
arrangement with State
and Federal Government
to guarantee funding for
delivery of services
28%
145
Integrate community plans on
a regional basis, particularly
with State agencies, to
enable coordinated regional
service delivery
22%
114
Local service delivery
(particularly in Rural areas) of
Local/State/Federal services
12%
63
Establish a national Local
Government Act that
incorporates subsidiary acts
11%
58
Single Local Government
information technology
platform
8%
38
Resources bank
7%
35
Expanded role of councils in
State service delivery
6%
31
Local Government think
tank/Wentworth Group
6%
29
100%
513
Total
A summary appears at Appendix E. It includes the most
important actions in each of the six categories from each
of the five working groups that were reported back to all
participants and then subject to electronic feedback.
This summary is not intended to become the Actions List
without further reference to all potential actions listed
by the groups and sub groups, as participants were keen
that the texture of their discussions also be considered
in the development of the Actions List. It is however an
important point of reference for the draft Action Plan
suggested in this Outcomes Report.
Note: Some particpants chose not to provide electronic
feedback on some questions and hence the total number of
responses varies.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 37
8. W
orkshop Outcomes:
Models
38 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
8.1 Overview of Models
This section of the report summarises the outcomes of
the models session, the second interactive session on
Day 2 of Workshop. Like the Actions session, the Models
session was undertaken with participants allocated
randomly to five groups, each of which contained
representatives from all parts of NSW. In the Models
session, participants were further divided into sub groups
of about 10 people.
Each sub group was asked to develop up to two models
of local government of the future. For each model, sub
groups were asked to describe the:
≥≥ Name of model
≥≥ Key elements
≥≥ Governance
≥≥ Structure
≥≥ Functions
≥≥ Finances
≥≥ Capacity
≥≥ Other elements
≥≥ Where would the model work best in the future?
≥≥ Why would this model work well in the future?
≥≥ What are the model’s most future focused elements?
The recording sheet used in this process is contained in
Appendix D.
The primary message which emerged from a large
proportion of the sub groups was that civic leaders do not
want to see a “one size fits all” model of local government
in NSW. This aligns with the responses to the Online
Survey before the Workshop, in which 85% of respondents
agreed that coucnils of the future should be using a range
of operating models enabled by legislation.
The models developed by the sub groups covered all
areas of NSW, but in general tended to focus on urban,
regional or rural areas – or to apply to the entire state.
Several sub groups provided ideas for the next stages in
considering new or amended models for local government
in NSW and many identified legislative change as a key to
implementing the models.
This section of the report is structured around the six
key elements which were used in the discussions about
models. While it is not proposed to present all of the 30+
models developed by the sub groups in this report, this
section concludes by presenting four indicative examples
of models developed during the Workshop. It should be
noted that these are not presented as definitive models
endorsed by Workshop participants, but rather starting
points for further consideration. As the sub groups were
asked to focus particularly on models that could work
well in the future and asked to describe their most future
focused aspects, the example models presented here
are those which contained more future focused aspects
and which offer alternatives to the indicative models
described in the Discussion Paper.
“Pilot new approaches with some councils
as ‘test cases’ with State Government
incentives for councils to participate
(substantial financial investment)”
“Needs to be commitment by councils
to achieve new models noting the
requirement for representatives from
Destination 2036 to champion changes
with the rest of their organisation”
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 39
“Use technology for
greater participation by
citizens in remote areas – and
meetings via teleconference
rather than physical presence
of Councillors”
8.2 Governance Elements of Models
Most of the models proposed by the sub groups
contained considerable detail on the potential
governance arrangements. Where sub groups indicated
the number of Councillors proposed for their model,
there were generally 5-12 (with 7-9 Councillors being
the most common suggestion). One of the models for
larger metropolitan councils proposed that there be a
large number of Councillors (25-50) with 7-9 decision
makers, while a suggested model for a two tier model
included 20 representatives on the upper or “umbrella”
tier. Another model for metropolitan councils suggested
that there be a full time Mayor with five Councillors
on a board-like structure, while another sub group
proposed that rural councils with shared services “retain
elected representatives – evolution of more formalised
board structures”. One sub group proposed the “Porter
Model: one popularly elected Mayor as sole Executive
Administrator”.
Many sub groups suggested that Mayoral terms should
be a minimum of two years and that there should be an
option for a half council or mid term election. A smaller
number of groups proposed that Councillors be elected
for six year terms, with half council elections every three
years. Several sub groups explicitly stated that they didn’t
want executive Mayors.
Relatively few of the sub groups mentioned ward
structures. One sub group which built a model for rural
councils stated “wards to go”, while another sub group
generally thought that “ward variations (in size) need
less control in terms of %”. It was also proposed by one
40 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
sub group that “the Act should be amended to state
Councillors represent whole of local government area”.
Several sub groups mentioned remuneration for
Councillors. One sub group suggested that the minimum
payment for Councillors should be equal to the basic
wage, while another thought that there should be a
cabinet structure for large metropolitan councils, with
executive members who are full time, formally trained
and renumerated, with advisors to guide them. In terms
of council elections, several sub groups mentioned that
electronic and postal voting should be enabled for local
government elections.
One sub group provided a ‘Menu Model’ of governance
options, which included: ROCs; the status quo for rural
councils; a company structure; and shared General
Managers and directors for smaller councils.
Other ideas related to governance elements of models
included:
≥≥ Assigning portfolios to Councillors
≥≥ Ensuring governance models have the flexibility to
address interstate and cross-border issues
≥≥ Ensuring there are an odd number of Councillors
≥≥ Preparing council minutes in Hansard form, to reduce
Code of Conduct complaints
≥≥ “Stimulus to attract a wider cross section of
Councillors”
≥≥ Using a split governance model, with a “corporate
structure for some service delivery units”.
8.3 Structure Elements of Models
Few of the models included specific suggestions
for population or geographic size. Suggestions for
populations in metropolitan areas included “100,000+”,
“minimum 400,000 population” and “50 000+ with a
community of interest and hinterland”. One sub group
suggested a city model should include “upper/lower
limits of population based on community of interest
[and] geographic harmony”, while another recommended
the boundaries of regional councils be aligned to the
boundaries used by State Government departments.
In terms of geographic size, there was only one specific
suggestion, and this was for a model applicable to
councils “100,000km2 or larger with a small population”.
The most frequent suggestion in relation to the structural
element of models related to resource sharing. Many
models were based on increased resource sharing,
structured in several ways. One resource sharing
model for urban councils was based on a “legal regional
structure – cooperation to be legalised to facilitate
service sharing”. Other sub groups, some of which created
models for rural councils, also agreed there should be a
“contractual agreement for provision of services provided
by other councils”. A similar model for small to medium
councils included “regional business corporations to
deliver agreed regional services” and a model for a large
area with a small population incorporated “joint council
owned commercial enterprises”. A small number of sub
groups also included the possibility of outsourcing in their
models.
“Councils need to come
to a decision - government
directed [or] voluntary
amalgamations ”
Other models included looser or less formal resource
sharing arrangements, such as “effective combined
council structures (ROC) for shared service provision
with provision for county council involvement eg Hunter
Councils”. Another proposed model which is similar or
identical to the current approach suggested that councils
“exploit options for regional cooperation where agreed
voluntarily between LGAs”.
An alternative structure was summarised as a ‘Local
Council/Regional Council Model’ with a two tier structure.
This model would see the formation of “two separate
entities: local/regional”.
The ‘structure’ element was closely tied to the ‘finance’
and ‘functions’ elements. For example, it was thought
there could be a structure for rural and regional councils
“based around fee for service operation where larger
councils have specialist services they can provide to
smaller councils – the smaller council pays”.
8.4 Function Elements of Models
There were varied perspectives in sub groups on whether
functions should be set for all councils or whether
flexibility and discretion should be enabled. This supports
the results of the Online Survey, in which 87% supported
the inclusion in the Vision statement of the “undertaking
a core set of functions” and 88% supported the includion
of “able o undertake additional functions which respond
to local needs”. One sub group thought core services
for councils in a regional model should be “waste,
roads, water, recreation”. Several sub groups, which
developed models for different types of council, thought
functions should “address key/core responsibilities plus
discretionary based on community engagement”. Another
proposed “a MOU of core service delivery between Local,
State and Federal”.
A large number of models, particularly for small to
medium councils in regional and rural areas, were
predicated on greater resource sharing to provide
for functions across several councils. It was thought
councils could have “shared services, capital equipment
and skills with their neighbours” and that corporatising
the functions of ROCs could help in delivering regional
services. A few of the models based on resource sharing
indicated they might include the delivery of some State
Government services. This view was summarised by one
group, which stated “potential to take over State functions
by Local Government so long as cost shifting is avoided
and a secure funding model is part of the deal”. It was also
thought by one sub group that the functions of regional
councils should include “regional advice and advocacy”.
One innovative model for rural councils was based on
a place management approach (see Section 8.11). This
model was suggested to deliver “economies of scale
with personalised services – Place Manager overcomes
isolation”, with Lord Howe Island given as an example of
the approach.
One model for city councils included a specific list
of functions, with the sub group stating “No water,
sewerage, drainage. Do pools, parks, libraries, sport
facilities. Regulations [with] agreed appropriate funding
sources ie food services”. Another metropolitan model
included roads, rates, rubbish, “regional delivery of
social services (eg fire, community, health)”, economic
development, community health, child care and
infrastructure.
A model for small to medium councils in regional areas
included waste management, transport planning, regional
infrastructure, water resources, sewer and conservation,
with shared services for human resources, financial
management processing and payroll. For models based
on the corporatisation of some services, it was suggested
that “non core functions (eg caravan parks, waste) go into
separate corporate business units”.
One of the two tier models proposed an “umbrella” council
undertaking long term planning, advocacy, business
activity and infrastructure/asset management, with a
second tier “community council” undertaking land use
planning and service delivery.
Many sub groups commented on whether various kinds of
health services should be delivered by local government.
One group stated “public health – NSW Health: tattoo
parlours, brothels etc”, with another agreeing that “all
health expenditure to be paid by the State”. A different
perspective was put another sub group, which stated
“planning for healthy and sustainable communities to be
recognised and funded”.
Other ideas related to the functions in models included
creating councils as ‘centres of excellence’ in certain
functions and leveraging from the National Broadband
Network.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 41
“FAGs and Roads to
Recovery funding is too heavily
weighted toward population,
rather than needs”
8.5 Finance Elements of Models
As in the previous discussions on the Directions and
Actions, many sub groups thought that there should be
“no rate capping” and “direct funding by the Feds”. These
comments are not duplicated in this Section, but are
elaborated upon in Sections 6 and 7.
