city of kingston - kingston city council - council’s …...j00643 community satisfaction survey...

2

J00643 Community Satisfaction Survey 2018 - Kingston City Council

Background and objectives 5

Survey methodology and sampling 6

Further information 8

Key findings and recommendations 9

Summary of findings 19

Detailed findings 40

➢ Key core measure: Overall performance 41

➢ Key core measure: Customer service 44

➢ Key core measure: Council direction indicators 54

➢ Communications 61

Individual service areas 66

➢ Community consultation and engagement 67

➢ Lobbying on behalf of the community 71

➢ Decisions made in the interest of the community 75

➢ The condition of sealed local roads in your area 79

➢ Informing the community 83

➢ The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area 87

➢ Traffic management 91

➢ Parking facilities 95

3


➢ Enforcement of local laws 99

➢ Family support services 103

➢ Elderly support services 107

➢ Disadvantaged support services 111

➢ Recreational facilities 115

➢ The appearance of public areas 119

➢ Art centres and libraries 123

➢ Community and cultural activities 127

➢ Waste management 131

➢ Business and community development and tourism 135

➢ Council’s general town planning policy 139

➢ Planning and building permits 143

➢ Environmental sustainability 147

➢ Emergency and disaster management 151

➢ Planning for population growth in the area 155

➢ Roadside slashing and weed control 159

Detailed demographics 163

Appendix A: Further project information 165

4


64 65 59

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Council Metropolitan State-wide

75

75

73

Waste management

Recreational facilities

Art centres and libraries

7750

7853

7449

-27 -26 -25Planning for population growth in the area

Planning & building permits

PerformanceImportance Net differential

Decisions made in the interest of the community

5


Welcome to the report of results and recommendations

for the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey for Kingston City Council.

Each year Local Government Victoria (LGV)

coordinates and auspices this State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey throughout

Victorian local government areas. This coordinated

approach allows for far more cost effective surveying

than would be possible if councils commissioned

surveys individually.

Participation in the State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey is optional. Participating

councils have various choices as to the content of the

questionnaire and the sample size to be surveyed,

depending on their individual strategic, financial and

other considerations.

The main objectives of the survey are to assess the

performance of Kingston City Council across a range of

measures and to seek insight into ways to provide

improved or more effective service delivery. The survey

also provides councils with a means to fulfil some of

their statutory reporting requirements as well as acting

as a feedback mechanism to LGV.

6


This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted

Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years

in Kingston City Council.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of

Kingston City Council as determined by the most

recent ABS population estimates was purchased from

an accredited supplier of publicly available phone

records, including up to 40% mobile phone numbers to

cater to the diversity of residents within Kingston City

Council, particularly younger people.

A total of n=400 completed interviews were achieved in

Kingston City Council. Survey fieldwork was conducted

in the period of 1st February – 30th March, 2018.

The 2018 results are compared with previous years, as

detailed below:

• 2017, n=400 completed interviews, conducted in the period

of 1st February – 30th March.






of 31st January – 11th March.




of 18th May – 30th June.

Minimum quotas of gender within age groups were

applied during the fieldwork phase. Post-survey

weighting was then conducted to ensure accurate

representation of the age and gender profile of the

Kingston City Council area.

Any variation of +/-1% between individual results and

net scores in this report or the detailed survey

tabulations is due to rounding. In reporting, ‘—’

denotes not mentioned and ‘0%’ denotes mentioned by

less than 1% of respondents. ‘Net’ scores refer to two

or more response categories being combined into one

category for simplicity of reporting.

7


Within tables and index score charts throughout this

report, statistically significant differences at the 95%

confidence level are represented by upward directing

blue and downward directing red arrows. Significance

when noted indicates a significantly higher or lower

result for the analysis group in comparison to the ‘Total’

result for the council for that survey question for that

year. Therefore in the example below:

• The state-wide result is significantly higher than the

overall result for the council.

• The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly

lower than for the overall result for the council.

Further, results shown in blue and red indicate

significantly higher or lower results than in 2017.

Therefore in the example below:

• The result among 35-49 year olds in the council is

significantly higher than the result achieved among

this group in 2017.

• The result among 18-34 year olds in the council is

significantly lower than the result achieved among

this group in 2017.

54

57

58

60

67

66

50-64

35-49

Metro

Kingston

18-34

State-wide

Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)

Note: Details on the calculations used to determine statistically significant differences may be found in Appendix B.

8


Further information about the report and explanations

about the State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey can be found in Appendix B,

including:

➢ Background and objectives

➢ Margins of error

➢ Analysis and reporting

➢ Glossary of terms

Contacts

For further queries about the conduct and reporting of

the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on

(03) 8685 8555.

10


The overall performance index score of 64 for

Kingston City Council represents a two-point (not

significant) decline from the 2017 result. Overall

performance ratings have trended down from a high

index score of 69 in 2014.

➢ Kingston City Council’s overall performance is rated

statistically significantly higher (at the 95%

confidence interval) than the average rating for

councils State-wide (index score of 59) and in

line with the Metropolitan group (index score of

65).

➢ Residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of 71)

continue to rate Council’s overall performance

significantly higher than other resident groups.

➢ Most groups declined by only a few index points in

their impressions of Council’s overall performance

since 2017. Residents aged 35 to 49 years (index

score of 59), however, declined by a significant

eight index points in the past year.

Residents are still much more likely to rate Kingston

City Council’s overall performance as ‘very good’ (10%)

or ‘good’ (49%) than ‘poor’ (7%) or ‘very poor’ (4%). A

further 28% sit mid-scale providing an ‘average’ rating.

64 65 59

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Council Metropolitan State-wide

11


Review of the core performance measures (as shown

on page 21) shows that Kingston City Council’s

performance declined on most measures compared

to Council’s own results in 2017.

➢ The exceptions are that Council performance

increased slightly (by two index points) on the

measures of sealed local roads (index score of

69) and customer service (index score of 74)

since 2017. The higher index score on the

measure of sealed local roads can be credited to a

significant increase in impressions among

residents of the Southern region (index score of

69, six points higher than 2017).

➢ Performance index scores declined significantly on

the core measures of consultation and

engagement (index score of 54, five points lower

than 2017), lobbying (53, six points lower), and

community decisions (53, seven points lower)

since 2017. Ratings on all three measures are at

their lowest levels to date.

➢ Ratings in each of the three aforementioned areas

declined significantly among residents under 50

years of age, women, and residents of the South

and Central regions. In the case of community

decisions, ratings also declined significantly

among residents of the North and men.

Council performs in line with the Metropolitan group on

most core measures with the exception of

consultation and engagement, lobbying, and

community decisions (measures that experienced

significant declines), where Council performs

significantly lower than group averages.

➢ Council’s performance on core measures are in

line with State-wide averages for councils, except

in the areas of overall performance, sealed local

roads, and customer service, where Council’s

performance is significantly higher than State-wide

averages.

Performance ratings are largely consistent across

geographic sub-groups within Kingston City Council

with one notable difference. Southern residents rate

Council customer service highest relative to other

groups (index score of 79), while Central residents

rate Council lowest (index score of 69).

12


Three in five (64%) Kingston City Council

residents have had recent contact with Council.

Residents of the Southern region (71%) are most likely

to have contacted Council in recent months. They also

rate Council highest for the quality of their customer

service interactions (index score of 79).

➢ The main method of contacting councils is by

telephone (35%), followed by in person (25%) and

email (21%) outreach. Email usage has more than

doubled since 2014 (now at 9%).

Customer service (index score of 74) is the highest

rated core performance measure and second highest

rated service area overall. Customer service ratings

increased slightly (by two index points) in the past year

but remain lower than 2014 peak ratings (index score

of 79).

➢ Three-quarters of residents (77%) rate Council’s

customer service as ‘very good’ or ‘good’

combined.

➢ Southern residents grew significantly more

favourable (10 points higher than 2017) in their

impressions of Council’s customer service in the

past year.

➢ Kingston City Council performs in line with the

Metropolitan group and significantly higher than

the State-wide average for councils (index score of

72 and 70 respectively) on the measure of

customer service.

Newsletters sent via email (32%) and mail (30%)

remain the preferred method for Council to inform

residents about news, information and upcoming

events among both residents under and over fifty

years of age. Demand for mailed newsletters is

trending down (declining eight percentage points

since 2016), while preferences for emailed

newsletters are trending up (increasing five

percentage points since 2016). For the first time,

preferences favour email over mailed newsletters.

➢ The popularity of text messages has increased

five-fold in the past two years (10% in 2018 from

2% in 2016), largely among residents under fifty

years of age (14%).

13


Waste management is the area where Kingston City

Council performs most strongly (index score of 75).

Performance in this area has remained stable over

time.

➢ Three-quarters of residents (76%) rate Council’s

performance in this service area as ‘very good’ or

‘good’.

➢ Ratings are relatively consistent across

demographic and geographic sub-groups on this

measure.

➢ Council performs in line with the Metropolitan

group and significantly higher than the State-wide

average for councils on this measure (index scores

of 75 and 70 respectively).

➢ Waste management is also considered the most

important Council responsibility evaluated

(importance index score of 84).

Another area where Kingston City Council is well

regarded is art centres and libraries. With a

performance index score of 75, this service area ranks

alongside waste management as the top performing

council service area. Council has been able to

maintain gains achieved between 2016 and 2017 in

this area.

➢ Seven in ten (69%) residents rate Council’s

performance for the appearance of public areas as

‘very good’ or ‘good’.

➢ Council performs in line with the Metropolitan

group and State-wide average for councils on this

measure (index scores of 75 and 74 respectively).

➢ Art centres and libraries, however, rate lower

compared to other service areas evaluated in

terms of perceived importance (importance index

score of 66).

14


While most service areas perform in line with average

ratings for the Metropolitan group, Council’s

performance index scores declined significantly in

eight areas in the past year, largely related to regional

planning (growth and development-related) and

community consultation. Declines occurred in the

areas of recreational facilities, appearance of public

areas, consultation and engagement, lobbying,

community decisions, town planning policy, population

growth, and planning and building permits.

➢ In fact, 13% of residents mention community

consultation, 13% mention inappropriate

development, and 12% mention traffic

management as the issues where Council needs

to improve.

➢ Nine in ten residents (89%) believe there is room

for improvement in Council’s performance,

including 43% who believe there is ‘a lot’ of room

for improvement.

The most significant declines in 2018 occurred in the

areas of community decisions (index score of 53,

seven points lower than 2017) and planning and

building permits (49, seven points lower). Council’s

performance index score for community decisions

declined significantly for the first time since 2014;

performance in this area was stable between 2014

and 2017.

➢ All demographic and geographic sub-groups

declined significantly in the past year in their

impressions of Council’s ability to make decisions

in the best interests of the community, with the

exception of residents aged 50+ years who

declined by only a few points in their impressions.

➢ Residents aged 18 to 34 years (index score of 61,

nine points lower than 2017) have significantly more

favourable impressions than the average, while

residents aged 35 to 49 years (index score of 46,

12 points lower) have significantly less favourable

impressions. Both groups, however, declined

significantly in their impressions of performance in

this area since 2017.

15


➢ Again, Council performs significantly lower than

the Metropolitan group but in line with the State-

wide average for councils (index scores of 58 and

54 respectively) on the measure of community

decisions.

➢ Community decisions is rated third highest in

terms of importance relative to other service areas

evaluated (importance index score of 78).

As a result of ratings declines, Council is currently

rated lowest for planning and building permits

(index score of 49) relative to other service areas and

is seen to be performing poorly in this service area.

➢ This is in line with the Metropolitan group but

significantly lower than the State-wide average

(performance index scores of 53 and 52

respectively).

➢ Lower ratings in this area can be attributed to

more critical ratings among residents aged 18 to

34 years (index score of 54, 14 points lower since

2017), residents in the North (53, nine points

lower), and women (46, 11 points lower).

