j00758 css 2019 state-wide report - local government · new addition to the survey –social media...

2019 Local

Government

Community

Satisfaction Survey

State-wide ReportCoordinated by the Department of

Environment, Land, Water and Planning

on behalf of Victorian councils

Contents

J00758 Community Satisfaction Survey 2019 – State-wide

2

Background and objectives 5

Key findings and recommendations 7

Summary of findings 14

Detailed findings 28

Overall performance 29

Customer service 32

Communication 40

Council direction 45

Individual service areas 52

Community consultation and

engagement

53

Lobbying on behalf of the community 57

Decisions made in the interest of the

community

61

Condition of sealed local roads 65

Informing the community 69

Condition of local streets and footpaths 73

Traffic management 77

Parking facilities 81

Enforcement of local laws 85

Family support services 89

Elderly support services 93

Disadvantaged support services 97

Recreational facilities 101

Appearance of public areas 105

Art centres and libraries 109

Community and cultural activities 113

Waste management 117

Business and community development

and tourism

121

General town planning policy 125

Planning and building permits 129

Environmental sustainability 133

Emergency and disaster management 137

Planning for population growth 141

Roadside slashing and weed control 145

Maintenance of unsealed roads 149

Business and community development 153

Tourism development 157

Contents


3

Detailed demographics 161

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error

and significant differences

170

Appendix B: Further project information 175

80

44

80

55

77

52

-36-25 -24

74

72

72

State-wide performance – at a glance

4Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.


Top 3 performing areas

Top 3 areas for improvement

PerformanceImportance Net differential

Unsealed roads Community

decisions

Population

growth

Overall performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

Art centres & libraries

Appearance of public areas

Emergency & disaster mngt

60 67 61 58 56 58

Overall Interface Regional

Centres

Metropolitan Large

Rural

Small

Rural

Background and

objectives

5

The Victorian Community Satisfaction Survey

(CSS) creates a vital interface between the council

and their community.

Held annually, the CSS asks the opinions of local

people about the place they live, work and play and

provides confidence for councils in their efforts

and abilities.

Now in its twentieth year, this survey provides insight

into the community’s views on:

• councils’ overall performance with benchmarking

against State-wide and council group results

• community consultation and engagement

• advocacy and lobbying on behalf of the community

• customer service, local infrastructure, facilities and

• overall council direction.

When coupled with previous data, the survey provides

a reliable historical source of the community’s views

since 1998. A selection of results from the last seven

years shows that councils in Victoria continue to

provide services that meet the public’s expectations.

Serving Victoria for 20 years

Each year the CSS data is used to develop this State-

wide report which contains all of the aggregated

results, analysis and data. Moreover, with 20 years of

results, the CSS offers councils a long-term, consistent

measure of how they are performing – essential for

councils that work over the long term to provide

valuable services and infrastructure to their

communities.

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.

Background and objectives

6


Key findings and

recommendations

7

Councils State-wide receive an average overall

performance rating of 60 index points, representing an

improvement of one point from 2018. State-wide

average ratings for overall performance have not

moved by more than one index point in either a positive

or negative direction since 2012.

Metropolitan councils (average group index score of 67)

continue to receive overall performance ratings that are

significantly higher (at the 95% confidence level) than

the State-wide average. Conversely, as an aggregate,

councils in the Large Rural group (average group rating

of 56 index points) receive the lowest overall

performance ratings State-wide and are rated

significantly lower than the State-wide average.

Demographically, younger residents (aged 18 to 34

years) rate councils State-wide highest for overall

performance (index score of 63), as well as other

measures. Residents aged 50 to 64 years tend to rate

councils lowest (index score of 56) on overall

performance (in addition to other measures).

More than three times as many residents rate councils’

overall performance as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ (49%), as

those who rate it as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ (15%). A

further 35% sit mid-scale, rating Council’s overall

performance as ‘average’.

Overall performance

8


Overall performance

Results shown are index scores out of 100.

60 67 61 58 56 58

Overall Interface Regional

Centres

Metropolitan Large

Rural

Small

Rural

State-wide performance on all but one core measure

increased by at least one index point from 2018.

(advocacy ratings remain unchanged).

• As with overall performance, Metropolitan councils

perform highest on core measures while Large Rural

Shires perform lowest, and significantly lower than

the State-wide average for councils.

• The youngest (aged 18 to 34 years) and oldest

(aged 65+ years) cohorts tend to rate councils State-

wide higher than average on core measures, while

residents aged 35 to 64 years rate them lower than

average.

The greatest increase State-wide occurred in the area

of sealed local roads (index score of 56, up three index

points).

• Perceptions of sealed local roads improved

significantly in all areas across the State with the

largest ratings increases occurring among councils

within the Interface (index score of 60, up three index

points), Regional Centres (57, up three points), and

Small Rural (53, up four points) groups.

• Notwithstanding increases, councils in the

Metropolitan (index score of 69) and Interface (index

score of 60) groups perform significantly higher than

the State-wide average for sealed local roads.

• Councils in the Small and Large Rural groups (index

scores of 53 and 47 respectively) perform

significantly lower than the State-wide average on

this measure.

In keeping with previous years’ results, councils State-

wide perform highest in the area of customer service

(index score of 71, up one index point) relative to other

core measures. All other core measures receive

average State-wide ratings in the fifties (out of 100

index points).

Victorians tend to believe their council’s overall

direction ‘stayed the same’ (62%) over the previous

twelve months. Another one in five residents (19%)

believe their council direction has ‘improved’, compared

to 14% who describe their council’s direction as having

‘deteriorated’. Another 5% ‘can’t say’.

Despite performing lower than State-wide averages on

core measures, 66% of residents in Large Rural

councils believe their local council is headed in the

‘right direction’. Views on council direction are most

concerning in Regional Centres (55% right direction,

38% wrong direction).

Overview of core performance measures

9


Contact with council

Around three in five residents State-wide (62%) have

had contact with their local council in the last 12

months. Rate of contact is consistent with 2018 results.

• Rate of contact has an inverse relationship with

impressions of council performance. Residents aged

35 to 49 years (69%) and 50 to 64 years had the

most contact with their local council (68%) in 2019.

• Conversely, residents aged 18 to 34 (55%) and 65+

(58%) years had the least contact with their local

council.

• Rates of contact do not differ significantly between

geographic groups.

The main methods of contacting local councils remain

‘by telephone’ (35%) and ‘in person’ (28%). Customer

service ratings are highest amongst those who most

recently contacted their local council via their website

or in-person (index score of 76 each).

State-wide, residents still prefer to be informed about

local issues and events via newsletter sent by mail

(28%, down four percentage points) or email (25%). A

new addition to the survey – social media – is the

preferred source of information of 13% of residents

State-wide.

Customer service

On average, councils State-wide receive a customer

service score of 71 index points in 2019, one point

higher than the 2018 result.

• As with other measures, customer service ratings

are highest for councils in the Metropolitan group

(group index score of 76), significantly higher than

the State-wide average rating for councils.

• In addition, councils in the Metropolitan group

significantly improved their customer ratings

compared to 2018 (group index score of 76, up four

index points). Councils in the Large Rural group

were also able to significantly improve ratings in this

area (group index score of 69, up two index points).

Seven in ten residents (69%) provide a positive

customer service rating of ‘very good’ or ‘good’,

including 33% of residents who rate councils’ customer

service as ‘very good’. Considerably fewer residents

rate customer service as ‘average’ (17%) or ‘very poor’

or ‘poor’ (13%). Customer service results are generally

in line with 2018.

• With the exception of councils in the Metropolitan

group, demographic and geographic groups rate

customer service within a couple of points of the

overall average.

Customer contact and service

10


Top performing areas

State-wide, ratings for most service areas increased by

one index point in the past year. As mentioned

previously, the most improved measure in 2019 is

sealed local roads, which increased three index points

compared to 2018 (to an index score of 56).

Perceptions of sealed local roads increased

significantly in all areas across the State.

For the most part, performance ratings for service

areas have not moved by more than a couple of index

points since tracking began in 2012.

The top three performing service areas State-wide are:

• Art centres and libraries (index score of 74)

• Appearance of public areas (index score of 72, up

one index point) (11% of residents State-wide

volunteer parks and gardens as the best aspect of

their local council)

• Emergency and disaster management (index score

of 72, up one point).

Geographic council groupings (Metropolitan, Large

Rural, et cetera) perform within a five-point range of

each other on the top three performing service areas.

Areas for improvement

State-wide, performance declined in only two service

areas from 2018 ratings – waste management (index

score of 68, down two index points) and environmental

sustainability (index score of 62, down one point).

Waste management’s performance rating is currently at

its lowest point to date.

• Perceptions of waste management services declined

in all areas with the exception of the Interface group

(index score of 70), where councils’ average rating

significantly increased by two index points.

• Performance ratings for waste management declined

significantly by two index points for councils in the

Metropolitan and Regional Centres groups (index

scores of 73 and 68 respectively) and by three points

for Large and Small Rural councils (index scores of

64 and 66 respectively).

The maintenance of unsealed local roads (index score

of 44) is another area that stands out as in need of

attention State-wide; performance is lowest in this area

relative to other service areas despite experiencing a

one-point increase from 2018. (Residents, however, are

more likely to volunteer sealed roads – 13% – than

unsealed roads – 4% – as the council area most in

need of improvement.)

Top performing areas and areas for improvement

11


The individual service area that has the strongest

influence on the overall performance rating for councils

State-wide (based on regression analysis) is:

• Decisions made in the interest of the community.

Other service areas with a positive influence on overall

performance include:

• The appearance of public areas

• Business, community development and tourism

• Family support services.

Looking at key service areas only, the appearance of

public areas has the highest performance index and a

moderately positive influence on the overall

performance rating. Currently, councils State-wide are

performing well in this area (performance index of 72)

and maintaining this positive result should remain a

focus for councils.

Family support services also has a relatively high

performance rating (index score of 67) and a positive

influence on the overall performance rating. This means

councils should also seek to maintain positive results in

this area.

Given the high influence of making community

decisions on the overall performance rating, good

communication and transparency with residents

about decisions councils have made in the

community’s interest, could help drive up overall

opinion of council performance.

Other service areas that have a positive influence on

overall perceptions, but perform relatively less well

should (continue to) be targeted for performance

improvement – town planning, condition of sealed local

roads and business, community development and

tourism. (These areas have performance indices of 55

to 61.) Improvements in these areas have the capacity

to lift the overall performance rating for councils State-

wide.

Influences on perceptions of overall performance


12

Average performance ratings moved upwards by

one index point across most service areas in the

past year. Perceptions State-wide are moving in a

positive direction.

Of note, perceptions of overall performance improved

significantly this year, as did perceptions of decisions

made in the interest of the community (improving for

the first time since 2014). Decisions made in the

interest of the community is a key influencer of overall

perceptions – council’s State-wide should endeavor to

maintain or improve on this positive result.

In terms of priorities for the year ahead, councils State-

wide should focus on maintaining and improving

performance in the other individual service areas that

most influence perception of overall performance:

• Town planning

• The condition of sealed local roads

• The appearance of public areas.

State-wide, councils should also focus on improving

service areas where stated importance exceeds rated

performance by a wide margin. Key priorities include:

• Unsealed roads (margin of 36 points)

• Community decisions (margin of 25 points)

• Planning for population growth (margin of 24 points)

• Sealed local roads (margin of 23 points)

• Planning and building permits (margin of 20 points).

More generally, consideration should be given to Large

Rural councils and residents aged 50 to 64 years State-

wide, who appear to be driving lower ratings in a

number of areas in 2019.

• It is also important not to ignore, and to learn from,

what is working amongst other groups, especially

Metropolitan councils and residents aged 18 to 34

years, and use these lessons to build on

performance experience and perceptions.

On the positive side, councils should look to maintain

and build upon their improved performance on a

number of measures over the next 12 months.

Focus areas for coming 12 months

13


Summary of

findings

14

Summary of core measures

15

Index scores


71 7172

7069 69

7071

5555 54

53 53

56

60 6061

6059 59 59

60

57 5757

56

5455

5657

55

54 5454

5555 55

56

55

5354

5454

5253

5353

5153 52

53

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sealed

Local

Roads

Community

Consultation

Customer

Service

Overall

Council

Direction

Overall

Performance

Advocacy Making

Community

Decisions

Summary of core measures

Performance MeasuresState-wide

2019

State-wide

2018

Highest

score

Lowest

score

Overall Performance 60 59 Metropolitan

Large Rural

Shires, Aged 50-

64 years

Community Consultation

(Community consultation and engagement)56 55

Metropolitan,

Aged 18-34

years

Aged 50-64

years

Advocacy

(Lobbying on behalf of the community)54 54

Metropolitan,

Aged 18-34

years

Aged 50-64

years

Making Community Decisions (Decisions

made in the interest of the community)55 54 Metropolitan

Aged 50-64

years

Sealed Local Roads

(Condition of sealed local roads)56 53 Metropolitan

Large Rural

Shires

Customer Service 71 70 Metropolitan

Large Rural

Shires, Interface,

Aged 50-64

years, Men

Overall Council Direction 53 52Aged 18-34

years

Aged 35-64

years


16

Summary of key community satisfaction

17

Key measures summary results (%)


10

9

6

7

13

33

39

30

25

30

33

36

35

31

31

33

28

17

10

15

13

14

16

7

5

6

5

7

10

6

1

9

20

10

1

1

Overall Performance


Advocacy

Making Community Decisions

Sealed Local Roads

Customer Service

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

19 62 14 5Overall Council Direction

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

80

80

77

79

71

74

77

73

74

73

71

75

67

81

74

74

80

Unsealed roads

Community decisions

Population growth

Sealed local roads

Planning & building permits

Consultation & engagement

Local streets & footpaths

Town planning policy

Slashing & weed control

Traffic management

Parking facilities

Informing the community

Lobbying

Waste management

Disadvantaged support serv.