Other suggestions about finance related to rates
included:
≥≥ Charging rates on the improved value of land
≥≥ Receiving “100% payment to councils for pensioner
rate remissions”
≥≥ Reviewing existing rate exemptions, such as for forests
and churches
≥≥ Reviewing rates arrangements in general across the State.
Several sub groups, particularly those which focused on
regional resource sharing and servicing arrangements,
noted that councils should be able to charge each other
for the provision of shared services. For example, one
group stated “fee for service provision charged by host
council” and another thought that there should be “long
term contractual arrangements [between councils] time
dependent on service ie water 20 years, LEP 3 years”. This
sub group also thought that where there was regional
resource sharing , there should be “full cost recovery” and
“no cross subsidisation from large to small or vice versa”.
Several sub groups mentioned more entrepreneurial
approaches, including making it easier to establish
corporations. This was particularly the case for models
42 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
predicated on corporate board structures and/or
corporatised service delivery. One sub group thought
there should be “more flexibility – profit making
enterprises help fund core activities”, with another
agreeing that there should be “entrepreneurial activities
of corporations to create surplus funds”. One of the sub
groups gave a detailed list of possible funding elements,
including: low interest State loans; entrepreneurial
and innovative funding sources; GST; increased rates;
increased Federal Assistance Grants; Section 88 Waste
Levy; and funding from the former Land and Property
Management Authority [now the State Property Authority]
for Crown Reserves.
Other ideas related to the finance element of models
included:
≥≥ “Better leveraging of borrowings”
≥≥ “Civic bonds”
≥≥ “Grants for those who reform”
≥≥ Exploring ways to charge visitors for the services they
use
≥≥ Staff providing their own vehicles, including via novated
leasing
≥≥ Undertaking “non financial analysis/business planning
– life-time costing of projects”
≥≥ Undertaking a “review/capping of election expenses”
≥≥ Using alternate ways of improving funding for
infrastructure, such as budgeting the infrastructure gap.
8.6 Capacity Elements of Models
There was less detail provided under this heading than for
others in the recording sheets.
One sub group summarised the benefits of a model for
rural and regional councils as being “strategic planning
regionally and support network for smaller councils”,
which relates strongly to capacity and also applies to
many of the models predicated on resource sharing
or other joint arrangements. Similarly, a ‘Rural Shared
Services’ model was promoted as “building on current
strong local government by achieving economies of scale:
specialisation, strategic outcomes, attracting grants.
Based on: collaboration and communication; strong
relationships; attraction for [staff] expertise”. One sub
group also thought that government could “develop a
national focus to overcome/reverse urban transition”.
Several sub groups thought that there should be more
training for elected members – and potentially for
candidates in council elections. There were also several
suggestions for improved mentoring between councils,
including partnerships between metropolitan and
regional councils. One sub group noted a connection
between capacity and regulation, stating that capacity
“will be increased with less/more appropriate regulation”.
Several sub groups noted the opportunity for increased
capacities relating to service delivery – with some similar
comments to those relating to functions (see Section 8.4).
For example, one group noted “opportunities for State
services delivery through Regional body – aging, children,
social services”.
A number of sub groups had suggestions for increasing
staffing capacity, including:
≥≥ Creating more flexibility in the Local Government Award
and reviewing industrial relations
≥≥ Exchanging staff between metropolitan and rural
councils
≥≥ Networking with TAFE and universities, “for practical
education”
≥≥ Sharing a common workforce in a regional council,
included the “CEO and admin”
≥≥ Sharing staff between councils, including General
Managers
≥≥ Sharing staff with the State Government.
One group summed up the suggestions relating to staffing
capacity, stating “improve ability to hire and provide
interesting jobs”.
8.7 Other Elements of Models
Some other suggestions made by Workshop participants
in relation to models for local government included:
≥≥ “Review prescriptive arrangements for appointment of
senior staff including standard contracts”
“Utilising technology for
best practice accountability
measured against other councils
– my council website”
≥≥ “Preferential system of voting”
≥≥ “Divesting of non council business ie tourism, state
Emergency Service/Rural Fire Service”
≥≥ “No party politics”
≥≥ “Working relationships – who should employ GM?
Should Mayor be involved?”
≥≥ “Remuneration for Councillors to lift professional
standards”
“Scope of legislation should allow
councils to provide any additional
services if identified by the Community
Strategic Planning process or via other
public consultation”
≥≥ “Realisation that strong regional centres are only that
because of the strong rural towns around them”
≥≥ “Performance written into General Manager contracts”
≥≥ “Education: Diploma of Local Government (WA) may
help”
“Income determines the
services you provide”
“Funding needs to be
equitable and based on
fair allocation of taxation
and capacity of the local
community to pay”
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 43
8.8 Example Model 1: Two Tier Model
In this model, councils increase their capacity by
This model was thought to need “minor tailoring to rural
and urban but generally can apply to all”. It featured two
tiers of governance, with “regional political reps fed up
from each council” and each council acting as a legal
shareholder to the larger body. This structure was likened
to a “parent/subsidiary company relationship between a
group of councils” – and it was thought that the structure
should be guaranteed through “20 year compacts –
disciplines to enter and exit (no opt out)”.
≥≥ Increasing the strength of governance
The proposed functions undertaken by the council in this
model were not specifically defined beyond the general
notion that they be “fluid”. However, it was thought
that the structure would enable the regional council
to “diversify into specific purpose vehicles for certain
regional scale functions”.
The model was proposed to be financed through a
“common regional rate and discretionary local rate”,
as well as “user pays for certain services”. It was also
proposed that there be “legislative capacity to operate
into different forms ie business structures”.
44 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
≥≥ Sharing a common workforce, including the “CEO and
admin”
≥≥ Increasing the ability to provide higher quality services
≥≥ Increasing efficiency and use of resources.
The model was also seen to “enable regional issues
to be addressed”, including catchment management,
transport, planning and “service delivery for other levels
of government”.
In summary, the most future focused aspects
of this model were:
≥≥ the two tier governance mode, with both local and
regional councils
≥≥ the potential to apply both a regional and a local rate
≥≥ the use of new business models and revenue
sources
≥≥ the use of a common workforce.
8.9 Example Model 2: Corporate Model for
Medium to Large Urban Populations
These functions were proposed to be funded though
This model was identified as working best in an urban
location with a medium to large population centre,
defined as approximately 100,000 + with “minimal
expected population growth”. The model featured
an undivided local government area, without wards,
governed by seven Councillors including a popularly
elected Mayor. It also included a corporatised structure,
with the General Manager becoming the chief executive
officer and reporting to the council as to a board of
directors. It was proposed that the CEO position “must
be contested after 10 years” and that there be increased
payments to Councillors.
≥≥ Special rate variations and specific levies
The proposed functions undertaken by the council in this
model included “all traditional services and programs in
consultation with local community”, as well as “tailored
additional services to reflect community needs”. It also
included a “commitment to regionalisation” with shared
services being provided by ROCs and “facilitated services
with local groups, Government agencies and NGOs”.
≥≥ Property rates based on land values
≥≥ Loans, grants and other “targeted taxes and fees”
“Well defined service load
with community support and
reliable finance stream”
≥≥ A “poll tax”, with a “new model required to get a fairer
share of Federal Government Revenue”.
In this model, councils increase their capacity by
≥≥ Undertaking specialised services with other councils
≥≥ Sharing back of house functions, such as payroll, legal
and information technology
≥≥ Applying new technology
≥≥ Requiring a business case for all new or expanded
services.
In summary, the most future focused aspects
of this model were:
≥≥ the governance by a small number of “committed
and community focused elected members”
≥≥ the use of a corporate governance model, with
Councillors acting as a board of directors and the
GM as CEO
≥≥ the increased ability to appoint and retain quality
staff
≥≥ the sharing of back of house functions and
specialised services
≥≥ the use of new technologies.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 45
8.10 E
xample Model 3: Formalised
Resource Sharing Model
This model was identified as working best in rural
and regional areas. It included specific governance
arrangements, with 5-7 Councillors and Mayors elected by
their fellow Councillors for two years terms. It was thought
that there should be limits on the maximum number of
times a Mayor could serve and that there be four year,
split council terms, with biannual elections. The model
included Councillors paid a “minimum payment at the
base wage”, with an additional allowance for the Mayor. It
also incorporated Councillors being assigned portfolios.
Specific council functions were not identified as part
of this model, but it was thought that the model should
“match services to community needs” and not “duplicate
services with other levels of Government and private
enterprise”. The model did, however, include more
formalised resource sharing arrangements, facilitated
through legislation.
In addition to increased resource sharing, the model was
proposed to be funded through:
≥≥ Removing rate capping, including current IPART
processes
≥≥ Outsourcing in partnership with other councils
≥≥ Using “contractual arrangement for [the] provision of
services provided by other councils”
≥≥ Removing restrictions on the ability to commercialise.
46 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
The model also considered alternative ways of funding
infrastructure, such as “more GST funding” and “councils
pay interest, Federal or State pay principle”.
In this model, councils increase their capacity by resource
sharing and collective outsourcing, as well as improving
mentoring arrangements between councils.
In summary, the most future focused aspects
of this model were:
≥≥ the revised governance arrangements, including the
smaller number of Councillors, split term elections
and limits on the number of Mayoral terms
≥≥ the removal of rate capping
≥≥ the use of regional outsourcing
≥≥ the use of a variety of resource sharing, commercial
and funding arrangements enabled and supported
by legislation.
8.11 Example Model 4: Rural Place
Management Model
This model was thought to work best in rural or remote
areas. Its governance was predicated on a corporatised
structure, in this case with a Mayor, popularly elected for
a four year term, acting as the chair of the board and a
General Manager reporting to the board. The model also
featured a “centralised back office supported by place
managers with responsibility for service delivery” in
specific areas and/or towns. The model was visualised by
the sub group as follows:
In summary, the most future focused aspects of this
model were:
≥≥ the use of a corporate governance model, with the
Mayor as chair of the board
≥≥ the use of place managers “accountable for delivery
of all services in dedicated areas”
≥≥ the coordinated model of service delivery, including
shared services.
The proposed functions undertaken in this model included
water, sewer, roads, rates, rubbish and the “regional
delivery of services via place manager”. These functions
were proposed to be funded though GST revenue, set at a
fixed proportion, as well as grants and rates.
In this model, councils increase their capacity by
≥≥ Building on economies of scale
≥≥ Increasing “career opportunities in the region”
“Economies of scale
with personalised
service – place manager
overcomes isolation”
Board
General Manager
Corporate
Place
Manager
Place
Manager
Place
Manager
Rural Place Management Model
≥≥ Using shared services, with careful contract
management.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 47
9. Other Comments
48 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Each table in the main room used in the
Destination 2036 Workshop contained
a box in which participants could place
their written comments on any aspect
of the Workshop. These comments are
summarised below.