➢ Residents aged 50 to 64 years (index score of

41) are significantly less favourable than the

average in their impressions of council

performance in this area.

➢ Almost equal numbers of residents describe

Council performance as ‘very good’ or ‘good’

(26%) as do ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ (24%). A further

31% describe performance as ‘average’ and 18%

‘can’t say’.

16


Two-thirds (66%) of residents believe Council is

generally headed in the right direction. Nonetheless,

for the coming 12 months, Kingston City Council

should pay particular attention to the service areas

where stated importance exceeds rated

performance by more than 10 points. Key priorities

include eight areas where the performance gap

exceeds 15 points:

➢ Population growth (margin of 27 points)

➢ Community decisions (margin of 26 points)

➢ Planning & building permits (margin of 25

points)

➢ Town planning policy (margin of 24 points)

➢ Consultation and engagement (margin of 21

points)

➢ Parking facilities (margin of 19 points)

➢ Traffic management (margin of 18 points)

➢ Informing the community (margin of 17 points).

Council should also give consideration to residents

aged 35 to 64 years who seem to be driving negative

opinions in 2018.

On the positive side, Council should maintain its

relatively strong performance in the areas of

customer service, waste management, and art

centres and libraries.

In planning for service improvements, it is important to

note that residents prefer service cuts to keep rates at

current levels (49%) to rate rises to improve services

(33%).

The shows the individual service areas which

regression analysis on pages 31-35 have the

strongest influence on the overall performance rating

are:

➢ Decisions made in the interest of the community

➢ Informing the community

Good communication, informing the community and

transparency with residents about decisions the

Council has made in the Kingston community’s interest

as well as improved traffic management and general

town planning could help drive up overall opinion of the

Council’s performance.

17


An approach we recommend is to further mine the

survey data to better understand the profile of these

over and under-performing demographic groups. This

can be achieved via additional consultation and data

interrogation, self-mining the SPSS data provided, or

via the dashboard portal available to the council.

Please note that the category descriptions for the

coded open ended responses are generic summaries

only. We recommend further analysis of the detailed

cross tabulations and the actual verbatim responses,

with a view to understanding the responses of the key

gender and age groups, especially any target groups

identified as requiring attention.

A personal briefing by senior JWS Research

representatives is also available to assist in

providing both explanation and interpretation of

the results. Please contact JWS Research on 03

8685 8555.

18


Higher results in 2018(Significantly higher result than 2017) • No significant change

Lower results in 2018(Significantly lower result than 2017)

• Consultation and

engagement

• Lobbying

• Recreational facilities

• Appearance of public

areas

• Community decisions

• Town planning policy

• Population growth

• Planning and building

permits

Most favourably disposed

towards Council • Aged 18-34 years

Least favourably disposed

towards Council• Aged 35-49 years

• Aged 50-64 years

20


6567

69 6866 66

64

6058

60 60

55

59

5455

59 60 59

55

59

53

6058 58

60

53

68 68 67 6769

74 73

79

74 7472

74

5457 57 58

54 55

52

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Sealed

Local

Roads

Community

Consultation

Customer

ServiceOverall

Council

Direction

Overall

PerformanceAdvocacy Making

Community

Decisions

21


Performance MeasuresKingston

2018

Kingston

2017

Metro

2018

State-

wide

2018

Highest

score

Lowest

score

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 64 66 65 59Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years,

Aged 35-

49 years

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION(Community consultation and

engagement)

54 59 57 55Aged 65+

years

Aged 35-

49 years

ADVOCACY(Lobbying on behalf of the community)

53 59 56 54Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 50-

64 years

MAKING COMMUNITY

DECISIONS (Decisions made in the

interest of the community)

53 60 58 54Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 35-

49 years

SEALED LOCAL ROADS (Condition of sealed local roads)

69 67 68 53Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 65+

years

CUSTOMER SERVICE 74 72 72 70 South Central

OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION 52 55 54 52Aged 18-

34 years

Aged 35-

49 years

22


10

9

3

6

22

33

49

28

26

28

43

44

28

32

31

31

23

9

7

16

11

13

9

4

4

7

5

9

2

6

1

8

25

13

1

3

Overall Performance

Community Consultation

Advocacy

Making CommunityDecisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

% Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

Key Measures Summary Results

17 65 14 4Overall Council Direction

%Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

23


86

71

17

81

68

16

Parking facilities


Town planning policy

Total household use

Personal use

%

Experience of Services

Q4. In the last 12 months, have you or has any member of your household used or experienced any of the following services provided by Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Councils asked group: 5

24


77

78

74

74

75

74

75

76

67

75

80

74

Population growth

Community decisions



Consultation & engagement

Parking facilities

Traffic management

Informing the community

Lobbying

Disadvantaged support serv.

Elderly support services

Environmental sustainability

50

53

49

50

54

55

58

59

53

62

67

63

Importance Performance Net Differential

Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more,

suggesting further investigation is necessary:

-27

-26

-25

-24

-21

-19

-18

-17

-14

-13

-12

-11

25


83

79

81

77

79

78

78

77

78

74

73

73

74

76

74

72

75

74

74

70

66

65

62

61

81

77

79

72

77

74

78

76

74

72

74

71

75

72

75

72

73

71

68

66

65

64

62

59

81

80

82

74

77

75

76

76

74

71

75

72

76

73

75

72

73

71

72

68

66

62

62

58

79

79

78

70

76

74

76

73

73

69

75

70

75

71

74

70

71

70

70

66

65

63

60

59

81

79

n/a

69

76

74

77

n/a

74

70

72

69

74

69

74

71

74

72

73

67

66

65

62

60

80

n/a

n/a

73

77

75

77

n/a

75

73

n/a

71

n/a

74

71

71

74

72

71

69

n/a

65

n/a

59

2018 Priority Area Importance

84

80

78

77

76

76

76

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

74

74

72

72

71

67

66

62

60

58

Waste management


Community decisions

Population growth

Emergency & disaster mngt


Local streets & footpaths

Sealed local roads

Traffic management




Family support services



Parking facilities

Appearance of public areas


Enforcement of local laws

Lobbying

Art centres & libraries

Slashing & weed control

Community & cultural

Bus/community dev./tourism

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 10Note: Please see page 6 for explanation of significant differences.

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

26


46

39

38

30

32

35

32

42

30

40

30

23

33

31

34

24

28

30

28

22

17

12

10

12

44

42

39

45

43

38

40

31

42

31

41

47

36

39

34

44

40

38

38

38

40

36

34

28

10

16

18

22

20

21

23

19

23

20

23

26

22

26

26

26

26

25

26

28

33

43

45

42

1

1

1

2

2

5

3

5

4

5

5

3

5

3

4

4

2

3

5

8

8

7

8

15

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

3

2

1

3

3

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

4

2

2

1

1

1

Waste management


Community decisions


Sealed local roads


Traffic management

Population growth






Parking facilities






Lobbying





%

Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say

Individual Service Areas Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 10

27


2018 Priority Area Performance

76

74

76

75

72

67

69

70

68

68

66

65

62

64

61

60

56

57

59

59

60

56

54

56

76

72

71

73

69

67

66

68

66

68

63

64

65

62

59

59

56

57

55

55

58

52

48

47

77

77

75

74

74

68

71

69

69

69

68

67

65

64

62

61

64

60

60

59

58

57

58

56

77

76

74

74

72

68

72

69

71

68

65

67

63

64

63

61

63

61

60

60

60

58

58

55

73

75

74

73

71

n/a

68

68

69

65

65

64

67

64

63

60

62

59

58

59

n/a

58

58

60

74

n/a

73

73

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

66

66

66

64

n/a

63

58

57

60

60

55

n/a

59

54

57

75

75

73

72

72

69

69

68

67

67

67

65

63

62

59

58

58

55

54

53

53

50

50

49

Waste management





Sealed local roads











Traffic management

Parking facilities


Lobbying

Community decisions


Population growth


2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation of significant differences.

28


Individual Service Areas Performance

28

21

22

24

20

22

18

16

12

9

10

8

5

11

11

11

9

4

6

7

3

4

4

3

48

53

48

45

46

43

44

45

38

40

38

39

39

33

32

26

28

32

28

24

26

22

21

20

19

21

19

19

24

23

27

29

26

31

29

31

32

22

20

21

32

32

31

25

31

31

35

35

2

4

5

3

4

9

9

7

7

13

15

7

16

2

4

4

16

10

13

6

11

15

17

16

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

5

6

2

7

1

7

2

9

1

5

9

6

5

2

5

9

7

1

2

15

2

2

14

1

31

33

36

8

20

13

37

25

18

17

21

Waste management





Sealed local roads





Traffic management


Parking facilities






Community decisions


Lobbying


Population growth

Town planning policy%

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14

29


Significantly Higher than

State-wide Average

Significantly Lower than

State-wide Average

• Local streets & footpaths

• Recreational facilities

• Community & cultural

• Waste management

• Slashing & weed control

• Sealed local roads


• Planning permits

30


Significantly Higher than

Group Average

Significantly Lower than

Group Average

• Local streets & footpaths • Consultation & engagement

• Lobbying


• Making community

decisions

31


Top Three Most Important Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = most important)

Kingston City Council

1. Waste

management

2. Elderly support

services

3. Community

decisions

Metropolitan

1. Waste

management

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Community

decisions

Interface

1. Traffic

management

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Waste

management

Regional Centres

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Sealed roads

3. Community

decisions

Large Rural

1. Sealed roads

2. Unsealed roads

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Small Rural

1. Emergency &

disaster mngt

2. Waste

management

3. Community

decisions

Bottom Three Least Important Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = least important)


1. Bus/community

dev./tourism

2. Community &

cultural

3. Slashing & weed

control

Metropolitan

1. Bus/community

dev./tourism

2. Community &

cultural

3. Slashing & weed

control

Interface

1. Tourism

development

2. Community &

cultural

3. Bus/community

dev./tourism

Regional Centres

1. Community &

cultural

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Lobbying

Large Rural

1. Community &

cultural

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Traffic

management

Small Rural

1. Community &

cultural

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Tourism

development

32


Top Three Performing Service Areas(Highest to lowest, i.e. 1. = highest performance)


1. Waste

management

2. Art centres &

libraries

3. Recreational

facilities

Metropolitan

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Waste

management

3. Recreational

facilities

Interface

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Recreational

facilities

Regional Centres

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Appearance of

public areas

3. Emergency &

disaster mngt

Large Rural

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Appearance of

public areas

Small Rural

1. Art centres &

libraries

2. Emergency &

disaster mngt

3. Appearance of

public areas

Bottom Three Performing Service Areas (Lowest to highest, i.e. 1. = lowest performance)


1. Planning permits

2. Population growth

3. Town planning

policy

Metropolitan


2. Planning permits

3. Town planning

policy

Interface

1. Unsealed roads


3. Traffic

management

Regional Centres

1. Parking facilities

2. Community

decisions

3. Unsealed roads

Large Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads

3. Planning permits

Small Rural

1. Unsealed roads

2. Sealed roads


33


To predict a respondent’s score on a question related

to overall performance, based on knowledge of their

performance scores for individual areas, we use

regression analysis. For example, suppose we are

interested in predicting which areas of local

government responsibility could influence a person’s

opinion on overall council performance. The

independent variables would be areas of responsibility

tested (e.g. community consultation, traffic

management, etc.) and the dependent variable would

be overall performance.

The stronger the correlation between the dependent

variable (overall opinion) and individual areas of

responsibility, the closer the scores will fall to the

regression line and the more accurate the prediction.

Multiple regression can predict one variable on the

basis of several other variables. Therefore, we can test

perceptions of council’s overall performance to

investigate which set of areas are influencing

respondents' opinions.

In the chart of the regression results, the horizontal

axis represents the council performance index for each

area of responsibility. Areas plotted on the right-side

have a higher performance index than those on the

left.

