j00858 css 2020 state-wide report - local government · 2020. 6. 9. · art centres and libraries...

2020 Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey

State-wide ReportCoordinated by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning on behalf of Victorian councils

Contents

2

J00858 Community Satisfaction Survey 2020 – State-wide

Background and objectives 4

Key findings and recommendations 5

Detailed findings 13

Overall performance 14

Customer service 29

Communication 38

Council direction 43

Individual service areas 50

Community consultation and engagement 51

Lobbying on behalf of the community 55

Decisions made in the interest of the community

59

Condition of the sealed local roads 63

Informing the community 67

Condition of local streets and footpaths 71

Traffic management 75

Parking facilities 79

Enforcement of local laws 83

Family support services 87

Elderly support services 91

Disadvantaged support services 95

Recreational facilities 99

The appearance of public areas 103

Art centres and libraries 107

Community and cultural activities 111

Waste management 115

Business and community development and tourism

119

Council's general town planning policy 123

Planning and building permits 127

Environmental sustainability 131

Emergency and disaster management 135

Planning for population growth 139

Roadside slashing and weed control 143

Maintenance of unsealed roads 147

Business and community development 151

Tourism development 155

Contents

3


Detailed demographics 159

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error and significant differences

167

Appendix B: Further project information 172

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 twenty-first year, this survey provides insight into community 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 nine years shows that councils in Victoria continue to provide services that meet the public’s expectations.

Serving Victoria for 21 years

Each year the CSS data is used to develop this State-wide report, which contains the aggregated results, analysis and data for all councils. Moreover, with 21 years of results, the CSS offers councils a long-term 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


4

Key findings and recommendations

5

State-wide performance – at a glance

6


Overall council performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.

Metropolitan 66

State-wide 58

Interface 56

80

44

7849

8053

-36 -29 -26

74

72

70

Top 3 performing areas

Top 3 areas for improvement

Unsealed roads Slashing & weed control

Community decisions

PerformanceImportance Net differential

Regional Centres 56

Large Rural 55

Small Rural 56

Art centres and libraries

Appearance of public areas

Recreational facilities

Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number, which may result in differences of +/-1% in the importance and performance scores and the net differential scores.

Summary of core measures

7

Index scores


71 71 7270 69 69 70 71 70

55 55 54 53 53 56 54

60 60 61 60 59 59 59 6058

57 5757 56

54 55 56 5557

55 54 54 54 55

5355 55

56 5553

5454 54

5352 53 53 5351

53 5253

51

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sealed local roads

Community consultation

Customer service

Overall council

direction

Overall performance

Lobbying Making community decisions

Summary of core measures

8

Core measures summary results (%)


9

8

6

7

11

31

37

30

24

29

32

36

36

32

32

33

28

17

11

15

13

14

16

7

6

7

6

8

11

6

1

8

19

9

1

1

Overall performance

Community consultation

Lobbying

Making community decisions

Sealed local roads

Customer service

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Can't say

18 61 16 5Overall Council Direction

Improved Stayed the same Deteriorated Can't say

Services State-wide 2020

State-wide2019

Highestscore

Lowestscore

Overall performance 58 60 Metropolitan Aged 50-64 years

Overall council direction 51 53 Aged 18-34 years

Aged 50-64 years

Customer service 70 71 Metropolitan

Aged 50-64 years, Large Rural, Men,

Interface

Art centres & libraries 74 74 Metropolitan Aged 18-34 years, Interface

Appearance of public areas 72 72Metropolitan, Small Rural

ShiresInterface

Recreational facilities 70 70 Metropolitan Large Rural Shires, Interface

Elderly support services 68 68 Small Rural Shires

Regional Centres

Community & cultural 68 69Aged 65+ years,

Metropolitan, Women, Aged 35-49 years

Aged 18-34 years, Interface

Emergency & disaster mngt 68 72Regional

Centres, Aged 65+ years

Aged 50-64 years, Interface,

Metropolitan

Family support services 66 67 Aged 65+ years, Metropolitan

Aged 50-64 years, Interface

Summary of State-wide performance

9


Significantly higher / lower than State-wide 2019 result at the 95% confidence interval. Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences and index scores.