9.1 Other Comments: Workshop Day 1
Other participants had general comments, including:
In regards to the Workshop presentation relating to the
outcomes of the Online Survey, one participant was
concerned about the validity of a survey undertaken only
by Mayors, General Managers and other civic leaders.
The participant asked, “Why on earth do you think that
the survey results you have produced have any validity?
Look at the demographics. If you are asking for a ‘future
Vision’ how many people in the room who did the survey
online are under 30? How many women? How many
non-Anglo? How many Aboriginal? How many disabled?
There is nothing representative about this survey. It only
manipulates figures. The largest demographic without
doubt is male and over 40. If you want to talk about the
future will be living the future in 2036”.
≥≥ “How do we entice younger people into local
government to take over for us that have been
around for a long time? To me that is a big problem that
we face”
In regards to the Workshop process, one participant
stated mid way through Day 1, “Too little time to actually
do something... We were promised no direction to a point/
outcome.” The participant also wrote “Minister Don Page
came across as ‘genuinely’ interested in local government
and in particular reform. He is to be commended for
facilitating this Workshop. What is more impressive is the
fact that he attended himself – that is commitment!
Director Woodward is a ‘DOER’ and clearly believes what
he says. He is an essential ‘cog’ in the wheel of reform
of local government. There are few equals in the state
bureaucracy”.
≥≥ “Develop a self assessment methodology for each
category of council against agreed performance
indicators (which are mutually agreed) across the sector”
≥≥ “Create a culture of innovation (entrepreneurial
leadership by allowing councils to build other streams
of revenue). If a probity issue exists, a probity officer
could be delegated from government to facilitate the
process for transparency and accountability”
≥≥ “When preparing LEPs, councils should be given the
opportunity to be the decision-maker in regards to
minimum lot sizes. Although councils use a template to
prepare their LEP, the Department of Planning should
not play a big brother role but a reference role
≥≥ “Surely we should decide which services should be
provided by local government first – rather than state
government being able to push services and costs to
councils at anytime. It makes budgeting very difficult”
≥≥ “Water and sewerage functions are an important
function of many regional councils. The Office of
Water has conducted an inquiry into water reforms for
NSW. The recommendations include options for the
sustainable management of water utilities including
reducing the number of utilities and various models
for the future management of water and sewerage. I
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 49
am unsure how this will impact on our discussions in
developing a Vision for 2036, given that this important
element of local government (water and sewerage) is
currently being reviewed independently of Destination
2036. The two need to be in sync”
≥≥ “If you don’t want local government, don’t call it local
government. If you do want local government you have
to determine what is local! What is local in ONE AREA
may not be so local in another! Local means more to
country people than it does to city people. The word
‘industry’ should not be used for local government”
≥≥ “Is government really an ‘industry’?”
Participants also asked that copies of the
presentations given at the Workshop be made available
and made comments about the acoustics and other
aspects of the venue.
9.2 Other Comments: Workshop Day 2
There were a large number of comments on Day 2 in
regards to amalgamations. This was likely in response
to some comments made by the lead facilitator in the
joint session at the beginning of Day 2 referring to the
electronic feedback about voluntary amalgamations on
Day 1. One participant stated, “Amalgamations must occur
– particularly in the County of Cumberland – 44 Councils
is a farcical situation. Sydney could effectively operate
with 6 Councils”. Another agreed that “‘Amalgamation’,
‘Structural Reform’ or ‘Reorganisation’ – there should
be a conversation on this issue”. This was expressed
by another participant as “I have been continuously
surprised that we could all fit in the room given the size of
the elephant in the room that everybody wanted to avoid
– amalgamation. This conference confirmed the lack of
leadership on local government. Self-interest was the
clear winner. Where was the question [of] what is best for
the people of NSW?”
A process which could be used for amalgamations was
suggested by one participant, who stated “amalgamation
must be addressed. Would or could facilitators be used
in identified possible amalgamations to smooth the
waters?” Another comment in relation to amalgamations
and process was that “Government has said that,
whilst there will be no forced amalgamations, it would
provide incentives to councils to consider voluntary
amalgamations… This is an issue which still needs to be
dealt with”.
50 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
“Genuine reform is a
MUST. Local Government
is not a financially viable
form of Government in its
present form”
One participant stated “amalgamation is an action and
should not be in the (or any) Vision statement”, while
another offered to demonstrate the advantages and
disadvantages of amalgamation at their own council. It
was also thought by one participant that “the Conference
should have had a session on what incentives councils
might seek to consider amalgamations eg. funding for
business plans, community consultation, repeal of the
maintenance of employment legislation, funding for
redundancies, better payment of Councillors, exemption
from rate pegging etc”.
There were a number of comments from Day 2 relating
to the State Government and the Division of Local
Government. These included the comment “there is a
need for regional forums to involve wider communities
and local councils. The greatest obstruction to change
is not sharing the information and that needs to be done
by representatives from the Division and/or Minister’s
Office”. One participant directly appealed to the Minster
and Chief Executive of the DLG, stating “Message for
Ross Woodward and Minister: I would have preferred that
you indicated exactly what you want and where you think
we should be heading. It is clear to all in the room that
‘business as usual’ is not an option…it is far easier for me
to get change happening when I return to my Council and
community to be able to say ‘these are the parameters
we have to determine our future – these are the things
that are negotiable – these are the things that are not’.
Endless politics, ‘consultation’, treading on egg shells…
only prolongs the agony and delays the inevitable”.
It was also suggested, in relation to the broader
Destination 2036 process, “Roadmap should include
extensive and broad community engagement so that
our constituents have the opportunity to say what they
want their Council’s to be. Otherwise this process and the
outcomes will represent the vested interests ie Mayors
and GMs only”.
One participant stated, “O’Farrell Govt: So far – very
good. It must look at the current role of the Office of local
Government. It must be a body that actually offers a
‘service’. At present it falls down here. It is happy to have
Local Government pursue its own answers on sometimes
crucial issues. NOT GOOD ENOUGH”. Another participant
had a different perspective of the role of the Division,
stating “make it easier to do business with DLG. They
believe they know everything. This is the 21st century…
their opinion is not the only way forward”.
Other general comments included:
There were several comments on Day 2 in relation to
process. One participant thought that it was “an ambitious
Workshop well run most of the time. The rain was great
too!” Another participant was concerned that “I don’t
believe that the points noted in the feedback truly reflected
what our groups (rural and remote 1 – pink) expressed –
the only way to have effective change is to have it driven
from the local levels – not imposed – so vital to have
credibility of information presented from this conference
by delegates”.
≥≥ “Need to appreciate the diversity and strength of local
government. Change in itself is not necessarily the
answer”
≥≥ “Need to also review various other bodies which
currently operate in regional areas to cut down on
bureaucracy eg. CMAs, RLPPs….Should they do
what they are doing of would it be better organised –
is part or all of what they do more appropriately done
by councils?”
≥≥ “Local Government is weighed down by overpaid
Management. Councils must share these resources.
The present situation where Rate Income = Wages
is irresponsible”.
≥≥ “The future of Local Government is very much
dependent on the MDB [Murray Darling Basin] Plan and
Carbon Tax and the implications of both. They are the
elephants in the chook yard”
≥≥ “If the funds of all councils on deposit could be diverted
to a Local Government Bank to fund infrastructure
at interest rate now being received then it might be
possible for local government to become self funding.
This would involve freeing up restrictions”
≥≥ “It is critical that the independence of GMs (CEOs) is
maintained so that they can give fearless independent
advice without fear of political reprisals. Suggestion:
(as per Irish model) Establish a link with the State
Public Service Board to recruit GMs independent (with
input from Councillors) and this Board oversees the
annual performance reviews of GMs against agreed
objectives and targets”
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 51
10. Suggested Actions
52 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
The following list summarises the
actions proposed throughout the
Destination 2036 Workshop in all of
the interactive sessions as well as in
the comments provided by individual
participants in the comments boxes. The
actions presented here are not intended
to capture every idea suggested by every
participant. The following list focuses on
actions which were presented multiple
times during the process and/or fed back
by one or more groups to a joint session
as a priority. The list intended as the
basis for further consultation within the
local government sector and subsequent
refinement by the Implementation
Steering Committee which has been
formed to oversee the continuation of
the Destination 2036 process.