The vertical axis represents the Standardised Beta

Coefficient from the multiple regression performed.

This measures the contribution of each variable (i.e.

each area) to the model, with a larger Beta value

indicating a greater effect on overall performance.

Therefore areas of responsibility located near the top

of the following chart are more likely to have an impact

on respondent’s overall rating, than the areas closest

to the axis.

The regressions are shown on the following three

charts. The first chart shows a regression analysis of

all the service areas chosen by the Council. However,

this model should be interpreted with caution because

some of the data are not normally distributed and not

all items have linear correlations.

Therefore, in the charts that follow, a significant

regression model of fewer items with a Standardised

Beta score close to or higher than ±0.1 was run to

determine the key predictors that have a moderate to

strong influence on overall performance perceptions.

The third chart is an enlarged version of the second

chart, with key findings highlighted.

The results are then discussed according to the

findings of these key service areas. Some findings

from the full regression list may be included in the

discussion if they are of interest.

34


The multiple regression analysis model of all question items above has an R-squared value of 0.581 and adjusted R-square value of 0.554, which means that 58% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 21.67. However, this model should be interpreted with caution because not all service areas had linear correlations. We recommend you use the regression model of reduced factors as follows.

35


The performance questions were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine the key factors or ‘themes’ to emerge from the questions. Questions with reasonable linearity and low correlations were selected from each theme and a multiple regression model was performed on these seven items against the overall performance ratings of 400 responses. The multiple regression analysis model above has an R-squared value of 0.579 and adjusted R-square value of 0.569, which means that 58% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 59.64.

36


The performance questions were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine the key factors or ‘themes’ to emerge from the questions. Questions with reasonable linearity and low correlations were selected from each theme and a multiple regression model was performed on these seven items against the overall performance ratings of 400 responses. The multiple regression analysis model above has an R-squared value of 0.579 and adjusted R-square value of 0.569, which means that 58% of the variance in community perceptions of overall performance can be predicted from these variables. The overall model effect was statistically significant at p = 0.0001, F = 59.64.

37


The individual service areas which have the strongest

influence on the overall performance rating are:


➢ Informing the community

Other key areas with a positive influence on overall

performance include:

➢ The appearance of public areas

➢ The condition of sealed local roads (excluding

VicRoads highways and roads)

➢ The condition of local streets and footpaths in your

area

Looking specifically at the key service areas, the

appearance of public areas has the strongest positive

performance index and a strong positive influence on

the overall performance rating. Currently, Kingston City

Council is performing very well in this area

(performance index of 72) and, while it should remain

a focus, there is greater work to be done elsewhere.

Art centres and libraries also have a high performance

rating (75), but this service area has a negligible

influence on the overall performance rating.

Kingston City Council’s decisions made in the

community’s interest, how well it informs the

community and traffic management have lower

(though still positive) performance ratings overall.

Continuing efforts in these areas has the capacity to lift

Kingston City Council’s overall performance rating

because of their strong influence on the overall

performance perceptions. (These areas have

performance indices of 53-58).

Council's general town planning has the lowest

performance rating (50), and is an area which could

have a strong influence on overall performance

perceptions if attended to.

Population growth as well as planning and building

permits also have low performance indices (50 and

48), but these areas have a weak influence on overall

performance perceptions.

Good communication, informing the community and

transparency with residents about decisions the

Council has made in the Kingston community’s interest

as well as improved traffic management and general

town planning could help drive up overall opinion of the

Council’s performance.

38


13

13

12

9

8

5

5

5

5

6

Community Consultation

Development - Inappropriate

Traffic Management

Parking Availability

Communication

Sealed Road Maintenance

Waste Management

Environmental Issues

Decision Making Processes

Nothing

2018 Areas for Improvement

%

Q17. What does Kingston City Council MOST need to do to improve its performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 9

39


Areas for

Improvement

• Community Consultation: 13% (up 7 points from 2017)

• Development - Inappropriate: 13% (equal points on 2017)

• Traffic Management: 12% (up 1 point from 2017)

42


2018 Overall Performance

71

67

65

65

64

64

63

63

62

59

59

59

18-34

North

Metro

Women

65+

Kingston

South

Men

Central

35-49

50-64

State-wide

72

67

64

67

63

66

67

66

65

67

61

59

68

68

66

70

66

66

63

62

68

66

63

59

67

69

67

69

71

68

73

68

63

67

68

60

74

65

n/a

70

69

69

73

68

70

67

66

61

68

66

n/a

69

73

67

68

64

65

62

66

60

68

64

n/a

66

68

65

68

65

64

63

62

60

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Kingston City Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

43


10

12

15

18

17

13

11

9

12

14

8

10

9

11

10

9

11

12

49

49

47

46

52

50

48

37

48

51

50

47

50

49

69

43

39

43

28

30

30

27

22

28

33

36

29

24

29

31

27

30

20

30

28

37

7

7

5

5

5

5

4

11

7

7

7

7

8

7

12

14

5

4

1

4

2

3

3

3

5

3

3

5

4

5

3

2

6

5

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Overall Performance

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of Kingston City Council, not just on one or two issues, BUT OVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14

45


Overall contact with

Kingston City Council• 64%, up 2 points on 2017

Most contact with Kingston

City Council• South residents

Least contact with Kingston

City Council• Aged 18-34 years

Customer service rating • Index score of 74, up 2 points on 2017

Most satisfied with customer

service• South residents

Least satisfied with

customer service• Central residents

46


2018 Contact with Council

%

71

70

67

67

64

64

63

62

60

60

59

57

South

50-64

Women

35-49

Kingston

Metro

State-wide

65+

Central

Men

North

18-34

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Kingston City Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

47


2018 Contact with Council

6462

5961

56

6264

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Have had contact

%

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Kingston City Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6

48


2018 Method of Contact

36 3634 33

3537

35

29

25 24 2422

24 25

11

16

911

13

17

21

15

1816 15 14

111313 13

10 9 10 11

15

2 3 24 5

35

1 1 1 2 2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

%

By

Email

By Text

MessageBy Social

Media

In

WritingVia

Website

In

Person

By

Telephone

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Kingston City Council in any of the following ways?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%

49


2018 Most Recent Contact

44

41

45

40

4442

37

30

21

24

27

24 25

22

810

8 9 8

14

17

10

15 16 15

8 9 9

68

5 6

9 8

10

1 2 2 35

2

5

1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

%

By

Email

By Text

MessageBy Social

Media

In

WritingVia

Website

In

Person

By

Telephone

Q5b. What was the method of contact for the most recent contact you had with Kingston City Council?Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%

50


2018 Customer Service Rating

79

76

76

74

74

74

74

73

72

71

70

69

South

Women

65+

18-34

50-64

Kingston

North

35-49

Metro

Men

State-wide

Central

69

75

73

75

67

72

76

73

71

68

69

72

76

81

80

70

77

74

73

71

73

67

69

74

79

74

80

73

73

74

74

72

73

75

70

68

81

82

80

87

75

79

76

75

n/a

74

72

78

71

74

80

64

77

73

73

74

n/a

73

71

76

77

76

76

75

69

74

70

76

n/a

73

71

76

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Kingston City Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

51


33

34

35

39

43

32

35

31

33

23

26

45

26

38

20

36

39

36

44

37

41

36

35

40

37

36

38

51

49

36

48

41

53

45

32

45

9

17

12

12

12

16

17

18

16

6

10

11

10

9

13

3

16

8

4

4

5

8

4

5

6

8

6

2

4

6

4

4

5

4

9

6

7

5

5

3

4

3

6

5

5

11

2

7

5

3

11

6

2

3

1

2

1

3

3

2

1

2

12

4

2

10

3

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Kingston City Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14

52


79*

77

77

70

67*

65*

63*

Via website

In person

By telephone

By email

By social media

By text message

In writing

68

75

73

66

79

-

72

85

80

72

69

62

-

68

84

78

75

80

59

-

62

73

82

79

75

86

-

75

68

75

75

66

78

75

65

71

76

74

74

82

49

75


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Kingston City Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.*Caution: small sample size < n=30

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

53



28

47

36

26

14

16

52

35

44

51

49

59

46

12

7

8

10

17

41

9

2

4

5

14

11

9

5

9

10

8

3

6

9

Via website*

In person

By telephone

By email

By social media*

By text message*

In writing*


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Kingston City Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual outcome but rather the actual service that was received. Base: All respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6*Caution: small sample size < n=30

55


Council direction

Most satisfied with council direction

Least satisfied with council direction

• 65% stayed about the same, down 4 points on 2017

• 17% improved, down 1 point on 2017

• 14% deteriorated, up 6 points on 2017



Improvement• 43% a lot of room for improvement

• 46% little room for improvement

• 7% not much room for improvement

Direction headed• 66% right direction (21% definitely and 45% probably)

• 23% wrong direction (13% probably and 10% definitely)

Rates vs services trade-off • 32% prefer rate rise, down 2 points on 2017

• 49% prefer service cuts, up 2 points on 2017

56


2018 Overall Direction

60

56

54

53

53

52

52

52

51

47

47

45

18-34

North

Metro

65+

South

Men

State-wide

Kingston

Women

Central

50-64

35-49

62

57

54

53

58

56

53

55

55

51

50

55

59

58

55

51

52

54

51

54

55

54

53

55

68

62

56

56

63

58

53

58

58

48

58

50

69

56

n/a

57

60

55

53

57

59

55

50

50

56

60

n/a

62

58

56

53

57

58

52

57

55

55

53

n/a

56

57

51

52

54

56

51

53

51

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Kingston City Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

57


17

18

19

23

22

23

18

19

19

23

13

17

20

14

25

10

13

20

65

69

62

64

65

63

66

60

64

65

63

66

61

68

64

69

63

61

14

8

11

8

8

10

11

15

11

11

18

12

16

13

6

19

19

15

4

6

8

4

5

4

5

5

6

1

5

5

3

5

6

2

4

5

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

2018 Overall Direction

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Kingston City Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14

58


43

39

37

41

39

38

44

36

32

51

42

40

45

33

43

49

49

46

48

51

48

53

52

45

51

56

40

46

47

46

56

48

37

42

7

7

6

8

4

7

7

7

7

6

8

8

6

6

8

9

5

2

1

3

1

2

2

2

4

2

3

1

4

2

1

2

4

3

1

3

3

3

3

1

3

1

2

2

2

1

3

3

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

% A lot A little Not much Not at all Can't say

2018 Room for Improvement

Q7. Thinking about the next 12 months, how much room for improvement do you think there is in Kingston City Council’s overall performance?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 4 Councils asked group: 2

59


21

22

24

25

29

24

17

20

24

16

25

25

17

27

18

22

17

45

53

49

53

51

53

47

47

52

44

41

46

44

52

44

37

45

13

7

7

6

5

7

14

11

10

16

13

10

17

14

13

14

13

10

7

9

8

7

9

11

9

7

12

10

12

9

2

13

16

11

11

12

11

8

9

7

11

13

8

12

12

7

14

6

11

12

15

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong direction Definitely wrong direction Can't say

2018 Future Direction

Q8. Would you say your local Council is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9 Councils asked group: 3

60


9

8

14

11

14

12

10

9

10

6

11

8

11

7

9

11

6

7

24

26

23

28

28

26

23

23

23

24

22

25

29

18

30

24

17

22

24

25

19

18

21

18

25

24

25

23

22

27

22

26

27

22

26

22

25

22

24

27

22

26

25

24

23

26

23

25

24

25

22

21

28

29

19

19

20

15

15

18

17

19

19

20

22

15

14

23

12

23

23

19

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%

Definitely prefer rate rise Probably prefer rate rise Probably prefer service cuts Definitely prefer service cuts Can't say

2018 Rate Rise v Service Cut

Q10. If you had to choose, would you prefer to see council rate rises to improve local services OR would you prefer to see cuts in council services to keep council rates at the same level as they are now?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 4

62


Note: Website and text message formats again did not rate as highly as other modes of communication, although

further analysis is recommended to understand the demographic preference profiles of the various different forms of

communication.