Environmental sustainability

Elderly support services

44

55

52

56

52

56

59

55

56

58

56

60

54

68

62

62

68

Individual service areas importance vs performance

18Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.


Importance (index scores) Net Differential

Service areas where importance exceeds performance by 10 points or more, suggesting further investigation is

necessary:

-36

-25

-24

-23

-20

-18

-18

-18

-18

-16

-16

-15

-13

-13

-13

-12

-11

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 following chart, the horizontal axis represents the

council performance index for each individual service.

Service areas appearing on the right-side of the chart

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 service area to the

model. Service areas near the top of the chart have a

greater positive effect on overall performance ratings

than service areas located closer to the axis.

The 27 service area items were tested for normality,

linearity and multicollinearity. Because some of the data

possessed some or more of these features, these 27

service area items were first analysed using

Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine the key

factors or ‘themes’ to emerge, prior to running multiple

regressions against overall performance. Six key

factors / themes emerged around:

• Business, community development, tourism

• Informing, consulting the community

• Local roads

• Support services, community facilities

• Planning (including traffic / parking)

• Maintenance, overall management of public areas.

Regression analysis explained

19


The individual service areas which have the strongest

influence on the overall performance rating are:

• Decisions made in the interest of the community

• The condition of sealed roads (includes local streets

and roads managed by each council but excluding

highways and main roads, managed by VicRoads)

• Council’s general town planning.

Other key service areas with a positive influence on

overall performance include:

• The appearance of public areas

• Business, community development and tourism

• Family support services.

The appearance of public areas has a strong, positive

performance index (72) and a positive relationship to

the overall performance rating. Councils State-wide

continue to perform very well in this area and, while

public areas should remain a focus, there is greater

work to be done elsewhere.

Performance on decisions made in the community’s

interest, the condition of sealed local roads and town

planning is more moderate (though still positive)

overall, and continuing efforts in these areas has the

capacity to lift Councils’ overall performance ratings.

These are among Council’s lower rated performance

areas with performance indices within the range of 55

to 56. Good communication with residents on service

areas could help improve community opinion in these

areas and drive up overall ratings of Victorian councils’

performance.

Results considerations

20


Influence on overall performance: key service areas

21

The 27 performance questions were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine factors / ‘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 six items against overall performance ratings. The multiple regression analysis model above has an R-squared value of 0.540 and

adjusted R-square value of 0.539, which means that 54% 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 = 781.6.

2019 regression analysis (key service areas)


Condition of sealed local roads

Community decisions

Business, community dev. and tourism

Town planning

The appearance of public areas

Family support services

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Gre

ate

r p

ositiv

e in

flu

en

ce

on

Ove

rall

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Gre

ate

r n

eg

ative

in

flu

en

ce

on

Ove

rall

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Performance Index Very GoodVery Poor

`

Focus on these areas satisfactorily

to ensure negative perceptions do

not have an overly negative impact

on community perceptions of overall

performance.

Key positive influence on overall rating

and should remain a focus – but

currently performing well here.

Improvements will have a moderate

influence on overall perceptions.

81

81

80

80

80

79

77

77

75

74

74

74

74

74

73

73

73

72

71

71

71

69

67

65

65

61

59

Waste management



Unsealed roads

Community decisions

Sealed local roads


Population growth







Traffic management



Recreational facilities


Parking facilities

Enforcement of local laws

Business & community dev.

Lobbying

Bus/community dev./tourism


Community & cultural

Tourism development

Individual service area importance

2019 individual service area importance (index scores)

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


22Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?

Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31

Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

81

81

79

80

80

80

78

77

75

73

72

73

74

74

74

74

73

73

71

71

71

69

68

66

65

61

61

79

80

78

79

79

78

77

76

74

72

71

74

73

74

72

74

72

72

72

70

71

70

69

67

64

61

62

80

80

78

79

80

78

77

76

76

73

73

73

73

75

72

74

73

73

71

70

70

70

69

67

66

62

63

79

80

79

78

80

76

77

75

75

73

73

73

73

74

71

73

72

72

71

70

71

69

69

67

65

62

65

79

80

79

78

79

77

77

75

75

73

72

75

72

74

70

73

72

72

71

70

70

69

70

67

66

62

65

79

80

79

81

n/a

n/a

78

75

75

72

73

74

73

73

72

74

73

72

71

71

71

n/a

70

67

66

62

n/a

78

80

80

80

n/a

n/a

77

75

75

71

73

71

73

73

73

73

72

72

71

71

70

n/a

70

66

66

62

n/a

Individual service area importance

2019 individual service area importance (%)

41

38

47

37

39

41

34

38

32

24

33

29

30

29

30

30

23

26

26

26

27

21

21

17

19

12

14

44

44

35

45

42

39

44

35

41

47

39

42

41

41

40

41

46

40

40

39

38

41

38

39

36

35

31

13

15

13

16

15

16

18

19

22

25

21

21

22

24

23

24

26

26

25

25

26

31

28

33

32

40

36

1

2

3

2

2

2

2

5

4

3

5

4

4

4

6

4

4

6

3

6

6

5

8

9

9

10

13

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

4

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

4

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

Waste management



Sealed local roads

Community decisions

Unsealed roads


Population growth







Traffic management



Parking facilities





Lobbying




Tourism development

Extremely important Very important Fairly important

Not that important Not at all important Can't say


23Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council?


Individual service area performance

2019 individual service area performance (index scores)


24

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

74

71

71

69

69

68

70

66

64

63

63

61

60

60

59

58

57

55

53

56

55

54

54

54

52

52

43

73

71

70

70

69

68

71

67

64

63

64

61

60

61

59

57

59

53

53

55

55

53

54

54

52

51

44

72

71

69

69

69

68

70

66

63

63

63

61

60

60

59

57

59

56

54

56

54

52

54

53

51

50

43

73

72

70

70

69

69

72

67

66

63

64

62

60

61

61

58

60

55

55

57

56

54

55

55

54

54

45

75

72

71

71

70

70

73

68

66

64

64

64

62

62

62

58

60

55

55

57

57

55

57

56

54

53

45

73

71

70

70

69

69

71

67

65

n/a

64

62

n/a

62

61

58

60

56

n/a

57

57

55

n/a

55

54

55

44

73

71

70

70

68

69

72

67

65

n/a

64

63

n/a

62

60

57

58

61

n/a

56

57

54

n/a

55

52

54

46

74

72

72

70

69

68

68

67

64

63

62

62

61

61

60

59

58

56

56

56

56

55

55

54

52

52

44







Waste management



Tourism development







Traffic management


Sealed local roads

Parking facilities



Community decisions

Lobbying

Population growth


Unsealed roads

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?



Individual service area performance

25

2019 individual service area performance (%)


26

26

23

23

17

20

12

14

13

13

9

14

11

13

12

8

9

11

10

9

7

6

7

7

6

6

5

45

42

44

42

42

38

38

35

36

35

37

33

35

33

34

35

34

32

33

30

30

30

25

25

25

24

21

20

17

21

21

25

18

26

28

28

31

31

19

31

28

28

31

32

20

31

31

33

29

23

29

31

26

30

5

4

6

8

6

4

8

14

10

14

13

5

9

16

15

9

16

4

10

15

14

12

6

16

13

13

22

2

1

2

4

1

2

3

7

3

5

6

2

3

10

9

3

7

1

3

6

7

7

2

8

5

9

16

1

10

4

2

9

19

12

2

10

3

3

28

12

1

2

13

2

31

13

9

10

17

37

15

20

22

7




Waste management





Tourism development


Traffic management



Sealed local roads



Parking facilities




Community decisions



Population growth

Lobbying


Unsealed roads


Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?


12

8

9

6

6

4

5

5

5

5

10

7

8

4

5

3

4

5

4

4

10

6

8

4

5

4

5

5

4

4

12

n/a

10

6

5

4

7

6

n/a

5

10

n/a

9

7

6

5

6

5

n/a

5

11

8

9

7

5

3

5

5

7

4

10

n/a

8

6

5

4

4

5

10

3

Best things about Council

26

2019 best things about Council (%)- Top mentions only -


11

9

8

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

Parks and Gardens

Customer Service

Recreational/Sporting Facilities

Community Facilities

Waste Management

Community Support Services

Public Areas

Road/Street Maintenance

Generally Good/No Complaints

Community/Public Events/Activities

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q16. Please tell me what is the ONE BEST thing about council? It could be about any of the issues or services we have covered in this survey

or it could be about something else altogether?


Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart.

17

11

7

5

n/a

5

4

3

4

5

3

4

2

7

15

9

9

4

n/a

5

4

4

4

4

3

4

3

8

13

9

9

5

n/a

6

4

3

5

4

3

4

3

9

10

9

9

4

n/a

4

5

3

n/a

5

n/a

4

2

8

12

8

9

4

n/a

4

4

3

n/a

5

n/a

4

3

12

10

10

7

6

5

5

5

3

4

6

4

5

3

9

12

10

8

6

5

6

6

7

5

6

3

6

2

10

Areas for improvement

27

2019 areas for improvement (%)- Top mentions only -


13

10

7

6

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

7

Sealed Road Maintenance


Communication

Waste Management

Development - Inappropriate/Over Development

Financial Management

Parking Availability

Town Planning/Permits/Red Tape

Rates - Too Expensive

Traffic Management

Un-Sealed Road Maintenance

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Local/Community Support

Nothing

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q17. What does Overall MOST need to do to improve its performance?



DETAILED

FINDINGS

28

Overall

performance

29

65

62

60

59

59

59

58

58

56

57

54

56

64

62

60

60

60

59

58

57

58

57

55

54

66

62

61

59

60

59

58

55

57

57

55

54

67

64

62

61

61

60

59

58

59

59

57

56

n/a

65

n/a

62

62

61

60

n/a

n/a

59

57

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

61

61

60

60

n/a

n/a

59

57

n/a

n/a

65

n/a

61

61

60

59

n/a

n/a

58

57

n/a

Overall performance

2019 overall performance (index scores)

67p

63p

61

61p

60

60

59q

58q

58q

58q

56q

56q

Metropolitan

18-34

Interface

65+

Women

Overall

Men

Regional Centres

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

Large Rural


30

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of 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?



Overall performance

31

Overall performance (%)


10

9

9

9

10

11

10

9

14

11

8

7

9

9

10

9

8

8

12

39

37

36

36

39

40

40

40

48

40

37

34

36

38

39

47

38

34

36

35

36

37

36

35

35

35

36

29

33

37

39

37

35

36

32

35

38

37

10

11

10

11

10

9

10

9

6

10

11

12

11

11

9

7

11

13

9

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

2

4

5

7

6

6

4

4

6

6

4

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q3. ON BALANCE, for the last twelve months, how do you feel about the performance of 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?


Customer

service

32


2019 contact with council (%)

Have had contact

6160 61 61

59 5962 62

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


33

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with your council? This may have been in person,

in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?

Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Council in any of the following ways?


68

66

64

64

63

62

61

60

59

60

59

55

66

63

60

63

60

59

57

58

56

59

56

52

65

62

60

61

59

59

57

58

56

58

56

52

69

63

58

64

61

61

59

60

59

60

57

55

69

64

n/a

n/a

63

61

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

57

56

66

64

n/a

n/a

62

60

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

56

55

69

65

n/a

n/a

64

61

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

58

56


2019 contact with council (%)

69

68

64

64

63

62

62

61

60

59

58

55

35-49

50-64

Interface

Small Rural

Women

Overall

Large Rural

Men

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

65+

18-34


34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5. Over the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household had any contact with your council? This may have been in person,

in writing, by telephone conversation, by text message, by email or via their website or social media such as Facebook or Twitter?


Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 63. Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.