Suggested Actions about Functions
Action
Action
1a
Establish a task force to identify the roles and
responsibilities of Federal, State and Local
Government and formalise the shared understanding
through a MOU or other similar agreement
1l
Develop greater community awareness and
ownership of the Metropolitan Strategy and other
city-wide land use planning policies and strategies
1m
Align state, regional and local planning for transport
1b
Review and clarify functions provided by Local
Government, including identifying core or key
functions as well as discretionary functions
1n
Develop integrated regional plans for affordable and
social housing in metropolitan and regional areas
1c
Ensure that the review of the Local Government
Act defines core functions and enables
discretionary functions
1o
Develop and implement strategies for productive
agricultural land, to provide food security and
encourage the localisation of food production
1d
Develop a procedure to be implemented when
functions are proposed to shift between levels of
government
1p
Align state, regional and local planning for coastal
management to help provide greater clarity for
service provision
1e
Explore the potential for councils to be directly
funded to provide some State and Federal
Government services, particularly in regional,
rural and remote areas
1q
Align state, regional and local planning for flooding
to help provide greater clarity for service provision
1r
Align state, regional and local planning for
disaster management to help provide greater
clarity for service provision
1f
Clarify and reach agreement on responsibility, and
associated funding arrangements, for emergency
and fire services
1s
1g
Develop and fund a program to increase the number
of aged care facilities in rural and remote areas
Align state, regional and local planning for
economic development to help provide greater
clarity for service provision
1t
1h
Align and integrate strategic planning between
State and Local Government, including improving
the interrelationship between state, regional and
local plans
Identify and remove barriers to stronger and more
effective resource sharing and shared service
provision, with enabling legislation incorporated
into the review of the Local Government Act
1u
Develop a more formalised program for councils
to use volunteers and retirees to help provide
services
1v
Develop and run a campaign to promote Local
Government and to inform the community about
its roles, responsibilities and functions
1i
Align federal, state, regional and local planning for
population growth
1j
Promote population, business and industry
growth in regional, rural and remote areas
1k
Review the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act to increase flexibility and local autonomy
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 53
Suggested Actions about Structure
Action
2a
Develop, refine and enable a variety of models of
local government in NSW, potentially including:
≥≥ a model with greater and more formalised
regional service delivery and resource sharing
Action
2f
Review the Local Government Award to ensure
that it enables flexible staffing arrangements to
support a variety of models of local government
2g
Incorporate enabling legislative arrangements
for Regional Organisations of Councils into the
Local Government Act, including the ability to
incorporate
2h
Review ways in which the regulatory
responsibilities of councils can responsibly
be reduced and incorporate the outcomes into
the review of the Local Government Act and any
associated legislation
2i
Work to align the regional and sub regional
boundaries used by State and Local Government,
including by State Government agencies and
Regional Organisations of Councils
2j
Review the process and relevant legislation for
Local Government boundary changes, including
establishing an independent, high level panel to
determine local government boundaries in NSW
≥≥ a model for small to medium councils with
shared administrations but independent
elected bodies
≥≥ a two tier model, with roles and responsibilities
separated between local and regional councils
≥≥ a model for larger councils with a corporate
board structure and/or corporatized service
delivery
2b
Undertake and support pilot programs with
volunteer councils to test new models of local
government
2c
Undertake engagement with stakeholders on the
proposed models of local government
2d
Identify and implement incentives to encourage
the voluntary amalgamation of councils and
remove roadblocks to amalgamation in the Local
Government Act and other relevant mechanisms
2e
Undertake a wide ranging review of the Local
Government Act, based on the principle that
the Act be more enabling than prescriptive
and incorporate a variety of models of local
government
54 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Suggested Actions about Governance
Action
Action
3a
Review the Inter Governmental Agreement
and use it as a basis to continue to improve the
working relationship between State and Local
Government
3g
Require referendums as part of Local Government
elections to allow communities to determine
whether to have popularly elected Mayors
Develop a process for State Government
Departments to meet regularly with Regional
Organisations of Councils to discuss local issues
3h
Review remuneration for Mayors and Councillors
3b
3i
3c
Develop and formalise processes for State and
Local Government, including State Government
agencies and Regional Organisations of Councils,
to work together on integrating strategic planning
at a state, regional and local level
Explore ways to introduce postal and electronic
voting in Local Government elections and enable
through the Local Government Act, Electoral Act or
other relevant legislation
3d
Investigate terms for Mayors and Councillors,
including the possibility of a minimum
Mayoral term
3e
Investigate the option for half term elections
3f
Review national and international governance
models in which Councillors assume
responsibilities for specific portfolios or policy
areas and incorporate the outcomes into the
development of models of local government
for NSW
Action
3n
Amend the Local Government Act to provide
broader options rather than the dismissal of
an entire council eg dismissal of individual
Councillors
3o
Ensure the Local Government Act talks to other
Acts
3p
Review the Code of Conduct
3q
Implement programs to encourage a diversity of
elected representatives on councils
3r
Review requirements and arrangements for
Councillor training, including considering the
potential for Councillors to undertake training
from the Australian Institute of Directors or similar
professional body
3j
Pursue the recognition of Local Government in the
Australian Constitution
3k
Consider including provisions in the Council
Charter to clarify that Councillors are required
to consider the interests of the entire local
government area, rather than an individual ward
3l
Reconsider the provisions in the Local Government
Act relating to the establishment of wards and,
in particular, the proportion of variation allowed
between the number of electors in each ward
3s
Develop a joint understanding of the role of
the Division of Local Government, including
consideration of a more facilitative and less
regulatory role
3m
Consider incorporating provisions in the Local
Government Act to limit the legal liability of
councils
3t
Develop and promote new processes and
structures for community engagement, including
the use of social media and exploring options for
virtual councils
3u
Develop a ‘My Council’ website to enable
comparison between councils
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 55
Suggested Actions about Finance
Action
4a
Action
Review, and develop processes for implementing,
specific options to increase the financial
sustainability of councils, including:
4c
Pursue a reasonable and fixed allocation of
Federal Government tax revenue for Local
Government
4i
Review the way in which infrastructure
maintenance and renewal is budgeted and
reported
≥≥ removing, phasing out or further revising rate
pegging
4d
Lobby to increase the total amount provided to
councils in Federal Assistance Grants
4j
Establish a ‘Royalties for Regions’ program,
particularly for areas affected by mining
≥≥ deregulating fees and charges
4e
Review the formula used for assessing
disadvantage as part of Federal Assistance
Grants
4k
Consider the implications of the Henry Tax Review
and identify opportunities for local government
4l
4f
Lobby the Federal Government to ensure the
ongoing continuation of the ‘Roads to Recovery’
program
Simplify State Government grant funding
processes to Local Government
4m
Identify the characteristics of a sustainable
council compared to an unsustainable council
4n
Review Section 94 arrangements in the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,
including the ability for funding to be used more
flexibly
≥≥ establishing more flexible rating categories
≥≥ moving to rate valuations based on the
improved value of land
≥≥ reviewing pensioner rate rebates
≥≥ removing or reducing rate exemption categories
4g
Lobby COAG to provide a coordinating mechanism
for Federal, State and Local Government
infrastructure strategies and associated funding
processes
4h
Explore, and develop processes for implementing,
alternate methods for funding council
infrastructure, including:
≥≥ allowing councils to invest in businesses
≥≥ considering the application of Public Private
Partnerships to council service provision
≥≥ investigating the South Australian local
government banking model
≥≥ examining other options to improve financial
sustainability
4b
Action
Amend the Local Government Act to make it easier
for councils to establish corporate entities
≥≥ establishing an infrastructure fund
≥≥ establishing infrastructure bonds
≥≥ investigating the ability for councils to borrow
funds against assets
≥≥ providing low or no interest loans for
infrastructure
56 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Suggested Actions about Capacity
Action
5a
Facilitate contractual arrangements for councils
to provide services to each other
5b
5c
Action
5g
Enable Regional Organisations of Councils or
similar regional bodies to share a common
workforce
Undertake and communicate research into
innovation and best practice in local government
in NSW, Australia and internationally
5h
Identify and remove barriers to sharing
administrative and back of house staff, including
GMs and senior staff
Develop a toolkit of ways that councils can take
advantage of the National Broadband Network to
improve capacity and service delivery
5i
Investigate the potential for councils to operate
from a shared information technology platform
5j
Prepare case studies and best practice models of
the use of new technologies to improve council
capacity and service delivery
5k
Improve sharing of, access to and monitoring of
data between State and Local Government
5d
Develop a formalised program for sharing
specialist professional, technical and other staff
between councils in rural areas, on a regional
basis and between urban and rural councils
5e
Explore opportunities for increasing workforce
flexibility, including:
≥≥ working from home and telecommuting
≥≥ attracting new and younger staff
≥≥ retaining experienced and older staff
≥≥ facilitating portability of staff between Local
and State Government
5f
Develop a formalised program for partnering and
mentoring between large/small and urban/rural
councils
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 57
11. Conclusion
58 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
As part of his speech closing the
Destination 2036 Workshop, the Minister
thanked participants “for taking the
time to come along to the event and for
working so positively and constructively”.
He stated “I think we should share a
sense of pride at what has been achieved
here in Dubbo” and reiterated that the
Workshop was the start of a journey to
secure a strong local government sector
into the future. The Minister set out his
long term commitment to continue to
work together with the sector, stating
“now we need to continue down the
path together. We need to build on the
goodwill and progress we have made”.
The Minister also announced the formation of a Steering
Committee, consisting of high level representatives from
the LGA, SA, LGMA NSW and DLG, to refine the draft
Action Plan for consultation. He advised that the Steering
Committee would have its first meeting on 2 September
2011 and would have a draft Action Plan ready for
consultation in October 2011.
These timelines, as well as the high level outcomes from
the Workshop, are outlined in the Communiqué released
at the close of the Workshop. The Communiqué can be
found at Appendix F and includes the draft Vision for
local government in NSW (see Section 4.4), as well as
a list of ‘strategic initiatives’ to achieve the Vision. The
strategic initiatives are based on the Direction statements
presented on Day 2 of the Workshop (see Section 6.3),
as well as some of the high level actions identified by
participants.
The strategic initiatives, also referred to as the ‘roadmap’,
contained in the Communiqué are:
“I feel this conference has
been very successful and I
hope you feel that too”
THE HON DON PAGE MP, MINISTER
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
“This is the first step on a longer journey
to provide a stronger, more resilient sector.
It was an extremely positive experience to be
involved with…The communication between
everyone was exceptional, the attitudes
displayed were outstanding and the energy
generated was obvious”
MARK FERGUSON, PRESIDENT LGMA NSW
≥≥ The development of a new Vision for local government
based on a working draft
≥≥ Continue to improve the relationship between state
and local government, including a review of the
intergovernmental agreement
≥≥ Commitment to review the legislative framework to
ensure that local government can meet the needs and
challenges facing communities in the future
≥≥ Commitment to clarify the key functions, roles and
responsibilities of councils
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 59
60 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
≥≥ Recognition that a variety of operating models for local
government are needed that can be applied in the
differing circumstances of remote, regional, rural and
Sydney basin councils, because one size does not fit all
≥≥ The need to develop new funding models to ensure the
financial viability of councils
≥≥ Strong endorsement to strengthen regional
collaboration and resource sharing
≥≥ Commitment to improve the process by which
voluntary boundary alterations can be accommodated
≥≥ Pilot programs with volunteer councils to test new
models.
Immediately after the close of the Destination 2036
Workshop, the LGSA released a statement which “praised
the successful Destination 2036 Workshop and Minister
for Local Government, the Hon Don Page MP, for hosting
an outcomes focused event”. Keith Rhoades, President
of the LGA stated “We can see from the way the Minister,
the DLG and the entire NSW Government have developed
and then tackled this two day session that there will be
change and reform in Local Government in NSW”. Ray
Donald, President of the Shires Association, agreed and
added “The Destination 2036 Workshop demonstrated
that there is a great deal of agreement amongst a wide
ranging group of councils, elected representatives and
senior staff”.