Greatest change since

2017 • Newsletter sent via mail (-4)

Overall preferred forms of

communication

Preferred forms of

communication among

over 50s

Preferred forms of

communication among

under 50s

• Newsletter sent via email (32%)



63


38

34

30

27

3132

15

1210

910 10

2

6

10

21

45

64

1 1 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2018 Best Form

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Text

Message

Council

Newsletter as

Local Paper

Insert

Advertising

in a Local

Newspaper

Can’t

Say

?Other

%

Council

Website

Q13. If Kingston City Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 6

64


2018 Under 50s Best Form

37

35

3031

3031

13

8 87 7

8

2

8

14

21

56

9

5

1 1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

%

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Text

Message

Council

Newsletter as

Local Paper

Insert

Advertising

in a Local

Newspaper

?Council

WebsiteCan’t

Say

Other

Q13. If Kingston City Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 6

65


2018 Over 50s Best Form

40

34

31

23

3132

1816

1311

1413

2 2

5

21

32 2

12

1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

%

Council

Newsletter as

Local Paper

Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Text

Message

Advertising

in a Local

Newspaper

?Council

WebsiteCan’t

Say

Other

Q13. If Kingston City Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 6

67


2018 Consultation and Engagement Importance

79

78

77

76

75

75

74

74

73

72

72

69

50-64

65+

Women

South

Central

Kingston

35-49

State-wide

North

Men

Metro

18-34

77

79

77

73

74

74

75

74

76

71

72

67

76

72

73

70

73

72

73

75

72

70

73

68

79

73

74

73

69

71

67

74

70

67

72

67

73

71

71

69

67

69

70

74

71

68

n/a

64

74

74

70

72

68

70

71

73

69

70

n/a

63

75

74

73

70

74

73

75

73

74

72

n/a

67

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

68


34

32

26

23

20

22

26

30

26

29

36

35

29

38

29

32

41

36

34

37

40

44

44

44

42

40

41

40

30

34

35

33

23

38

37

41

26

23

28

24

29

27

28

24

27

24

25

28

27

25

38

23

21

19

4

6

4

8

6

5

2

4

5

3

6

2

6

1

4

6

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

4

1

2

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

%Extremely important Very important Fairly important Not that important Not at all important Can't say

2018 Consultation and Engagement Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 6

69


2018 Consultation and Engagement Performance

57

57

57

56

56

55

55

54

54

52

51

47

65+

Metro

18-34

North

Women

South

State-wide

50-64

Kingston

Men

Central

35-49

56

57

68

62

62

59

55

51

59

56

57

58

56

58

52

58

58

52

54

55

55

52

56

57

60

58

61

62

61

63

56

61

60

59

54

57

57

n/a

65

61

61

61

57

62

60

59

59

58

63

n/a

58

59

60

59

57

57

58

57

56

57

59

n/a

64

61

61

62

57

56

60

59

57

58

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

70


9

8

7

9

9

7

10

8

9

8

6

12

6

11

10

4

12

10

28

34

27

36

37

34

34

30

29

29

25

29

28

27

28

28

27

27

32

34

38

30

31

33

36

32

32

38

35

23

35

29

36

25

30

36

16

11

13

10

11

9

12

15

13

14

16

18

17

16

18

19

15

13

7

3

4

4

3

5

2

7

5

4

9

9

8

7

2

15

10

3

8

11

12

11

9

11

7

9

11

7

9

9

5

11

6

9

7

10

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Consultation and Engagement Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14

71


2018 Lobbying Importance

71

69

68

68

67

67

67

67

67

66

66

64

Women

65+

State-wide

South

North

Kingston

50-64

Central

35-49

18-34

Metro

Men

72

68

69

70

67

70

72

71

69

69

67

66

68

65

69

64

67

66

69

67

67

64

68

64

71

65

69

69

72

68

74

64

66

69

67

65

69

62

70

64

72

66

70

63

66

67

n/a

63

71

66

70

68

66

67

71

65

65

63

n/a

62

72

66

70

69

69

69

71

70

73

66

n/a

66

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

72


22

24

17

24

19

21

20

23

21

19

22

25

18

26

18

24

23

24

38

38

39

36

40

39

44

37

36

43

36

35

31

43

40

33

38

40

28

26

34

28

29

25

25

27

29

26

29

28

35

20

30

29

25

25

8

8

6

8

6

10

8

8

9

6

7

10

9

6

7

8

7

8

3

2

2

2

4

3

1

2

3

3

3

2

3

3

2

3

5

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

3

3

3

1

4

2

2

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Lobbying Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 7

73


2018 Lobbying Performance

58

57

56

56

54

54

53

53

53

52

50

49

18-34

North

Metro

65+

Women

State-wide

Kingston

Men

South

Central

35-49

50-64

70

60

56

56

62

54

59

57

59

59

57

53

54

59

56

58

57

53

55

53

53

53

56

51

60

57

58

63

61

55

59

57

64

54

55

60

67

57

n/a

57

61

56

60

58

64

56

53

59

58

60

n/a

63

59

55

59

59

59

56

60

58

58

56

n/a

57

55

55

55

55

52

56

51

54

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

74


3

6

4

10

6

6

6

5

5

2

2

4

3

2

1

5

5

26

27

19

27

29

30

23

24

24

30

29

20

27

25

38

23

15

24

31

27

35

28

27

30

34

32

31

27

27

38

35

27

27

36

33

29

11

7

9

11

9

10

14

13

10

11

11

11

11

11

6

12

15

13

5

3

2

4

3

2

3

5

4

1

8

4

6

4

4

7

7

1

25

30

30

20

26

22

21

20

26

28

24

23

18

31

25

22

24

27

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Lobbying Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14

75


2018 Community Decisions Made Importance

81

80

79

79

79

79

79

78

78

77

77

75

Women

State-wide

Metro

South

65+

18-34

Central

Kingston

35-49

50-64

North

Men

82

79

79

81

80

82

81

81

80

79

81

79

78

80

79

80

77

81

80

79

78

78

76

79

84

80

80

82

80

86

80

82

79

84

85

80

79

79

n/a

75

78

80

79

78

75

80

81

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

76


38

41

36

43

34

39

38

29

42

41

32

44

39

40

37

36

39

41

45

42

46

42

42

50

33

38

42

37

36

38

38

46

18

13

14

12

15

15

16

20

17

18

19

17

23

16

17

15

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

3

3

1

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

3

2

1

2

1

4

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Community Decisions Made Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Councils asked group: 6

77


2018 Community Decisions Made Performance

61

58

56

56

55

54

53

53

50

50

48

46

18-34

Metro

North

Women

65+

State-wide

South

Kingston

Central

Men

50-64

35-49

70

58

64

62

59

54

60

60

58

59

52

58

61

59

62

59

60

54

55

58

59

58

55

58

57

59

58

59

59

55

62

58

54

57

60

58

63

n/a

57

63

61

57

63

60

60

58

58

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

78


6

9

6

9

6

6

8

3

5

9

5

6

14

1

4

4

28

31

35

31

37

30

32

33

27

26

26

30

35

27

23

27

31

33

30

35

32

34

32

29

27

37

33

29

23

30

33

40

13

11

7

10

9

14

10

13

15

12

14

13

10

14

17

13

9

2

6

5

2

7

5

3

11

10

12

6

7

14

11

2

13

14

16

10

13

9

13

19

15

7

10

16

12

14

12

14

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Community Decisions Made Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14

79


2018 Sealed Local Roads Importance

80

79

78

77

76

76

76

76

75

75

75

71

State-wide

65+

Metro

50-64

South

35-49

Women

Kingston

North

Men

Central

18-34

78

81

77

76

77

82

77

77

75

77

79

68

78

77

76

76

76

78

77

76

72

75

80

73

76

76

75

76

77

75

79

76

74

73

75

76

77

77

n/a

74

70

75

74

73

73

71

76

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

80


32

30

29

31

28

38

33

29

29

38

29

35

25

32

35

37

43

51

51

46

42

44

46

46

47

37

46

40

44

42

42

44

20

16

15

16

24

15

18

18

20

22

21

19

21

23

20

16

2

3

3

5

4

2

2

2

4

1

2

3

4

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

3

1

2

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Sealed Local Roads Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 7

81


2018 Sealed Local Roads Performance

74

70

70

69

69

69

68

68

68

67

66

53

18-34

Men

North

South

Kingston

50-64

Central

Women

Metro

35-49

65+

State-wide

70

67

69

63

67

66

71

67

66

65

69

53

69

66

68

66

67

67

68

68

67

64

68

54

69

70

71

66

68

69

68

67

69

67

69

55

77

69

67

71

68

66

66

67

n/a

63

66

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

82


22

18

18

19

20

11

20

21

20

26

25

20

30

20

23

14

43

45

47

45

48

31

44

45

46

39

41

45

40

43

44

45

23

26

24

25

20

28

23

24

24

20

24

22

19

23

19

30

9

9

7

6

7

17

8

6

8

12

8

10

8

8

12

8

2

2

4

3

4

12

4

2

2

2

2

2

4

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Sealed Local Roads Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14

83


2018 Informing Community Importance

80

79

78

76

75

75

75

75

74

73

73

73

18-34

Women

South

Kingston

North

65+

State-wide

Central

50-64

Metro

35-49

Men

75

78

77

78

79

80

74

77

79

73

77

77

78

76

70

74

76

73

76

75

75

74

68

71

79

78

76

75

75

73

75

73

78

73

71

72

72

76

73

74

75

76

75

73

76

n/a

72

71

71

77

74

74

74

76

75

72

75

n/a

73

70

74

78

77

75

75

76

75

73

76

n/a

74

72

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

84


35

35

29

32

25

25

32

32

29

28

34

42

31

39

46

29

33

31

38

44

43

42

48

48

41

41

41

46

39

33

36

40

31

41

39

44

21

18

22

22

23

23

21

22

24

26

19

19

25

17

21

24

21

17

5

3

4

3

3

3

4

4

5

7

6

7

3

2

7

5

6

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Informing Community Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8

85


2018 Informing Community Performance

61

61

60

60

60

59

59

59

59

58

57

55

South

Metro

50-64

65+

18-34

State-wide

Men

Kingston

Women

North

Central

35-49

59

61

54

60

67

59

61

61

61

63

62

61

55

63

57

61

61

59

56

59

61

61

61

56

66

64

65

66

56

61

61

62

62

59

58

62

65

n/a

62

64

65

62

60

63

67

61

63

62

63

n/a

63

69

61

61

61

63

65

61

64

62

66

n/a

58

64

66

60

64

63

62

60

62

62

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

86


9

12

9

14

14

12

16

11

12

8

6

12

9

9

10

4

13

9

40

36

37

37

43

39

37

36

37

42

38

39

42

38

44

38

39

37

31

34

33

32

26

34

31

31

31

26

34

32

30

32

27

38

25

33

13

8

13

11

12

11

13

13

12

16

15

10

11

15

16

12

13

13

5

5

4

4

3

1

2

5

4

5

4

5

6

3

4

7

6

2

2

5

5

2

2

3

2

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

4

5

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Informing Community Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Councils asked group: 9

87


2018 Streets and Footpaths Importance

79

79

78

78

78

76

76

76

76

75

73

70

65+

Metro

Women

50-64

State-wide

35-49

North

Central

Kingston

South

Men

18-34

81

78

80

80

77

80

77

78

78

79

75

72

76

78

80

79

77

77

76

79

78

78

75

79

78

77

80

80

77

74

72

77

76

78

71

73

79

n/a

79

76

77

78

81

75

76

74

73

74

79

n/a

79

79

78

81

78

75

77

79

75

72

79

n/a

79

79

77

79

77

78

77

77

75

72

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

88


30

34

34

30

30

33

29

35

36

31

30

29

23

37

23

29

33

37

45

43

45

47

49

46

52

43

44

44

46

45

49

41

40

49

47

44

22

21

19

19

17

19

18

18

17

24

22

21

24

20

31

20

18

18

2

1

1

3

2

2

1

3

2

1

2

2

2

1

4

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Streets and Footpaths Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 6

