· web viewjeff tate consulting pty ltd was engaged by the local government association of south...

Discussion Paper:Local Government Boundary Adjustment Reform

July 2015

Produced on by Jeff Tate Consulting for the Local Government Association of South Australia

TABLE OF CONTENTS1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.................................................................................................2

2. PRINCIPLES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY REFORM............................................................2

3. POTENTIAL MODEL...........................................................................................................................3

4. PROPOSAL INITIATION......................................................................................................................5

4.1. INITIATION BY THE MINISTER.....................................................................................................................................6

4.2. INITIATION BY THE STATUTORY BODY.......................................................................................................................6

4.3. INITIATION BY COUNCILS...........................................................................................................................................6

4.4. INITIATION BY THE PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................7

4.5. INDEPENDENCE OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.................................................................................................8

4.6. STATUTORY BODIES...................................................................................................................................................8

4.7. RECEIVING PROPOSALS..............................................................................................................................................9

4.8. INITIATION REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................................................................9

5. PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................................10

5.1. PRE-ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSALS............................................................................................................................11

5.2. ASSESSMENT PATHWAYS FOR PROPONENTS...........................................................................................................11

5.3. ASSESSMENT OF MINOR PROPOSALS.......................................................................................................................12

5.4. DEVELOPMENT AND COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES AGAINST THE STATUS QUO...........................13

5.5. PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA...........................................................................................................................13

5.6. GUIDELINES AND TOOLS TO SUPPORT CHANGE.......................................................................................................14

5.7. STAKEHOLDER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.....................................................................................................14

5.8. POLLING...................................................................................................................................................................15

5.9. REPORTING, APPEALS AND DECISION-MAKING........................................................................................................15

6. IMPLEMENTATION..........................................................................................................................16

6.1. IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING.................................................................................................................................16

6.1.1. Apportionment of resources......................................................................................................................................17

6.1.2. Transitional arrangements.........................................................................................................................................18

6.2. ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE.........................................................................................................................................18

6.3. EVALUATION AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT....................................................................................................19

7. APPENDIX A – REFERENCES.............................................................................................................20

Discussion Paper Local Government Boundary Adjustment Reform Page 1 of 47

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Jeff Tate Consulting Pty Ltd was engaged by the Local Government Association of South Australia (LGA) to develop a Discussion Paper concerning the local government boundary adjustment process and possible options for reform.

The Discussion Paper was commissioned in the context of a recent review of State Government boards and committees, which has resulted in the abolition of the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel under the South Australian Local Government Act 1999 (the Act). The functions of the Panel have been transferred to the Minister for Local Government (the Minister) as of 1 July 2015. The abolition was enacted by the passage of the Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees – Abolition and Reform) Bill.

Note that the body of this discussion paper was drafted prior to the abolition of the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel.

This project was undertaken by Jeff Tate of Jeff Tate Consulting Pty Ltd with assistance from Stephanie Hensgen of Planning Futures Pty Ltd.

The methodology involved:

development of a set of principles for the identification and assessment of potential options for Local Government boundary reform;

interviews and discussions with key stakeholders at the LGA and the SA Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure;

desktop research of legal frameworks interstate and New Zealand; and development of this Discussion Paper with opportunities for reform.

This Discussion Paper provides an outline of the current South Australian process, comparisons with frameworks across Australia and New Zealand and case studies, and a discussion of potential areas for improvement. The Paper is structured around the three key stages of the boundary adjustment process (Initiation, Development and Assessment, Implementation) and raises a number of points of discussion and options. Under each of the three stages a list of key opportunities is provided, including options that were considered in developing a Potential Model. Bold text has been used to identify opportunities that have been integrated into the model whilst those that were considered but not integrated into the model have been shaded out for ease of reading.

2. PRINCIPLES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY REFORM

In order to identify and assess potential opportunities for change to the Local Government Boundary Reform process, 10 principles have been identified:

A transparent, accountable and independent decision making process. Assessment of proposals for change by an independent body with the appropriate skills,

experience and knowledge. A wide consideration of alternatives and options. Decisions made at the appropriate level. Opportunities provided for local communities and affected parties to have their say. Support for continuous improvement and shared learning. Minimisation of barriers to change, balanced by the need for robust decision-making. Broad opportunities to initiate change. Support and advice provided to proponents at all stages. Collaboration and partnership between Councils, the community and State Government.


3. POTENTIAL MODEL

A potential model for Local Government boundary reform has been developed considering the principles and each of the opportunities discussed in this Paper. The potential model should be considered as a whole and incorporates:

A Commission/er as the preferred replacement for the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel to maintain independence of the process and to support the Minister and proposal proponents. The Commission/er could be incorporated into the role of:

o the existing position of Electoral Commissioner;o a Local Government Commission/er as proposed by the Local Excellence Expert Panel;o a Planning Commission/er as proposed by the Expert Panel on Planning Reform; oro a ‘Boundaries Commission/er’;

An Advisory Body appointed by the Commission/er for major boundary change proposals on a case-by-case basis;

Changes to the Initiation Process to:o change the focus of the initiation process from a proposal to that of a submission,

including less onerous submission requirements and greater opportunity for the early consideration of alternative options;

o allow Ministerial submissions;o allow submissions from single Councils;o replace the currently separate public and Council proposal initiation processes with a

single application process for both public and Council-led initiations; o allow public submissions to be made direct to the Minister;o expand to allow all electors within an affected Council area to make a submission and

delete the 20-person limit; ando replace the requirement for a 5-person committee for public proposals with a number

nominated at the discretion of the Commission/er following initial pre-assessment. Changes to the Proposal Development and Assessment Process to:

o formalise and simplify a pre-assessment filtering process for Council, public and Ministerial submissions;

o streamline a single assessment pathway regardless of who initiates the process;o introduce minor and major assessment pathways to streamline minor adjustments,

particularly in relation to public consultation requirements;o introduce an options development phase that includes a consultation process and

collaborative optioneering; o develop more detailed Assessment Guidelines and tools to support reform;o allow tailored Assessment Guidelines for major proposals;o integrate a stakeholder and community engagement plan into the Advisory Body’s

Terms of Reference for major proposals; ando allow polling to be subject to the discretion of the Commission/er;

Changes to the Implementation Process to require:o expansion of guidelines and tools for implementation, apportionment and

transitional arrangements;o preparation of an implementation plan by the affected Councils with support from

the Commissioner; ando independent evaluation and reporting.