“We congratulate Minister Page and
staff for the clear path of delivery and
next steps. We welcome the ambitious
timetable outlined by the Minister, and we look
forward to representing the councils on the
steering committee for implementation of the
outcomes”
RAY DONALD, PRESIDENT SA
“We were delighted with how the
Minister and the DLG listened, and led the
participants though a number of Workshops
to get to positive and much needed outcomes
and a roadmap for change”
KEITH RHOADES, PRESIDENT LGA
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 61
Appendices
Appendix A: Online Survey Questions and Responses
Appendix B: Workshop Participants
Appendix C: Workshop Program
Appendix D: Recording Sheets
Appendix E: Summary of Priority Actions Proposed During Workshop
Appendix F: Communiqué
62 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Appendix A:
Online Survey Questions and Responses
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 63
64 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
j Other (please specify)
k
l
m
n
j Rural or Remote Area
k
l
m
n
j Inland Regional Centre
k
l
m
n
j Coastal Area
k
l
m
n
j Outer Sydney
k
l
m
n
j Inner/Middle Sydney
k
l
m
n
*3. Would you consider your council to be
j More than 30 years
k
l
m
n
j 21­30 years
k
l
m
n
j 11­20 years
k
l
m
n
j 3­10 years
k
l
m
n
j Less than 3 years
k
l
m
n
*2. How long have you been elected or employed in local government?
j Other (please specify)
k
l
m
n
j ROC Executive Officer
k
l
m
n
j County Council Chief Executive
k
l
m
n
j County Council Chair
k
l
m
n
j GM/Senior Officer
k
l
m
n
j Mayor/Councillor
k
l
m
n
*1. Are you a
To help prepare for the Destination 2036 Workshop, we would like to hear your views on some of the issues covered in the Discussion Paper. The following survey will only take 10 minutes or so of your time ­ and the results will be reported early in the Workshop in Dubbo. The communities described in the Discussion Paper and referred to in Question 3 of the survey do not exactly follow either the Australian Classification of Local Governments or the 11 categories used by the DLG in documents such as its annual publication of comparative information. Instead, it uses a simpler and more intuitive grouping of communities based on the common challenges they face over the next 25 years. Our future: beginning the conversation
Destination 2036: Our Communities, Our Councils, Our Future
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 65
2
1
What are the two biggest changes on the horizon for NSW in the next 10 to 20 years?
6. Thinking of the future…
2
1
What do you think are the two most important challenges facing councils like yours?
5. Thinking of the present….
2
1
10 years?
4. Thinking of the past…
What have been the two most important changes affecting local government over the last
Destination 2036: Our Communities, Our Councils, Our Future
66 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Don't know
the Workshop?
Do you have any fears about for the Workshop?
What is your greatest hope 9. Thinking about the Destination 2036 Workshop…
of local government in the future?
8. Do you have any other comments you'd like to make about the preferred characteristics
communities
true leaders of their and geographic area
diverse in population size legislation
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
using a range of operating models enabled by j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
continually adapting
agencies
with state and federal with their communities and partners ­ with each other, true collaborators and communities in new ways
engaging with their respond to local needs
additional functions which able to undertake functions
undertaking a core set of infrastructure
services, facilities and providing highly valued j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
able to plan and act j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
future focused
strategically
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
financially viable
managed
responsibly governed and councillors and staff
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
reflecting the diversity of j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
their communities in their Disagree
Agree
democratically elected
Do you think the councils of the future should be:
7. Looking at the preferred characteristics of local government in the future…
Destination 2036: Our Communities, Our Councils, Our Future
Destination 2036: Online Survey Results The online survey was completed by: • 207 participants • a representative number of councils from all areas • a higher proportion of GMs than Mayors Generally, there were very few differences when comparing the views of GMs and Mayors ‐ and very few related to years in the industry or geography. Length of local government service Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 67
Most important changes affecting local government in the last 10 years Most important challenges currently affecting councils like yours Most important challenges currently affecting councils like yours Destination 2036 68 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
2 Online Survey Results Biggest changes on the horizon for NSW in the next 10‐20 years Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 69
Your fears for the workshop You said you feared… You said you feared… 70 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Destination 2036 4 Online Survey Results Your greatest hopes for the Workshop You said you hoped for… You said you hoped for… Destination 2036 5 Online Survey Results Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 71
•
•
•
•
•
Vision Elements from the online survey The following vision elements were suggested to participants in the Discussion Paper and tested in the online survey: • democratically elected • reflecting the diversity of their communities in their Councillors and staff • responsibly governed and managed • financially viable • future focused • able to plan and act strategically • providing highly valued services, facilities and infrastructure • undertaking a core set of functions • able to undertake additional functions which respond to local needs • engaging with their communities in new ways • true collaborators and partners – with each other, with their communities and with state and federal agencies • continually adapting • using a range of operating models enabled by legislation • diverse in population size and geographic area • true leaders of their communities •
•
•
•
providing highly valued services, facilities and infrastructure undertaking a core set of functions able to undertake additional functions which respond to local needs engaging with their communities in new ways true collaborators and partners – with each other, with their communities and with state and federal agencies continually adapting using a range of operating models enabled by legislation diverse in population size and geographic area true leaders of their communities Potential additional Vision elements The following Vision elements were suggested by participants in an open ended question in the online survey: • locally focussed and sustainable • professional and businesslike • further rationalised and amalgamated • with greater autonomy • adaptable and flexible • sufficiently funded and resourced • constitutionally recognised • less political • less bureaucratic and more efficient • increasing the services provided Potential additional Vision elements The following Vision elements were suggested by participants in an open ended question in the online survey: • locally focussed and sustainable • professional and businesslike • further rationalised and amalgamated • with greater autonomy • adaptable and flexible • sufficiently funded and resourced • constitutionally recognised • less political • less bureaucratic and more efficient • increasing the services provided 72 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Destination 2036 6 Online Survey Results Feedback on Vision elements from online survey Additional Vision Elements from the online survey Percentage of respondents who agreed with the statement, “Looking at the preferred characteristics of local government in the future, do you think councils of the future should be:” Categorised responses to the open ended question, “Do you have any other comments you’d like to make about the preferred characteristics of local government in the future?” Additional Vision Elements from the online survey Categorised responses to the open ended question, “Do you have any other comments you’d like to make about the preferred characteristics of local government in the future?” Destination 2036 7 Online Survey Results Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 73
74 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Appendix B:
Workshop Participants
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 75
The following is a list of people who attended the
Destination 2036 Workshop, including participants
and observers.
≥≥ Blacktown City Council, Ron Moore
≥≥ Campbelltown City Council, Paul Lake
≥≥ Blacktown City Council, Alan Pendleton
≥≥ Campbelltown City Council, Jeff Lawrence
≥≥ Bland Shire Council, Neil Pokoney
≥≥ Canterbury City Council, Robert Furolo
≥≥ Albury City Council, Alice Glachan
≥≥ Bland Shire Council, Ray Smith
≥≥ Canterbury City Council, Jim Montague
≥≥ Albury City Council, Les Tomich
≥≥ Blayney Shire Council, Bruce Kingham
≥≥ Carrathool Shire Council, Kenneth Croskell
≥≥ Armidale Dumaresq Council, Shane Burns
≥≥ Blayney Shire Council, Alan McCormack
≥≥ Carrathool Shire Council, Peter Laird
≥≥ Armidale Dumaresq Council, Peter Ducat
≥≥ Blue Mountains City Council, Robert Greenwood
≥≥ Central Darling Shire Council, Paul Brown
≥≥ Auburn City Council, John Burgess
≥≥ Blue Mountains City Council, Daniel Myles
≥≥ Central Darling Shire Council, Tim Drew
≥≥ Auburn City Council, Ronney Oueik
≥≥ Bogan Shire Council, Ray Donald
≥≥ Central NSW Councils (CENTROC), Jennifer Bennett
≥≥ Australian Centre of Excellenet for Local Government,
Melissa Gibbs
≥≥ Bogan Shire Council, Timothy Riley
≥≥ Central Tablelands County Council, John Farr
≥≥ Bombala Council, Don Cottee
≥≥ Central Tablelands County Council, Antony Perry
≥≥ Australian Local Government Women’s Association,
Julie Griffiths