89


2018 Streets and Footpaths Performance

70

68

68

68

67

67

66

66

65

64

61

58

18-34

35-49

Central

Men

50-64

Kingston

South

Women

North

Metro

65+

State-wide

72

65

67

68

61

66

63

64

67

62

64

57

64

60

63

61

63

63

60

64

67

63

66

57

71

70

67

68

63

68

69

67

67

64

66

58

71

64

64

67

63

65

68

64

63

n/a

62

58

71

63

66

66

61

65

64

64

65

n/a

66

58

69

66

67

69

61

66

67

63

62

n/a

67

57

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

90


18

16

14

21

17

19

16

14

18

15

20

18

21

15

22

16

21

12

44

45

44

42

41

42

43

34

39

46

45

42

42

46

43

51

40

41

27

28

26

25

30

23

29

28

26

28

23

30

26

28

28

24

28

28

9

9

9

9

9

13

11

14

11

9

10

9

9

9

7

8

9

13

2

2

6

2

3

3

1

7

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

5

2

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Streets and Footpaths Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 7

91


2018 Traffic Management Importance

78

77

77

76

76

75

75

75

74

73

73

72

65+

35-49

Women

Metro

North

Kingston

South

Central

State-wide

Men

18-34

50-64

78

78

79

76

80

78

78

76

72

77

77

76

77

73

78

75

74

74

73

77

72

71

74

74

77

72

76

74

74

74

74

72

71

71

72

74

74

67

76

n/a

77

73

68

75

70

69

77

73

77

74

76

n/a

74

74

73

74

72

72

69

76

76

75

79

n/a

71

75

76

77

73

71

72

77

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

92


32

36

30

28

24

25

32

31

34

33

31

33

27

37

27

31

32

40

40

43

45

45

49

49

43

40

42

42

42

37

44

37

42

46

33

37

23

15

17

22

21

19

19

22

20

19

22

26

22

23

27

21

23

18

3

4

5

5

4

4

4

5

3

3

3

2

4

2

1

7

4

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Traffic Management Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 6

93


2018 Traffic Management Performance

66

64

60

58

57

57

56

55

55

55

55

52

18-34

North

Women

Kingston

Metro

State-wide

65+

Central

South

Men

35-49

50-64

61

54

57

56

56

59

57

58

55

55

53

51

53

58

57

56

56

59

57

53

57

55

61

53

71

65

62

64

57

60

64

59

67

66

58

62

68

62

65

63

n/a

60

61

63

64

61

61

59

63

65

62

62

n/a

60

60

61

60

61

63

60

60

59

57

57

n/a

58

58

52

59

56

54

54

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

94


10

8

10

14

13

12

7

10

10

15

8

8

7

13

16

6

11

8

38

38

35

45

45

41

36

36

37

43

37

34

37

38

52

36

25

33

29

29

28

24

23

30

34

30

29

24

29

34

29

29

15

32

34

37

15

16

15

11

13

12

16

15

15

11

17

16

17

13

13

20

14

13

6

8

8

4

4

3

4

7

7

5

7

7

7

5

4

4

13

6

2

2

4

3

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Traffic Management Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Councils asked group: 6

95


2018 Parking Importance

78

76

75

74

74

73

73

73

73

73

71

71

71

71

65+

Women

Central

South

Kingston

Metro

Household user

35-49

50-64

Personal user

18-34

State-wide

North

Men

77

75

73

72

72

73

n/a

73

74

n/a

66

70

71

69

75

76

72

73

72

72

n/a

74

75

n/a

66

70

72

69

75

74

71

73

72

72

n/a

72

69

n/a

72

70

71

69

75

72

72

70

70

n/a

n/a

70

68

n/a

68

70

69

68

77

74

70

72

71

n/a

n/a

72

73

n/a

64

71

69

67

73

72

70

72

71

n/a

n/a

70

72

n/a

69

71

71

69

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

96


31

26

25

27

24

22

21

27

29

23

32

35

26

35

31

25

31

38

30

31

39

42

44

39

41

45

46

39

40

47

41

30

38

39

34

44

36

40

38

38

26

27

25

30

28

27

26

27

25

23

23

30

31

21

27

31

28

17

27

26

3

5

4

4

6

6

4

6

4

5

1

3

3

2

4

1

3

4

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

4

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Parking Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Councils asked group: 7

97


2018 Parking Performance

59

57

57

56

56

56

56

55

55

54

53

53

53

49

18-34

50-64

North

Women

Personal user

State-wide

Household user

Metro

Kingston

South

Central

Men

35-49

65+

60

54

58

58

n/a

55

n/a

53

57

55

57

55

58

52

59

56

61

60

n/a

56

n/a

54

57

53

56

54

57

55

62

63

61

60

n/a

57

n/a

55

60

64

55

61

61

55

66

56

58

61

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

61

63

61

61

62

58

61

60

59

60

n/a

57

n/a

n/a

59

60

58

59

58

54

65

58

58

60

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

60

62

60

61

60

57

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

98


5

10

8

12

9

9

9

9

9

9

3

5

4

6

4

6

10

2

6

6

39

34

39

37

43

40

40

35

34

36

41

38

36

41

47

37

39

32

41

40

32

32

32

32

32

30

33

31

32

35

29

33

34

30

34

30

27

36

30

31

16

15

14

14

11

13

12

15

15

12

21

15

18

15

13

20

13

19

17

17

7

6

6

3

4

4

3

8

8

8

7

8

7

7

2

8

9

10

6

6

1

3

1

1

1

4

3

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Parking Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 6

99


2018 Law Enforcement Importance

75

75

75

73

72

71

71

71

71

70

67

64

Women

18-34

65+

Metro

South

50-64

Kingston

Central

State-wide

North

Men

35-49

76

74

77

72

73

72

74

73

71

76

72

73

71

62

71

71

67

70

68

70

70

68

65

71

75

73

73

72

72

74

72

71

71

74

69

70

74

72

71

n/a

70

70

70

69

70

71

65

66

77

70

73

n/a

77

73

73

69

71

70

68

74

73

71

70

n/a

71

72

71

68

70

73

68

70

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

100


28

31

22

28

23

30

24

27

30

27

27

28

20

35

39

17

26

28

38

39

37

41

42

38

42

37

39

36

39

39

41

35

32

36

37

49

26

25

32

23

26

26

26

27

24

29

23

26

28

24

19

33

34

18

5

4

5

5

8

4

7

6

6

6

7

4

8

3

7

8

3

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

3

2

2

3

1

2

4

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Law Enforcement Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8

101


2018 Law Enforcement Performance

70

66

66

66

65

64

64

64

63

63

62

60

18-34

Central

Men

35-49

Kingston

Metro

North

State-wide

South

Women

65+

50-64

69

68

63

64

65

64

61

64

65

67

64

61

67

67

59

66

64

64

65

63

60

69

61

60

68

66

66

68

67

66

64

66

70

68

65

65

75

69

66

65

67

n/a

66

66

67

69

61

66

65

65

62

62

64

n/a

64

65

63

66

67

65

71

65

65

66

66

n/a

67

65

67

68

65

61

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

102


12

14

13

17

13

11

13

12

12

12

13

11

15

9

17

12

11

8

38

38

36

39

44

45

39

39

39

36

42

35

39

37

38

40

33

39

26

25

29

26

25

22

29

25

24

25

20

33

30

22

23

20

33

30

7

6

6

6

5

7

5

8

7

8

8

4

6

7

2

7

8

10

3

4

4

3

2

4

2

3

4

2

2

3

2

3

2

3

5

1

15

13

13

10

11

11

13

12

14

16

15

13

7

22

18

18

10

11

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Law Enforcement Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 9

103


2018 Family Support Importance

79

77

75

75

74

74

74

74

72

72

71

68

Women

18-34

North

Metro

South

35-49

Kingston

State-wide

Central

65+

50-64

Men

78

73

78

73

74

73

74

73

70

74

75

70

80

81

74

73

75

76

75

73

76

73

69

70

80

77

74

72

77

76

76

73

75

72

76

71

78

79

79

n/a

75

78

75

72

72

72

71

72

77

78

74

n/a

75

73

74

73

72

72

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

104


30

29

30

31

28

30

30

32

31

27

31

21

38

35

32

26

24

41

41

45

44

49

44

40

40

37

41

43

41

41

40

41

43

39

23

25

18

20

18

19

23

22

26

25

18

29

17

19

21

24

27

5

4

4

3

3

4

5

4

2

4

7

7

3

4

5

5

5

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

3

1

1

2

1

2

4

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Family Support Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 7

105


2018 Family Support Performance

70

70

69

68

68

68

68

68

68

68

67

66

35-49

Central

Women

Kingston

18-34

Metro

North

South

65+

Men

50-64

State-wide

71

68

72

70

70

68

72

70

74

69

66

67

70

67

67

68

68

69

72

65

70

69

62

66

65

66

71

69

71

68

70

70

73

67

70

67

68

65

71

69

69

n/a

68

73

72

67

69

68

72

69

68

68

68

n/a

67

68

68

68

65

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

106


11

14

12

14

11

12

11

10

12

10

11

9

13

14

13

8

8

32

33

30

34

37

33

31

29

28

36

30

37

27

30

40

27

29

20

19

22

22

20

26

21

20

24

19

18

21

19

23

15

21

21

4

2

3

3

4

2

4

3

3

3

5

5

3

5

4

4

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

33

31

31

27

27

26

32

37

32

32

35

28

37

28

27

41

40

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Family Support Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Councils asked group: 8

107


2018 Elderly Support Importance

84

84

81

80

79

79

79

79

79

78

78

75

65+

Women

Central

Kingston

State-wide

South

35-49

North

Metro

50-64

18-34

Men

83

82

80

79

78

79

82

78

77

81

71

76

80

78

80

77

78

74

78

77

78

79

72

75

79

85

80

80

79

81

81

80

78

83

78

75

80

81

79

79

79

77

80

83

n/a

79

78

77

81

81

79

79

79

80

79

76

n/a

81

76

76

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

108


39

34

31

40

36

33

38

36

37

41

39

31

47

35

38

38

47

42

48

47

41

46

49

43

44

42

45

39

44

40

40

44

41

43

16

14

17

18

15

13

16

16

18

12

19

20

12

25

14

16

8

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Elderly Support Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 8

109


2018 Elderly Support Performance

71

70

70

69

68

67

67

67

66

65

65

61

18-34

Central

65+

Women

State-wide

Kingston

North

Metro

Men

50-64

South

35-49

69

68

71

68

68

68

71

67

69

66

66

65

60

67

74

65

68

66

68

69

68

64

64

66

65

65

78

69

69

69

69

69

69

71

73

65

75

69

74

72

70

71

71

n/a

71

71

73

65

67

68

73

69

69

69

70

n/a

68

70

68

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

110


11

12

12

16

16

14

14

10

9

14

11

9

14

15

6

9

15

26

31

27

35

35

34

32

27

31

28

22

31

22

27

19

23

37

21

21

21

19

15

20

19

18

24

15

26

24

19

17

23

22

24

4

3

4

4

4

3

5

4

3

5

4

4

4

4

5

5

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

36

31

34

25

28

27

29

40

33

38

36

32

40

37

46

41

20

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Elderly Support Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 32 Councils asked group: 9