72

72

72

72

69

70

69

69

68

68

70

67

71

71

72

72

69

69

68

69

66

68

69

66

73

71

72

70

68

69

69

69

67

69

70

67

73

72

72

71

69

70

70

70

68

70

72

67

n/a

74

73

n/a

71

72

71

n/a

70

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

72

n/a

70

71

71

n/a

70

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

73

n/a

70

71

70

n/a

69

70

n/a

n/a

Customer service rating

35

2019 customer service rating (index scores)


76p

73p

73p

72

71

71

70q

70q

69q

69q

69q

69q

Metropolitan

65+

Women

Regional Centres

18-34

Overall

35-49

Small Rural

Men

50-64

Interface

Large Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Overall 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: 63


Customer service rating

36

Customer service rating (%)


33

31

30

30

31

32

31

31

39

31

36

29

31

29

36

31

32

30

37

36

36

36

36

37

38

38

37

35

35

33

36

37

38

34

37

36

36

35

17

18

18

17

17

16

17

17

15

18

17

18

17

18

16

17

17

18

16

7

8

8

8

8

7

7

8

5

7

6

8

8

7

7

7

7

8

7

6

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

4

8

6

7

6

6

5

5

7

7

5

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q5c. Thinking of the most recent contact, how would you rate Council for customer service? Please keep in mind we do not mean the actual




Method of contact with council

2019 method of contact (%)

3637

39

35

32 32

36

35

34

2930

32

2928

3028

1314

15

13

1314

18 181816 16

14

12 11

13

1112

1112

98 8

109

12

2

3 3 45 5

1 1 21

2 2 3

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


37

By EmailBy Text

Message

By Social

Media

In Writing Via WebsiteIn Person By Telephone



Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%

75

74

71

72

57

64

65

75

76

73

69

84

65

61

76

74

71

74

79

69

62

75

77

73

66

79

68

66

74

77

75

73

82

70

69

73

74

72

75

61

68

68

75

75

73

79

68

73

69

Customer service rating by method of last contact

2019 customer service rating (index score by method of last contact)

76

76

73

71

70

66

64

Via website

In person

By telephone

By social media

By text message

By email

In writing

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012


38






Customer service rating by method of last contact

2019 customer service rating (% by method of last contact)

31

40

37

27

27

26

18

44

34

34

38

41

37

40

14

15

15

25

21

18

21

4

4

7

5

8

10

11

1

5

6

2

3

8

6

5

1

1

3

1

5

Via website

In person

By telephone

By social media

By text message

By email

In writing



39





Communication

40

Communication summary

Overall preferred forms of

communication

• Newsletter sent via mail (28%)

• Newsletter sent via email (25%)

Preferred forms of communication

among over 50s



Preferred forms of communication

among under 50s



• Social media (22%)

Greatest change since

2018


41

• Newsletter sent via mail (-4)

• NEW ADDITION IN 2019: Social Media (13%)

Best form of communication

2019 best form of communication (%)

42

39 39 39 39

3432

28

1819

2122

2425

26

25

18 1817

1614

1514

1315 1514

1513

1212 11

23 3 3

45

8

522 2 2

23

22

13

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


42

Q13. If Overall 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?


Note: ‘Social Media’ was included in 2019.

Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

Best form of communication: under 50s

2019 under 50s best form of communication (%)

3937

3635

37

3230

2521 21

2425

2728 28

26

1819

1615

1213

119

14 14 1413

10 109

6

35 5 5 5

8

12

8

32 2

3 34

32

22

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


43



Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 31


Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

2019 best form of communication: over 50s

2019 over 50s best form of communication (%)

46

4243

4241

37

3331

1516

18 18

21 21

2524

18 18 1817

1618

17 1716

1715

18

15 15 15 15

1 1 1 12

34

21 1 1

2 2 2 2 24

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


44



Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 31


Council

Website

Text

MessageCouncil

Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council

Newsletter

via Mail

Council

Newsletter

via Email

Advertising in

a Local

Newspaper

Social

Media

Council direction

45

Council direction summary


46

• 47% a lot of room for improvement

• 45% little room for improvement

• 5% not much room for improvementImprovement

• Aged 35-64 yearsLeast satisfied with Council

direction

• 67% right direction (20% definitely and 47% probably)

• 22% wrong direction (11% probably and 11% definitely)Direction headed

Council direction• 62% stayed about the same, up 2 points on 2018

• 19% improved, equal points on 2018

• 14% deteriorated, down 1 point on 2018

Most satisfied with Council

direction

• Aged 18-34 years

• Metropolitan residents

Rates vs services trade-off • 33% prefer rate rise, equal points on 2018

• 49% prefer service cuts, up 1 point on 2018

Overall council direction last 12 months

47

2019 overall direction (index scores)


57

54

53

53

52

52

50

53

51

52

50

48

56

54

53

54

54

53

52

55

52

52

51

50

56

55

54

52

51

51

50

51

51

48

49

48

58

56

54

55

53

53

53

53

52

51

51

51

57

n/a

n/a

55

54

53

n/a

n/a

52

n/a

51

50

57

n/a

n/a

54

55

53

n/a

n/a

52

n/a

51

50

56

n/a

n/a

52

53

52

n/a

n/a

51

n/a

49

48

57p

55p

54

54p

53

53

53

52

52q

51q

50q

50q

18-34

Metropolitan

Interface

Women

65+

Overall

Small Rural

Regional Centres

Men

Large Rural

35-49

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Council’s overall performance?



Overall council direction last 12 months

2019 overall council direction (%)

19

19

19

18

20

20

19

18

19

20

21

17

20

19

20

22

17

17

20

62

60

62

62

63

63

63

64

66

62

57

62

60

62

62

64

63

61

60

14

15

13

15

13

13

13

15

9

12

17

16

15

15

13

9

16

18

14

5

5

6

5

5

5

5

4

7

5

4

5

4

5

6

5

4

5

6

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say


48Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Council’s overall performance?


Room for improvement in services

2019 room for improvement in services (%)

47

44

46

40

47

41

46

47

42

49

48

45

38

46

53

49

45

45

42

48

44

50

46

45

50

43

45

46

59

47

39

39

5

7

7

7

7

5

5

5

5

5

4

6

3

5

5

6

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

2

3

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

4

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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


49Q7. Thinking about the next 12 months, how much room for improvement do you think there is in Council’s overall performance?


Right / wrong direction

50

2019 right / wrong direction (%)


20

17

18

20

20

21

19

18

21

21

15

21

18

20

20

22

19

16

22

47

47

47

48

49

52

50

49

50

48

40

45

49

45

49

51

44

44

47

11

14

12

9

10

9

10

11

9

9

17

13

10

11

11

9

14

14

8

11

11

10

9

10

8

10

12

7

9

21

12

10

13

9

8

12

14

11

11

11

13

14

11

10

10

10

12

13

8

9

13

10

11

10

11

11

11

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Definitely right direction Probably right direction Probably wrong direction

Definitely wrong direction Can't say

Q8. Would you say your local Council is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?


Rates / services trade-off

51

2019 rates / services trade-off (%)


10

9

10

10

10

11

11

11

10

10

10

9

11

11

9

12

10

9

8

23

23

21

21

23

25

25

29

26

23

20

20

23

21

25

28

23

21

19

22

24

23

22

22

24

22

22

22

19

23

23

21

22

22

25

24

19

21

27

24

27

28

26

23

24

22

25

28

30

28

27

29

25

22

26

30

30

18

19

20

19

18

17

18

16

18

21

18

20

18

17

20

13

17

21

22

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

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

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?


Individual

service areas

52

Community consultation and engagement importance

53

2019 Consultation and engagement importance (index scores)


77

75

76

74

76

75

76

74

72

72

70

68

78

76

76

75

75

75

75

74

72

72

72

67

78

75

77

77

76

76

76

75

73

73

75

72

78

74

76

76

75

76

75

74

72

72

72

68

77

n/a

76

n/a

74

76

n/a

74

n/a

71

n/a

68

77

n/a

75

n/a

74

74

n/a

73

n/a

71

n/a

67

77

n/a

75

n/a

73

75

n/a

73

n/a

71

n/a

68

77p

76p

76p

76p

75p

75

75

74

71q

71q

70q

68q

50-64

Regional Centres

Women

Small Rural

65+

35-49

Large Rural

Overall

Metropolitan

Men

Interface

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Community consultation and engagement importance

54

2019 Consultation and engagement importance (%)


29

30

29

32

29

28

27

27

25

26

33

31

33

26

32

21

33

36

29

41

40

41

41

42

41

43

43

42

38

42

41

40

39

43

38

39

41

46

24

24

24

22

24

25

25

25

26

29

20

23

23

27

21

33

24

19

20

4

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

3

4

3

6

3

7

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Community consultation and engagement performance

55

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (index scores)


57

58

55

56

54

55

56

54

55

54

55

51

57

58

55

56

55

55

53

53

53

52

54

52

58

57

55

56

55

54

55

53

54

52

52

51

58

59

56

57

56

56

57

54

54

54

53

53

n/a

60

58

58

n/a

57

n/a

56

56

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

60

58

58

n/a

57

n/a

56

56

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

60

58

58

n/a

57

n/a

56

55

n/a

n/a

54

58p

58p

56

56

56

56

55

55q

55q

54q

54q

52q

Metropolitan

18-34

65+

Women

Small Rural

Overall

Interface

Men

35-49

Large Rural

Regional Centres

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?



Community consultation and engagement performance

56

2019 Consultation and engagement performance (%)


9

8

7

8

7

8

8

8

9

8

7

8

10

8

9

8

8

7

10

30

30

29

29

31

32

32

33

31

29

30

30

31

30

30

34

31

27

29

31

32

32

32

32

32

34

33

32

31

32

31

31

30

32

32

32

32

30

15

15

15

15

14

13

13

13

12

14

17

16

15

16

14

13

15

17

14

6

7

6

7

6

5

5

5

4

6

7

7

7

7

6

4

7

8

6

9

9

10

10

9

9

9

8

12

12

7

8

7

9

9

9

7

8

11

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?


Lobbying on behalf of the community importance

57

2019 Lobbying importance (index scores)


71

70

69

70

69

68

68

68

68

66

66

65

72

70

70

72

70

69

69

68

67

67

66

66

73

71

71

69

71

70

69

68

70

68

69

66

72

72

71

68

70

70

69

68

68

67

68

66

73

n/a

72

n/a

71

n/a

70

69

n/a

n/a

67

67

73

n/a

71

n/a

71

n/a

70

69

n/a

n/a

68

66

73

n/a

72

n/a

72

n/a

70

68

n/a

n/a

68

67

70p

70p

70p

70p

68

67

67

66

66

65q

65q

64q

Women

Small Rural

50-64

Regional Centres

35-49

Large Rural

Overall

65+

Interface

Metropolitan

18-34

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Lobbying on behalf of the community importance

58

2019 Lobbying importance (%)


21

23

23

24

23

23

23

23

18

20

24

22

24

18

24

17

25

26

19

38

37

39

38

39

40

40

41

37

36

41

36

40

35

41

36

37

38

40

28

27

27

27

28

27

27

27

30

30

25

29

27

31

26

35

26

24

27

8

8

7

6

6

6

6

6

9

10

7

8

6

10

6

8

8

8

7

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

3

2

2

3

2

4

1

1

3

2

3

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

3

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

4

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

59

2019 Lobbying performance (index scores)


56

57

55

54

53

54

54

54

53

52

52

50

56

57

55

55

55

54

54

54

53

52

51

51

56

57

54

54

54

53

52

55

53

51

50

50

58

58

57

56

56

55

55

56

55

53

53

53

n/a

59

57

57

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

55

54

n/a

53

n/a

59

57

56

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

55

53

n/a

52

n/a

60

57

56

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

55

53

n/a

52

57p

57p

56p

55p

55p

54

54

54

54

52q

52q

51q

Metropolitan

18-34

65+

Women

Small Rural

Overall

Regional Centres

Interface

Men

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?



Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

60

2019 Lobbying performance (%)


6

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

5

6

5

7

6

6

6

5

5

7

25

24

24

23

26

27

26

27

25

24

26

24

26

25

25

30

24

21

24

31

32

31

31

32

32

33

33

30

29

34

32

31

31

32

33

31

32

29

13

13

13

13

12

11

12

12

10

12

14

14

14

14

12

11

14

16

12

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

3

5

6

7

5

5

5

4

7

6

4

20

20

22

22

20

19

18

17

27

26

14

18

17

20

20

16

19

19

24

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?