4. PROPOSAL INITIATION

At the proposal initiation phase, six main areas have been reviewed, namely: proposal initiation powers; independence of decision making; statutory bodies; receiving proposals; and initiation requirements. Currently, the proposal initiation phase in South Australia is only available to a relatively narrow spectrum of the community and the limitations on who may propose change are restrictive when compared across Australia and New Zealand. The following table provides a summary overview of proposal initiation powers across Australia and New Zealand.

Proposal initiation powers – at a glance

Minister Statutory body Local Government Public

South Australia No* No Yes ** Yes *Victoria Yes No Not specified Not specifiedNew South Wales Yes No Yes Yes *Queensland Yes No Yes Not specifiedWestern Australia Yes No Yes Yes *Tasmania Yes Yes Yes Yes *Northern Territory Yes No statutory body Not specified Not specifiedNew Zealand Yes No Yes Yes* the Governor may make a proclamation for a boundary adjustment “…in pursuance of an address from both Houses of Parliament “ ** where specific conditions are met

A discussion of the issues relating to proposal initiation follows, which highlights the following ten key opportunities. Options highlighted in bold indicate those options that have been identified as meeting the Principles for Boundary Reform and are incorporated into the Potential Model. Those shaded out indicate those opportunities that were considered but not included in the Potential Model.

OPORTUNITIES FOR CONSIDERATION – PROPOSAL INITIATION PHASE

4.1 Appoint a Commission/er to replace the abolished Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel and to ensure independent decision making as part of the role of:

a) the existing position of Electoral Commissioner

b) the role of a Local Government Commission/er as proposed by the Local Excellence Expert Panel

c) the existing position of Planning Commission/er proposed by the Expert Panel on Planning reform OR

d) a ‘Boundaries Commission/er’ such as in New South Wales and Queensland

4.2 Allow the Commission/er to appoint an independent, case-specific and short term advisory body to undertake the assessment of major proposals

4.3 Allow the Minister to initiate proposals to allow consideration of a wider range of potential options and to align South Australia with other States and Territories

4.4 Allow single Councils to initiate proposals

4.5 Widen the range of people able to make a public application:

a) to allow any number of people, groups or organisations to make an application, regardless of whether they are electors or not and deletion of the requirement for a 5-person committee


- Not incorporated into the proposed model as it may result in a much larger number of frivolous applications, or applications that do not have local support -

b) retain the current limitation to electors only but expand to include all electors within an affected Council and delete of the 20-person limit and deletion of the requirement for a 5-person committee OR

c) retain the current limitation to electors only but expand to include all electors within an affected Council and amendment of the 20-person limit to a proportion such as 10% and deletion of the requirement for a 5-person committee

- Not incorporated into the proposed model as it is still considered unnecessarily restrictive in relation to the 20-person limit -

4.6 Allow the public to make an application direct to the Minister rather than require a two stage process of applying to the affected Councils first

4.7 Streamline a standard ‘application’ process for both public and Council-led initiations to replace the requirement for a fully developed proposal

4.8 Introduce periodic reviews requiring each council to review opportunities and options on a regular basis- Not included in proposed model in the absence of strategic direction that would give purpose to the adoption of periodic reviews -

4.1. Initiation by the Minister

Currently, South Australian legislation does not allow the Minister to make a proposal for boundary change (though the Governor may make a proclamation for a boundary change in pursuance of an address from both Houses of Parliament), which is unique in comparison to all other jurisdictions in Australia and in New Zealand, where the Minister can make a proposal either to the Governor or to a statutory body. Allowing the Minister to make an application for boundary change would align the initiation process with other jurisdictions and has the potential to allow consideration of a wider range of potential options and ideas.

4.2. Initiation by the statutory body

Tasmania differs from other states and New Zealand in that it gives powers to its statutory body to initiate a boundary adjustment proposal. The Tasmanian statutory body is required under the Tasmanian Local Government Act 1993 to undertake a review of a Council at least every eight years (or earlier) if directed to do so by the Minister and may undertake a review of any matter relating to a single or joint authority if it so determines. In all other cases, the role of the statutory body, whether it is a panel, commission or board, is advisory only. In Queensland, the Electoral Commission may apply to the Change Commission to make a change to Local Government boundaries.

There is an option to provide for a periodic review process in the context of South Australia. However, the resource implications of such a process would be significant and it should only be considered in the context of the future of Local Government in South Australia. Periodic reviews would need to be supported by clear strategic objectives in the context of South Australia’s future reform landscape and, until this strategic direction is provided, periodic reviews would be an ineffective use of the significant resources that would need to be invested.


4.3. Initiation by Councils

South Australia is currently the only jurisdiction where there are limitations on Local Government’s ability to put a proposal for boundary adjustment forward. Council-led proposals must be jointly submitted by two or more Councils in agreement with each other, unless a Council proposes an adjustment to the boundary of Unincorporated land. In all other jurisdictions across Australia and New Zealand, Councils may make a proposal either singularly, in pairs or in groups. Allowing Councils to make an application singularly has the potential to allow consideration of a wider range of options and ideas and reduces the barriers to consideration of reform.

4.4. Initiation by the public

The limitations on public submissions are comparatively high in South Australia and pose a number of potential issues, particularly where boundary adjustments affect a small number of properties, or in rural areas where land holdings are larger resulting in a disincentive to change. Publicly led proposals must include a minimum of 20 ‘eligible electors’. Eligibility is defined as all electors within a ‘receiving Council’ and only those electors directly affected by the proposal within the originating Council. The definition of ‘eligible electors’ effectively allows the participation of all electors within a receiving Council but restricts the ability of electors in originating Councils to participate unless they are electors specifically located in the area under review. This contrasts with other cases that either limit eligibility to the affected part only, or to the entirety of an affected municipality. The outcomes of this restriction in South Australia may unfairly restrict public representation in favour of a receiving Council and may impact on the full public consideration of the impacts of a proposal on an originating Council.

Further, the South Australian requirement for a 5-person committee to be nominated from the proponent group may be unachievable, particularly where boundary adjustments may impact on a small number of properties, potentially creating greater barriers to reform in rural areas.

New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania also apply eligibility limitations on public initiations although none are as limiting as in South Australia:

In New South Wales, public proposals affecting the whole of one or more areas must have the support of a minimum of 250 electors or 10%, whichever is greater. Public proposals affecting only part of one area must have the support of a minimum of 250 electors or 10% of the affected part, whichever is the lesser;

In Western Australia, public proposals must have the support of a minimum of 250 electors or 10% of the electors directly affected by a proposal; and

In Tasmania, public proposals must be in the form of a petition of at least 20% of electors in the affected municipal area.