≥≥ Bombala Council, Robert Stewart
≥≥ Cessnock City Council, Alison Davey
≥≥ Boorowa Council, Chris Corcoran
≥≥ Cessnock City Council, Lea Rosser
≥≥ Boorowa Council, Therese Manns
≥≥ City of Canada Bay Council, Neil Kenzler
≥≥ Bourke Shire Council, Phil Johnston
≥≥ City of Canada Bay Council, Tony McNamara
≥≥ Bourke Shire Council, Andrew Lewis
≥≥ City of Lithgow Council, Roger Bailey
≥≥ Brewarrina Shire Council, Glen Schuil
≥≥ City of Lithgow Council, Neville Castle
≥≥ Brewarrina Shire Council, Matthew Slack-Smith
≥≥ Clarence Valley Council, Ian Tiley
≥≥ Broken Hill City Council, Wincen Cuy
≥≥ Cobar Shire Council, Lilliane Brady
≥≥ Broken Hill City Council, Frank Zaknich
≥≥ Cobar Shire Council, Gary Woodman
≥≥ Burwood Council, John Faker
≥≥ Coffs Harbour City Council, Steve McGrath
≥≥ Burwood Council, Michael McMahon
≥≥ Coffs Harbour City Council, Keith Rhoades
≥≥ Byron Shire Council, Jan Barham
≥≥ Conargo Shire Council, Barry Barlow
≥≥ Byron Shire Council, Ray Darney
≥≥ Conargo Shire Council, Norm Brennan
≥≥ Cabonne Council, Bob Dowling
≥≥ Coolamon Shire Council, Terrey Kiss
≥≥ Cabonne Council, Graeme Fleming
≥≥ Coolamon Shire Council, John Seymour
≥≥ Camden Council, Greg Wright
≥≥ Cooma-Monaro Shire Council, John Vucic
≥≥ Ballina Shire Council, Paul Hickey
≥≥ Ballina Shire Council, Phillip Silver
≥≥ Balranald Shire Council, Chris Littlemore
≥≥ Balranald Shire Council, Stephen O’Halloran
≥≥ Bankstown City Council, Ken Manoski
≥≥ Bankstown City Council, Allan Winterbottom
≥≥ Bathurst Regional Council, David Sherley
≥≥ Bathurst Regional Council, Paul Toole
≥≥ Bega Valley Shire Council, Tony Allen
≥≥ Bega Valley Shire Council, Leanne Barnes
≥≥ Bellingen Shire Council, Elizabeth Jeremy
≥≥ Bellingen Shire Council, Mark Troy
≥≥ Berrigan Shire Council, Viv McGee
≥≥ Berrigan Shire Council, Rowan Perkins
76 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
≥≥ Coonamble Shire Council, Tim Horan
≥≥ Division of Local Government, Vaughan Macdonald
≥≥ Goldenfields Water County Council, Tim McClellan
≥≥ Coonamble Shire Council, Rick Warren
≥≥ Division of Local Government, Steve Orr
≥≥ Goldenfields Water County Council, John O’Brien
≥≥ Cootamundra Shire Council, Paul Braybrooks
≥≥ Division of Local Government, Wayne Trudgen
≥≥ Gosford City Council, Stephen Glen
≥≥ Cootamundra Shire Council, Ken Trethewey
≥≥ Division of Local Government, Ross Woodward
≥≥ Gosford City Council, Laurie Maher
≥≥ Corowa Shire Council, Bruce Corcoran
≥≥ Dubbo City Council, Mark Riley
≥≥ Goulburn Mulwaree Council, Chris Berry
≥≥ Corowa Shire Council, Fred Longmire
≥≥ Dubbo City Council, Allan Smith
≥≥ Goulburn Mulwaree Council, Geoff Kettle
≥≥ Council of the City of Sydney, Monica Barone
≥≥ Dungog Shire Council, Craig Deasey
≥≥ Great Lakes Council, Glenn Handford
≥≥ Council of the City of Sydney, Clover Moore
≥≥ Dungog Shire Council, Harold Johnston
≥≥ Great Lakes Council, Jan McWilliams
≥≥ Cowra Shire Council, Paul Devery
≥≥ Elton Consulting, Kim Anson
≥≥ Greater Hume Shire Council, Denise Osborne
≥≥ Cowra Shire Council, William West
≥≥ Elton Consulting, Brendan Blakeley
≥≥ Greater Hume Shire Council, Steven Pinnuck
≥≥ Deniliquin Council, Des Bilske
≥≥ Elton Consulting, Robert Mellor
≥≥ Greater Taree City Council, Paul Hogan
≥≥ Deniliquin Council, Brian Mitsch
≥≥ Elton Consulting, Deborah Palmer
≥≥ Greater Taree City Council, Gerard Jose
≥≥ Department of Family and Community Services,
Scott Griffiths
≥≥ Elton Consulting, Steve Rossiter
≥≥ Griffith City Council, Michael Neville
≥≥ Elton Consulting, Rachel Trigg
≥≥ Griffith City Council, Satwinder Sandhu
≥≥ Department of Planning and Infrustructure,
Rachel Cumming
≥≥ Elton Consulting, Georgie Wheadon
≥≥ Gundagai Shire Council, Abb McAlister
≥≥ Department of Planning and Infrustructure,
Neil Selmon
≥≥ Eurobodalla Shire Council, Paul Anderson
≥≥ Gundagai Shire Council, Graeme Tickner
≥≥ Eurobodalla Shire Council, Fergus Thomson
≥≥ Gunnedah Shire Council, Robert Campbell
≥≥ Fairfield City Council, Nickola (Nick) Lalich
≥≥ Gunnedah Shire Council, Adam Marshall
≥≥ Fairfield City Council, Alan Young
≥≥ Guyra Shire Council, David Cushway
≥≥ Forbes Shire Council, Carissa Bywater
≥≥ Guyra Shire Council, Hans Hietbrink
≥≥ Forbes Shire Council, Phyllis Miller
≥≥ Gwydir Shire Council, John Coulton
≥≥ Department of Trade and Investment, Regional
Infrastructure and Services, Michael Cullen
≥≥ Gilgandra Shire Council, Doug Batten
≥≥ Gwydir Shire Council, Max Eastcott
≥≥ Gilgandra Shire Council, Paul Mann
≥≥ Harden Shire Council, Maxwell Kershaw
≥≥ Division of Local Government, Sue Anderson
≥≥ Glen Innes Severn Council, Hein Basson
≥≥ Harden Shire Council, Chris Manchester
≥≥ Division of Local Government, Grahame Gibbs
≥≥ Glen Innes Severn Council, Malcolm Schumacher
≥≥ Hawkesbury City Council, Bart Bassett
≥≥ Division of Local Government, Mark Hely
≥≥ Gloucester Shire Council, Paul Sheridan
≥≥ Hawkesbury City Council, Peter Jackson
≥≥ Division of Local Government, Alice Leslie
≥≥ Gloucester Shire Council, Geoff Slack
≥≥ Hawkesbury River County Council, Chris Dewhurst
≥≥ Department of Premier and Cabinet, Ross O’Shea
≥≥ Department of Premier and Cabinet, Luke Walton
≥≥ Department of Regional Australia, Regional
Development and Local Government, Maree Cooper
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 77
≥≥ Hay Shire Council, Peter Dwyer
≥≥ Lane Cove Municipal Council, Peter Brown
≥≥ Hay Shire Council, Allen Dwyer
≥≥ Lane Cove Municipal Council, Win Gaffney
≥≥ Holroyd City Council, Merv Ismay
≥≥ Leeton Shire Council, David Laugher
≥≥ Holroyd City Council, John Perry
≥≥ Leeton Shire Council, Paul Maytom
≥≥ Housing NSW, Linda Blinkhorn
≥≥ Leichhardt Municipal Council, Peter Head
≥≥ Hunter Councils Inc, Roger Stephan
≥≥ Leichhardt Municipal Council, Rochelle Porteous
≥≥ Hurstville City Council, Victor Lampe
≥≥ Lismore City Council, Jenny Dowell
≥≥ Hurstville City Council, Philip Sansom
≥≥ Lismore City Council, Gary Murphy
≥≥ Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal,
Alison Milne
≥≥ Liverpool City Council, Ned Mannoun
≥≥ Inverell Shire Council, Paul Henry
≥≥ Liverpool Plains Shire Council, Bernie Perkins
≥≥ Inverell Shire Council, Barry Johnston
≥≥ Liverpool Plains Shire Council, Greg Tory
≥≥ Jerilderie Shire Council, Ruth McRae
≥≥ Local Government and Shires Association of NSW,
Noel Baum
≥≥ Jerilderie Shire Council, Craig Moffitt
≥≥ Junee Shire Council, Greg Campbell
≥≥ Junee Shire Council, Lola Cummins
≥≥ Kempsey Shire Council, Liz Campbell
≥≥ Kempsey Shire Council, David Rawlings
≥≥ Kogarah City Council, Paul Woods
≥≥ Ku-ring-gai Council, Ian Cross
≥≥ Ku-ring-gai Council, John McKee
≥≥ Kyogle Council, Ernest Bennett
≥≥ Liverpool City Council, Farooq Portelli
≥≥ Local Government and Shires Association of NSW,
Peter Coulton
≥≥ Local Government and Shires Association of NSW,
Bill Gillooly
≥≥ Local Government and Shires Association of NSW,
Megan Graham
≥≥ Local Government and Shires Association of NSW,
Bruce Miller
≥≥ Local Government Engineers’ Association,
Steve Clayton
≥≥ Local Government Managers Australia (NSW),
Annalisa Haskell
≥≥ Lockhart Shire Council, Chris Gallagher
≥≥ Macarthur Regional Organisation of Councils
(MACROC), Christine Winning
≥≥ Maitland City Council, Peter Blackmore
≥≥ Maitland City Council, David Evans
≥≥ Manly Council, Jean Hay AM
≥≥ Manly Council, Henry Wong
≥≥ Marrickville Council, Fiona Byrne
≥≥ Marrickville Council, Ken Gainger
≥≥ MidCoast County Council, Robert Loadsman
≥≥ MidCoast County Council, John Weate
≥≥ Mid-Western Regional Council, Brad Cam
≥≥ Mid-Western Regional Council, Des Kennedy
≥≥ Minister for Local Government and the North Coast,
Don Page MP
≥≥ Minister for Mental Health, Healthy Lifestyles and
Western NSW, Kevin Humphries MP
≥≥ Moree Plains Shire Council, David Aber
≥≥ Local Government and Shires Association of NSW,
Kevin Schreiber
≥≥ Moree Plains Shire Council, Katrina Humphries
≥≥ Lachlan Shire Council, Desmond Manwaring
≥≥ Local Government and Shires Association of NSW,
Lillian Tiddy
≥≥ Mosman Municipal Council, Viv May
≥≥ Lake Macquarie City Council, Brian Bell
≥≥ Local Government Association of NSW, Allan Ezzy
≥≥ Kyogle Council, Arthur Piggott
≥≥ Lachlan Shire Council, George Cowan
≥≥ Lake Macquarie City Council, Greg Piper
78 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
≥≥ Mosman Municipal Council, Anne Connon
≥≥ Murray Shire Council, Greg Murdoch
≥≥ Murray Shire Council, John Pocklington
≥≥ Murrumbidgee Shire Council, Carolyn Upston
≥≥ Murrumbidgee Shire Council, Phillip Wells
≥≥ Office of the Minister for Local Government,
Paul Terrett
≥≥ Riverina and Murray Regional Organisation of Councils
(RAMROC), Ray Stubbs
≥≥ Orana Regional Organisation of Councils (OROC),
Belinda Barlow
≥≥ Riverina Eastern Regional Organisation of Councils
(REROC), Julie Briggs
≥≥ Orange City Council, John Davis
≥≥ Riverina Water County Council, Graeme Haley
≥≥ Orange City Council, Garry Styles
≥≥ Riverina Water County Council, Rod Kendall
≥≥ Palerang Council, Peter Bascomb
≥≥ Rockdale City Council, Wayne Carter
≥≥ Palerang Council, Walter Raynolds
≥≥ Rous Water, Richard Staples
≥≥ Parkes Shire Council, Kent Boyd
≥≥ Ryde City Council, Artin Etmekdjian
≥≥ Parkes Shire Council, Ken Keith
≥≥ Ryde City Council, John Neish
≥≥ Parramatta City Council, Robert Lang
≥≥ Shellharbour City Council, Michael Willis
≥≥ Penrith City Council, Jim Aitken
≥≥ Shires Association of NSW, Janet Hayes
≥≥ Penrith City Council, Alan Stoneham
≥≥ Shoalhaven City Council, Paul Green
≥≥ Pittwater Council, Mark Ferguson
≥≥ Shoalhaven City Council, Russell Pigg
≥≥ Pittwater Council, Harvey Rose
≥≥ Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, Tony Hayward
≥≥ Shore Regional Organisation of Councils (SHOROC),
Ben Taylor
≥≥ Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, Neil Porter
≥≥ Singleton Council, Scott Greensill
≥≥ Port Stephens Council, Jason Linnane
≥≥ Singleton Council, Tony McNamara
≥≥ Port Stephens Council, Bob Westbury
≥≥ Singleton Council, Sue Moore
≥≥ Oberon Council, Leanne Mash
≥≥ Queanbeyan City Council, Gary Chapman
≥≥ Snowy River Shire Council, John Cahill
≥≥ Office of Environment and Heritage, Peter Christie
≥≥ Randwick City Council, David Kelly
≥≥ Snowy River Shire Council, Joseph Vescio
≥≥ Office of the Minister for Local Government,
Darren Bark
≥≥ Randwick City Council, Murray Matson
≥≥ Southern Councils Group, Lesley Scarlett
≥≥ Richmond River County Council, Charlie Cox