State-wide 2019

Highestscore

Lowestscore

Waste management 65 68 Aged 65+ years, Metropolitan

Large Rural Shires

Enforcement of local laws 63 64 Aged 18-34 years Interface

Tourism development 62 63

Small Rural Shires, Women,

Regional Centres, Aged 18-34 years,

Aged 65+

Interface

Disadvantaged support serv. 60 62 Aged 65+ years,

MenAged 50-64

years

Environmental sustainability 60 62 Metropolitan Interface

Informing the community 59 60 MetropolitanRegional

Centres, Aged 50-64 years

Bus/community dev./tourism 59 61 Interface Aged 50-64

years

Business & community dev. 59 61 Aged 18-34 years

Aged 50-64 years

Local streets & footpaths 58 59 Metropolitan Large Rural Shires, Interface

Traffic management 58 58 Small Rural Shires Interface


10




State-wide2019

Highestscore

Lowestscore

Consultation & engagement 55 56 Metropolitan

Aged 50-64 years, Regional

Centres

Parking facilities 55 56 Small Rural Shires

Regional Centres

Town planning policy 54 55 Aged 18-34 years

Aged 50-64 years

Sealed local roads 54 56 Metropolitan Large Rural Shires

Lobbying 53 54Metropolitan, Aged 18-34

years

Aged 50-64 years

Community decisions 53 55 Metropolitan Aged 50-64 years

Building & planning permits 51 52 Regional Centres

Small Rural Shires

Population growth 51 52 Regional Centres

Small Rural Shires

Slashing & weed control 49 56 Aged 18-34 years

Aged 50-64 years

Unsealed roads 44 44 Regional Centres

Aged 50-64 years


11



Focus areas for the next 12 months

12

Positive ratings of Victorian Councils’ best performing service areas (arts centres and libraries, appearance of public areas and recreational facilities) have been maintained. However, perceptions of performance on most other service areas and of overall Council performance have declined in the past year – most markedly on roadside slashing and weed control, emergency and disaster management and waste management.

Overview

Victorian Councils should focus on maintaining and improving performance in the individual service areas that most influence perceptions of overall performance. State-wide, these are: Council decisions made in the interest of the community, the condition of sealed roads (excluding those managed by VicRoads) and town planning.

Key influences on perceptions of overall

performance

Metropolitan Councils perform most strongly, ahead of those in the Regional, Rural and Interface Council groups. Across a majority of individual service areas – Metropolitan Councils typically rate above the State-wide average, Regional Centre Councils rate in line with the State-wide average, Interface and Large Rural Councils rate below the State-wide average, and rated performance of Small Rural Councils is mixed.

Area grouping comparisons

Progress on core measures

Perceptions of Council performance declined on all core measures this year, however decreases have been small (1 to 2 points). A focus on good customer service, engagement with residents, transparency and community interest in Council decision making, and attending to the condition of local roads, can help improve community perceptions over the next 12 months.


DETAILED FINDINGS

13

Overall performance

14

Overall performance

15


The overall performance index score of 58 for Councils State-wide represents a significant two-point decrease on the 2019 result. Overall performance is at its lowest level since 2012, having peaked at an index score of 61 in 2014 and hovered around 59 to 60 in other years. Perceptions of Councils’ overall performance have declined across all geographic and demographic cohorts over the past year.

The performance of Metropolitan Councils (group index score of 66) continues to rate significantly higher than the State-wide average, at the 95% confidence level. In contrast, other Council groups rate significantly lower than the State-wide average at 55 index points for the Large Rural group and a slightly better 56 index points for each of the Interface, Small Rural and Regional Centres groups.

Demographically, Victoria’s youngest (18 to 34 years) and oldest (65+ years) adults are most positive about their Council’s performance (index scores of 61 and 59, respectively – above the State-wide average). This contrasts with the two middle age cohorts (35 to 49 and 50 to 64 years), who rate Council performance as below the State-wide average (index scores of 56 and 54, respectively).

State-wide, almost three times as many residents rate the overall performance of their Council as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ (46%) as those who rate it as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ (17%). A further 36% sit mid-scale, rating Council performance as ‘average’.

Overall performanceResults shown are index scores out of 100.

State-wide58

Metropolitan rate overall performance highest (66)

Aged 50-64 years rate overall performance lowest (54)

Metropolitan66

Interface 56

Regional Centres56

Large Rural55

Small Rural56

67

63

61

60

60

59

61

58

58

58

56

56

65

62

59

59

59

58

60

57

56

58

56

54

64

62

60

60

59

58

60

57

58

57

54

55

66

62

59

60

59

58

61

57

57

55

54

55

67

64

61

61

60

59

62

59

59

58

56

57

n/a

65

62

62

61

60

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

65

61

61

60

60

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

65

61

61

60

59

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

Overall performance

2020 overall performance (index scores)

66

61

59

59

58

57

56

56

56

56

55

54

Metropolitan

18-34

65+

Women

Overall

Men

Interface

35-49

Small Rural

Regional Centres

Large Rural

50-64


16

2019 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, BUTOVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Overall performance

17

2020 overall performance (%)


9109991011109

13787899

877

11

3739

373636

3940

4040

463635

3334

3637

4536

3034

3635

363736

3535

3536

3036

3640

3735

3733

3639

37

1110

111011

109

109

611

13131312

109

1214

10

65

555

44443

7867754

785

11222111112121111112

2020 Overall2019 Overall2018 Overall2017 Overall2016 Overall2015 Overall2014 Overall2013 Overall2012 OverallMetropolitan

InterfaceRegional Centres

Large RuralSmall Rural

MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

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, BUTOVERALL across all responsibility areas? Has it been very good, good, average, poor or very poor? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62

The top three performing service areas State-wide in 2020, with index scores unchanged from last year, are art centres and libraries (index score of 74), the appearance of public areas (index score of 72) and recreational facilities (index score of 70).

Further to these results, 10% of residents State-wide volunteer parks and gardens as the best aspect of their local Council (the leading response) and 8% of residents volunteer recreational / sporting facilities.

Metropolitan Councils are rated as performing above the State-wide average on these top three service areas, while other Council groupings are rated in line with the State-wide average or lower.

Apart from these leading service areas, positive Council performance ratings on elderly support services (index score of 68) and traffic management (index score of 58) also remained unchanged since 2019.