New Zealand has the broadest range of public initiation powers, allowing any person, body or group to make a boundary adjustment proposal to the statutory body. In the Northern Territory, where no statutory body exists, the Act does not specify the powers of either the public or Councils. Similarly, Victoria and Queensland do not specifically state or provide formal powers to the public to make a proposal. Notwithstanding this, the recent Sunbury-out-of-Hume case in Victoria highlights the informal process available to electors to request the Minister to undertake a review.

For South Australia the option of allowing any number of electors to make an application could be particularly advantageous in rural areas and may provide opportunities for business associations, peak bodies or community groups that may not necessarily be electors. The potential disadvantage could be an increase in frivolous proposals or proposals that lack local support and would need to be accompanied by a pre-assessment filtering process. An ‘open gateway’ for applications would significantly reduce the barriers to change and could include one of the following options:

allowance of any number of people, groups or organisations to make an application, regardless of whether they are electors or not; or

expansion of the term ‘eligible elector’ to refer to all electors within an affected Council and deletion of the 20-person limit to allow any number of electors; or


expansion of the term ‘eligible elector’ to refer to all electors within an affected Council and amendment of the 20-person limit to a percentage of electors, such as 10%.

In addition, removal of the 5-person committee to allow a number nominated at the discretion of the Commissioner would address issues of scale such as applications for boundary adjustment affecting a small number of properties.


4.5. Independence of the decision making process

With the proposed abolition of the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel, assessment responsibilities are to be reassigned to the Minister. This would present a unique case when compared with all other jurisdictions in Australia, with the exception of the Northern Territory, and has the potential to raise significant issues of real and perceived independence. Appointment of a Commission/er would address this concern. A review of high profile reform cases in Western Australia and Queensland in particular indicates the importance of maintaining real and perceived independence of the process.

Voluntary amalgamations have recently been encouraged in Western Australia with the number of proposals increasing from two proposals in 2012-13 to 38 the following year. This has placed significant pressure on the independence of the Board to provide a ‘rigorous process for ensuring that conflicts were effectively managed’1. Further reinforcing the independent role of the state’s statutory body in Western Australia, the Minister can only make recommendations for amendments to boundaries if the statutory body has recommended it. In Queensland, a significant amount of legislation ensures conflict is managed appropriately, including restrictions on who can be appointed as a casual commissioner and how conflicts of interest are managed, including penalties.

There is an opportunity to ensure the independence of the process in South Australia via appointment of a Commission/er, with the role potentially assigned to:

the existing Electoral Commissioner; or the Local Government Commission/er proposed by the Local Excellence Expert Panel2; or the Planning Commission/er proposed by the Expert Panel on Planning Reform3; or a ‘Boundaries Commission/er’, such as in New South Wales and Queensland.

4.6. Statutory bodies

Across Australia and New Zealand, all but the Northern Territory have a statutory body appointed to address Local Government boundary change. However, each case differs in relation to the type of body, which includes commissions, boards, and panels, as well as in relation to appointment approach, including appointments by the Governor, Minister and Electoral Commissioner.

South Australia currently has the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel appointed by the Governor. However, with the enactment of the Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees – Abolition and Reform) Bill, this Panel will be abolished and its responsibilities reallocated to the Minister.

In New South Wales, Queensland and New Zealand, Commissions exist to assess boundary adjustment proposals, which are appointed by the Governor, Electoral Commission, and Minister respectively. Both Western Australia and Tasmania have boards, which are appointed by the Governor in the case of the former and the Minister in the case of the latter.

All statutory bodies across Australia and New Zealand are appointed for a specific term, with the exception of Victoria where a panel can be appointed by the Minister in response to specific cases arising under the general provisions of the Victorian Local Government Act relating to the establishment of Local Government Panels. It is noteworthy that the Victorian Minister must establish a Local Government panel to conduct a review, except where boundary changes are minor, the affected Councils agree and public notice is given. The significant advantage of a case-specific panel is that it can be tailored to suit the required knowledge, experience and a level of independence appropriate to each case. Such an approach also means that a Panel does not need to be established if there is no need for one.

1 WA Local Government Advisory Board Annual Report 2013-142 Local Excellence Expert Panel, The Council of the Future, December 2013, pp623 South Australia’s Expert Panel, - Our Ideas for Reform on Planning Reform, August 2014, pp32


Where statutory bodies exist across Australia and New Zealand, only the Tasmanian statutory body has the power to initiate proposals for boundary alterations, amalgamations or Elected Member/ward restructure. The key role of all other statutory bodies across Australia and New Zealand is to provide independent advice and recommendations to a Governor, Minister or Commissioner. In Queensland, the Change Commission makes its recommendations directly to the Governor. In South Australia, the statutory authority has a relatively strong role in preparing assessment guidelines and assisting Councils and the public to form, develop and implement proposals.

For South Australia, the opportunity exists to provide for the appointment of an advisory body for each major proposal case that requires independent assessment, particularly in the context of the intended abolition of the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel. This would be particularly important if initiation powers were to be expanded to the Minister in order to maintain independence and is the process currently used in Victoria.

Significant advantages of the appointment of an advisory body are that an independent Commissioner can appoint experts with the specific knowledge and experience, and tailor terms of reference to each case on an ‘as needs’ basis. This approach would manage the actual and perceived independence of the process, which is particularly critical to the success of voluntary boundary reform proposals that rely on the support of Councils and local electors.

4.7. Receiving proposals

South Australia differs from all other states across Australia and New Zealand in that its legislation requires public proposals to first be lodged with the affected Councils, which have the option to take up the proposal and proceed with it as a joint Council submission. Whilst the public still have the option of lodging with the Panel if the Councils are not supportive or cannot agree, this process has the potential to add significantly to timelines and resource implications for local communities, adding to the layers of involvement required. For other cases across Australia and New Zealand, the initiation process is the same whether initiated by the public, Councils or any other entity.

Although the current process could be considered to encourage local partnerships and minimise conflict, it could also be viewed as a major blocker, particularly where relatively minor adjustments are proposed or where Council priorities may not align with each other or the landowner and external facilitation is required. With the adoption of appropriate guidelines, a pre-assessment process and clear assessment protocols, there would appear to be little justification for the adoption of different initiation pathways for public and Council-initiated proposals, especially if the intent is to reduce barriers to change. This option should be accompanied by a requirement for the Minister to formally advise the affected Councils and the general public of any application received, at which point the affected Councils could be given the option of joining in as a proponent prior to working with a Commission/er in the identification and consideration of alternative options.