≥≥ Office of the Minister for Local Government,
Namoi Dougall
≥≥ Richmond River County Council, Kyme Lavelle
≥≥ Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils
(SSROC), Alan Northey
≥≥ Office of the Minister for Local Government,
Steve Graham
≥≥ Richmond Valley Council, Brian Wilkinson
≥≥ Muswellbrook Shire Council, Steve McDonald
≥≥ Muswellbrook Shire Council, Martin Rush
≥≥ Nambucca Shire Council, Michael Coulter
≥≥ Nambucca Shire Council, Rhonda Hoban
≥≥ Namoi Councils, Stephen Bartlett
≥≥ Narrabri Shire Council, Robyn Faber
≥≥ Narrabri Shire Council, Phil Marshall
≥≥ Narrandera Shire Council, Mark Amirtharajah
≥≥ Narrandera Shire Council, Graham Eipper
≥≥ Narromine Shire Council, Greg Lamont
≥≥ Narromine Shire Council, William McAnally
≥≥ New England Weed Authority, Wayne Deer
≥≥ New England Weed Authority, Maria Woods
≥≥ Newcastle City Council, John Tate
≥≥ North Sydney Council, Penny Holloway
≥≥ North Sydney Council, Michel Reymond
≥≥ Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils
(NSROC), Carolynne James
≥≥ Richmond Valley Council, Colin Sullivan
≥≥ Speaker, Brian Dollery
≥≥ Speaker, Corrin Moffatt
≥≥ Speaker, Sohail Inayatullah
≥≥ Strathfield Municipal Council, David Backhouse
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 79
≥≥ Strathfield Municipal Council, Tony Maroun
≥≥ Tumbarumba Shire Council, Ian Chaffey
≥≥ Warrumbungle Shire Council, Peter Shinton
≥≥ Sutherland Shire Council, Phil Blight
≥≥ Tumbarumba Shire Council, Kay Whitehead
≥≥ Waverley Council, Sally Betts
≥≥ Sutherland Shire Council, John Rayner
≥≥ Tumut Shire Council, Bob Stewart
≥≥ Waverley Council, Meredith Wallace
≥≥ Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc, Geoff Withycombe
≥≥ Tumut Shire Council, Trina Thomson
≥≥ Weddin Shire Council, Glenn Carroll
≥≥ Tamworth Regional Council, Paul Bennett
≥≥ Tweed Shire Council, Michael Rayner
≥≥ Weddin Shire Council, Maurice Simpson
≥≥ Tamworth Regional Council, Colin Murray
≥≥ Tweed Shire Council, Kevin Skinner
≥≥ Wellington Council, Allan Dive
≥≥ Temora Shire Council, Gary Lavelle
≥≥ United Services Union, Graeme Kelly
≥≥ Wellington Council, Anne Jones
≥≥ Tenterfield Shire Council, Jim Gossage
≥≥ Upper Hunter Shire Council, Daryl Dutton
≥≥ Wentworth Shire Council, Peter Kozlowski
≥≥ Tenterfield Shire Council, Toby Smith
≥≥ Upper Hunter Shire Council, Lee Watts
≥≥ Wentworth Shire Council, Margaret Thomson
≥≥ The Council of the City of Botany Bay, John Patterson
≥≥ Upper Lachlan Shire Council, John Bell
≥≥ Westen Shires Association, Ruth Fagan
≥≥ The Council of the Municipality of Ashfield,
Vanessa Chan
≥≥ Upper Lachlan Shire Council, John Shaw
≥≥ Upper Macquarie County Council, Howard Fisher
≥≥ Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils
(WSROC), Karin Bishop
≥≥ The Council of the Municipality of Ashfield,
Patrick Kelso
≥≥ Upper Macquarie County Council, Roy Jennison
≥≥ Willoughby City Council, Nick Tobin
≥≥ Uralla Shire Council, Tom O’Connor
≥≥ Wingecarribee Shire Council, Jason Gordon
≥≥ The Council of the Municipality of Hunters Hill,
Susan Hoopmann
≥≥ Uralla Shire Council, Kevin Ward
≥≥ Wingecarribee Shire Council, Ken Halstead
≥≥ Urana Shire Council, Marg Buntin
≥≥ Wollondilly Shire Council, J L (Les) McMahon
≥≥ Urana Shire Council, John Hunt
≥≥ Wollondilly Shire Council, Col Mitchell
≥≥ The Council of the Municipality of Kiama,
Michael Forsyth
≥≥ Wagga Wagga City Council, Wayne Geale
≥≥ Wollongong City Council, David Farmer
≥≥ Wagga Wagga City Council, Phil Pinyon
≥≥ Woollahra Municipal Council, Stephen Dunshea
≥≥ The Council of the Municipality of Kiama,
Sandra McCarthy
≥≥ Walcha Council, Bill Heazlett
≥≥ Wyong Shire Council, Doug Eaton
≥≥ Walcha Council, John O’Hara
≥≥ Wyong Shire Council, Michael Whittaker
≥≥ The Council of the Shire of Hornsby, Gary Bensley
≥≥ Walgett Shire Council, Donald Ramsland
≥≥ Yass Valley Council, Nic Carmody
≥≥ The Council of the Shire of Hornsby, Nick Berman
≥≥ Warren Shire Council, Ashley Wielinga
≥≥ Yass Valley Council, David Rowe
≥≥ The Council of the Shire of Wakool, Rod Chalmers
≥≥ Warren Shire Council, Norman Wilson
≥≥ Young Shire Council, Stuart Freudenstein
≥≥ The Council of the Shire of Wakool, Bruce Graham
≥≥ Warringah Council, Rik Hart
≥≥ Young Shire Council, Peter Vlatko
≥≥ The Hills Shire Council, Mike Thomas
≥≥ Warringah Council, Michael Regan
≥≥ Simon Manoski
≥≥ The Hills Shire Council, Dave Walker
≥≥ Warrumbungle Shire Council, Steve Loane
≥≥ John Turner
≥≥ The Council of the Municipality of Hunters Hill,
Debra McFadyen
80 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Appendix C:
Workshop Program
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 81
82 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
≥ To create an opportunity for new relationships
of trust within and between local and state
government to help deliver strong local
government for the communities of NSW.
≥ To develop and get excited about a short term
Action Plan: not a wish list but something clever
and achievable that focuses on priorities for the
next 4 years
≥ To develop a shared view on the right models
for local government
≥ To identify the roadmap that will put us on a
path to this vision
≥ To create a bold vision – a preferred future for
local government
Our purpose is:
In this Workshop, we need to work as
equals – creatively, openly and thoughtfully.
Location
Dubbo Regional Theatre and Convention Centre
155 Darling Street, Dubbo
Workshop Program
This is a real opportunity to start building
stronger relationships that will help build a local
government future together. If not us, then who?
What will great local government look like in the
future? What changes are needed to achieve that
future? What are the top priorities? This is what
Destination 2036 is about.
We will reach beyond our individual opinions and
develop a collective view about what needs to
change. We will learn from the past to help us
focus on the future – creating a legacy that works.
To do this we need to be able to imagine our
communities in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years and
even 25 years, and consider how we can best
serve them.
Workshop Dates
Wednesday 17 August 2011
9:00am - 5.00pm
Nothing like this workshop of civic leaders
has ever been held in NSW. It is a truly unique
opportunity for local government leaders in NSW
to talk together about the future and plan for the
kind of councils that our communities require
and deserve.
Thursday 18 August 2011
8:45am - 2:00pm (with networking lunch to follow)
The Workshop
Introduction
Welcome event: Hosted by the Mayor, Dubbo City Council, and the Chief Executive,
Division of Local Government
Venue: Taronga Western Plains Zoo
Obley Road, Dubbo
Dress: Smart casual
6.30pm
Registration desk opens
Welcome to Country
Destination 2036: Creating a legacy, starting the journey
Welcome & introductions, including opening words from Cr Keith Rhoades, President of the
NSW Local Government Association, Cr Ray Donald, President of the NSW Shires Association
and Mr Mark Ferguson, President of the NSW LGMA.
The formal opening of the workshop by the Minister for Local Government, the Hon Don Page MP.
Destination 2036: Our purpose
Mr Ross Woodward, Chief Executive, Division of Local Government, will outline the context
and purpose of Destination 2036.
Starting the journey: What we’ve heard so far
This session will look at some results from the on-line survey.
This will be followed by table-based discussion.
Focus on the Future: Talking with a Futurist
Internationally renowned Futurist, Professor Sohail Inayatullah, will challenge participants
during this interactive session to think beyond today and beyond tomorrow.
7.45am
9.00am
9.05am
9.25am
9.30am
9.50am
MORNING TEA
11.50am A Vision for Local Government: Facilitated group discussion and feedback
Participants will discuss the Vision elements, asking themselves: Have we got the
elements right? Are there any elements missing?
11.40am A Vision for Local Government: What we’ve heard so far
This session will consider the elements of the “Vision for Local Government” proposed in the
Discussion Paper and feedback from the on-line survey.
11.10am
10.55am Focus on the Future: What challenges are emerging?
Following discussions with the Futurist, participants will re-consider the future challenges for
local government and through the use of an electronic feedback system identify priorities.
Program
Time
Day 1 – Wednesday 17 August 2011
Program
Time
Pre-workshop welcome – Tuesday 16 August 2011
Destination 2036 ≥ Creating a legacy
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 83
84 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Program
Towards the Vision - Focus on the Roadmap: Facilitated breakout discussion
Participants will break into groups to consider:
≥ How are we going to achieve our preferred future for local government?
≥ What are the key challenges and opportunities along the way?
≥ What direction do we need to head in to meet those challenges, maximise the
opportunities and get to the preferred future?
Out of this discussion, groups will start to construct the “roadmap” (i.e. strategic directions)
for the next four years, then up to 10 years and potentially beyond.
AFTERNOON TEA
Towards the Vision - Focus on the Roadmap: Verbal feedback
Participants will come together to hear a report back from each group, identifying similarities
and differences.
Focus on the Vision and Roadmap: Reflections and wrap up
This session will briefly recap what we have achieved at the workshop so far and what we still
need to do.
Ideas to Stimulate Discussion: Local Government Reform in England
Ms Corin Moffatt, former Assistant Chief Executive of the Local Government Association
in England will give participants some insights into local government reform currently
happening there.
Day 1 Workshop Close
2.00pm
3.30pm
3.50pm
4.15pm
4.30pm
5.00pm
Pre-Dinner drinks
Venue: Dubbo Regional Theatre and Convention Centre
Dress: Smart casual
Dinner
Speaker: Professor Sohail Inayatullah will facilitate a light but thought provoking session.
6.45pm
7.30pm
Destination 2036 ≥ Creating a legacy
Program
Time
Dinner Event
LUNCH
1.00pm
12.40pm A Vision for Local Government: Electronic feedback on additional elements
Support among participants for any proposed additional elements to the Vision will be tested
through the use of the electronic feedback system.