However, State-wide, performance ratings for most service areas have decreased significantly over the past year, after improving in 2019. Following a devastating 2019-20 bushfire season, this includes a four-point decrease on emergency and disaster management, as well as a three-point decrease on waste management, to (still relatively high) index scores of 68 and 65, respectively. Declines in these two areas have been across all geographic areas.

Top performing service areas

18


Similar to previous years, art centresand libraries (index score of 74) is the area where Councils State-wide performed best in 2020.

Councils State-wide rate lowest in the areas of unsealed roads (index score of 44, unchanged from 2019) and slashing and weed control (index score of 49).

Among declines in performance across most service areas since last year, the sharpest has been on slashing and weed control (down seven points) and this decrease has been across all geographic areas. Only the Interface Council group (index score of 54) are rated above ‘average’ on slashing and weed control, with Small and Large Rural Councils (index score of 48 each) rating poorly, in line with the State-wide average.

The maintenance of unsealed roads continues to stand out as in need of attention. While Councils in Regional Centres have improved performance since 2019 (index score of 55, up three points), Interface Councils have declined (index score of 43, down seven points) and Small and Large Rural Councils continue to rate poorly (index scores of 43 and 42, respectively).

However, unprompted, 12% of residents volunteer sealed roads as the Council area most in need of improvement.

Low performing service areas

19


Councils State-wide continue to rate lowest in the area of unsealed roads (index score of 44). Slashing and weed control also rates poorly in 2020 (down 7 points to an index score of 49).

7472

70686868

6665

6362

6060

595959

5858

5555

5454

5353

5151

4944

Art centres & librariesAppearance of public areas

Recreational facilitiesCommunity & cultural

Emergency & disaster mngtElderly support servicesFamily support services

Waste managementEnforcement of local laws

Tourism developmentDisadvantaged support serv.Environmental sustainabilityBus/community dev./tourismBusiness & community dev.

Informing the communityTraffic management

Local streets & footpathsParking facilities

Consultation & engagementSealed local roads

Town planning policyLobbying

Community decisionsPlanning & building permits

Population growthSlashing & weed control

Unsealed roads

Individual service area performance

2020 individual service area performance (index scores)


20

747270697268676864636262616160585956565655545552525644

747169697168667064636163606059575856555354545452525543

737170697068677164636164616059595755555353545451525344

727169696968667063636163606059595756545452535450515643

737270697069677266636264616061605857565554555554545545

757271707170687366646464626262605857575555565753545545

737170697069677165n/a626462n/a6160585757n/a5555n/a55545644

737170687069677265n/a636462n/a6058575657n/a5455n/a54526146

2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Individual service area performance

21

2020 individual service area performance (%)


262423

201717

121213

101315

101191011

889

7766765

4543

4240

4236

383534

383430

3332

333230

333027

292527

2423

2220

211922

2326

222732

283029

2033

283232

2132

3228

3323

303230

2730

63

6105

58

1315

1310

510

1616

115

1015

1914

714

1317

1421

21

35

22

45

87

32

3118

42

47

158

36

68

817

110

43

919

12333

1028

1112

1231

148

29

361819

1422

6

Appearance of public areasArt centres & librariesRecreational facilitiesWaste management

Community & culturalEmergency & disaster mngt

Enforcement of local lawsInforming the communityLocal streets & footpaths

Traffic managementTourism development

Elderly support servicesEnvironmental sustainability

Sealed local roadsParking facilities

Bus/community dev./tourismFamily support services

Business & community dev.Consultation & engagement

Slashing & weed controlCommunity decisions

Disadvantaged support serv.Town planning policy

LobbyingPopulation growth

Planning & building permitsUnsealed roads


Q2. How has Council performed on [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62

8280808080

797878

767575

74747474

737272

7171

7069

6867

656262

Waste managementEmergency & disaster mngt

Unsealed roadsElderly support services

Community decisionsSealed local roads

Local streets & footpathsSlashing & weed control

Population growthInforming the communityFamily support services

Disadvantaged support serv.Environmental sustainabilityConsultation & engagementAppearance of public areas

Traffic managementRecreational facilitiesTown planning policy

Planning & building permitsParking facilities

Enforcement of local lawsBusiness & community dev.

LobbyingBus/community dev./tourism

Art centres & librariesTourism developmentCommunity & cultural

Individual service area importance

2020 individual service area importance (index scores)


22

2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

818180808079777477757474747473737273717171696765655961

818180798080787377757472737474747373717171696866656161

798079787978777476747371727474727272727071706967646261

808079788078777376767373737574727373717070706967666362

798078798076777375757373737473717272717071696967656562

798078797977777575757272737473707272717070697067666562

79808179n/an/a787475757373727374727273717171n/a706766n/a62

78808080n/an/a777175757373717373737272717170n/a706666n/a62

Individual service area importance

2020 individual service area importance (%)

4439

463839

423638

3237

3129

2529

3429

2427262726

2123

2117

1316

4242

35434137

4239

4237

4242

4742

3741

4539

3938

384138

3839

3633

1115

1316

1517

1919

221920

2125

23202326

2626252630

2730

3238

35

12

42

22234

544

24

55

46

4675

889

1012

111

11111

111

1211

111

22

22223

111211

122

111

1431121111

Waste managementElderly support services

Emergency & disaster mngtSealed local roads

Community decisionsUnsealed roads

Local streets & footpathsSlashing & weed controlInforming the community

Population growthFamily support services

Disadvantaged support serv.Appearance of public areasConsultation & engagementEnvironmental sustainability