4.8. Initiation requirements

Initiation requirements vary across Australia and New Zealand and can be differentiated in two key ways: the lodgement of well-developed proposals or a less onerous application process. In cases that require the lodgement of well-developed proposals such as in Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia, legislation requires proposals to meet specific standards and, in these cases, the onus is clearly on the proponent in the first instance to prove up a proposal and demonstrate how the proposed changes would achieve their stated objectives and respond to issues. In South Australia, there is a strong emphasis on assisting a proponent to develop a proposal. Collaboration between the Panel and the proponent is evidenced in recent cases such as Franklin Harbour-Cleve.

For cases that require the lodgement of a request or application, expectations at the initiation stage are generally lower. In Queensland, the initiation process commences with an application to the Change Commission and in Tasmania, a review commences at the request of a Council or petition of electors to the Minister. In New Zealand, legislation provides communities with the ‘opportunity to initiate and participate in considering alternative Local Government arrangements for their area’4,

4 New Zealand Local Government Act, 2002


focusing on the collaborative development of options rather than the lodgement of a fully formed proposal. The amount of information required at the initiation stage is deliberately balanced to require a level of information sufficient to make a decision as to whether to proceed, but not precluding the consideration of alternatives. The New Zealand process clearly differentiates between stages commencing with lodgement of an application and continue with development of a proposal.

Currently, South Australian legislation lacks clarity in relation to the level of proposal/submission required. Despite the implication of the use of the terms ‘Council proposal’ and ‘public submission’, the initiation process remains relatively complex and intensive for Council and even more so for public-initiated pathways, requiring the lodgement of relatively well-advanced proposals, creating a significant barrier to change and precluding the full consideration of potential alternatives. There is an opportunity to change the focus of the current process from that of a proposal lodgement to an ‘application process’ with less onerous submission requirements. This would reduce barriers to change and allow greater opportunity to investigate alternative options. It would also allow the rejection of applications where they are frivolous or otherwise inappropriate before the significant investment of resources.

5. PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT

At the proposal assessment phase, eight main areas have been reviewed, namely: proposal pre-assessment; major and minor pathway differentiation; publicly-initiated pathway differentiation; capacity for optioneering; criteria for assessing proposals; stakeholder and community engagement; polling; and reporting and decision-making. Currently, the proposal assessment phase in South Australia differentiates between public and council-lodged proposals via a relatively complicated and resource-intensive process. A discussion of the issues follows, which highlights the following ten key opportunities. Options highlighted in bold indicate those options that have been identified as meeting the Principles for Boundary Reform and are incorporated into the Potential Model. Those shaded out indicate opportunities that were considered but not included in the Potential Model.

OPORTUNITIES FOR CONSIDERATION – PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT PHASE

5.1 Formalise the pre-assessment filtering process to allow discard of applications that are frivolous, not in the best interest of the community, or otherwise inappropriate, and allowing consideration of alternatives that do not require boundary reform such as conciliation or resource sharing:

a) by a Commission/er OR

b) by the Minister- Not incorporated into the Potential Model as pre-assessment by the Commission/er offers a greater degree of independence -

5.2 Streamline assessment into a single assessment pathway, replacing the current differentiation between publicly-initiated and Council-initiated proposals

5.3 Incorporate a separate assessment pathway for proposals initiated by the Minister if initiation powers are to be expanded as proposed- Not incorporated into the Potential Model as a single, streamlined assessment pathway (option 5.2)


is considered a more appropriate option -

5.4 Introduce minor and major assessment pathways to allow the fast and efficient assessment of minor proposals and reduction in the currently onerous public engagement requirements

5.5 Develop detailed guidelines/toolkit to support and encourage change, particularly in the areas of financial sustainability, asset management, transport and access issues, risk management and environmental sustainability

5.6 Introduce a process for detailed assessment guidelines for major proposals to provide more tailored and area-specific assessment, prepared by the Commission/er

5.7 Introduce requirements for a Stakeholder and Community Engagement Plan for major proposals to allow tailoring of the engagement process

5.8 Introduce an options development phase with ability to encourage the consideration of the full range of alternative options against the status quo

5.9 Allow polling to be subject to the discretion of a Commissioner so as not to undermine the wider public engagement process and to allow on-balance assessment of options

5.10 Allow appeal rights to decisions made in relation to boundary reform- Not incorporated into the Potential Model as it is considered unnecessary if appropriate measures are taken to ensure independence of the assessment process -

5.1. Pre-assessment of proposals

In South Australia, the Panel only has the power to determine whether or not to proceed in the case of a publicly initiated proposal. In order to proceed, the Panel must undertake a minimum of four rounds of stakeholder and/or community consultation, and more if alternative options are to be considered, requiring re-commencement of the process as a new proposal. In relation to Council-initiated proposals, the Panel has no ability to discard a proposal.

In Western Australia, the statutory body may, with an absolute majority, recommend to the Minister that a proposal be rejected if it is substantially similar to a proposal on which the Board has made a recommendation within the previous two years. In New South Wales, there is a two-stage pre-assessment process whereby proposals are first lodged with the Minister, who may decide whether to proceed at that early stage. If proceeding, the Minister must give 28 days’ public notice and consider the representations of a Council or elector affected by the proposal before again deciding whether to proceed. In Tasmania, although not explicitly stated, the Minister has discretion in forwarding on requests from Councils and electors for the review of the statutory body.

In New Zealand, a pre-assessment process allows the Commission to decline to process an application where the proposal is not in accordance with legislated criteria, including where it is frivolous, inconsistent with the Act, or not in the public interest. If the Commission decides to proceed, it must be satisfied that there is demonstrable community support in the affected area and can undertake investigations to ascertain this support prior to proceeding to the next stage.

There is an opportunity for the South Australian system to extend and streamline the pre-assessment process, minimising the unnecessary expenditure of resources. Pre-assessment would be particularly important if the gateways for proposal initiations are widened. Pre-assessment filtering may also help identify other options for resolution of issues that may not require boundary adjustment, such as conciliation or resource sharing.

A formal pre-assessment process would be introduced in tandem with the amendments to the initiation phase recommended above, replacing the requirement for the submission of ‘proposals’ with a less onerous application. Additional clarity around the criteria for discarding an application would be required, either via the Act, or via agreed guidelines, to provide certainty and direction to the assessment body and the proponent.