Decisions made in the interest of the community

importance

61

2019 Community decisions made importance (index scores)


81

81

77

81

80

80

80

78

79

78

79

79

81

82

78

81

81

80

79

79

79

78

78

79

80

82

n/a

82

80

80

80

79

79

77

79

79

82

80

82

81

80

80

80

78

79

77

78

80

81

n/a

n/a

81

80

n/a

79

n/a

79

77

78

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

n/a

82p

82p

81

81p

81

80

80

80

79

78q

78q

78q

50-64

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Women

35-49

Large Rural

Overall

Interface

65+

Men

18-34

Metropolitan

2018 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?




importance

62

2019 Community decisions made importance (%)


39

39

39

39

38

37

35

43

43

41

41

36

42

36

42

43

35

42

42

42

42

42

43

43

35

40

41

44

42

41

41

40

40

45

15

15

15

14

15

16

17

15

13

15

12

16

14

19

14

12

14

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

3

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

3

3

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



performance

63

2019 Community decisions made performance (index scores)


58

57

54

56

54

52

54

53

52

52

52

50

58

58

55

55

55

55

54

53

52

52

51

51

59

58

54

56

55

53

54

53

52

51

50

50

59

59

55

58

56

56

55

54

53

52

52

52

n/a

60

58

n/a

57

n/a

57

56

55

n/a

n/a

53

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

60p

58p

55

55

55

55

55

54q

52q

52q

52q

51q

Metropolitan

18-34

65+

Interface

Women

Small Rural

Overall

Men

35-49

Regional Centres

Large Rural

50-64

2018 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?




performance

64

2019 Community decisions made performance (%)


7

6

6

7

7

7

9

6

6

5

7

7

7

8

6

6

8

30

30

29

29

31

33

33

31

29

28

31

30

30

37

29

26

29

33

34

34

33

33

34

30

30

33

34

33

32

34

31

32

35

33

14

14

14

14

14

12

9

13

16

16

14

14

13

10

16

16

13

7

7

7

8

6

5

4

6

9

9

7

8

6

6

8

8

6

10

9

10

10

9

10

14

14

7

8

7

9

10

9

9

9

11

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Decisions made in the interest of the community’ over the last 12 months?


The condition of sealed local roads in your area

importance

65

2019 Sealed local roads importance (index scores)


84

82

81

80

82

80

80

80

81

78

77

78

81

80

80

77

79

79

78

79

80

77

75

77

n/a

79

79

80

79

78

78

79

76

76

76

76

78

78

78

78

77

77

76

78

77

75

73

75

n/a

79

79

n/a

n/a

79

77

78

n/a

75

73

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

n/a

82p

81p

81p

80

80

80p

79

79

79

77q

77q

77q

Small Rural

50-64

Women

Large Rural

Interface

35-49

Overall

65+

Regional Centres

Men

18-34

Metropolitan

2018 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?




importance

66

2019 Sealed local roads importance (%)


37

38

35

34

32

33

31

42

36

40

44

33

41

36

38

42

33

45

44

44

46

44

45

49

40

45

43

42

47

43

41

45

43

51

16

15

18

16

20

18

18

15

18

15

12

18

14

20

15

14

14

2

2

2

3

2

3

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?



performance

67

2019 Sealed local roads performance (index scores)


68

57

55

55

54

53

53

53

52

50

49

45

66

59

54

56

53

53

53

54

52

51

50

43

67

60

56

58

54

54

54

54

52

51

52

44

69

60

57

57

55

55

55

55

53

52

52

45

n/a

n/a

56

59

n/a

55

55

55

54

52

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

n/a

n/a

69p

60p

58p

57p

57

56

56

56

54q

53q

53q

47q

Metropolitan

Interface

65+

18-34

Regional Centres

Men

Overall

Women

35-49

50-64

Small Rural

Large Rural

2018 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?




performance

68

2019 Sealed local roads performance (%)


13

11

11

11

11

12

23

14

12

8

9

13

12

15

12

10

13

33

31

32

33

33

33

43

37

35

26

31

34

33

34

33

31

34

28

28

28

28

29

27

22

27

28

29

30

27

29

25

27

29

30

16

17

16

16

16

17

8

13

14

20

18

15

16

16

16

17

13

10

12

12

11

10

10

3

7

9

16

11

10

9

10

11

12

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of sealed local roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?


Informing the community importance

69

2019 Informing community importance (index scores)


77

77

76

75

76

75

75

75

73

77

73

72

77

77

76

76

76

74

74

74

72

74

73

71

76

79

77

78

76

77

76

75

75

77

74

72

76

78

77

76

75

76

75

75

73

74

73

72

n/a

78

76

n/a

75

n/a

75

75

73

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

78

77

n/a

75

n/a

75

75

73

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

78

78

n/a

75

n/a

75

75

74

n/a

n/a

72

79p

78p

77p

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

73q

71q

Regional Centres

Women

50-64

Small Rural

65+

Large Rural

Overall

35-49

18-34

Interface

Metropolitan

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Informing the community importance

70

2019 Informing community importance (%)


32

32

30

33

30

30

30

31

28

30

40

31

34

27

36

32

31

36

29

41

41

43

42

44

43

44

44

41

41

38

44

42

40

42

38

39

41

47

22

22

23

20

22

22

22

21

25

23

18

21

19

26

18

25

24

19

20

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

4

5

4

3

3

4

5

3

5

5

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Informing the community performance

71

2019 Informing community performance (index scores)


61

59

61

60

60

59

58

58

60

56

56

59

61

60

60

61

60

59

59

58

55

58

57

58

63

56

61

59

60

59

59

58

55

58

56

59

64

59

62

61

62

61

61

60

56

60

58

58

n/a

n/a

63

65

63

62

62

62

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

63

62

61

60

61

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

62

61

60

58

59

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

62p

61

61p

60

60

60

60

59q

59

58q

57q

56q

Metropolitan

Large Rural

18-34

65+

Women

Overall

35-49

Men

Interface

Small Rural

50-64

Regional Centres

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?



Informing the community performance

72

2019 Informing community performance (%)


13

11

11

12

12

13

12

12

15

12

11

13

11

12

13

13

12

12

13

35

36

35

35

38

40

38

38

36

32

32

38

34

35

35

37

36

31

34

31

31

32

31

31

30

32

31

31

32

30

30

32

31

32

31

30

33

31

14

13

13

13

12

11

11

13

12

16

18

13

14

14

13

13

14

15

13

5

5

5

5

4

4

3

4

3

4

7

4

6

5

4

4

5

6

4

3

3

3

4

2

3

3

2

4

3

2

3

3

3

3

2

3

3

4

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?


The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area

importance

73

2019 Streets and footpaths importance (index scores)


79

80

79

78

79

78

78

79

77

76

76

75

79

80

78

78

78

78

77

77

75

76

75

74

80

79

78

78

78

77

77

77

77

75

74

76

79

78

78

78

77

78

77

77

77

76

75

75

79

n/a

78

78

n/a

77

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

74

81

n/a

79

78

n/a

78

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

75

79

n/a

79

77

n/a

78

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

74

79p

79p

79p

78p

78p

78p

77

77

77

77

75q

75q

Women

Interface

50-64

35-49

Metropolitan

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

18-34

2018 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?




importance

74

2019 Streets and footpaths importance (%)


34

35

34

34

34

33

35

32

33

41

33

34

32

29

38

31

36

38

31

44

43

42

43

43

44

44

46

48

40

45

43

43

46

43

42

41

43

50

18

18

19

18

19

18

18

18

17

16

18

19

20

21

16

22

19

16

15

2

3

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?



performance

75

2019 Streets and footpaths performance (index scores)


64

62

59

59

59

58

58

58

58

57

56

54

62

60

57

57

56

56

57

56

57

57

54

53

63

60

58

58

57

57

57

56

57

58

55

53

64

62

58

59

56

58

58

57

57

59

55

54

n/a

62

n/a

59

n/a

57

58

56

57

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

59

n/a

57

58

56

57

n/a

54

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

58

n/a

56

57

56

57

n/a

54

n/a

65p

62p

61p

60p

60

59

59

58q

58

57q

57q

55q

Metropolitan

18-34

Regional Centres

Men

Interface

35-49

Overall

Women

65+

Small Rural

50-64

Large Rural

2018 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?




performance

76

2019 Streets and footpaths performance (%)


14

14

13

12

13

13

14

13

19

16

16

11

12

15

14

17

15

11

13

35

34

33

34

34

34

33

34

39

35

36

31

33

36

33

37

34

35

33

28

28

28

28

28

28

28

28

26

28

27

28

29

27

28

26

27

28

29

14

14

15

14

15

15

15

15

11

13

13

17

14

13

15

13

13

14

15

7

7

9

8

7

7

8

9

4

7

6

9

8

7

7

6

8

8

7

2

2

2

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

2

4

4

2

3

1

2

3

4

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?


Traffic management importance

77

2019 Traffic management importance (index scores)


84

77

76

73

74

74

74

74

73

71

67

63

67

75

76

72

74

72

72

71

71

69

67

62

71

75

75

72

73

72

72

72

70

69

70

63

68

73

74

72

73

71

71

72

68

68

68

57

n/a

73

n/a

71

73

69

70

n/a

69

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

74

74

71

72

n/a

70

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

76

n/a

74

75

73

73

n/a

72

70

n/a

n/a

83p

76p

75p

74

74

73

73

73

72

71q

64q

61q

Interface

Women

Metropolitan

50-64

65+

35-49

Overall

Regional Centres

18-34

Men

Large Rural

Small Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Traffic management importance

78

2019 Traffic management importance (%)


30

31

27

27

25

23

26

29

31

51

27

16

14

27

32

31

29

32

28

40

40

41

41

41

42

42

42

42

35

41

38

33

39

42

36

42

39

44

23

22

24

24

26

27

25

23

20

11

28

31

38

24

22

25

22

22

21

6

5

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

3

3

11

11

8

3

7

5

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Traffic management performance

79

2019 Traffic management performance (index scores)


65

56

60

57

58

58

57

57

56

55

55

51

67

61

62

60

61

60

56

59

58

58

57

59

65

59

62

60

61

60

56

59

57

57

57

57

67

62

59

60

62

60

57

60

59

58

57

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

63

61

n/a

60

60

59

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61

63

60

n/a

60

59

58

57

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

62

59

n/a

58

58

55

56

n/a

66p

60p

59

59

59

58

58

58

57

56q

56q

52q

Small Rural

Regional Centres

Large Rural

65+

18-34

Women

Metropolitan

Overall

Men

35-49

50-64

Interface

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic management’ over the last 12 months?



Traffic management performance

80

2019 Traffic management performance (%)


9

10

10

10

10

10

10

9

9

9

13

9

11

9

9

9

9

8

11

37

36

38

38

40

40

39

38

36

31

38

42

47

37

38

41

37

35

36

31

30

30

30

31

30

31

31

33

28

29

29

31

30

32

31

28

33

31

13

15

13

13

12

12

13

13

12

18

12

12

7

14

12

12

15

15

11

6

7

5

6

5

5

5

5

5

12

7

5

1

7

6

6

8

7

5

3

3

3

4

3

3

3

3

4

2

2

3

4

3

3

1

3

3

5

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic management’ over the last 12 months?


Parking facilities importance

81

2019 Parking importance (index scores)


75

74

74

73

72

71

70

69

69

64

66

72

73

73

73

71

70

69

67

66

64

66

73

74

73

72

70

70

69

68

66

65

68

74

74

74

72

71

70

70

67

67

67

67

n/a

74

74

n/a

71

70

69

68

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

75

74

n/a

73

71

70

68

67

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

74

n/a

72

71

70

68

68

n/a

n/a

75p

74p

73p

73p

72

71

70

69q

68q

66q

66q

Regional Centres

Women

65+

Metropolitan

50-64

Overall

35-49

18-34

Men

Small Rural

Large Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Parking facilities importance

82

2019 Parking importance (%)


26

27

25

24

24

24

25

24

28

31

20

19

21

31

25

25

29

27

40

39

39

41

41

40

42

42

41

41

36

39

40

40

36

39

40

45

26

27

28

27

27

28

26

27

24

23

31

30

29

22

30

27

24

21

6

6

6

7

6

6

6

6

5

3

11

9

8

4

7

7

6

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Parking facilities performance

83

2019 Parking performance (index scores)


60

59

57

58

56

56

56

54

55

55

56

51

63

60

57

56

56

56

55

54

55

53

54

52

61

58

56

57

56

57

56

55

56

54

55

54

62

59

60

59

58

58

57

55

56

55

55

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

58

58

57

56

57

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

58

57

57

56

56

n/a

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

57

55

56

55

56

n/a

55

n/a

60p

58p

57

57

56

56

56

55

55q

55

54q

50q

Small Rural

Large Rural

Interface

18-34

Men

35-49

Overall

65+

Women

Metropolitan

50-64

Regional Centres

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?



Parking facilities performance

84

2019 Parking performance (%)


9

9

10

9

9

10

9

9

7

9

9

10

12

9

9

9

9

9

9

34

35

33

34

36

35

36

35

33

38

27

38

36

35

32

36

36

32

31

32

31

32

32

32

32

33

33

34

29

30

31

33

31

33

33

31

31

33

16

15

16

14

15

15

14

15

16

15

21

13

11

15

16

15

14

17

16

7

8

8

7

6

6

6

6

7

7

12

6

5

7

7

5

8

9

7

2

2

2

3

3

2

3

2

3

2

1

3

3

2

3

2

2

2

4

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?