Traffic managementRecreational facilities

Parking facilitiesTown planning policy

Planning & building permitsEnforcement of local laws

Business & community dev.Lobbying

Bus/community dev./tourismArt centres & librariesCommunity & culturalTourism development

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


23Q1. Firstly, how important should [RESPONSIBILITY AREA] be as a responsibility for Council? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30

807880

7679

7178

7472

8275

7168

737474

8080

69

Unsealed roadsSlashing & weed control

Community decisionsPopulation growthSealed local roads

Planning & building permitsLocal streets & footpaths

Consultation & engagementTown planning policyWaste management

Informing the communityParking facilities

LobbyingTraffic management

Environmental sustainabilityDisadvantaged support serv.Emergency & disaster mngt

Elderly support servicesBusiness & community dev.

4449

535154

5158

5554

6559

5553

586060

6868

59

Individual service areas importance vs performance

24Note: Net differentials are calculated based on the un-rounded importance and performance scores, then rounded to the nearest whole number.


Importance (index scores) Performance (index scores) Net Differential

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

-36-29-26-25-25-20-20-19-19-17-16-16-15-15-14-14-12-12-10

We use regression analysis to investigate the influence of individual service areas, such as decisions made in the community interest, the condition of sealed local roads, etc. (the independent variables), on respondent perceptions of overall Council performance (the dependent variable).

Prior to running this analysis, the 27 individual service areas evaluated in this survey were tested for normality, linearity and multicollinearity. Because some of the data possessed some or more of these features, the 27 service area items were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine the key factors or ‘themes’ to emerge. Seven key factors / themes emerged around:

• Informing, consulting, deciding for the community

• Local roads

• Planning (including traffic / parking)

• Maintenance, overall management of public areas

• Community facilities, activities

• Business, community development, tourism

• Support services.

Regression analysis was then performed using the most representative individual service area from each of these seven factors / themes as our independent variables.

In the following chart, the horizontal axis represents the Council performance index for each key service area –community decisions, sealed roads, town planning, public areas, community and cultural activities, business, community development and tourism, and family support services. Service areas appearing on the right-side of the chart have a higher performance index than those on the left (i.e. Council performance is rated more highly by residents).

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.

Regression analysis explained

25


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.

Good communication and transparency with residents about decisions made in their community’s interest provides the greatest opportunity to drive up overall opinion of Council performance.

Other key service areas with a positive influence on overall performance include:

• The condition of sealed local roads, excluding VicRoads

• Town planning

• The appearance of public areas

• Community and cultural activities

• Business, community development and tourism

• Family support services.

Looking at these service areas, the appearance of public areas has a high performance index and a moderate influence on the overall performance rating. Councils State-wide currently perform very well in this area (performance index of 72) and should continue to attend to public areas to maintain this positive result.

Community and cultural activities and family support services also have relatively high performance ratings (index scores of 68 and 66, respectively) and some influence on overall performance. Therefore Councils should also seek to maintain standards here to help shore up positive perceptions of these service areas as well as Council performance overall.

However, there is greater work to be done in service areas that have a moderate influence on overall perceptions but perform less well, such as the condition of sealed local roads and town planning (performance index of 54 and 53, respectively). In addition, while currently a lesser influence on the overall performance rating, business, community development and tourism sits only mid-range on performance, relative to other service areas (index of 59).

Working to improve perceptions of Council processes and decisions around town planning and other community development issues, as well as attending to resident concerns about sealed local roads, can also help to improve overall performance ratings for Councils State-wide.

Influences on perceptions of overall performance


26

Influence on overall performance: key service areas

27

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 seven items against overall performance ratings. The multiple regression analysis model above has an R-squared value of 0.573 and adjusted R-square value of 0.572, which means that 57% 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 = 688.4.

2020 regression analysis (key service areas)


12

10

8

7

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

7

Sealed Road Maintenance

Community Consultation

Communication

Waste Management

Financial Management

Town Planning/Permits/Red Tape

Environmental Issues

Development - Inappropriate /Over-development

Parking Availability

Rates - Too Expensive

Traffic Management

Footpaths/Walking Tracks

Informing the Community

Local/Community Support

Nothing

10

9

8

6

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

Parks and Gardens

Customer Service

Recreational/Sporting Facilities

Waste Management

Road/Street Maintenance

Generally Good - Overall/No Complaints

Community/Public Events/Activities

Community Support Services

Public Areas

Community Engagement/Involvement/Communication

Library/Mobile Library/Facilities/Services/Staff)

Best things about Council and areas for improvement

28

2020 best things about Council (%)- Top mentions only -

2020 areas for improvement (%)- Top mentions only -


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? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Q17. What does council MOST need to do to improve its performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 40 Verbatim listings of responses to these questions can be found in the accompanying dashboard.

Customer service

29

Customer service

The customer service index of Councils State-wide is 70 in 2020, down one-point from 2019, but equal to 2018.

The Metropolitan Council group (index score of 74) continue to perform better on customer service than the State-wide average but have declined two points since last year. Councils in Regional Centres have experienced a similar decline over the past year (index score of 70, down two points).

State-wide, customer service ratings are high for the main methods of contact with Council, being in-person (index score of 75) and by telephone (index score of 72). Although used by only a small number of residents to date, customer service via text message is also rated highly (index score of 75).