This process is used by the Australian Environmental Impact Assessment legislation to streamline the process where the investment of resources required to undertake an assessment is not required. In


South Australia, parallels also exist in the Ombudsman process in the case of administrative errors where the Ombudsman will undertake a preliminary investigation to determine whether to proceed with a full investigation.

5.2. Assessment pathways for proponents

Currently, South Australian legislation is unique in that it provides significant differentiation between processes for public compared to Council-led proposals, with public processes generally more complex and time-consuming. Publicly initiated submissions must be lodged first to the relevant Councils, which may choose to take it up themselves and lodge it with the Panel as a Council-initiated proposal.


In the event that the Councils do not support the proposal, or cannot come to agreement amongst them, the elector group may lodge it directly with the Panel and the Panel has the power to determine whether or not to proceed at several points in the process. In all, in order to proceed with a public submission, the Panel must undertake a minimum of four rounds of stakeholder and/or community consultation, and more if alternative options are raised during the process that require re-commencement of the process as a new proposal. The process is complicated and time consuming, particularly in relation to public consultation, presenting a significant barrier to change notwithstanding the availability of the Panel to facilitate.

A differentiation between assessment pathways depending on the proponent may present a significant barrier to change and could be considered unnecessary, particularly if changes are made that allow wider contemplation of alternative options and broader initiation powers that extend to single Councils and the Minister. If proposal initiation powers were to be extended to the Minister, a third pathway would be required, complicating the process further.

There is significant opportunity to adopt a single assessment pathway for all proposals differentiated only by their size and complexity. This would streamline the process, reduce barriers to change, and minimise unnecessary expenditure of resources.

5.3. Assessment of minor proposals

Currently in South Australia, there is no differentiation between minor and major proposals for boundary adjustments and the process is identical for all proposals. Minor and administrative proposals still require the full assessment, community consultation and reporting that major amalgamations require. In Western Australia, provision is specifically made for a more streamlined assessment process for proposals that are considered minor, such as realignment of boundaries following realignment of roads, or boundary amendments affecting a small number of properties. The principal difference between the informal and formal process relates to more extensive public engagement and option for a poll, together with a more rigorous assessment against guidelines.

In Victoria, the Minister may make a recommendation directly to the Governor without referral to a Local Government Panel if the Minister is of the opinion that the matter is minor in nature and does not require consultation. There is an opportunity to provide two pathways for the facilitation of boundary review similar to that used by the Victorian Government.

For minor and administrative boundary changes where all affected Councils agree and strong elector support is in evidence, a Commission would have the power to recommend such an adjustment to the Minister and would facilitate the implementation process. There is also the potential to reduce reporting requirements in the case of rejected minor proposals, which currently must be reported to both Houses of Parliament. For amalgamations and major boundary changes, or where affected Councils do not agree and/or the level of elector support cannot be evidenced, the Commission/er would appoint an independent panel and would prepare assessment guidelines and a stakeholder engagement plan to direct the process. The independent panel would facilitate the development and assessment of options with support that may include independent expert advice and resourcing.

The key advantage to the adoption of minor and major assessment pathways is the delivery of a fast track that minimises disincentive to change due to administrative burdens for proposals that are minor in nature and have a high level of support. The use of major and minor assessment pathways is currently used effectively for assessing environmental impacts under the Australian Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999, and for developing new Development Plan policy under the South Australian Development Act 1993. A review of Local Government reform in New South Wales in 2012 found that the process for amalgamation of areas and alteration of boundaries was seen by some to be cumbersome and time consuming and therefore a barrier to reform. The streamlining of the applications process, particularly via the introduction of a minor assessment pathway and the allowance for the public to make applications direct to the Minister may address similar concerns in South Australia.


5.4. Development and comparative assessment of alternatives against the status quo

While some states in Australia allow the statutory body or the Minister to amend or refine the proposals received, there is limited scope to formulate alternative proposals in response to the issues raised initially or during the consultation and investigation phases. Much of this is due to the significant onus placed on the proponent for developing a relatively finalised proposal prior to lodgement and this approach can preclude the consideration of options from a very early stage in the process.

In South Australia, the Panel may make an amendment to a proposal, or substitute an alternative proposal subject to adequate consultation and investigation. However, if an amendment is deemed to form a new proposal and/or has impacts on additional electors not previously consulted, the process must re-commence. There is currently limited scope to fully investigate alternative options that may include a wider scope beyond the proposal being considered, including other models of service delivery such as regional service delivery or shared resources. Similarly in New South Wales, both the Minister and the statutory authority may make modifications to the proposal so long as the modifications do not constitute a new proposal. Limitations on the ability to develop alternatives have the risk of precluding superior options and can present a barrier to change and good governance.

In New Zealand, alternative options are actively encouraged via a pre-assessment phase that seeks the lodgement of alternative options from the public in response to an initial proposal. The statutory body then considers all options and identifies a preferred option for further investigation and consultation. The intent of this process is to encourage discussion of options early, so as to avoid focusing too early on an option, which may not necessarily be the most acceptable option. The process provides the flexibility to consider and compare alternatives in greater detail.

Tasmania has also considered the need for greater consideration and development of options in its Guiding Principles for Voluntary Mergers, a need that was identified following the review of the Break O’Day and Glamorgan-Spring Bay voluntary merger proposal, which was refused. Step one in the Tasmanian Local Government Board’s Guiding Principles is the consideration of available options, including other options to boundary reform such as resource sharing, common service provision and regional alliances.

Introduction of an optioneering phase would allow for a full assessment against the assessment guidelines. Again, parallels with the Environmental Impact Assessment process under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999. The use of this approach in the South Australian context has the opportunity to deliver improved outcomes in relation to efficiencies and the non-preclusion of alternatives and could include assessment against the status quo, full amalgamation and/or alternative options raised during early consultation.

5.5. Proposal assessment criteria

In South Australia, Section 26 of the Act contains a number of principles to guide the assessment of a proposal, including matters that a Panel should have regard to in arriving at a decision. The criteria are general in nature and there are opportunities to provide specific guidance and methodologies for assessment, particularly in the area of financial sustainability. In South Australia, the Panel issues guidelines for the development of proposals and there is opportunity to build on this work to assist proponents further. Again, such an approach mirrors that used as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process under the Australian Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999, which allows the tailoring of guidelines used to direct the assessment. This approach is also used by the Development Plan Amendment process under the South Australian Development Act 1993 to guide and direct Councils undertaking changes to their Development Plans.

This same issue was recognised in Western Australia and, while this was in the context of wider Local Government reforms, additional guidelines and a toolkit were developed to augment the criteria contained in the Act. This included a methodology for assessment and a set of specific assessment criteria around financial sustainability prepared by the Western Australian Treasury Corporation.