Enforcement of local laws importance

85

2019 Law enforcement importance (index scores)


74

73

74

72

70

71

71

71

69

66

68

67

74

72

73

73

70

71

71

71

70

67

68

68

74

71

73

71

70

70

70

71

70

69

69

66

74

72

71

72

70

71

72

71

70

68

70

67

74

n/a

n/a

73

70

70

n/a

71

68

n/a

n/a

66

75

n/a

n/a

73

72

71

n/a

71

70

n/a

n/a

68

74

n/a

n/a

71

71

70

n/a

70

68

n/a

n/a

66

75p

73p

73p

72p

71

71

70

69q

69q

68q

68q

66q

Women

Metropolitan

Interface

65+

18-34

Overall

Regional Centres

50-64

35-49

Small Rural

Large Rural

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Enforcement of local laws importance

86

2019 Law enforcement importance (%)


27

27

27

26

25

24

27

24

31

32

25

23

22

22

31

29

27

25

25

38

37

38

38

41

40

40

41

38

36

38

36

39

36

40

35

34

38

45

26

27

26

27

27

28

26

27

23

22

28

30

29

30

22

28

29

27

23

6

6

6

6

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

9

4

7

7

7

5

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

3

1

1

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Enforcement of local laws performance

87

2019 Law enforcement performance (index scores)


67

66

65

64

64

64

64

63

62

62

61

61

67

66

65

64

64

63

64

65

63

63

60

61

67

64

65

64

63

63

63

64

62

62

61

61

70

67

67

66

65

65

66

66

64

64

65

63

69

n/a

67

n/a

66

n/a

66

n/a

65

64

n/a

63

69

n/a

66

n/a

65

n/a

65

n/a

64

64

n/a

62

69

n/a

67

n/a

64

n/a

65

n/a

64

64

n/a

63

67p

66p

65p

64

64

64

64

63q

63q

62q

62q

61q

18-34

Regional Centres

Women

Metropolitan

35-49

Large Rural

Overall

Small Rural

Men

65+

Interface

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?



Enforcement of local laws performance

88

2019 Law enforcement performance (%)


12

12

12

12

13

14

13

13

12

13

16

11

12

12

13

16

12

10

11

38

39

39

37

40

41

40

40

38

37

40

39

37

38

38

44

40

35

34

26

25

26

26

26

25

25

26

26

24

25

26

28

26

26

24

25

28

28

8

8

8

8

6

7

7

7

7

11

7

7

7

8

7

7

8

9

8

3

3

3

4

3

3

3

3

3

4

3

3

4

4

3

3

3

4

3

12

12

13

14

12

11

12

11

14

11

9

13

12

11

13

7

12

13

16

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?


Family support services importance

89

2019 Family support importance (index scores)


78

76

76

75

75

74

74

72

72

72

69

69

77

76

74

76

73

73

73

72

72

71

71

69

77

75

75

73

73

74

73

72

70

71

72

68

77

74

74

75

72

73

73

72

72

72

72

68

77

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

72

n/a

71

72

n/a

68

78

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

73

n/a

72

72

n/a

68

78

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

73

n/a

72

73

n/a

69

78p

76p

76p

75

75p

74

74

73

72q

72q

71q

69q

Women

18-34

Interface

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

35-49

Overall

Large Rural

50-64

65+

Small Rural

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Family support services importance

90

2019 Family support importance (%)


29

30

28

28

28

26

27

27

29

34

32

28

26

23

35

34

30

29

23

42

40

41

41

42

42

44

44

44

40

42

41

40

41

43

40

42

40

46

21

23

22

22

23

24

22

22

19

20

20

23

25

27

16

20

22

22

21

4

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

5

6

3

4

4

5

4

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

4

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Family support services performance

91

2019 Family support performance (index scores)


68

68

67

66

67

66

66

67

67

67

65

63

70

68

68

67

67

66

67

67

66

65

65

64

69

69

66

66

66

66

66

67

66

65

64

62

70

68

67

66

67

67

67

68

66

66

67

65

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

68

68

69

67

n/a

n/a

66

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

67

67

68

66

n/a

n/a

64

70

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

66

67

67

65

n/a

n/a

64

70p

69p

68p

68

67

67

67

67

67

67

65q

64q

65+

Metropolitan

Small Rural

Regional Centres

18-34

Men

Overall

Women

35-49

Interface

Large Rural

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?



Family support services performance

92

2019 Family support performance (%)


11

11

11

10

11

12

11

11

11

11

15

10

12

10

12

12

11

8

12

32

31

30

31

34

33

33

34

32

31

35

32

32

33

31

37

35

27

28

20

21

20

21

21

20

21

22

18

21

22

22

18

20

20

21

21

22

17

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

3

5

6

4

4

4

5

5

4

5

3

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

31

32

34

32

29

29

29

26

35

32

20

31

32

33

30

23

27

37

39

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?


Elderly support services importance

93

2019 Elderly support importance (index scores)


83

81

80

81

80

80

79

78

79

79

77

75

82

80

80

78

79

79

78

78

77

77

76

74

82

79

78

79

79

79

78

78

78

78

77

75

82

80

80

77

80

80

79

78

78

78

77

75

83

80

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

78

77

75

83

81

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

79

77

75

83

81

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

80

n/a

n/a

80

78

76

84p

82p

81

81

80

80

80

79q

79q

79q

78q

76q

Women

50-64

Regional Centres

Interface

65+

Small Rural

Overall

Large Rural

Metropolitan

35-49

18-34

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Elderly support services importance

94

2019 Elderly support importance (%)


38

38

35

36

36

35

36

37

36

42

41

38

40

30

46

35

37

44

37

44

43

44

44

44

46

45

46

46

40

44

42

43

46

42

45

43

40

46

15

16

17

16

16

16

15

14

14

15

12

16

14

19

10

17

16

12

13

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

3

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Elderly support services performance

95

2019 Elderly support performance (index scores)


70

69

67

68

68

66

67

67

67

67

67

65

72

71

68

68

68

68

67

67

67

66

64

66

71

70

67

68

69

66

69

67

66

65

59

66

74

72

69

69

69

66

69

67

69

66

65

67

74

n/a

70

70

71

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

68

n/a

69

74

n/a

69

69

70

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

67

n/a

67

73

n/a

68

69

69

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

66

n/a

67

72p

71p

69p

68

68

67

67q

67q

67q

67q

66q

66q

65+

Small Rural

Men

Overall

Women

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

18-34

Large Rural

35-49

Interface

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?



Elderly support services performance

96

2019 Elderly support performance (%)


14

14

14

14

15

16

15

15

11

11

18

13

19

13

15

11

10

14

22

33

32

31

30

34

34

33

34

29

29

36

32

37

33

32

35

32

30

33

19

19

19

20

19

17

19

20

18

16

22

20

18

18

19

19

17

20

18

5

5

4

5

4

4

4

5

4

5

6

5

4

4

5

4

4

6

5

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

28

29

30

30

26

27

28

25

37

37

14

27

21

29

26

29

36

28

21

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?


Disadvantaged support services importance

97

2019 Disadvantaged support importance (index scores)


76

72

73

74

72

72

72

73

70

69

75

72

72

71

71

70

71

72

70

67

76

73

75

73

73

73

71

72

72

69

77

72

74

74

73

73

73

73

72

69

77

n/a

74

n/a

72

72

72

72

n/a

68

78

n/a

75

n/a

73

72

73

73

n/a

69

77

n/a

75

n/a

73

72

73

73

n/a

69

78p

77p

76p

75

74

74

74

73

71q

70q

Women

Interface

18-34

Metropolitan

Overall

35-49

50-64

65+

Large Rural

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?



*Caution: small sample size < n=30

Disadvantaged support services importance

98

2019 Disadvantaged support importance (%)


30

27

26

27

28

25

27

27

32

34

27

24

36

35

30

30

25

48

44

41

41

41

42

42

44

43

43

42

42

38

39

42

36

41

41

45

45

48

22

24

24

22

23

23

23

23

20

20

25

27

17

23

22

22

21

7

6

4

4

5

5

4

4

4

4

3

2

5

5

2

4

4

5

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

4

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Personal user*

Household user*



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Disadvantaged support services performance

99

2019 Disadvantaged support performance (index scores)


64

63

61

61

61

62

61

61

60

62

58

64

62

63

62

61

61

61

60

61

56

59

64

61

59

62

61

60

61

59

60

58

59

65

62

61

63

62

62

62

61

62

61

60

67

65

n/a

n/a

64

65

n/a

62

63

n/a

61

64

64

n/a

n/a

62

65

n/a

61

61

n/a

60

66

63

n/a

n/a

63

66

n/a

60

63

n/a

59

65p

63p

63

63

62

61

61

61

60q

60q

60q

65+

Men

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

Overall

18-34

Large Rural

35-49

Women

Interface

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?



Disadvantaged support services performance

100

2019 Disadvantaged support performance (%)


7

6

6

6

7

8

7

8

7

6

11

7

7

8

7

6

6

10

25

25

25

24

28

28

27

28

25

24

30

23

27

23

28

25

22

24

23

23

22

23

23

22

22

23

21

20

27

24

22

23

27

20

23

20

6

6

6

6

6

5

6

6

5

7

7

6

4

7

6

6

6

5

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

37

38

39

39

35

35

36

34

41

40

22

38

38

36

30

41

40

40

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?


Recreational facilities importance

101

2019 Recreational facilities importance (index scores)


75

75

74

74

73

74

73

74

72

72

72

72

74

74

73

72

73

72

72

73

71

71

70

71

75

75

73

72

73

73

73

73

72

71

71

72

75

73

72

72

72

72

72

72

73

71

71

70

74

74

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

71

70

70

75

74

73

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

71

70

70

75

74

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

71

70

70

75p

73p

73p

72

72

72

72

72

72

71q

70q

70q

35-49

Women

50-64

Large Rural

Metropolitan

Interface

Overall

Regional Centres

Small Rural

65+

Men

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Recreational facilities importance

102

2019 Recreational facilities importance (%)


23

25

24

25

23

23

23

22

22

25

22

23

24

20

25

20

29

25

18

46

46

46

45

46

47

47

49

49

44

47

46

44

46

47

44

44

46

50

26

25

26

24

26

26

26

25

26

24

26

25

27

28

24

30

23

24

25

4

3

4

4

3

4

3

3

3

5

4

4

4

4

3

5

3

3

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Recreational facilities performance

103

2019 Recreational facilities performance (index scores)


74

72

70

70

69

69

69

68

68

69

68

66

73

73

69

70

70

69

68

66

69

69

68

66

73

72

70

69

69

69

69

67

67

68

67

65

74

73

69

70

70

69

69

68

69

70

67

66

n/a

74

n/a

71

71

70

71

n/a

69

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

70

70

70

70

n/a

69

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

70

70

69

70

n/a

68

n/a

67

n/a

75p

74p

71

71p

70

70

70

70

69q

68q

68q

68q

Metropolitan

65+

Regional Centres

Women

Overall

Men

18-34

Interface

50-64

Small Rural

35-49

Large Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?



Recreational facilities performance

104

2019 Recreational facilities performance (%)


23

22

22

21

22

23

22

21

27

23

24

19

20

22

23

21

22

21

26

44

42

43

43

43

44

44

44

46

44

45

43

42

45

43

46

42

44

43

21

22

22

23

23

21

22

22

18

19

19

24

23

21

21

22

22

22

19

6

7

7

7

6

6

7

7

4

7

6

7

8

6

7

7

8

7

4

2

3

2

3

2

2

2

2

1

3

2

3

3

2

2

2

4

2

1

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

2

3

3

6

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?


The appearance of public areas importance

105

2019 Public areas importance (index scores)


76

75

75

75

74

74

76

74

74

73

72

71

76

75

75

75

75

74

75

74

74

73

72

72

76

75

75

75

74

74

75

74

74

74

72

72

75

75

74

75

73

73

73

73

74

73

71

70

75

75

74

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

71

70

76

76

75

75

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

72

71

75

74

74

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

71

71

75p

75p

74p

74p

74p

74p

73

73

73

73

71q

71q

Women

50-64

65+

35-49

Metropolitan

Small Rural

Interface

Overall

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?



The appearance of public areas importance

106

2019 Public areas importance (%)


24

26

26

26

24

25

26

23

25

24

23

24

25

22

27

22

27

28

22

47

46

47

48

47

48

48

49

48

50

48

45

47

47

48

44

45

47

52

25

24

24

23

25

25

23

25

24

23

25

27

25

28

22

30

24

23

22

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

3

3

4

2

4

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?


The appearance of public areas performance

107

2019 Public areas performance (index scores)


73

73

72

72

71

72

71

71

71

70

69

68

73

72

72

74

72

72

71

72

71

69

69

66

73

72

72

73

72

71

71

71

71

69

69

66

72

73

72

74

73

72

72

72

71

70

69

67

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

73

72

72

72

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

72

71

71

70

71

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

73

72

71

70

71

70

n/a

n/a

74p

74p

73p

73p

73p

73p

72

72

72

71q

70q

69q

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

65+

Small Rural

18-34

Women

Overall

35-49

Men

50-64

Large Rural

Interface

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?



The appearance of public areas performance

108

2019 Public areas performance (%)


26

24

25

24

24

25

24

23

28

19

31

23

28

25

28

26

27

25

28

45

45

46

46

47

46

46

48

46

48

43

46

44

47

44

48

45

45

44

20

21

20

21

20

20

22

21

19

22

19

22

20

20

21

19

20

21

21

5

6

6

6

5

5

6

6

5

6

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

3

2

3

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?