12.20pm A Vision for Local Government: Perspective from the Minister for Western NSW
The Minister for Western NSW, the Hon Kevin Humphries MP, will talk about his experiences and
observations with service delivery in remote Western NSW and some ideas for change.
Time
Creating a legacy: Continuing the journey
This introductory session will discuss reflections from Day 1 and challenges ahead.
Ideas to Stimulate Discussion: What’s happening around Australia?
Professor Brian Dollery, Director of the Centre for Local Government at the University of New
England will discuss research on future directions for NSW local government.
Ms Melissa Gibbs, Assistant Director of the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local
Government will provide insights about local government reform across Australia.
Focus on Models: Introduction
The workshop facilitator will briefly summarise the example models presented in the
Discussion Paper and the elements that go to make them (i.e. governance, structure, finance,
functions and capacity).
Focus on the Models: Facilitated breakout discussion
This session is about identifying and developing potential models for local government into
the future – models that participants would like to see explored further after the workshop
that will overcome the sort of challenges identified in Day 1.
Participants will break into groups to talk about and build a model, or models, of local
government that would work in the future for their area and other areas of NSW.
8.45am
8.55am
9.20am
9.35am
Building the 4 year Action Plan: Report back
Participants will come together to hear a report back from each group.
Creating a legacy: What did we achieve?
This brief session will provide participants with the opportunity to consider the most
important things achieved at the workshop.
Focus on the Action Plan: Electronic feedback
Participants will determine Action Plan priorities through the electronic feedback system.
Creating a legacy: Continuing the journey
The Destination 2036 process does not stop at the end of this workshop. This session will talk
about the next steps in the process.
Closing remarks by the Presidents
Cr Keith Rhoades, Cr Ray Donald, and Mr Mark Ferguson.
Formal Workshop Close by Minister
The Minister for Local Government, the Hon Don Page MP, will thank participants and formally
close the workshop.
NETWORKING LUNCH
1.00pm
1.20pm
1.25pm
1.40pm
1.45pm
1.55pm
2.00pm
Concurrent Session 2
Building the 4 year Action Plan:
Refining consensus actions
It is anticipated there will be some proposed
directions already identified that have broad
support.
Volunteers will form a smaller group, or groups,
to work up more detail on those actions.
Concurrent Session 1
Building the 4 year Action Plan:
Facilitated breakout discussion
Participants in breakout groups will discuss
and identify the most important actions to
put us on our preferred path.
Groups will develop their Action Plan with
reference to the elements of governance,
structure, finance, functions and capacity.
11.30am
11.00am MORNING TEA
10.45am Focus on the Models: Verbal feedback
Participants will hear a report back identifying areas to be explored further.
Program
Time
Day 2 – Thursday 18 August 2011
Destination 2036 ≥ Creating a legacy
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 85
86 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Appendix D:
Recording Sheets
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 87
Creating a legacy: The Roadmap
Creating a legacy: Four Year Action Plan
ACTIONS ABOUT GOVERNANCE
What does the roadmap to a preferred future look like?
What are the key challenges and opportunities to achieve a preferred future?
What strategic directions will meet the challenges and increase the opportunities?
Key challenges and opportunities
2011
Directio
n
≥
on
Directi
≥
Di
re
c
tio
n≥
c
re
Di
≥
Di
re
c
tio
n
≥
n
tio
≥
201
5
≥
n≥
tio
Directi
on ≥
Direction ≥
on ≥
Directi
1
202
2036
Most important actions 2011–2015
Reason for action
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
c
re
Di
Key challenges and opportunities
Key challenges and opportunities
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
Creating a legacy: Models for the future
Creating a legacy: Four Year Action Plan
ACTIONS ABOUT FUNCTIONS
Name of model:
Key elements of the model
Governance
Structure
Capacity
Functions
Finance
Other elements
88 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Where would the model work best
in the future?
Why would this model work well
in the future?
What are the model’s most future
focused elements?
Most important actions 2011–2015
Reason for action
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
Creating a legacy: Four Year Action Plan
Creating a legacy: Four Year Action Plan
ACTIONS ABOUT FINANCE
ACTIONS ABOUT CAPACITY
Most important actions 2011–2015
Reason for action
Most important actions 2011–2015
Reason for action
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
Creating a legacy: Four Year Action Plan
Creating a legacy: Four Year Action Plan
ACTIONS ABOUT STRUCTURE
ACTIONS ABOUT OTHER BIG IDEAS
Most important actions 2011–2015
Reason for action
Most important actions 2011–2015
Reason for action
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 89
90 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Appendix E:
Summary of Priority Actions Proposed During Workshop
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 91
Governance
Functions
Action
Action
28%
26%
16%
Carry out service review to identify needs/wants
of the community and decide who provides what
services
21%
6%
New sustainable financial model delivered by
independent panel with Transition Team
On a local basis review all functions – traditional
and other
16%
Explore further prescribed v non prescribed
functions
9%
38%
Pilot program with volunteer councils to test new
models, with government support
23%
Community determines how Mayor is elected, half
council elections to maintain continuity
17%
Compulsory training and re-training for
Councillors and senior staff
Allow for broader representation and more
representation of community
Structure
%
One size does not fit all; ‘menu modelling’. Models
from State/Local Government partnership
30%
Review the current model and involve ROCs
in development of major strategies and
infrastructure issues
22%
Investigate different models including corporate
entities
16%
Establish a high level panel to determine logical
boundaries for Local Government in NSW
16%
Before reform, determine who/how the final
decision about council structures is made
Enable new enterprise models
(Note: The two highest scoring actions
in each category are shaded)
92 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
%
Establish mandatory functions at State level
with discretionary functions determined by local
communities
Review of Local Government Act
Action
Capacity
Review and change legislation that applies to LG
to enable increased capacity and corporatisation
of service delivery
Simplify and determine corporate governance
arrangements between and in partnership with
the three levels of government
Establish a task force to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of all levels of government
Pursue financial security to enable an appropriate
training and retention of staff/Clrs
Review staff capacity and sharing professional staff
Flexible system to encourage new Councillors
%
33%
26%
24%
7%
7%
3%
Other Big Ideas
Finance
Action
Action
%
Review of tax system to ensure LG gets equitable
share of revenue
31%
Establish Working Group (State/Local
Government and other) to review LG finances and
develop new financing formula
22%
19%
11%
Get a better income base than rates e.g. Bonds,
business operations, deregulated fees and
charges, scrap rate pegging
5%
Remove rate pegging
15%
Establish task force led by LG that facilitates and
ensures proper financing
9%
Phase out rate pegging
4%
Action
Establish a formal contractual arrangement with
State and Federal Government to guarantee
funding for delivery of services
Integrate community plans on a regional basis,
particularly with State agencies, to enable
coordinated regional service delivery
Local service delivery (particularly in Rural areas)
of Local/State/Federal services
Establish a national Local Government Act that
incorporates subsidiary acts
Single Local Government information technology
platform
Resources bank
Expanded role of councils in State service
delivery
Local Government think tank/Wentworth Group
%
28%
22%
12%
11%
8%
7%
6%
6%
Appendix F:
Communiqué
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 93
94 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
Communiqué – 18 August 2011 – Dubbo The leaders from NSW local government came together for an historic meeting in Dubbo on 17 and 18 August 2011 to begin the process of creating a strong and viable local government sector. Over 350 representatives from every council in the State worked cooperatively and constructively over the two days to lay down a shared vision for the sector and develop a set of clear actions to achieve that vision. Representatives at the Destination 2036 Workshop recognised the need to reshape the structure, governance and financing arrangements, functions and capacity of the sector to better enable councils to serve their communities in a challenging and rapidly changing environment. The two‐day workshop represented the first stage in a significant process of reform for the sector and a new era in State/Local Government relations. It sets the stage for the biggest reforms to local government in its history. The Minister for Local Government, the Hon Don Page MP, the President of the Local Government Association, Councillor Keith Rhoades, the President of the Shires Association, Councillor Ray Donald, and the President of Local Government Managers Australia (NSW Branch) Mr Mark Ferguson, joined together at the end of the workshop to praise participants and to share their commitment to jointly pursuing this reform process. Challenges for the future Representatives at the workshop acknowledged that there will be a number of challenges in the short, medium and longer term that will impact on the capacity of councils to meet the needs of their communities. The key challenges identified and discussed at the workshop include:  Demographic change  Increasing community expectations  Technological change  Economic, financial and industry change  Environmental change  Social change Destination 2036 Workshop ‐ Mapping the future for better local government Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 95
2
Achieving the vision – a roadmap for Local Government There was broad consensus among representatives that change and reform is needed within the sector to meet changing community needs; this will be achieved through the pursuit of the following strategic initiatives (the “roadmap”).  The development of a new vision for local government based on a working draft  Continue to improve the relationship between state and local government, including a review of the intergovernmental agreement  Commitment to review the legislative framework to ensure that local government can meet the needs and challenges facing communities in the future  Commitment to clarify the key functions, roles and responsibilities of councils  Recognition that a variety of operating models for local government are needed that can be applied in the differing circumstances of remote, regional, rural and Sydney basin councils, because one size does not fit all.  The need to develop new funding models to ensure the financial viability of councils  Strong endorsement to strengthen regional collaboration and resource sharing  Commitment to improve the process by which voluntary boundary alterations can be accommodated  Pilot programs with volunteer councils to test new models The Vision for NSW Local Government During the course of the two day event a working draft of a future vision statement was developed for further consultation. Vision 2036 Strong Communities through Partnerships  By 2036, all NSW communities will be healthy and prosperous – led and served by strong, effective and democratically elected local government  Through leadership, local knowledge and partnerships with community, government and other sectors, we will plan our futures and deliver quality services and infrastructure  We will be recognised, respected and responsible for: • Upholding the highest ethical standards • Sound financial management • Sensitive environmental stewardship • Meaningful community engagement, advocacy and leadership • Our adaptability, innovation and learning • Developing the full potential of our people • Responding to our diverse cultures and environments • Creating places that people value 96 Destination 2036 Outcomes Report
3
Next steps Steering Committee to oversee implementation of the Action Plan Who An Implementation Steering Committee (ISC), consisting of the Chief Executive of the Division of Local Government (Chair) the Presidents of the Local Government and Shires Associations and the President of the LGMA has been established to build on the work of the Destination 2036 workshop. How The ISC will meet on 2 September to consider the workshop outcomes. The ISC will refine the list of actions into a draft action plan that will be distributed around the end of September for consultation. Feedback will be considered and incorporated into the final action plan by the end of the year so that implementation by the two tiers of government can commence in 2012. Thanks to Henry Wong for supplying the majroity of the images used throughout this report.
Destination 2036 Outcomes Report 97