The criteria was developed with advice from the Queensland and New South Wales Treasury Corporations using seven financial ratios: current; asset consumption; asset renewal funding; asset sustainability funding; debt service cover; operating surplus; and own source revenue coverage.

Risk management was specifically addressed in the case of Kalamunda in Western Australia, using the ANZ Risk Management Framework to assess the risks associated with two scenarios in relation to bushfire risk, legislative compliance, road safety, equitable representation, financial sustainability, and other matters. The adoption of a formal risk and opportunities management process in the assessment of proposals may assist particularly in the comparative development and assessment of options.

Tailored assessment guidelines assist in the early identification of risks and opportunities as well as encourage a robust assessment, direct the focus of investigations and build confidence in the process. This would be particularly advantageous where the Commission/er appoints an independent advisory body to assess proposals with the appropriate degree of rigour.

5.6. Guidelines and tools to support change

The development of guidelines and tools to develop and assess proposals could present a significant reduction in some of the barriers to change as well as allow knowledge sharing and streamline the significant investment of resources required. Section 26 of the South Australian Local Government Act 1993 incorporates a number of criteria for the assessment of boundary adjustment proposals. Whilst these criteria address a range of considerations from fair representation, effective governance, sustainable development and accessibility, the criteria are relatively general in nature.

The Western Australian Reform Toolkit, whilst prepared in the context of wider reforms and amalgamations, is also relevant to boundary adjustments, particularly in relation to financial sustainability tools and implementation plans that address methods for the transfer and apportionment of assets and liabilities. Risk management, asset management, environmental sustainability, and transport and access issues are additional areas of focus for such guidelines.

There are options for developing these assessment criteria further to provide greater detail, particularly in the area of financial sustainability, providing greater guidance to proponents and a methodology for assessment. The potential to undertake the assessment process in parallel with the consideration of options presents an opportunity for more sophisticated optioneering and scenario planning. The availability of Grants Commission data to the boundary adjustment process could further enhance the development and assessment of options.

5.7. Stakeholder and community engagement

Stakeholder and community engagement requirements are similar across Australia and consist primarily of giving notice in the newspaper of the commencement of a proposal review and at the release of a proposal for consultation, holding a public hearing, consultation with affected Councils and land owners, and polls. Most legislation however, allows additional consultation to be undertaken at the discretion of the statutory body assessing the proposal but does not give guidance about adapting requirements to suit specific cases. Most legislation specifically requires either the proponent or the assessing body to demonstrate community support for the proposal. In South Australia, public consultation undertaken by the government is guided by the Better Together guidelines, which provide a comprehensive approach to community and stakeholder engagement.

In New Zealand, consultation is undertaken at the receipt of an application specifically to seek submissions for alternative options and ideas prior to the assessment of the proposal. In Tasmania, a review by the Local Government Board indicated the need for consultation from the start of the process to create trust in the community and to communicate the rationale behind reform. The Board recommends the development of a consultation strategy as part of a proposal’s strategic analysis.

In South Australia, specific community engagement requirements include notices and a public hearing. However, The Act requires that community support be evidenced in any proposal and the Panel has the powers to undertake any community engagement it sees fit in order to carry out its assessment.


Of particular note is the number of rounds of consultation required, particularly in the case of public submissions. For minor proposals in particular, this amount of community engagement may be significantly onerous and present a barrier to change. Consultation fatigue is a common issue for public participation and a more tailored and considered approach to engagement in line with the Government’s Better Together document and the principles of IAP2 may present a better option. The Charter of Citizen Participation proposed as part of the SA Planning reforms could also be expanded to include matters such as this.

There is an opportunity to formally develop and release a Community and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy as part of the major assessment pathway, providing clarity about the engagement process to proponents and the community and to provide direction to any advisory or expert body appointed by the Minister to undertake the assessment process.

5.8. Polling

Currently, South Australia is unique across Australia and New Zealand in that it provides opportunity for 10% of electors to call for a poll notwithstanding the degree of preceding consultation and negotiations, and the poll is binding. The option of a poll is provided only for the publicly led proposal process and is available regardless of the complexity of the proposal. While New South Wales and Western Australia both provide for polls at the request of electors, the Commission has discretion in New South Wales and the Minister has discretion in Western Australia except in the case of full amalgamations. The resources required undertaking a poll are significant and may indeed undermine significant investment in more consultative and conciliatory processes.

The role of polling may be better considered in the wider context of the community and stakeholder engagement strategy for the process, with the discretion of the Minister or Commission/er, as is the case in New South Wales. In Western Australia, electors may only demand a poll for amalgamations and the Minister has discretion in all other cases. With the adoption of a single assessment pathway for both public and Council-led proposals, the option to request a poll would be expanded to all proposals, however there is an opportunity to allow polling to be subject to the discretion of the Commission/er.

5.9. Reporting, appeals and decision-making

The reporting requirements for boundary adjustment processes contained in the South Australian Local Government Act 1999 are relatively detailed and provide extensive opportunities for the consideration of the proposal at all levels, including the specific reporting to both Houses of Parliament in the case of a rejected proposal or upon the outcome of a poll. The rigorous level of reporting contained by the Act does, however, have the potential to create disincentives for change, particularly in the case where a relatively minor proposal is rejected. There is an opportunity to build in less onerous reporting requirements into a minor proposal assessment process discussed previously.

The open and transparent reporting of information to the Panel by Councils is also addressed by the Act, which gives powers to the Panel to hold an inquiry, summon a person’s attendance, require a person to answer questions and verify by declaration, and require records for examination. Maximum penalties of $10,000 apply to refusal or failure of compliance with Section 23. These requirements are similar across Australia and New Zealand, with some exceptions and variances. In New Zealand, where boundary adjustment cases are managed by a Commission with the powers of a Commission of Inquiry, additional legislation applies in relation to the provision of evidence under the New Zealand Evidence Act 2006, together with rights of appeal. Whilst provision of appeal rights could be considered in South Australia, it may be an unnecessary feature if the independence of the process can be secured.

The independence of the assessment process is an important consideration in the context of current proposals to disband the Panel and transfer its responsibilities to the Minister. A process that ensures that the assessment of proposals is fully independent from the Minister is considered to be critical, particularly if proposal initiation powers are extended to the Minister.


The opportunity to appoint a Commission/er is therefore considered a fundamental direction for the future boundary reform process and is reflected in the proposed model.