Art centres and libraries importance

109

2019 Art centres and libraries importance (index scores)


69

67

67

65

65

65

62

67

62

63

61

61

69

67

66

66

64

64

61

62

63

62

61

60

70

68

67

66

66

65

64

66

63

64

65

60

70

69

67

67

65

65

63

64

63

66

62

61

70

n/a

68

66

66

66

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

70

n/a

69

67

66

67

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

71

n/a

68

67

66

67

64

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

69p

67p

66

65

65

65

64

64

64

63q

63q

61q

Women

Metropolitan

65+

35-49

Overall

50-64

18-34

Interface

Large Rural

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Art centres and libraries importance

110

2019 Art centres and libraries importance (%)


17

16

15

18

16

17

16

17

19

16

15

16

16

14

20

17

18

17

16

39

39

39

40

40

40

42

42

41

38

37

35

36

35

43

36

38

38

43

33

34

34

30

33

33

33

33

31

31

34

36

34

35

31

35

34

33

30

9

9

9

9

8

8

7

7

7

10

10

9

11

13

5

10

9

9

7

2

2

2

3

2

1

1

2

1

3

3

2

3

3

1

2

2

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Art centres and libraries performance

111

2019 Art centres and libraries performance (index scores)


76

75

75

75

74

76

74

73

73

73

72

71

76

75

75

72

73

75

73

72

72

72

72

70

75

74

74

68

72

75

72

71

71

70

71

70

76

75

75

72

73

75

73

69

73

72

71

73

78

n/a

77

n/a

75

n/a

76

n/a

74

74

73

n/a

76

n/a

74

n/a

73

n/a

73

n/a

73

72

72

n/a

76

n/a

74

n/a

73

n/a

72

n/a

73

71

71

n/a

77p

76p

76p

75

74

74

74

74

73q

73q

73

73

65+

Metropolitan

Women

Interface

Overall

Regional Centres

35-49

Small Rural

18-34

Men

50-64

Large Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?



Art centres and libraries performance

112

2019 Art centres and libraries performance (%)


26

25

23

23

24

27

25

24

27

28

26

23

25

22

29

24

27

22

29

42

42

43

42

44

44

44

44

43

40

44

42

42

43

42

45

42

42

41

17

18

18

18

18

17

18

19

16

15

20

18

18

19

16

19

16

19

16

4

4

4

5

4

3

4

5

3

4

3

5

4

3

4

3

5

4

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

10

10

10

10

9

8

8

7

10

12

7

11

9

12

8

8

9

12

11

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?


Community and cultural activities importance

113

2019 Community and cultural activities importance (index scores)


64

61

62

60

63

59

61

60

61

60

61

57

65

57

62

62

61

60

61

63

61

61

61

57

66

63

62

64

64

61

62

62

61

61

62

58

66

59

63

65

63

61

62

62

61

61

62

58

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

61

62

62

61

n/a

n/a

58

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

62

62

61

63

n/a

n/a

59

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

61

62

60

62

n/a

n/a

58

64p

62

62

62

61

61

61

61

61

61

60q

58q

Women

Interface

Regional Centres

Small Rural

18-34

50-64

Overall

35-49

65+

Large Rural

Metropolitan

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Community and cultural activities importance

114

2019 Community and cultural activities importance (%)


12

12

12

12

11

11

11

11

11

12

13

11

13

9

14

12

13

12

10

35

34

35

37

37

37

37

37

35

39

36

34

38

31

39

34

34

36

38

40

40

39

38

40

41

41

39

41

37

38

42

36

42

38

42

40

40

38

10

10

11

10

10

9

9

10

10

11

9

10

9

13

7

10

10

10

9

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

3

4

4

1

2

3

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Community and cultural activities performance

115

2019 Community and cultural activities performance (index scores)


69

70

70

69

68

69

67

67

67

67

68

69

70

70

71

70

69

69

64

68

69

67

67

69

69

71

70

70

69

69

63

67

67

67

68

65

71

71

71

70

69

69

65

68

69

68

69

68

72

n/a

71

71

n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

68

69

n/a

71

n/a

70

69

n/a

69

n/a

68

n/a

68

68

n/a

71

n/a

70

68

n/a

68

n/a

67

n/a

67

68

n/a

71p

70p

70p

69

69

69

68

68

67q

67q

67q

66q

65+

Metropolitan

Women

35-49

Regional Centres

Overall

Interface

50-64

Large Rural

Men

18-34

Small Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?



Community and cultural activities performance

116

2019 Community and cultural activities performance (%)


17

17

17

17

18

18

17

15

19

17

18

16

15

15

20

15

19

18

19

42

42

42

41

43

44

44

44

42

42

43

41

40

41

42

42

43

39

41

25

25

25

25

25

24

25

26

23

23

26

27

30

26

24

27

23

27

23

6

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

7

6

5

7

6

6

4

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

9

9

10

9

7

8

8

9

10

10

6

8

7

10

7

7

7

8

12

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?


Waste management importance

117

2019 Waste management importance (index scores)


83

83

84

82

82

82

81

81

81

79

78

80

81

81

79

80

80

79

79

79

78

78

76

77

82

82

81

81

80

80

80

79

79

79

79

78

81

80

79

81

80

79

79

80

78

76

77

77

n/a

80

n/a

80

79

80

79

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

77

n/a

81

n/a

81

80

80

79

n/a

n/a

76

n/a

77

n/a

80

n/a

79

79

79

78

n/a

n/a

76

n/a

77

83p

83p

82

82p

82p

82p

81

80q

80q

80q

79q

79q

Metropolitan

Women

Interface

50-64

35-49

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

Large Rural

18-34

Small Rural

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Waste management importance

118

2019 Waste management importance (%)


41

42

36

38

35

35

36

32

46

43

39

39

37

37

45

38

44

44

40

44

43

46

45

46

47

47

49

43

44

44

44

46

46

43

44

41

42

48

13

13

16

14

16

16

15

16

10

11

14

14

15

15

10

16

13

11

10

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Waste management performance

119

2019 Waste management performance (index scores)


75

73

68

70

70

70

70

70

69

69

68

67

75

74

71

71

71

71

69

71

70

70

69

68

76

74

71

70

70

70

69

70

69

68

67

66

77

75

73

72

73

72

71

72

71

69

70

68

n/a

75

n/a

73

74

73

n/a

72

n/a

71

71

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

72

73

71

n/a

70

n/a

69

69

n/a

n/a

75

n/a

72

73

72

n/a

72

n/a

69

70

n/a

73p

72p

70p

69p

68

68

68

68

66q

66q

66q

64q

Metropolitan

65+

Interface

Men

18-34

Overall

Regional Centres

Women

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

Large Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?



Waste management performance

120

2019 Waste management performance (%)


23

24

25

24

25

26

24

24

28

25

24

18

20

24

22

23

20

21

27

42

45

44

45

47

47

47

48

44

44

42

40

41

43

41

42

43

40

43

21

18

18

18

17

16

18

17

18

17

19

24

22

20

22

21

21

23

19

8

7

6

7

6

5

6

6

5

8

8

10

9

8

9

8

10

10

6

4

3

3

4

3

3

3

2

2

3

5

5

4

4

4

4

5

4

3

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

4

3

2

3

2

2

2

3

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?


Business and community development and tourism

importance

121

2019 Business/development/tourism importance (index scores)


74

71

68

68

67

66

66

65

65

65

59

74

72

69

67

69

68

67

67

66

65

60

73

71

70

67

68

67

67

69

67

64

60

73

70

69

69

68

67

67

70

65

65

59

n/a

n/a

70

68

68

67

67

n/a

66

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

68

68

67

67

n/a

65

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

67

66

66

66

n/a

64

63

n/a

73p

71p

67p

67p

66

66

65

64

64

63q

57q

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Women

50-64

35-49

65+

Overall

Large Rural

18-34

Men

Metropolitan

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?




importance

122

2019 Business/development/tourism importance (%)


19

21

21

21

21

20

20

18

11

28

15

25

18

21

18

21

22

18

36

36

38

38

38

38

39

39

29

41

38

41

35

37

33

35

37

39

32

31

30

30

31

31

31

31

39

25

35

26

32

31

35

32

30

29

9

9

8

8

7

8

8

9

16

4

9

5

12

7

12

9

9

8

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

4

1

2

2

3

2

1

2

2

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development and tourism’ be as a responsibility for Council?



performance

123

2019 Business/development/tourism performance (index scores)


65

62

62

62

61

59

60

60

59

59

59

58

66

64

63

63

60

61

61

60

60

60

64

58

n/a

62

62

63

59

62

60

62

59

59

61

59

63

63

63

64

59

63

61

62

60

59

63

59

n/a

63

63

64

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

60

60

n/a

59

n/a

63

63

64

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

60

61

n/a

59

n/a

63

63

64

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

60

60

n/a

59

66p

62

62p

62

62

61

61

60q

59q

59q

59q

58q

Interface

65+

Women

18-34

Large Rural

Regional Centres

Overall

Metropolitan

35-49

Men

Small Rural

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?




performance

124

2019 Business/development/tourism performance (%)


10

10

11

10

11

11

10

10

7

12

12

12

12

10

11

11

10

10

11

33

33

34

32

34

35

35

35

29

40

36

36

33

32

34

36

34

29

33

31

31

29

31

31

30

30

31

31

27

30

30

32

32

30

32

30

32

29

10

10

10

10

10

9

9

9

9

8

11

10

11

11

9

10

11

12

8

3

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

1

4

4

5

4

3

2

5

4

3

13

12

14

14

12

12

13

12

23

13

7

9

7

12

13

8

11

14

17

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?


Council’s general town planning policy importance

125

2019 Town planning importance (index scores)


75

76

76

74

74

74

71

73

73

72

72

67

76

76

76

74

73

74

70

72

73

71

71

64

77

76

74

75

73

74

72

73

72

72

71

68

72

76

74

74

73

74

72

72

72

73

70

66

n/a

76

74

74

n/a

73

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

70

66

n/a

77

75

74

n/a

73

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

71

66

n/a

76

74

74

n/a

73

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

70

66

78p

76p

76p

75p

73

73

73

73

72

71q

71q

67q

Small Rural

50-64

65+

Women

Large Rural

35-49

Interface

Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Men

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Council’s general town planning policy importance

126

2019 Town planning importance (%)


26

27

26

27

25

25

25

25

25

26

21

27

39

24

28

17

29

34

29

40

40

41

40

41

41

42

42

40

38

43

41

37

40

41

39

38

40

44

25

24

24

24

25

25

25

24

26

25

26

23

18

26

23

34

25

20

18

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

3

5

2

5

4

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

3

4

5

4

5

4

4

4

5

5

5

1

4

5

5

3

3

6

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Council’s general town planning policy performance

127

2019 Town planning performance (index scores)


59

54

53

54

54

54

54

54

51

55

50

53

57

56

53

54

53

53

53

54

51

51

49

51

57

54

54

51

51

52

53

52

50

52

48

49

59

55

55

53

54

54

55

54

53

55

51

53

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

55

56

55

53

n/a

51

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

55

55

55

53

n/a

50

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

54

54

54

52

n/a

50

n/a

61p

57p

56

55

55

55

55

54

53q

53q

50q

48q

18-34

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Men

Overall

Women

65+

35-49

Interface

50-64

Small Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?



Council’s general town planning policy performance

128

2019 Town planning performance (%)


6

5

5

5

5

6

5

5

6

6

8

6

5

7

5

7

5

5

7

30

27

26

25

28

28

29

29

30

26

32

32

24

31

28

37

30

24

26

29

31

30

30

31

31

32

32

29

29

30

27

31

28

30

28

27

30

31

12

13

14

14

12

12

12

14

11

16

11

12

16

13

12

7

13

15

14

7

7

7

7

6

6

5

6

6

6

5

7

11

8

6

4

8

10

6

17

18

19

19

17

17

17

15

19

17

14

16

14

14

20

17

17

17

17

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?


Planning and building permits importance

129

2019 Planning and building permits importance (index scores)


75

74

74

73

71

71

71

71

70

68

69

64

75

74

76

74

72

72

69

69

72

68

70

66

74

74

74

74

71

71

69

69

70

71

69

67

74

73

74

73

72

71

69

70

71

70

69

66

74

73

n/a

74

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

66

74

74

n/a

73

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

65

74

74

n/a

73

72

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

66

75p

75p

74p

73p

72

71

71

71

71

70

70q

66q

65+

50-64

Metropolitan

Women

35-49

Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Planning and building permits importance

130

2019 Planning and building permits importance (%)


26

26

27

26

26

25

25

25

31

26

23

26

25

25

28

19

29

32

27

39

39

38

39

39

41

40

41

39

41

41

38

39

38

40

35

37

40

45

25

25

25

25

27

25

27

25

21

24

27

25

27

26

24

34

25

21

18

6

6

5

6

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

7

6

7

4

8

6

4

4

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

3

2

3

3

2

3

2

3

2

3

4

3

2

2

3

2

1

2

5

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Planning and building permits performance

131

2019 Planning and building permits performance (index scores)


57

57

54

51

52

52

50

51

50

49

51

49

60

55

46

49

51

51

49

50

51

48

51

47

55

55

46

50

52

50

48

49

50

50

50

48

57

58

49

53

54

54

53

53

53

54

53

51

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

54

53

51

53

53

n/a

n/a

50

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

55

55

54

54

54

n/a

n/a

50

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

54

54

51

53

53

n/a

n/a

49

58p

57p

55p

53

52

52

51

51q

50q

49q

48q

47q

Regional Centres

18-34

Interface

Metropolitan

Women

Overall

35-49

Men

65+

Large Rural

Small Rural

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?