111


2018 Disadvantaged Support Importance

78

77

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

72

72

71

Women

35-49

Central

18-34

Kingston

65+

South

North

Metro

State-wide

Men

50-64

77

73

73

74

73

75

73

74

71

71

69

71

77

74

74

76

74

72

73

74

73

73

71

72

80

74

75

77

75

71

76

73

74

73

69

76

79

74

75

78

75

73

74

75

n/a

72

70

73

77

71

72

73

72

75

73

71

n/a

73

67

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

112


30

28

26

31

26

24

27

29

24

34

31

22

37

29

34

28

28

42

41

45

41

49

46

41

42

50

40

38

46

38

43

41

36

46

23

23

22

21

20

25

24

23

21

20

27

26

20

25

20

27

20

4

5

3

3

3

3

4

4

3

4

3

5

3

2

4

5

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

3

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Disadvantaged Support Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 6

113


2018 Disadvantaged Support Performance

65

63

62

62

62

62

61

61

61

61

60

60

18-34

Women

Central

North

Kingston

65+

South

Men

Metro

State-wide

35-49

50-64

65

62

62

65

64

66

65

65

62

61

63

61

62

63

64

67

62

68

57

62

62

61

61

57

64

65

58

66

64

67

66

62

63

62

61

65

65

63

62

62

64

68

67

65

n/a

64

59

65

65

63

65

65

64

66

63

65

n/a

62

61

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 7 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

114


7

6

7

8

11

8

6

6

8

6

7

5

9

14

3

4

6

24

27

24

30

25

28

25

23

26

27

20

27

21

26

22

18

29

25

23

22

24

24

24

23

23

21

20

34

30

21

21

27

23

29

6

4

5

5

3

3

6

5

9

6

3

5

7

8

5

4

7

1

1

2

1

3

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

37

39

41

32

34

35

38

43

35

39

36

32

42

30

43

49

30

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Disadvantaged Support Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 7

115


2018 Recreational Facilities Importance

76

75

74

74

74

73

73

73

73

73

72

71

70

65

35-49

65+

Central

Personal user

Household user

State-wide

North

Women

50-64

Metro

Kingston

Men

South

18-34

76

76

74

76

76

72

73

74

73

73

74

74

74

70

72

71

72

n/a

n/a

73

68

73

73

73

71

70

73

69

72

69

72

n/a

n/a

72

70

72

75

72

71

69

70

67

71

70

70

n/a

n/a

72

69

72

72

n/a

70

68

71

68

75

72

74

73

74

72

71

74

74

n/a

72

71

72

68

74

74

73

75

74

72

71

73

75

n/a

72

72

73

67

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

116


24

25

19

20

18

24

23

25

23

24

28

20

21

27

15

33

27

22

27

27

44

49

50

46

51

46

46

46

48

44

44

44

48

40

40

42

41

53

46

45

26

22

27

29

24

25

26

25

25

30

22

28

25

28

35

22

27

20

24

24

4

4

3

4

6

4

4

3

3

1

5

6

4

4

10

3

3

1

3

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Recreational Facilities Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9

117


2018 Recreational Facilities Performance

75

75

75

74

74

73

73

73

72

72

72

71

70

69

35-49

Personal user

South

Household user

Metro

65+

Men

Kingston

Women

50-64

North

Central

18-34

State-wide

76

78

77

78

73

79

76

76

76

72

75

76

76

70

72

n/a

71

n/a

73

72

70

71

71

68

71

70

70

69

77

n/a

79

n/a

74

75

73

75

77

78

73

72

72

70

69

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

76

74

74

73

75

72

70

74

71

72

76

74

76

n/a

78

73

74

74

74

69

77

72

70

73

75

74

74

n/a

75

73

73

74

70

71

75

76

70

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

118


22

30

23

29

26

27

24

22

26

21

21

25

23

22

15

29

25

21

26

26

48

43

43

46

46

46

50

42

45

49

49

44

49

47

50

48

42

49

49

49

19

19

23

18

20

20

17

22

20

19

21

17

21

18

23

12

24

19

16

17

5

3

8

3

4

5

5

7

4

6

4

5

3

6

6

4

5

3

5

5

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

5

5

3

2

3

2

3

4

5

4

3

8

3

6

6

4

3

7

3

2

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Recreational Facilities Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10

119


2018 Public Areas Importance

75

74

74

74

74

73

73

72

72

72

71

65

65+

35-49

50-64

State-wide

Metro

Women

North

Kingston

Central

South

Men

18-34

74

76

72

74

75

78

73

75

76

75

72

78

73

76

75

74

74

75

71

73

74

74

71

68

74

74

79

73

73

76

72

73

74

73

71

68

74

70

73

73

n/a

72

72

71

70

70

69

67

75

75

76

74

n/a

76

75

74

73

75

72

71

77

77

73

73

n/a

76

76

74

72

74

72

69

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

120


23

28

21

23

18

24

23

26

25

23

19

27

21

25

17

24

26

25

47

47

53

48

48

51

52

46

48

52

53

38

47

47

37

52

48

53

26

23

23

27

32

22

23

24

24

22

25

31

28

25

38

21

23

21

3

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

3

4

4

1

6

3

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Public Areas Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘the appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9

121


2018 Public Areas Performance

75

74

73

73

73

73

72

71

71

71

71

70

35-49

Men

Central

North

18-34

Metro

Kingston

State-wide

Women

65+

South

50-64

75

75

76

74

77

72

75

71

74

74

74

72

73

73

72

75

73

72

73

71

73

73

71

70

76

74

72

71

71

73

74

72

74

75

77

74

75

74

74

68

74

n/a

74

72

73

73

78

72

73

73

75

70

74

n/a

73

71

73

76

74

70

72

73

73

68

74

n/a

73

71

73

74

76

71

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

122


21

25

25

27

26

26

22

24

24

20

21

21

21

20

17

26

26

15

53

52

47

48

48

46

53

45

49

57

56

48

55

51

58

52

42

58

21

18

22

19

21

21

19

21

20

20

19

25

22

21

25

16

22

23

4

3

3

3

2

5

4

6

5

3

4

5

2

6

6

8

3

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Public Areas Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘the appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35 Councils asked group: 10

123


2018 Art Centres & Libraries Importance

70

69

69

68

67

67

66

66

65

63

61

61

Women

50-64

Central

65+

Metro

35-49

Kingston

South

State-wide

North

Men

18-34

69

67

68

69

67

67

66

66

64

64

63

62

68

66

65

66

68

66

65

67

66

63

62

63

71

67

65

63

69

69

66

68

65

64

61

63

69

65

63

68

n/a

65

65

64

66

68

61

62

69

67

68

74

n/a

65

66

65

66

64

62

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

124


17

17

17

15

13

13

16

18

14

17

19

11

22

14

15

22

18

40

39

38

43

44

45

39

42

37

48

35

39

42

28

50

39

45

33

33

35

32

33

32

34

31

37

29

34

36

29

48

25

30

27

8

8

7

8

9

7

9

7

9

5

9

11

5

8

9

6

8

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Art Centres & Libraries Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 8

125


2018 Art Centres & Libraries Performance

78

77

77

76

75

75

74

74

74

73

71

71

Women

35-49

65+

South

Metro

Kingston

Central

State-wide

50-64

North

Men

18-34

73

75

79

73

75

74

74

73

73

75

75

69

75

73

77

71

74

72

75

72

71

71

70

69

78

80

78

80

75

77

77

73

73

73

76

78

78

78

79

79

n/a

76

75

75

76

74

74

72

77

74

77

76

n/a

75

76

73

75

73

72

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

126


24

22

22

31

27

24

25

26

22

23

26

19

29

19

25

23

29

45

45

41

40

47

48

42

41

45

45

45

41

48

47

46

40

45

19

21

22

17

15

20

18

19

25

18

16

25

13

22

18

21

16

3

3

4

2

3

2

4

3

1

3

3

2

3

6

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

9

9

10

10

7

6

10

10

6

11

10

12

7

6

12

14

8

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Art Centres & Libraries Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 8

127


2018 Community Activities Importance

62

62

61

61

61

60

60

60

59

58

57

57

65+

Women

Metro

State-wide

Central

South

50-64

Kingston

18-34

35-49

Men

North

64

65

61

61

62

63

63

62

63

60

60

62

62

64

62

62

66

61

61

62

63

61

59

59

59

67

62

62

61

63

63

62

67

58

57

62

57

60

n/a

62

60

58

60

60

58

62

59

60

68

64

n/a

62

63

61

61

62

61

61

59

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

128


10

13

8

12

6

11

12

12

6

9

13

7

12

8

7

12

13

34

33

43

35

37

37

34

34

32

36

32

31

36

30

38

32

33

45

42

39

42

47

42

40

41

48

46

42

49

42

52

44

43

42

8

9

9

9

8

7

10

11

10

4

10

8

8

8

5

10

10

3

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

4

3

5

2

2

6

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Community Activities Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 20 Councils asked group: 8

129


2018 Community Activities Performance

75

73

72

72

72

71

71

70

70

70

70

69

35-49

Central

Women

North

Kingston

50-64

Men

Metro

65+

18-34

South

State-wide

73

71

72

75

72

72

71

70

73

68

69

69

74

70

70

69

69

68

67

71

69

63

67

69

75

71

77

72

74

73

71

71

74

74

79

69

73

73

75

70

72

74

69

n/a

73

68

73

70

70

74

73

69

71

73

70

n/a

75

68

71

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 8 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

130


20

17

17

26

21

20

17

18

20

20

20

18

22

17

24

22

17

46

47

40

41

43

46

42

42

50

48

40

47

44

48

48

43

42

24

23

28

17

21

21

25

24

22

24

25

24

23

29

19

20

26

4

3

3

4

6

5

5

4

4

2

4

3

4

4

3

3

4

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

4

7

10

11

11

9

7

9

11

4

7

8

7

6

2

6

9

10

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Community Activities Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 8

131


2018 Waste Management Importance

86

85

85

84

84

84

83

83

83

83

82

81

65+

Women

Central

35-49

North

Kingston

50-64

Metro

Men

South

18-34

State-wide

83

83

85

83

83

83

83

81

82

80

82

79

78

81

81

84

82

81

84

82

81

80

77

80

80

82

84

81

78

81

84

81

80

80

79

79

79

79

78

76

81

79

80

n/a

78

78

81

79

78

83

82

84

81

81

82

n/a

79

81

77

79

80

82

80

82

81

80

83

n/a

77

79

75

78

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

132


46

42

38

38

35

40

37

42

46

45

48

45

44

48

42

47

45

51

44

48

50

48

48

45

47

43

42

46

43

44

44

44

45

44

45

42

10

9

11

13

15

15

15

13

11

9

9

10

12

8

13

10

9

6

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Waste Management Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Councils asked group: 9

133


2018 Waste Management Performance

77

77

76

76

75

75

75

75

74

74

74

70

65+

Women

South

50-64

Kingston

18-34

Metro

Central

North

35-49

Men

State-wide

79

76

78

74

76

79

75

79

72

73

77

71

77

77

77

76

76

76

76

77

74

75

75

70

81

76

79

79

77

70

77

77

72

77

77

72

76

76

78

74

77

80

n/a

79

74

77

78

73

77

73

74

76

73

68

n/a

76

69

74

74

71

79

74

79

73

74

74

n/a

74

68

71

74

72

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

134


28

29

29

33

33

26

26

24

29

29

27

29

27

30

31

25

29

29

48

50

49

46

48

50

48

45

48

43

48

51

48

47

48

42

50

52

19

15

17

15

12

16

18

18

16

23

22

13

19

19

12

30

19

15

2

3

4

3

3

4

5

7

4

3

2

1

2

4

1

1

2

1

2

2

3

1

3

2

1

2

2

3

4

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

3

1

2

2

3

2

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Waste Management Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 36 Councils asked group: 10