However, while still highly rated overall, there has been a six-point decline among those whose most recent customer service transactions occurred through Council websites (index score of 70).

State-wide, two thirds of residents (67%) provide a positive customer service rating of ‘very good’ or ‘good’, including 31% of residents who rate Councils’ customer service as ‘very good’. This is slightly fewer than 2019 (69% and 33%, respectively).

Contact with council and customer service

30


Contact with Council

More than six in ten (64%) residents State-wide have had contact with their Council in the last 12 months, a similar rate of contact to last year. Residents aged 35 to 49 years (71%) and 50 to 64 years (68%) continue to have more contact with Councils than those aged 65+ years (60%) and 18 to 34 years (58%).

By telephone (36%) and in person (29%) remain the main methods of contact however the use of email and social media continues to grow.

Among those who have had contact with their council, 67% provide a

positive customer service rating of ‘very good’ or ‘good’, including 31% who rate councils’ customer service

as ‘very good’.

Contact with council

2020 contact with council (%)Have had contact

61 60 61 6159 59

62 6264

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020


31Q5. 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62

69

68

64

64

63

62

60

62

61

59

58

55

68

66

64

64

63

62

59

61

60

60

59

55

66

63

63

60

60

59

56

57

58

59

56

52

65

62

61

60

59

58

56

57

58

58

56

52

69

63

64

58

61

61

59

59

60

60

57

55

69

64

n/a

n/a

63

61

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

57

56

66

64

n/a

n/a

62

60

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

56

55

69

65

n/a

n/a

64

62

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

58

56

Contact with council

2020 contact with council (%)

71

68

67

65

65

64

62

62

62

61

60

58

35-49

50-64

Small Rural

Interface

Women

Overall

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Metropolitan

65+

18-34


32

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.Note: Significant differences have not been applied to this chart.

2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

76

73

73

72

71

71

70

70

69

69

69

69

72

72

72

72

70

69

69

69

70

68

67

68

71

71

72

72

69

69

68

69

69

66

66

68

73

71

72

70

69

68

69

69

70

67

67

69

73

72

72

71

70

69

70

70

72

68

67

70

n/a

74

73

n/a

72

71

71

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

70

n/a

74

72

n/a

71

70

71

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

70

n/a

74

73

n/a

71

70

70

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

70

Customer service rating

33

2020 customer service rating (index scores)

74

72

72

70

70

70

70

70

68

68

68

68

Metropolitan

65+

Women

Regional Centres

Overall

18-34

35-49

Small Rural

Interface

Men

Large Rural

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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

Customer service rating

34

2020 customer service rating (%)

3133

3130303132

3131

3528

342931

2835

2931

2935

3636

36363637

383837

3738

3435

3738

3538

3735

35

1717

18181717

161717

151917

1918

1816

1817

1916

778

888

7786

67

97

87

68

97

666

666

5554

777775

76

86

11122212122111122111




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

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 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: 62

Method of contact with council

2020 method of contact (%)

3637 39

3532 32

36 35 36

34

29 30 3229 28

3028 29

13 14 15 13 13 14

18 18

21

1816 16

14

12 1113

1113

1211 12 9 8 8

109 11

12 2 3

3 45 5

7

1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 3

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

35


Q5a. Have you or any member of your household had any recent contact with Council in any of the following ways? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Note: Respondents could name multiple contacts methods so responses may add to more than 100%

By EmailBy Text Message

By SocialMedia

In Writing Via WebsiteIn Person By Telephone

76

70

73

76

71

66

64

74

57

71

75

72

64

65

76

84

73

75

69

65

61

74

79

71

76

74

69

62

77

79

73

75

66

68

66

77

82

75

74

73

70

69

74

61

72

73

75

68

68

75

68

73

75

79

73

69

Customer service rating by method of last contact

2020 customer service rating (index score by method of last contact)

75

75

72

70

70

66

64

In person

By text message

By telephone

Via website

By social media

By email

In writing

36


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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

Customer service rating by method of last contact

2020 customer service rating (% by method of last contact)

40

42

36

21

25

28

19

34

37

33

48

44

36

38

14

7

19

18

19

18

23

5

10

7

6

5

10

7

5

5

6

3

5

8

8

1

1

4

3

1

6

In person

By text message

By telephone

Via website

By social media

By email

In writing


37


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 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: 26

Communication

38

State-wide, the preferred form of communication from Councils remains newsletters sent via mail (29%) or email (25%). While still the leading source overall, interest in mailed newsletters has declined since 2016.

• Preferred forms of communication among under 50sremain newsletters sent via email (26%) or mail (25%), as well as social media (24%).

• Preferred form of communication among over 50sremains newsletters sent via mail (34%).

The greatest change since 2019 has been a two-point decrease in preference for Council newsletters as an insert in a local newspaper (9%, down from 11%).

Simply putting information on a Council website is the least preferred form of communication, overall and among under and over 50s (2% overall and for both groups).

Communication

39


Newsletters remain the preferred method of communication from

Council (29% mailed, 25% emailed).