Planning and building permits performance

132

2019 Planning and building permits performance (%)


6

5

5

5

6

5

6

5

6

6

8

5

5

6

5

7

6

4

5

24

24

23

22

25

25

26

26

25

25

29

23

20

24

23

29

25

20

20

26

27

27

25

28

26

27

27

27

23

28

25

28

26

26

28

25

27

26

13

13

14

13

12

12

12

12

13

12

7

15

16

14

13

9

14

16

14

9

8

9

8

6

7

6

7

7

6

6

10

11

10

7

6

9

11

8

22

23

23

27

23

25

23

23

22

29

22

22

20

19

25

21

21

21

26

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?


Environmental sustainability importance

133

2019 Environmental sustainability importance (index scores)


77

76

74

73

73

73

73

72

70

71

69

76

75

73

72

72

73

72

72

70

70

68

77

77

74

73

71

72

73

73

74

71

69

77

75

74

73

73

73

72

73

77

70

69

77

75

n/a

73

n/a

72

n/a

73

n/a

70

68

76

74

n/a

72

n/a

71

n/a

72

n/a

70

68

75

73

n/a

71

n/a

71

n/a

71

n/a

69

67

79p

78p

75p

74

74

74

74

73

72q

72q

70q

Women

18-34

Metropolitan

Overall

Regional Centres

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

Small Rural

65+

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Environmental sustainability importance

134

2019 Environmental sustainability importance (%)


33

31

29

30

29

29

27

26

35

33

32

30

27

39

38

33

34

28

39

39

40

40

41

40

42

41

38

38

39

39

37

40

39

38

35

41

21

23

24

21

23

24

24

24

19

20

22

22

24

17

18

22

22

21

5

5

5

6

5

5

5

6

5

6

4

5

7

3

4

5

5

6

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

3

1

1

2

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Environmental sustainability performance

135

2019 Environmental sustainability performance (index scores)


64

64

64

63

63

63

63

63

61

64

61

62

64

64

65

64

64

64

64

63

62

62

62

63

64

64

63

63

62

63

63

63

62

60

61

61

65

65

63

65

64

63

64

64

64

63

62

63

n/a

65

n/a

65

64

64

64

64

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

65

64

64

64

64

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

65

64

63

64

65

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

64p

63p

63

63p

62

62

62

62

61q

60

59q

59q

Metropolitan

18-34

Regional Centres

65+

Men

35-49

Overall

Women

Large Rural

Interface

50-64

Small Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?



Environmental sustainability performance

136

2019 Environmental sustainability performance (%)


11

10

10

11

10

11

11

11

13

9

11

10

9

11

11

12

11

9

11

35

37

37

36

39

39

40

39

35

37

38

36

31

36

35

39

36

31

34

31

30

29

30

30

29

29

29

29

29

30

31

36

30

31

30

29

33

32

9

8

7

8

7

6

7

7

8

10

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

10

7

3

2

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

5

3

3

4

3

3

2

3

4

2

12

12

14

13

13

12

12

12

14

10

9

11

11

12

11

8

12

13

14

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?


Emergency and disaster management importance

137

2019 Emergency and disaster management importance (index scores)


85

84

83

82

80

80

82

81

81

81

80

77

84

82

81

81

81

80

80

80

78

80

77

76

84

83

81

81

82

80

80

80

80

80

76

76

84

81

80

81

80

80

81

80

79

79

77

75

85

n/a

82

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

80

79

80

n/a

76

85

n/a

82

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

80

79

80

n/a

76

84

n/a

81

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

80

79

79

n/a

76

85p

85p

83p

82

81

81

81

81

81

80

79q

77q

Women

Interface

18-34

Large Rural

Small Rural

50-64

Regional Centres

Overall

35-49

65+

Metropolitan

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Emergency and disaster management importance

138

2019 Emergency and disaster management importance (%)


47

48

45

45

44

45

46

43

43

55

48

47

48

40

53

51

48

49

41

35

33

34

36

35

34

34

38

36

32

34

36

33

35

34

33

33

32

40

13

14

14

14

15

14

14

14

15

8

13

13

14

17

9

12

15

14

12

3

3

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

3

4

2

2

5

1

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Emergency and disaster management performance

139

2019 Emergency and disaster management performance (index scores)


73

72

72

70

72

71

71

72

71

70

69

69

70

71

71

69

72

70

70

72

69

69

68

68

68

71

71

69

71

70

69

71

68

68

67

68

68

71

73

70

71

71

70

70

68

69

67

69

n/a

73

75

n/a

72

n/a

71

n/a

70

70

68

n/a

n/a

70

72

n/a

71

n/a

70

n/a

69

69

67

n/a

n/a

70

73

n/a

71

n/a

70

n/a

68

69

67

n/a

75p

74p

73p

73

73p

72

72

72

72

71q

70q

70q

Regional Centres

Women

18-34

Interface

65+

Large Rural

Overall

Small Rural

35-49

Men

50-64

Metropolitan

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?



Emergency and disaster management performance

140

2019 Emergency and disaster management performance (%)


20

18

17

17

17

20

19

19

13

22

26

22

22

19

22

23

19

19

21

38

39

37

36

39

38

37

38

33

35

41

39

39

37

38

44

39

35

33

18

19

19

19

19

18

20

20

19

16

16

18

18

19

16

16

16

20

19

4

4

4

4

5

4

5

5

3

3

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

19

18

21

21

18

18

17

16

31

22

13

16

15

19

19

12

21

21

23

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?


Planning for population growth in the area importance

141

2019 Population growth importance (index scores)


79

78

80

79

78

78

77

77

75

76

74

80

78

79

78

78

75

76

77

75

75

73

79

77

77

77

74

75

76

75

76

74

74

76

78

79

77

74

74

75

75

76

73

70

n/a

78

78

77

n/a

n/a

75

75

n/a

73

70

n/a

77

78

77

n/a

n/a

75

74

n/a

73

71

n/a

77

78

77

n/a

n/a

75

75

n/a

73

73

80p

79p

79p

78

77

77

77

76

75q

75q

74q

Interface

35-49

50-64

Women

Large Rural

Metropolitan

Overall

65+

Regional Centres

Men

18-34

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Planning for population growth in the area importance

142

2019 Population growth importance (%)


38

39

36

35

34

33

34

34

38

47

33

41

35

42

35

44

42

34

35

36

38

37

38

38

38

39

36

31

39

32

36

35

34

33

35

40

19

18

19

20

21

21

20

19

18

16

21

18

21

17

24

17

17

16

5

4

4

5

4

5

5

5

5

4

4

5

5

4

5

5

3

5

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Planning for population growth in the area performance

143

2019 Population growth performance (index scores)


62

56

51

52

52

52

50

n/a

50

48

51

49

62

57

52

53

52

52

51

n/a

49

48

50

50

59

55

52

52

51

51

51

n/a

48

47

49

55

61

60

54

54

54

55

54

n/a

50

50

51

57

n/a

59

55

54

54

55

n/a

n/a

51

n/a

52

n/a

n/a

59

55

54

54

54

n/a

n/a

50

n/a

51

n/a

n/a

58

52

52

52

52

n/a

n/a

49

n/a

48

n/a

62p

57p

52

52

52

52

52

51

49q

49q

49q

48q

Regional Centres

18-34

65+

Men

Overall

Women

Metropolitan

Small Rural

50-64

Large Rural

35-49

Interface

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?



Planning for population growth in the area performance

144

2019 Population growth performance (%)


7

8

7

6

7

7

7

6

5

6

14

5

8

7

7

10

5

6

7

25

24

24

23

28

28

26

25

23

23

34

24

23

26

24

33

24

21

21

29

30

29

30

30

30

31

31

31

28

26

28

27

28

29

27

28

31

29

16

16

16

16

14

15

14

16

15

21

10

19

18

17

16

13

19

18

16

8

8

7

8

6

6

6

7

6

10

4

10

9

8

7

6

10

9

6

15

14

16

16

15

15

17

14

19

12

12

14

15

13

16

11

14

15

20

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?


Roadside slashing and weed control importance

145

2019 Roadside slashing and weed control importance (index scores)


78

76

76

76

75

73

73

75

71

67

62

78

76

76

76

75

73

74

76

71

66

65

76

n/a

75

73

75

74

73

76

71

69

64

76

77

75

74

74

75

73

75

70

65

62

78

n/a

78

76

n/a

76

75

n/a

71

68

n/a

78

n/a

77

77

n/a

76

74

n/a

72

66

n/a

74

n/a

74

73

n/a

71

71

n/a

68

65

n/a

78p

76p

76p

76p

76p

75

74

72

71q

67q

65q

50-64

Small Rural

Women

65+

Large Rural

35-49

Overall

Interface

Men

18-34

Metropolitan

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Roadside slashing and weed control importance

146

2019 Roadside slashing and weed control importance (%)


30

29

30

28

28

32

30

24

17

26

35

31

25

34

22

32

36

29

41

40

40

42

40

40

42

42

38

43

37

45

41

40

34

40

42

46

24

25

25

23

26

23

24

28

35

24

23

21

27

22

34

24

17

21

4

4

4

5

5

4

4

5

9

5

4

3

5

3

9

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Roadside slashing and weed control performance

147

2019 Roadside slashing and weed control performance (index scores)


67

61

60

55

56

55

54

54

53

51

51

n/a

68

58

54

54

54

53

52

51

51

50

50

n/a

68

61

56

57

57

56

55

51

54

52

54

62

69

62

52

55

55

55

54

52

52

51

53

58

n/a

63

n/a

53

55

55

55

n/a

53

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

56

56

56

57

n/a

55

52

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

59

61

61

60

n/a

59

58

n/a

n/a

69p

62p

61p

57

56

56

56

55

54q

53q

52q

50*

Metropolitan

18-34

Interface

35-49

Women

Overall

Men

Small Rural

65+

50-64

Large Rural

Regional Centres

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?




Roadside slashing and weed control performance

148

2019 Roadside slashing and weed control performance (%)


12

10

10

11

10

11

11

14

18

12

10

11

11

12

14

13

10

10

34

34

31

34

32

32

35

38

49

40

29

31

36

32

41

34

30

30

28

29

27

28

30

28

28

28

21

27

100

29

31

28

29

25

26

31

31

15

16

18

15

16

17

16

12

7

12

19

16

15

16

12

17

17

16

9

9

11

9

9

10

8

5

2

6

11

9

10

8

5

9

11

10

2

3

3

3

2

3

2

3

3

3

2

2

2

3

2

2

1

4

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres*

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?



Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance

149

2019 Unsealed roads importance (index scores)


84

82

82

81

79

80

80

78

78

79

77

81

80

81

79

78

79

79

77

77

76

76

81

80

80

79

78

79

79

78

77

78

70

82

80

80

78

79

78

78

76

76

76

72

n/a

81

80

n/a

80

78

77

n/a

76

77

n/a

n/a

83

82

n/a

82

81

80

n/a

79

80

n/a

n/a

82

81

n/a

80

80

79

n/a

78

79

n/a

82p

81p

81

81

80

80

79

79

78q

78q

75q

Small Rural

Women

50-64

Interface

35-49

Overall

65+

Large Rural

Men

18-34

Regional Centres

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance

150

2019 Unsealed roads importance (%)


41

43

39

40

39

39

44

41

47

33

41

44

37

45

40

44

46

36

39

38

39

37

39

38

39

39

34

40

39

40

41

37

36

36

36

46

16

15

17

17

18

17

14

15

15

20

17

13

17

14

20

16

14

14

2

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

3

4

2

2

3

2

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance

151

2019 Unsealed roads performance (index scores)


52

48

44

43

44

43

40

42

43

40

41

52

45

45

44

45

44

43

43

44

41

42

n/a

44

45

43

46

43

44

43

42

40

43

51

47

46

45

48

45

45

45

44

43

44

n/a

n/a

48

46

46

45

n/a

45

45

42

n/a

n/a

n/a

48

45

47

44

n/a

43

42

40

n/a

n/a

n/a

50

46

48

46

n/a

46

44

43

n/a

52p

50p

46p

45

45

44

43

43q

43

42q

41q

Regional Centres

Interface

65+

Men

18-34

Overall

Small Rural

Women

35-49

50-64

Large Rural

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?



Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance

152

2019 Unsealed roads performance (%)


5

5

5

5

5

5

6

7

7

7

4

5

6

4

6

5

4

5

21

19

21

20

22

22

20

22

25

28

18

20

22

19

22

21

19

21

30

28

28

29

30

30

29

29

28

28

30

30

29

30

29

29

31

30

22

24

23

22

22

22

24

21

17

18

23

23

21

23

23

22

23

20

16

17

16

16

15

14

16

15

11

8

18

17

16

15

16

18

17

13

7

7

7

7

7

7

4

7

12

10

7

5

5

9

3

6

6

12

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area’ over the last 12 months?


Business and community development importance

153

2019 Business/community development importance (index scores)


71

70

70

70

69

n/a

69

68

66

68

68

73

71

71

72

70

n/a

70

69

68

67

69

n/a

72

73

72

71

n/a

70

69

67

69

69

n/a

71

70

69

72

71

69

69

68

67

67

n/a

71

71

70

n/a

n/a

69

69

68

n/a

67

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

72p

71p

71p

70

70

70

69

69

67q

67q

67q

Regional Centres

Women

35-49

18-34

Large Rural

Small Rural

Overall

50-64

65+

Interface

Men

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Business and community development importance

154

2019 Business/community development importance (%)


21

21

21

22

20

20

19

25

21

20

18

23

23

23

22

16

41

40

43

43

42

45

39

42

41

42

39

43

41

41

39

43

31

31

28

27

31

27

31

29

32

31

34

29

30

31

33

31

5

5

5

4

5

5

8

3

4

4

7

4

5

4

5

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Business and community development performance

155

2019 Business/community development performance (index scores)


62

63

61

60

55

60

61

59

60

58

56

62

59

60

61

58

60

65

59

59

59

56

63

58

60

59

61

60

62

59

59

58

56

64

63

61

61

54

60

61

59

59

60

58

65

n/a

63

62

n/a

62

n/a

60

60

n/a

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

64p

64p

62

61

61

61

60

60

60

59q

58q

18-34

Interface

Women

65+

Regional Centres

Overall

Small Rural

Men

35-49

Large Rural

50-64

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development’ over the last 12 months?



Business and community development performance

156

2019 Business/community development performance (%)


8

7

7

7

8

8

11

11

7

8

8

9

11

8

7

8

35

34

33

33

34

35

36

37

35

35

35

36

43

36

32

31

31

30

32

29

31

30

29

33

32

31

31

31

28

33

33

30

9

10

9

10

9

8

6

11

10

10

10

8

8

9

11

8

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

3

4

3

2

13

15

16

17

15

17

16

6

13

13

13

13

7

9

14

21

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development’ over the last 12 months?


Tourism development importance

157

2019 Tourism development importance (index scores)


71

n/a

63

62

63

62

62

61

60

59

51

70

n/a

63

64

63

63

62

62

61

59

53

n/a

n/a

65

64

64

67

64

63

62

62

57

64

72

66

67

67

67

65

65

63

59

50

n/a

n/a

67

66

65

n/a

64

65

63

63

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

69p

64p

62p

61p

61p

60

60

59

57q

56q

48q

Regional Centres

Small Rural

Women

65+

50-64

Large Rural

35-49

Overall

Men

18-34

Interface

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?



Tourism development importance

158

2019 Tourism development importance (%)


14

16

16

18

19

18

5

24

14

18

12

16

12

15

14

14

31

32

34

34

36

37

24

39

31

36

30

33

28

28

34

35

36

35

34

35

32

31

37

29

39

32

36

36

36

39

36

33

13

13

12

10

10

10

24

6

11

9

15

11

18

13

11

11

4

3

3

3

3

2

9

2

3

3

6

3

5

4

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?


Tourism development performance

159

2019 Tourism development performance (index scores)


64

67

64

64

63

64

62

60

61

61

61

65

67

63

64

63

64

63

61

61

65

56

71

64

62

64

63

64

63

60

62

64

56

67

63

65

64

63

64

61

62

62

66

53

n/a

n/a

66

66

64

64

62

64

62

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

70p

66p

64

64

63

63

63

62

62

61q

58q

Regional Centres

Small Rural

65+

Women

Overall

18-34

35-49

50-64

Men

Large Rural

Interface

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Tourism development’ over the last 12 months?



Tourism development performance

160

2019 Tourism development performance (%)


13

12

13

13

12

13

8

22

11

18

12

14

12

13

13

14

36

37

34

34

35

36

29

44

37

39

36

36

39

37

34

35

28

26

29

27

28

28

31

20

29

26

28

28

29

28

28

27

10

11

9

9

9

9

11

7

10

8

11

9

10

10

10

8

3

3

3

3

3

2

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

3

10

11

12

13

13

13

17

4

10

7

10

10

7

9

11

13

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+


Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Tourism development’ over the last 12 months?


Detailed

demographics

161

Gender and age profile

162

2019 gender


2019 age

Men49%

Women51%

8%

18%

23%21%

30%

18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+

S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?


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.

Household structure

2019 household structure (%)

16

12

3

3

25

20

18

2

Single person living alone

Single living with friends or housemates

Single living with children 16 or under

Single with children but none 16 or under living athome

Married or living with partner, no children

Married or living with partner with children 16 or underat home

Married or living with partner with children but none 16or under at home

Do not wish to answer


163S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household?


Years lived in area

164

Years lived in area (%)


17

12

14

15

13

14

14

15

15

15

17

16

14

14

14

16

68

73

69

69

73

71

72

68

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Don't know/ unsure

S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?


Years lived in area

Years lived in area (%)

17

12

14

15

26

19

13

10

15

18

17

35

15

7

6

15

15

17

16

15

21

20

13

14

15

15

19

21

11

7

22

23

24

25

20

26

21

23

18

22

21

19

30

22

17

17

21

18

17

17

15

18

18

13

17

17

18

13

22

15

29

29

28

27

23

19

27

35

40

29

29

8

20

38

55

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

0-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years 20-30 years 30+ years Don't know/ unsure


165

S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?


Note: For 2016, the code frame expanded out “10+ years”, to include “10-20 years”,”20-30 years” and “30+ years”. As such, this chart

presents the last four years of data only.

Home ownership

Home ownership (%)

92

92

83

79

82

83

83

81

92

94

91

94

86

93

95

7

7

15

20

17

16

16

18

7

6

9

6

14

7

5

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Own Rent


166Q9. Thinking of the property you live in, do you or other members of your household own this property, or is it a rental property?


Languages spoken at home

167

2019 languages spoken at home (%)


Languages other than English

33%

English only67%

7

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

CHINESE

ITALIAN

GREEK

HINDI

VIETNAMESE

ARABIC

CROATIAN

FRENCH

GERMAN

SPANISH

Q11. What languages, other than English, are spoken regularly in your home?


Note: Respondents could name multiple languages so responses may add to more than 100%

- Top mentions only -

Country of birth

168

2019 country of birth (%)


Countries other than Australia

41%

Australia59%

6

5

3

2

1

1

1

CHINA

INDIA

UNITED KINGDOM

NEW ZEALAND

GERMANY

GREECE

UNITED STATES

Q12. Could you please tell me which country you were born in?


- Top mentions only -

91

87

84

83

79

69

62

59

52

38

25

23

22

20

20

19

17

17

14

12

11

9

88

85

82

81

78

63

59

51

48

34

22

19

20

18

18

15

14

15

10

7

9

6

Waste management

Parking facilities



Sealed local roads


Unsealed roads







Population growth




Tourism development



Lobbying


Total household use

Personal use

Personal and household use and experience of council

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?


2019 personal and household use and experience of services (%)


169

Appendix A:

Index scores,

margins of error

and significant

differences

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.

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.

Appendix A:

Index Scores

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

SCALE

CATEGORIES% RESULT

INDEX

FACTORINDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the

same40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% --INDEX SCORE

56

Demographic

Actual

survey

sample

size

Weighted

base

Maximum margin

of error at 95%

confidence

interval

Overall26,739 25,200 +/-0.6

Men12,781 12,431 +/-0.9

Women13,958 12,769 +/-0.8

Metropolitan6,310 5,600 +/-1.2

Interface2,101 2,000 +/-2.1

Regional Centres3,204 3,200 +/-1.7

Large Rural7,908 7,200 +/-1.1

Small Rural7,216 7,200 +/-1.2

18-34 years3,368 6,446 +/-1.7

35-49 years5,290 5,883 +/-1.3

50-64 years7,569 5,416 +/-1.1

65+ years10,512 7,455 +/-1.0

The sample size for the 2019 State-wide Local

Government Community Satisfaction Survey was

n=26,739. 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 n=26,739 interviews is +/-0.6% 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 49.4% - 50.6%.

Maximum margins of error are listed in the aside table,

based on a population of 3,442,800 people aged 18

years or over across the State, according to ABS

estimates.

Appendix A:

Margins of error


172

Within tables and index score charts throughout this

report, statistically significant differences at the 95%

confidence level are represented by upward directing

green () and downward directing red arrows ().

Significance when noted indicates a significantly higher

or lower result for the analysis group in comparison to

the ‘Overall’ result for the State for that survey question

for that year. Therefore in the example below:

• The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly

lower than for the overall result.

Further, results shown in green and red indicate

significantly higher or lower results than in 2018.

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 2018.

Appendix A:

Significant difference reporting notation

Overall Performance – Index Scores

(example extract only)


173

54

57

65

66

50-64

35-49

18-34

Overall

The test applied to the Indexes was an Independent

Mean Test, as follows:

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

Where:

• $1 = Index Score 1

• $2 = Index Score 2

• $3 = unweighted sample count 1

• $4 = unweighted sample count 2

• $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.

Appendix A:

Index score significant difference calculation


174

Appendix B:

Further project

information

175

Further information about the report and explanations

about the State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey can be found in this section

including:

• Survey methodology and sampling

• Analysis and reporting

• Glossary of terms

Contacts

For further queries about the conduct and reporting of

the 2019 State-wide Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on

(03) 8685 8555 or via email:

[email protected]

Appendix B:

Further information

176


mailto:[email protected]

The 2019 results are compared with previous years, as

detailed below:

• 2019, n=26,739 completed interviews, conducted in the

period of 1st February – 30th March.










period of 31st January – 11th March.




period 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 each

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.

This survey was conducted by Computer Assisted

Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative

random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years

in each participating council area.

Survey sample matched to the demographic profile of

each 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, particularly younger people.

A total of n=26,739 completed interviews were

achieved across the State. Survey fieldwork was

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

2019.

Appendix B:

Survey methodology and sampling

177


In 2019, 63 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, as classified below.

Accordingly, the council reports for the community

satisfaction survey provide analysis using these

standard council groupings.

Please note that councils participating in 2012-2019

vary slightly. 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.

Appendix B:

Analysis and reporting


178

Metropolitan Interface Regional Centres Large Rural Small Rural

Banyule Cardinia Greater Bendigo Bass Coast Alpine

Boroondara Casey Greater Geelong Baw Baw Ararat

Brimbank Mornington Peninsula Horsham Campaspe Benalla

Frankston Whittlesea Latrobe Colac Otway Buloke

Glen Eira Yarra Ranges Mildura Corangamite Central Goldfields

Greater Dandenong Wangaratta East Gippsland Gannawarra

Kingston Warrnambool Glenelg Hepburn

Knox Wodonga Golden Plains Hindmarsh

Manningham Macedon Ranges Indigo

Maroondah Mitchell Mansfield

Melbourne Moira Murrindindi

Port Phillip Moorabool Northern Grampians

Stonnington Mount Alexander Pyrenees

Whitehorse Moyne Queenscliffe

Southern Grampians Strathbogie

Surf Coast Towong

Swan Hill West Wimmera

Wellington Yarriambiack

Non-participating councils: Ballarat, Bayside, Darebin, Greater Shepparton, Hobsons Bay, Hume, Loddon, Maribyrnong, Melton, Monash, Moonee

Valley, Moreland, Nillumbik, South Gippsland, Wyndham, and Yarra.

2012 survey revision

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 Overall 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

2012-2019 have been made throughout this report as

appropriate.

Appendix B:


179


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

2019 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)

• Decisions made in the interest of the community

(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 2019 State-wide Local Government

Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Councils

also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific

only to their council.

Appendix B:



180

Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2019 State-wide

Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

receives a customised report. In addition, the state

government is supplied with this State-wide summary

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

questions asked across all council areas surveyed,

which is available at:

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

government/strengthening-councils/council-community-

satisfaction-survey.

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.

Appendix B:



181

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

Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all

councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2019 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.

Appendix B:

Glossary of terms


182

THERE ARE OVER 6 MILLION PEOPLE IN VICTORIA...

FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RETHINKING.

Contact us

03 8685 8555

John Scales

Managing Director

[email protected]

Katrina Cox

Director of Client Services

[email protected]

Follow us

@JWSResearch

Mark Zuker

Managing Director

[email protected]

j00758 css 2019 state-wide report - local government · new addition to the survey –social media...

Documents