135


2018 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

66

60

59

59

58

58

58

58

58

58

57

54

State-wide

65+

50-64

Metro

South

35-49

Men

Kingston

Women

North

Central

18-34

67

61

61

60

60

63

61

61

62

60

64

61

67

57

55

60

57

63

56

59

61

57

62

58

67

58

62

59

60

58

54

58

62

55

57

56

67

61

59

n/a

58

63

57

59

62

60

60

54

67

62

61

n/a

60

61

58

60

63

64

58

58

66

59

65

n/a

60

58

58

59

61

57

60

57

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

136


12

12

8

9

9

9

10

21

12

13

10

13

13

11

6

14

16

13

28

36

35

30

36

37

32

36

30

26

30

27

27

28

26

25

29

32

42

37

39

46

38

40

39

31

39

39

44

42

41

44

47

45

37

38

15

13

13

11

13

10

13

9

14

20

11

15

15

14

22

12

11

13

3

1

2

3

3

3

2

2

3

1

5

2

3

2

4

6

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Business/Development/Tourism Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 6

137


2018 Business/Development/Tourism Performance

61

60

60

59

59

59

58

58

58

57

57

56

18-34

State-wide

Metro

Women

South

Central

Kingston

65+

North

35-49

Men

50-64

65

61

60

63

59

59

60

59

64

59

58

57

63

60

62

62

58

58

59

58

60

55

55

58

62

61

62

64

66

57

61

61

58

60

57

61

64

62

n/a

62

62

62

61

61

57

60

59

57

61

62

n/a

62

61

62

60

63

58

59

59

61

67

62

n/a

60

61

57

58

58

58

52

56

56

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

138


4

6

5

11

7

6

8

10

8

3

5

4

5

3

4

3

5

4

32

31

28

28

32

34

25

33

28

30

33

34

30

34

46

26

26

28

32

32

33

31

27

34

36

31

31

32

31

34

35

29

23

37

33

36

10

8

8

8

9

7

11

10

9

8

13

7

12

8

15

8

8

7

2

2

2

3

2

2

1

4

2

3

3

2

2

1

5

2

20

21

24

19

23

17

20

12

22

24

18

19

17

23

12

24

23

22

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Business/Development/Tourism Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Councils asked group: 6

139


2018 Town Planning Importance

82

80

79

77

75

75

74

74

74

73

73

73

72

69

Personal user

Household user

50-64

Women

65+

Central

35-49

North

Kingston

South

State-wide

Metro

Men

18-34

79

80

78

75

81

75

73

70

73

72

72

73

70

62

n/a

n/a

75

73

74

71

72

69

71

74

73

72

70

65

n/a

n/a

79

74

77

76

68

69

72

71

72

72

70

66

n/a

n/a

76

70

73

77

69

70

70

64

72

n/a

69

63

n/a

n/a

75

71

72

72

69

66

69

68

73

n/a

66

60

n/a

n/a

79

73

75

71

77

69

71

73

72

n/a

70

58

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

140


28

27

25

25

21

20

25

27

27

26

30

28

23

33

20

29

39

28

41

38

40

39

40

40

41

39

41

40

40

44

39

38

41

40

36

42

39

44

41

40

26

22

27

25

25

30

22

24

24

27

22

29

31

21

32

28

18

22

12

17

2

6

4

3

5

6

8

4

4

1

3

3

2

3

4

2

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

4

5

3

4

6

4

3

3

4

2

6

3

4

3

8

2

4

4

4

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Town Planning Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 4

141


2018 Town Planning Performance

54

53

52

52

51

51

50

50

50

50

48

48

39

38

State-wide

Metro

North

18-34

35-49

South

Women

Kingston

Men

65+

Central

50-64

Household user

Personal user

53

53

59

64

55

55

56

56

55

53

53

48

50

49

52

54

59

53

53

49

55

52

50

53

49

49

n/a

n/a

54

55

59

60

53

59

54

57

60

56

50

58

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

56

60

57

59

58

58

57

59

57

54

n/a

n/a

55

n/a

60

60

57

58

59

58

57

57

56

57

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

62

65

58

59

59

59

60

58

57

55

n/a

n/a

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

142


3

6

3

6

5

6

5

5

5

4

1

4

2

4

2

4

4

2

6

6

20

26

23

28

31

30

34

27

26

19

22

20

24

17

21

22

17

21

3

4

35

28

33

33

32

33

31

31

29

41

33

32

36

34

35

35

35

35

41

43

16

12

11

11

10

8

8

13

12

11

16

20

15

17

15

12

20

18

27

26

5

5

6

4

3

4

3

7

6

5

7

2

6

3

2

7

6

4

17

16

21

23

23

17

20

19

19

18

21

20

22

21

16

25

25

20

18

19

6

5

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user

Household user


2018 Town Planning Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 6

143


2018 Planning & Building Permits Importance

78

77

76

76

74

74

74

73

72

71

71

68

65+

50-64

Central

Women

Metro

Kingston

35-49

South

Men

State-wide

North

18-34

82

83

76

77

76

76

73

77

74

72

73

67

76

79

73

72

74

72

74

74

73

71

71

64

78

80

75

76

74

73

74

72

69

71

71

63

72

74

73

73

n/a

71

71

66

69

71

74

67

73

75

73

71

n/a

69

68

71

67

71

65

63

79

77

73

76

n/a

74

79

75

72

71

74

64

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

144


30

33

28

29

22

21

28

26

32

23

36

29

28

32

23

30

35

34

38

37

40

37

42

43

44

39

38

43

35

39

37

40

30

38

40

46

25

23

26

27

26

26

21

25

22

28

21

27

25

25

35

26

20

15

3

3

5

6

6

6

5

6

5

3

4

2

6

4

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

3

1

2

3

2

3

2

2

1

4

2

4

1

5

2

1

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Planning & Building Permits Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Councils asked group: 5

145


2018 Planning & Building Permits Performance

54

53

53

52

51

50

50

49

49

46

46

41

18-34

North

Men

State-wide

Metro

35-49

Central

Kingston

65+

South

Women

50-64

68

62

55

51

49

55

55

56

53

52

57

44

48

53

46

50

50

48

42

47

49

46

48

42

63

61

58

54

53

50

47

56

53

58

53

55

64

53

54

53

n/a

52

52

55

49

60

56

51

59

61

61

55

n/a

67

51

60

50

64

59

57

63

60

59

54

n/a

57

56

57

53

56

55

52

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 6 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

146


4

9

5

6

5

8

7

5

5

3

5

5

4

4

4

6

4

4

22

24

18

28

26

31

30

24

25

27

24

17

29

16

30

20

11

25

31

27

28

32

25

28

28

27

27

34

27

33

32

30

29

35

28

31

15

11

14

10

11

9

10

13

14

11

16

17

14

16

10

16

20

17

9

6

11

6

5

4

5

8

9

6

9

10

7

11

8

8

12

9

18

23

25

18

29

20

20

23

21

19

19

18

14

23

19

16

25

15

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Planning & Building Permits Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 6

147


2018 Environmental Sustainability Importance

80

79

76

74

74

73

73

73

73

71

70

68

18-34

Women

South

Metro

Kingston

State-wide

Central

North

35-49

65+

50-64

Men

74

77

73

73

74

72

74

76

75

73

74

70

76

76

73

74

75

73

76

75

75

73

74

73

77

77

75

74

75

73

77

73

76

69

79

73

78

78

72

n/a

74

73

74

76

75

70

72

70

76

77

74

n/a

74

72

74

75

77

73

72

71

70

76

74

n/a

71

71

69

72

73

70

73

67

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 9 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

148


33

30

32

32

29

30

25

31

32

25

34

39

21

45

43

31

29

29

36

42

43

40

43

44

43

39

40

45

34

32

41

32

34

39

36

36

22

21

19

23

23

21

25

23

22

25

21

21

27

18

19

21

23

25

5

4

4

3

3

3

5

5

4

4

6

5

6

4

2

4

7

7

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

4

2

3

1

4

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Environmental Sustainability Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Councils asked group: 9

149


2018 Environmental Sustainability Performance

66

64

64

63

63

63

63

63

63

62

61

60

18-34

Metro

South

Women

35-49

Kingston

State-wide

Central

Men

North

65+

50-64

63

64

63

61

62

62

64

60

63

62

64

58

69

64

62

67

64

65

63

65

64

69

65

61

64

65

68

64

63

65

64

64

66

62

68

66

66

n/a

68

64

63

63

64

63

62

58

62

62

62

n/a

68

67

69

67

64

69

67

64

71

69

63

n/a

66

64

65

64

64

65

65

63

67

62

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 10 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

150


8

7

9

11

9

13

11

10

10

6

8

9

8

8

15

3

6

6

39

35

44

38

42

42

40

37

38

44

34

41

40

39

40

45

34

35

31

31

29

30

27

24

28

30

28

29

35

27

34

27

29

32

29

32

7

7

6

5

7

5

7

8

7

9

5

8

5

9

8

6

10

5

2

2

1

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

3

14

18

10

14

11

14

12

12

14

10

16

13

11

16

6

13

19

18

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Environmental Sustainability Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Councils asked group: 10

151


2018 Disaster Management Importance

81

81

80

79

77

77

76

76

74

74

72

71

State-wide

18-34

Metro

Women

South

North

35-49

Kingston

Central

65+

Men

50-64

80

81

77

81

81

78

78

79

77

79

77

77

80

78

76

82

75

78

77

77

79

79

72

73

80

81

77

83

79

76

73

77

75

77

71

77

80

81

n/a

82

76

81

73

76

73

74

71

77

80

81

n/a

81

78

75

72

76

75

79

71

74

80

78

n/a

79

78

76

73

77

75

79

74

77

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

152


40

41

38

38

40

41

38

48

45

35

38

47

33

47

50

38

35

36

31

38

39

37

32

32

35

33

32

39

32

23

34

28

27

35

28

32

20

15

13

18

19

18

18

14

17

15

22

23

25

16

13

21

25

24

5

4

5

4

6

7

6

3

4

5

6

4

5

5

7

3

6

4

2

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

3

3

1

2

5

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

4

1

1

2

2

1

2

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Disaster Management Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Councils asked group: 4

153


2018 Disaster Management Performance

71

71

70

70

69

69

69

69

68

67

66

66

18-34

State-wide

Central

Women

Metro

South

35-49

Kingston

Men

65+

North

50-64

75

70

71

70

68

66

65

69

68

68

72

67

67

69

66

68

68

68

63

66

64

71

65

63

75

70

67

72

69

74

68

71

69

71

71

69

78

71

70

74

n/a

75

68

72

71

71

70

68

69

70

68

69

n/a

72

69

68

67

70

63

67

71

70

63

68

n/a

70

64

66

65

68

66

62

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

154


11

10

7

16

16

12

12

18

12

12

11

11

11

12

12

11

12

12

33

34

35

31

33

31

33

39

35

27

33

36

34

31

38

40

23

24

22

18

21

21

17

23

22

19

19

19

20

25

27

17

22

16

24

26

2

2

3

2

3

2

5

4

3

4

1

1

2

2

5

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

3

1

31

36

32

29

30

30

26

18

29

35

34

25

26

36

28

28

37

35

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Disaster Management Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Councils asked group: 4

155


2018 Population Growth Importance

81

79

78

78

78

77

77

77

77

76

75

73

Women

35-49

Metro

50-64

Central

South

State-wide

Kingston

65+

North

18-34

Men

77

78

75

79

77

75

76

77

77

79

73

76

75

74

75

72

73

69

76

72

74

76

70

70

76

73

74

79

75

76

75

74

74

70

70

71

74

70

n/a

78

72

67

75

70

69

73

66

67

72

65

n/a

74

70

70

75

69

73

67

67

66

75

74

n/a

75

74

74

75

73

72

71

72

71

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Councils asked group: 4 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

156


42

39

30

30

25

26

28

39

41

39

44

42

32

51

35

48

46

40

31

35

38

41

38

38

42

36

36

35

27

33

35

28

34

26

30

35

19

19

22

22

26

25

21

18

17

17

21

17

25

13

23

19

16

16

5

5

7

5

7

7

5

4

3

7

4

5

7

4

4

5

5

7

2

2

2

1

1

4

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Population Growth Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Councils asked group: 4