Best form of communication

40

2020 best form of communication (%)

4239 39 39 39

3432

28 29

18 1921 22

24 25 26

25

25

18 18 17 1614 15 14

1312

15 1514 15

13 12 12 119

2 3 3 3 4 58

5 62

2 2 22 3

22 2

13 14

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Council Website

Text Message

Council Newsletter as

Local Paper Insert

Council Newsletter

via Mail

Council Newsletter via Email

Advertising in a Local

Newspaper

SocialMedia


Q13. If Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 33 Note: ‘Social Media’ was included in 2019.

Best form of communication: under 50s

2020 under 50s best form of communication (%)

41

3937 36 35

37

3230

25 2521 21

24 2527 28

28 26 26

18 1916 15

12 1311

9

7

14 14 14 1310

109

6 535 5 5 5 8

12

88

32 2 3

34

3 22

22 24

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Council Website

Text Message


Local Paper Insert

Council Newsletter

via Mail



Newspaper

SocialMedia


Q13. If Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?. Base: All respondents aged under 50. Councils asked state-wide: 33 Note: ‘Social Media’ was included in 2019.

Best form of communication: over 50s

2020 over 50s best form of communication (%)

42

46

42 43 42 41

37

3331

34

1516

18 1821 21

2524 23

18 18

1817 16 18 17

17 16

1617

1518

15 15 15 15 12

1 1 1 1 2 3 4

2

31

1 1 22 2 2

2 2

46

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Council Website

Text Message


Local Paper Insert

Council Newsletter

via Mail



Newspaper

SocialMedia


Q13. If Council was going to get in touch with you to inform you about Council news and information and upcoming events, which ONE of the following is the BEST way to communicate with you?Base: All respondents aged over 50. Councils asked state-wide: 33 Note: ‘Social Media’ was included in 2019.

Council direction

43

Over the last 12 months, 61% State-wide believe the direction of Council’s overall performance has stayed the same, down one point on 2019.

• 18% believe the direction has improved in the last 12 months (down one point on 2019).

• 16% believe it has deteriorated, up two points on 2019.

• The most satisfied with their Council’s direction are those aged 18 to 34 years and residents of the Metropolitan council group.

• The least satisfied with their Council’s direction are those aged 50 to 64 years and residents of the Interface council group.

All groups demographic groups and Council groupings experienced a decline in their index score on this measure in 2020, with the Metropolitan group (index 54, down one point) and those aged 35 to 49 years (49, down one point) the only groups not to decline significantly.

Council direction

44


More rate Council performance as improved since last year than

deteriorated – but views are more sceptical than last year

Overall council direction last 12 months

45

2020 overall direction (index scores)

55

54

52

51

51

50

50

50

50

49

48

47

18-34

Metropolitan

Women

Overall

65+

Small Rural

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

35-49

Interface

50-64

57

55

54

53

53

53

52

51

52

50

54

50

57

54

53

52

52

50

53

52

51

50

53

48

56

54

54

53

54

52

55

52

52

51

53

50

56

55

52

51

51

50

51

48

51

49

54

48

58

56

55

53

53

53

53

51

52

51

54

51

57

n/a

55

53

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

52

51

n/a

50

57

n/a

54

53

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

52

51

n/a

50

56

n/a

52

52

53

n/a

n/a

n/a

51

49

n/a

48


2019 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? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Overall council direction last 12 months

2020 overall council direction (%)

18

19

19

19

18

20

20

19

18

17

16

20

16

19

17

18

20

16

15

18

61

62

60

62

62

63

63

63

64

67

59

55

63

58

61

62

64

62

60

60

16

14

15

13

15

13

13

13

15

10

19

21

16

19

18

15

11

19

21

17

5

5

5

6

5

5

5

5

4

6

6

4

4

4

4

5

5

4

4

6

2020 Overall

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

46


Q6. Over the last 12 months, what is your view of the direction of Council’s overall performance? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62

Room for improvement in services

2020 room for improvement in services (%)

49

47

44

46

40

47

41

46

47

43

47

58

48

49

44

52

53

46

42

45

45

42

48

44

50

46

45

46

44

37

43

42

49

41

40

40

5

5

7

7

7

7

5

5

5

7

6

3

5

6

4

4

4

8

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

3

3

2

3

2

2

3

2

2

3

2

1

1

2

4

2020 Overall

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

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

47


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

Right / wrong direction

48

2020 right / wrong direction (%)

1720

1718202021

191820

128

1722

181618

1316

20

4647

4747

4849

5250

4953

4130

4842

4448

504740

45

1311

1412

910

910

119

1424

1311

1313

1314

1511

141111

109

108

1012

82132

1311

1513

1117

1712

101111

1314

1110101010

126

914

1011

89

1212




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+

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


Q8. Would you say your local Council is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10

Rates / services trade-off

49

2020 rates / services trade-off (%)

910910101011111198

66

1111

79889

2423

232121

232525

2930

2621

202323

2529

2420

23

242224

2322

2224

222225

242325

222226

3024

2320

252724

2728

2623

2422

1922

3128

242623

2025

2827

1918

1920191817181616

1918

212018

2013

192122




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+

Definitely prefer rate rise Probably prefer rate rise Probably prefer service cutsDefinitely 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13

Individual service areas

50

Community consultation and engagement importance

51

2020 consultation and engagement importance (index scores)