6. IMPLEMENTATION

At the implementation phase, five main areas have been reviewed, namely: the apportionment of resources; implementation planning; transitional arrangements; the provision of advice and assistance; and evaluation and reporting. Currently, the implementation phase in South Australia is relatively unguided and is the sole responsibility of the Councils undergoing change.

A discussion of key issues follows, which highlights the following key opportunities. Options highlighted in bold indicate those options that have been identified as meeting the Principles for Boundary Reform and are incorporated into the Potential Model. Those shaded out indicate those opportunities considered but not included in the Potential Model.

OPORTUNITIES FOR CONSIDERATION – IMPLEMENTATION PHASE

6.1 Implementation plan to be prepared by the affected Councils with assistance from a Commissioner

6.2 Provide resources and advisory assistance to proponents of change via a Commission/er – including development and publication of guidelines/toolkit to guide the selection and implementation of transitional arrangements, methodologies for apportioning staff, assets and liabilities and the development of implementation plans. Include resources such as checklists, tools and a list of case studies

6.3 Independent evaluation report to be prepared immediately following implementation of change, with a follow up 2 years later by:

a) a Commission/er OR

b) the affected Councils- Not incorporated into the Potential Model -

6.1. Implementation planning

Currently, the South Australian boundary facilitation process places the responsibility for the apportionment of assets and liabilities with the affected Councils sometimes with limited direction from the Governor’s proclamation. The Panel has a role under the Act to provide assistance to the transition process although this role is not specific and there is little detail about how this might be achieved especially where compensation might be required, or where resources might need to be shared. In the recent case of Franklin Harbour-Cleve, the Panel offered its assistance to the two Councils in their negotiations. There is an opportunity for greater investment in implementation s including financial, staffing and resource assistance.

In New Zealand, a reorganisation scheme must be prepared by the Commissioner to effect the reorganisation of one or more Councils and while the contents may vary according to the type of change, it can include provisions relating to the discharge of legislative responsibilities, the apportionment of assets and liabilities, the transfer of employees, the rating system, property transfer, representation and committee membership, and election requirements. In New Zealand, it is the Commissioner’s responsibility to prepare the Reorganisation Scheme in consultation with affected parties, and the Act provides extensive detail to guide this process. In the case of Sunbury-out-of Hume in Victoria, the Local Government Panel recommended a number of specific transition requirements that focused on reporting processes, transition of staff, communication and consultation with the community, the filling of vacancies and financial management.

In Western Australia, Local Implementation Committees are charged with the responsibility for leading the change process for the first three-four stages of the transition plan, unless a commissioner is appointed, in which case the responsibility will transfer in stage four.


Either the Local Implementation Committee or the Council itself can appoint a project director to oversee and assist with the transition process, with their responsibilities decided by the CEOs of the affected Councils. A Transition Plan oversees the change process with a detailed Action Plan prepared to implement the change, transfer of assets and liabilities, and finalise the service delivery model.

Importantly, a major review of the New South Wales Local Government reforms in 2013 found that Local Government change, particularly in the case of amalgamations, have an element of risk that can be reduced through ‘careful planning and implementation and on-going monitoring and evaluation’5. The review indicated that one of the key lessons learned from the 2004 amalgamations was that the outcomes depended on the quality of planning and implementation and this can be applied to both minor boundary adjustments as well as larger amalgamations.

6.1.1. Apportionment of resources

In South Australia, the Governor may make a proclamation to bring into effect boundary adjustments under Section 9 of the Act and may include in that proclamation details around differential rates, alterations to by-laws, provision for the transfer, apportionment, settlement or adjustment of property, assets, income, rights, liabilities or expenses, and variance to a section of the Act for an affected Council for a transitional period of no longer than 5 years. Similarly, the responsibility for facilitating change in Queensland and New South Wales is the Governor.

In Tasmania, the apportionment of assets and liabilities is the responsibility of the affected Councils and where they cannot come to an agreement, the Minister. The Minister may also apportion the costs and expenses of any transfer or vesting with the Councils. Western Australia also places responsibility for the negotiation of assets and liabilities with the affected Councils, although the Governor may set requirements by regulation or give direction where matters cannot be resolved.

In New South Wales, legislation relating to the transfer arrangement of staff is detailed and extensive, particularly in rural areas, requiring no forced redundancies during the proposal period, and the preservation of staff entitlements. Similarly, Western Australian legislation protects employment contracts for a period of at least two years. A review of Local Government reforms in New South Wales, indicated that legislative restrictions around staffing provisions may make it ‘difficult for Councils to make financial savings through amalgamation, particularly in the short term’ and may present a barrier to reform6. The legislative constraints were also highlighted as a major barrier in a 2014 review of the New South Wales Local Government reforms, which stated that ‘several legislative, industrial and proclamation requirements that are intended to protect the interests of staff and communities of amalgamating Councils also work against maximising the opportunities from the amalgamations’7.

In the case of Sunbury-out-of-Hume in Victoria, the Local Government Panel appointed to assess the proposal recommended a process of division and allocation of assets from Hume City Council. It stipulated immovable physical assets be transferred with no market value assessment, and moveable assets and liabilities be apportioned at a specific ratio of 23.6% to the new municipality. A settlement period of six months and a transition audit was also required.

In Western Australia, the extensive Reform Toolkit identifies the principles and steps for guiding Councils through the process of reforms and, while it has been prepared in the context of wider Local Government reform and amalgamations, it acknowledges the relevance of the toolkit to boundary adjustments as well. It identifies the key difference between the two as the immediate need for the boundary change scenario ‘to negotiate, agree and implement a resource allocation model that will drive the transmittal of employees from one entity to another, the transfer or vesting of assets and property and address all financial implications including liabilities and grants’.

5 Jeff Tate Consulting, Assessing processes and outcomes of the 2004 Local Government boundary changes in NSW for the Independent Local Government Review Panel, 2013, pp 376 Independent Local Government Review Panel - Barriers and incentives to voluntary boundary change, 2012, pp 117 Jeff Tate Consulting, Assessing processes and outcomes of the 2004 Local Government boundary changes in NSW for the Independent Local Government Review Panel, 2013, pp 37


The toolkit is particularly relevant to boundary adjustment processes in the areas of long term financial planning, asset ownership and transfer and managing the impact of boundary changes on asset management. There is an opportunity to look at expansion of South Australia’s guidelines to provide a similar resource for proponents, the Minister, Local Government and a Commissioner.