157


2018 Population Growth Performance

59

52

51

51

50

50

50

49

49

48

45

44

18-34

State-wide

Women

South

North

Metro

Kingston

Men

Central

65+

35-49

50-64

64

52

56

54

55

51

54

52

54

54

51

46

45

51

50

46

50

51

48

47

49

50

52

47

66

54

58

61

62

54

58

59

51

55

53

57

68

54

59

60

58

n/a

58

57

56

56

54

50

62

54

58

62

60

n/a

58

59

51

58

56

56

61

52

54

55

55

n/a

54

54

52

52

49

50

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Councils asked group: 5 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

158


4

7

3

8

6

8

5

8

4

4

3

4

4

4

6

3

4

4

21

23

17

26

28

25

23

24

23

24

19

21

20

22

33

17

12

20

35

30

36

30

31

31

35

30

32

30

34

40

39

31

34

37

36

33

17

16

17

10

9

9

12

16

17

18

17

16

15

18

10

18

17

23

6

4

5

4

3

3

5

8

8

7

7

6

9

4

2

10

10

5

17

21

22

21

23

24

19

14

16

17

20

14

13

21

16

16

22

16

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Population Growth Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Councils asked group: 5

159


2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Importance

73

69

66

65

64

63

62

62

61

60

58

56

State-wide

65+

Women

North

50-64

South

Kingston

Metro

35-49

Central

Men

18-34

74

69

67

64

68

67

65

65

64

63

63

61

73

66

65

64

69

63

64

64

65

65

63

57

73

67

65

61

69

62

62

62

59

64

59

57

75

68

66

68

67

62

63

n/a

62

60

60

58

74

68

66

67

70

67

65

n/a

68

60

64

55

71

68

69

67

70

66

65

n/a

65

62

60

58

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 1 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

160


12

15

11

13

11

13

16

29

12

12

10

12

7

15

4

12

16

17

36

38

43

36

44

42

35

40

36

46

31

35

32

40

29

32

39

47

43

36

34

40

34

37

38

25

43

35

46

45

48

38

56

46

34

31

7

8

9

9

9

7

8

4

7

6

9

7

10

5

8

10

8

4

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Importance

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7 Councils asked group: 1

161


2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Performance

72

68

67

67

67

67

67

67

66

66

62

55

18-34

South

Men

Central

Kingston

Metro

Women

35-49

North

50-64

65+

State-wide

76

67

69

71

68

68

68

67

67

64

65

53

71

68

65

67

68

68

69

68

68

66

64

56

72

71

67

68

69

69

70

71

67

66

64

55

73

68

68

71

68

n/a

68

69

65

67

62

55

70

66

65

67

65

n/a

66

62

63

62

70

56

69

69

67

64

66

n/a

66

68

66

62

65

61

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 1 Note: Please see page 6 for explanation about significant differences.

162


16

17

14

19

20

13

17

10

16

14

15

17

16

15

17

21

19

6

45

47

52

45

45

49

44

34

45

48

43

46

45

46

57

35

42

47

29

22

21

24

24

25

26

29

29

27

30

28

29

28

23

28

26

37

7

7

7

8

7

7

9

16

7

9

6

6

7

7

2

11

10

6

1

2

3

2

3

4

2

9

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

2

2

4

4

2

1

3

2

3

2

1

5

2

2

4

1

3

2018 Kingston

2017 Kingston

2016 Kingston

2015 Kingston

2014 Kingston

2013 Kingston

2012 Kingston

State-wide

Metro

North

Central

South

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


2018 Roadside Slashing & Weed Control Performance

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 Councils asked group: 1

164


Please note that for the reason of simplifying reporting, interlocking age and gender reporting has not

been included in this report. Interlocking age and gender analysis is still available in the dashboard

and data tables provided alongside this report.

48%52%

Men

Women

10%

17%

28%19%

25%

18-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Gender Age

S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 64 Councils asked group: 14

167


The survey was revised in 2012. As a result:

➢ The survey is now conducted as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18

years or over in local councils, whereas previously

it was conducted as a ‘head of household’ survey.

➢ As part of the change to a representative resident

survey, results are now weighted post survey to

the known population distribution of Kingston City

Council according to the most recently available

Australian Bureau of Statistics population

estimates, whereas the results were previously not

weighted.

➢ The service responsibility area performance

measures have changed significantly and the

rating scale used to assess performance has also

changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be

considered as a benchmark. Please note that

comparisons should not be made with the State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological

and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period

2012-2018 have been made throughout this report

as appropriate.

168


Demographic

Actual

survey

sample

size

Weighted

base

Maximum

margin of error

at 95%

confidence

interval

Kingston City Council400 400 +/-4.9

Men180 194 +/-7.3

Women220 206 +/-6.6

North105 106 +/-9.6

Central149 152 +/-8.1

South146 142 +/-8.1

18-34 years52 112 +/-13.7

35-49 years94 112 +/-10.2

50-64 years111 77 +/-9.3

65+ years143 99 +/-8.2

The sample size for the 2018 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey for Kingston City Council was

400. Unless otherwise noted, this is the total sample base for

all reported charts and tables.

The maximum margin of error on a sample of approximately

400 interviews is +/-4.9% at the 95% confidence level for

results around 50%. Margins of error will be larger for any

sub-samples. As an example, a result of 50% can be read

confidently as falling midway in the range 45.1% - 54.9%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the table below,

based on a population of 125,000 people aged 18 years or

over for Kingston City Council, according to ABS estimates.

169


All participating councils are listed in the State-wide

report published on the DELWP website. In 2018, 64 of

the 79 Councils throughout Victoria participated in this

survey. For consistency of analysis and reporting

across all projects, Local Government Victoria has

aligned its presentation of data to use standard council

groupings. Accordingly, the council reports for the

community satisfaction survey provide analysis using

these standard council groupings. Please note that

councils participating across 2012-2018 vary slightly.

Council Groups

Kingston City Council is classified as a Metropolitan

council according to the following classification list:

➢ Metropolitan, Interface, Regional Centres, Large

Rural & Small Rural

Councils participating in the Metropolitan group are:

Banyule, Boroondara, Brimbank, Glen Eira, Greater

Dandenong, Frankston, Kingston, Knox, Manningham,

Maroondah, Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Whitehorse.

Wherever appropriate, results for Kingston City Council

for this 2018 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey have been compared against other

participating councils in the Metropolitan group and on

a state-wide basis. Please note that council groupings

changed for 2015, and as such comparisons to council

group results before that time can not be made within

the reported charts.

170


Index Scores

Many questions ask respondents to rate council

performance on a five-point scale, for example, from

‘very good’ to ‘very poor’, with ‘can’t say’ also a

possible response category. To facilitate ease of

reporting and comparison of results over time, starting

from the 2012 survey and measured against the state-

wide result and the council group, an ‘Index Score’ has

been calculated for such measures.

The Index Score is calculated and represented as a

score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale), with ‘can’t say’

responses excluded from the analysis. The ‘%

RESULT’ for each scale category is multiplied by the

‘INDEX FACTOR’. This produces an ‘INDEX VALUE’

for each category, which are then summed to produce

the ‘INDEX SCORE’, equating to ‘60’ in the following

example.

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT

INDEX

FACTORINDEX VALUE

Very good 9% 100 9

Good 40% 75 30

Average 37% 50 19

Poor 9% 25 2

Very poor 4% 0 0

Can’t say 1% --INDEX SCORE

60

171


Similarly, an Index Score has been calculated for the

Core question ‘Performance direction in the last 12

months’, based on the following scale for each

performance measure category, with ‘Can’t say’

responses excluded from the calculation.

SCALE

CATEGORIES

%

RESULT

INDEX

FACTOR

INDEX

VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the same 40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% --INDEX

SCORE 56

172


Index scores are indicative of an overall rating on a

particular service area. In this context, index scores

indicate:

a) how well council is seen to be performing in a

particular service area; or

b) the level of importance placed on a particular

service area.

For ease of interpretation, index score ratings can be

categorised as follows:

INDEX

SCORE

Performance

implication

Importance

implication

75 – 100Council is performing

very well

in this service area

This service area is

seen to be

extremely important

60 – 75

Council is performing

well in this service area,

but there is room for

improvement


seen to be

very important

50 – 60

Council is performing

satisfactorily in this

service area but needs

to improve


seen to be

fairly important


poorly



seen to be

somewhat important


very poorly



seen to be

not that important

173


The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent

Mean Test, as follows:

Z Score = ($1 - $2) / Sqrt (($3*2 / $5) + ($4*2 / $6))

Where:

➢$1 = Index Score 1

➢$2 = Index Score 2

➢$3 = unweighted sample count 1

➢$4 = unweighted sample count 1

➢$5 = standard deviation 1

➢$6 = standard deviation 2

All figures can be sourced from the detailed cross

tabulations.

The test was applied at the 95% confidence interval, so

if the Z Score was greater than +/- 1.954 the scores are

significantly different.

174


Core, Optional and Tailored Questions

Over and above necessary geographic and

demographic questions required to ensure sample

representativeness, a base set of questions for the

2018 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey was designated as ‘Core’ and

therefore compulsory inclusions for all participating

Councils.

These core questions comprised:

➢ Overall performance last 12 months (Overall

performance)

➢ Lobbying on behalf of community (Advocacy)

➢ Community consultation and engagement

(Consultation)


(Making community decisions)

➢ Condition of sealed local roads (Sealed local roads)

➢ Contact in last 12 months (Contact)

➢ Rating of contact (Customer service)

➢ Overall council direction last 12 months (Council

direction)

Reporting of results for these core questions can

always be compared against other participating councils

in the council group and against all participating

councils state-wide. Alternatively, some questions in

the 2018 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils also had

the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their

council.

175


Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2018 State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

receives a customised report. In addition, the state

government is supplied with a state-wide summary

report of the aggregate results of ‘Core’ and ‘Optional’

questions asked across all council areas surveyed.

Tailored questions commissioned by individual councils

are reported only to the commissioning council and not

otherwise shared unless by express written approval of

the commissioning council.

The overall State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Report is available at

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-

government/strengthening-councils/council-community-

satisfaction-survey.

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/local-government/strengthening-councils/council-community-satisfaction-survey

176


Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all

councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2018 Victorian Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey.

Council group: One of five classified groups,

comprising: metropolitan, interface, regional centres,

large rural and small rural.

Council group average: The average result for all

participating councils in the council group.

Highest / lowest: The result described is the highest or

lowest result across a particular demographic sub-

group e.g. men, for the specific question being reported.

Reference to the result for a demographic sub-group

being the highest or lowest does not imply that it is

significantly higher or lower, unless this is specifically

mentioned.

Index score: A score calculated and represented as a

score out of 100 (on a 0 to 100 scale). This score is

sometimes reported as a figure in brackets next to the

category being described, e.g. men 50+ (60).

Optional questions: Questions which councils had an

option to include or not.

Percentages: Also referred to as ‘detailed results’,

meaning the proportion of responses, expressed as a

percentage.

Sample: The number of completed interviews, e.g. for a

council or within a demographic sub-group.

Significantly higher / lower: The result described is

significantly higher or lower than the comparison result

based on a statistical significance test at the 95%

confidence limit. If the result referenced is statistically

higher or lower then this will be specifically mentioned,

however not all significantly higher or lower results are

referenced in summary reporting.

Statewide average: The average result for all

participating councils in the State.

Tailored questions: Individual questions tailored by

and only reported to the commissioning council.

Weighting: Weighting factors are applied to the sample

for each council based on available age and gender

proportions from ABS census information to ensure

reported results are proportionate to the actual

population of the council, rather than the achieved

survey sample.

Contact Us:

03 8685 8555

John Scales

Managing Director

Mark Zuker

Managing Director

city of kingston - kingston city council - council’s …...j00643 community satisfaction survey...

Documents