77

76

75

76

75

75

76

74

71

70

71

68

77

74

76

76

76

75

75

74

72

70

72

68

78

75

75

76

75

75

76

74

72

72

72

67

78

77

76

77

76

76

75

75

73

75

73

72

78

76

75

76

75

76

74

74

72

72

72

68

77

n/a

74

76

n/a

76

n/a

74

71

n/a

n/a

68

77

n/a

74

75

n/a

74

n/a

73

71

n/a

n/a

67

77

n/a

73

75

n/a

75

n/a

73

71

n/a

n/a

68

78

76

76

76

76

75

75

74

72

72

72

68

50-64

Small Rural

65+

Women

Large Rural

35-49

Regional Centres

Overall

Men

Interface

Metropolitan

18-34


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Community consultation and engagement importance

52

2020 consultation and engagement importance (%)

29293029

322928

2727

2525

3331

3427

3120

3236

30

42414041

4142

414343

4342

3844

4041

4339

4141

45

23242424

2224

252525

2426

242121

2520

3122

1819

444433444

65

433

53

733

3

1111

111111

111111111

1

11112111112111111112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community consultation and engagement’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23

Community consultation and engagement performance

53

2020 consultation and engagement performance (index scores)

58

58

56

56

56

54

56

55

55

55

54

52

57

58

56

55

55

54

54

55

54

56

55

51

57

58

56

55

55

52

55

53

53

53

54

52

58

57

56

55

54

52

55

54

53

55

52

51

58

59

57

56

56

54

56

54

54

57

53

53

n/a

60

58

58

57

n/a

n/a

56

56

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

60

58

58

57

n/a

n/a

56

56

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

60

58

58

57

n/a

n/a

55

56

n/a

n/a

54

58

57

56

55

55

54

54

54

54

53

51

51

Metropolitan

18-34

Women

65+

Overall

Large Rural

Small Rural

35-49

Men

Interface

Regional Centres

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Community consultation and engagement performance

54

2020 consultation and engagement performance (%)

8987878889

7889898879

3030

30292931

32323331

2727

3030

293033

3025

29

3231

323232

32323433

323132

3331

3132

3430

3330

1515

151515

14131313

121718

1516

1614

1216

1914

767

67

6555

56

978

86

589

7

899

10109998

1211

776

89877

10




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community consultation and engagement’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62

Lobbying on behalf of the community importance

55

2020 lobbying importance (index scores)

70

70

70

70

68

67

67

66

66

65

65

64

70

71

69

70

69

68

68

68

68

66

66

65

70

72

70

72

70

69

69

68

67

66

67

66

71

73

71

69

71

70

69

68

70

69

68

66

72

72

71

68

70

70

69

68

68

68

67

66

n/a

73

72

n/a

71

n/a

70

69

n/a

67

n/a

67

n/a

73

71

n/a

71

n/a

70

69

n/a

68

n/a

66

n/a

73

72

n/a

72

n/a

70

68

n/a

68

n/a

67

73

71

70

70

69

69

68

68

67

66

66

65

Small Rural

Women

50-64

Regional Centres

35-49

Large Rural

Overall

65+

Interface

18-34

Metropolitan

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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

Lobbying on behalf of the community importance

56

2020 lobbying importance (%)

232123232423232323

2021

2624

2820

2620

2527

21

3838

37393839404041

3839

3737

4237

3935

3838

40

272827

272728

272727

2729

2628

2128

2631

2622

25

8887666

66

1077

65

105

97

77

2222

22121

3322

23222

33

2222322222332323212

4




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



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

Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

57

2020 lobbying performance (index scores)

57

57

56

55

54

54

52

55

54

52

54

51

56

57

55

54

54

53

52

53

54

52

54

50

56

57

55

55

54

53

51

55

54

52

54

51

56

57

54

54

53

53

50

54

52

51

55

50

58

58

57

56

55

55

53

56

55

53

56

53

n/a

59

57

57

56

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

n/a

53

n/a

59

57

56

55

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

52

n/a

60

57

56

55

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

52

57

57

54

54

53

53

53

52

52

51

51

49

Metropolitan

18-34

65+

Women

Overall

Men

Large Rural

Small Rural

Regional Centres

35-49

Interface

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Lobbying on behalf of the community performance

58

2020 lobbying performance (%)

66555666665666666557

2425

242423

26272627

2522

2424252424

3023

2023

3231

323131

32323333

3030

3535

313233

3333

3330

131313

1313

12111212

915

1314

151313

1114

1612

655

55

4444

47

76

77

54

78

5

192020

222220191817

2721

151617

1820

1617

1922




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Lobbying on behalf of the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62

Decisions made in the interest of the community importance

59

2020 community decisions made importance (index scores)

81

81

82

81

82

80

80

80

79

78

78

78

77

80

81

81

81

78

80

80

79

79

78

79

78

81

81

81

82

79

79

80

79

79

78

78

n/a

80

80

82

82

79

80

80

79

79

77

79

82

80

82

81

80

78

80

80

79

80

77

78

n/a

80

81

81

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

79

n/a

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

82

81

81

81

80

80

80

79

79

79

78

77

Small Rural

35-49

50-64

Women

Regional Centres

Interface

Overall

Large Rural

65+

Metropolitan

Men

18-34


2019 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Decisions made in the interest of the community importance

60

2020 community decisions made importance (%)