In Queensland, a special Regulation was put in place for de-amalgamations incorporating details relating to apportionment issues. The Regulation also required the Departmental development of a ‘Transfer Methodology’ for apportionment to support de-amalgamating Councils. The methodology focused on transfer of employees, assets, liabilities and documents as well as providing for the development of an action plan, milestone identification and apportionment of costs associated with de-amalgamation.

6.1.2. Transitional arrangements

In South Australia, there are currently no legislative requirements (though there is legislative capacity) or guidelines for transitional arrangements, although the Panel may make suggestions in its recommendations to the Minister. In its development of its Guiding Principles, the Tasmanian Local Government Board identifies that notwithstanding the lack of transitional body or other arrangements in the Local Government Act 1993, the Board has a role in making recommendations on transitional arrangements and a number of options were identified including administrators, interim Councils, external panels or joint authorities.

In Victoria, a panel of three administrators was appointed to assist the transition process in the recent Sunbury-out-of Hume case until elections could be held 16 months later. In Tasmania, the Minister may appoint an independent arbitrator with the final determination to be made by the Minister and in Western Australia, options including Local Implementation Committees and Commissioners are used depending on the specific requirements of the change. State and Local Transition Committees were also used effectively in Queensland8 and a Regulation was introduced in preparation for de-amalgamations that required the appointment of a Transfer Manager to facilitate the establishment of the new Council. For smaller boundary adjustments that do not include the creation of a new Council, transition arrangements can include the appointment of a Project Director and/or project teams such as used in Western Australia. The appointment of external expert advisors may also assist transition and was used in the Sunbury-out-of-Hume case.

6.2. Advice and assistance

The Review of the 2004 New South Wales Local Government reforms highlighted that in respect to amalgamations, Councils were seeking ‘on-going support in the form of financial assistance through the four stages of amalgamation, as well as facilitation assistance, manuals, guidelines and milestones; funding for infrastructure and service upgrades and to meet changed accommodation needs; flexibility in rating structures and increases to meet their share of the upfront costs of amalgamations; and a whole of Government approach that includes how State Government investments and industry attraction can assist amalgamating Councils.’9

Whilst the New South Wales review focussed primarily on amalgamations and major boundary adjustments in the areas of Clarence Valley, Glen Innes Severn, Palerang, Greater Hume and Albury municipalities, there is an opportunity to provide greater support for implementation planning around more minor adjustments in South Australia. The South Australian Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel currently has a role in providing advice and assistance in the implementation of boundary reforms. However, the parameters around the form of this assistance is unclear, particularly in facilitating resource allocation agreements, rating and compensation such as experienced in the case of Franklin Harbour-Cleve.

8 Jeff Tate Consulting, Assessing processes and outcomes of the 2004 Local Government boundary changes in NSW for the Independent Local Government Review Panel, 2013, pp 389 Jeff Tate Consulting, Assessing processes and outcomes of the 2004 Local Government boundary changes in NSW for the Independent Local Government Review Panel, 2013, pp 38


6.3. Evaluation and continuous improvement

Currently, the South Australian boundary facilitation process requires the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel to report annually on its activities. There is no requirement to report more formally on the outcomes of boundary adjustment following implementation, as the responsibility of either the Councils themselves or a Commission/er. Independent monitoring and evaluation of the implementation process was a key lesson learnt from the 2004 New South Wales Local Government reform process, particularly in the context of continuous learning and nationally significant information to inform boundary adjustment processes across Australia.10

10 Jeff Tate Consulting, Assessing processes and outcomes of the 2004 Local Government boundary changes in NSW for the Independent Local Government Review Panel, 2013, pp 39


7. APPENDIX A – REFERENCES

Hume City Council (2014), Submission to the Local Government Sunbury-out-of-Hume City Council Panel

Jeff Tate Consulting for the New South Wales Independent Local Government Review Panel (2013), Assessing processes and outcomes of the 2004 Local Government boundary changes in New South Wales

New South Wales Independent Local Government Review Panel (2012), Barriers and Incentives to Voluntary Boundary Change

New South Wales Local Government Act (1993)

New Zealand Local Government Act (2002)

Northern Territory Local Government Act (2014)

Queensland Local Government Act (2009)

Queensland Local Government (De-amalgamation Implementation) Regulation (2013)

Queensland Local Government Reform Commission (2007), Report of the Local Government Reform Commission

Shire of Kalamunda (2014), Proposal for a District Boundary Change to the WA Local Government Advisory Board

South Australian Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel (2012), Annual Report 2011-2012



South Australian Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel (2015), BAFP Guideline No: 1 – General Information

South Australian Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel (2015), BAFP Guideline No: 2 – Public Initiated Submissions

South Australian Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel (2015), BAFP Guideline – Requirements for Council initiated proposals for boundary adjustment

South Australian Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel (2015), BAFP Guideline No: 4 – Council response to a public initiated submission

South Australian Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel (2015), BAFP Declaration form – Public Initiated Submissions

South Australian Government (2014), Better Together: Principles of Engagement – a foundation for engagement in the South Australian government

South Australian Local Government Act (1999)

South Australian Statutes Amendment (Boards and Committees – Abolition and Reform) Bill (2015)

New South Wales Local Government Boundaries Commission (2005), Examination of a boundary alteration proposal Albury City Council and Greater Hume Shire Council

South Australian Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel (2010), Public Initiated Submission for Boundary Change Between the District Council of Franklin Harbour and the District Council of Cleve

South Australian Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel (2013), Proposal for Boundary Change Between the District Council of Franklin Harbour and the District Council of Cleve

South Australian Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel (2011), Assessment Report for the Electors Submission for Boundary Change Between the District Council of Franklin Harbour and the District Council of Cleve


South Australia’s Expert Panel (2014), Our Ideas for Reform on Planning Reform

South Australian Local Excellence Expert Panel (2013), Strengthening South Australian Communities in a Changing World – The Council of the Future

Tasmanian Local Government Act (1993)

Tasmanian Local Government Board (2010), Principles for Voluntary Mergers Report

Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2012), The Future of Local Government in Tasmania

Western Australian Local Government Act (1995),

Western Australian Local Government Advisory Board (2006), Processes associated with making submissions for district boundary changes

Western Australian Local Government Advisory Board (2014), Metropolitan Local Government District Inquiries Report

Western Australian Local Government Advisory Board (2015), Community Proposal to create, change the boundaries of or abolish a local government district Form 1 (r.8)

Victorian Local Government Act (1989)

Victorian Local Government Panel (2014), Sunbury-out-of-Hume City Council Report


· web viewjeff tate consulting pty ltd was engaged by the local government association of south...

Documents