39

39

39

39

39

38

37

36

41

42

38

43

36

41

35

44

43

35

41

42

42

42

42

42

43

42

41

39

41

43

41

42

42

37

40

45

15

15

15

15

14

15

16

16

14

15

15

12

17

13

19

14

12

13

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

3

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

3

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18

Decisions made in the interest of the community performance

61

2020 community decisions made performance (index scores)

60

58

55

55

55

55

54

55

52

52

52

51

58

57

54

54

54

52

53

56

52

52

52

50

58

58

55

55

54

55

53

55

51

52

52

51

59

58

54

55

54

53

53

56

50

52

51

50

59

59

55

56

55

56

54

58

52

53

52

52

n/a

60

58

57

57

n/a

56

n/a

n/a

55

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

59

57

54

54

53

53

52

52

52

51

50

49

Metropolitan

18-34

65+

Women

Overall

Small Rural

Men

Interface

Large Rural

35-49

Regional Centres

50-64


2019 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Decisions made in the interest of the community performance

62

2020 community decisions made performance (%)

7

7

6

6

7

7

7

8

5

6

6

7

7

7

7

6

5

8

29

30

30

29

29

31

33

33

30

26

27

29

29

29

34

29

24

28

33

33

34

34

33

33

34

31

31

34

35

33

32

34

34

32

34

33

14

14

14

14

14

14

12

10

15

17

16

15

15

14

11

15

18

14

8

7

7

7

8

6

5

5

8

11

8

9

9

7

6

10

10

7

9

10

9

10

10

9

10

14

11

6

7

7

8

9

8

8

8

10

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62

The condition of sealed local roads in your area importance

63

2020 sealed local roads importance (index scores)

82

81

80

80

81

80

79

79

79

77

77

77

84

82

82

80

81

80

80

81

80

78

78

77

81

80

79

77

80

79

79

80

78

77

77

75

n/a

79

79

80

79

78

79

76

78

76

76

76

78

78

77

78

78

77

78

77

76

75

75

73

n/a

79

n/a

n/a

79

79

78

n/a

77

75

n/a

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

83

82

81

81

81

80

80

79

79

78

77

77

Small Rural

50-64

Interface

Large Rural

Women

35-49

65+

Regional Centres

Overall

Men

Metropolitan

18-34


2019 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

The condition of sealed local roads in your area importance

64

2020 sealed local roads importance (%)

38

37

38

35

34

32

33

33

41

40

42

49

35

41

36

40

44

36

43

45

44

44

46

44

45

46

41

40

41

38

44

42

39

42

42

48

16

16

15

18

16

20

18

18

14

18

15

10

17

15

20

16

12

14

2

2

2

2

3

2

3

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19

The condition of sealed local roads in your area performance

65

2020 sealed local roads performance (index scores)

69

58

57

57

60

56

56

56

54

53

53

47

68

55

55

54

57

53

53

53

52

49

50

45

66

54

56

53

59

54

53

53

52

50

51

43

67

56

58

54

60

54

54

54

52

52

51

44

69

57

57

55

60

55

55

55

53

52

52

45

n/a

56

59

n/a

n/a

55

55

55

54

n/a

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

67

56

56

55

55

54

54

54

53

51

50

47

Metropolitan

65+

18-34

Regional Centres

Interface

Women

Overall

Men

35-49

Small Rural

50-64

Large Rural


2019 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

The condition of sealed local roads in your area performance

66

2020 sealed local roads performance (%)

11

13

11

11

11

11

12

21

12

12

7

8

12

11

13

11

9

12

32

33

31

32

33

33

33

42

34

33

25

30

32

32

34

32

28

33

28

28

28

28

28

29

27

23

28

27

30

31

28

29

26

26

30

31

16

16

17

16

16

16

17

9

15

16

20

17

15

16

15

16

18

14

11

10

12

12

11

10

10

4

11

10

17

13

12

11

11

13

14

9

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62

Informing the community importance

67

2020 informing community importance (index scores)

77

79

78

76

75

75

75

74

74

71

74

73

76

77

77

75

75

76

75

75

77

72

73

73

76

77

77

76

74

76

74

74

74

71

72

73

77

76

79

78

77

76

76

75

77

72

75

74

77

76

78

76

76

75

75

75

74

72

73

73

76

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

75

75

75

n/a

71

73

n/a

77

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

75

75

75

n/a

71

73

n/a

78

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

75

75

75

n/a

72

74

n/a

78

77

77

77

77

76

75

75

74

73

72

72

50-64

Regional Centres

Women

Small Rural

Large Rural

65+

Overall

35-49

Interface

Men

18-34

Metropolitan


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Informing the community importance

68

2020 informing community importance (%)

323232

3033

30303031

2632

363535

2835

2832

3730

424141

4342

44434444

4340

414243

4143

3941

4048

2222222320222222

2124

23192018

2419

2721

1918

4444

4333

453

23

35

25432

1111

1111

1121

11

111

1

1

1

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Informing the community’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21

Informing the community performance

69

2020 informing community performance (index scores)

62

60

60

61

61

60

60

59

58

59

57

56

61

60

60

61

59

59

58

58

56

60

56

59

61

61

60

60

60

59

59

58

58

55

57

58

63

59

60

61

56

59

59

58

58

55

56

59

64

61

62

62

59

61

61

60

60

56

58

58

n/a

65

63

63

n/a

62

62

62

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

63

62

63

n/a

61

60

61

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

62

61

63

n/a

60

58

59

n/a

n/a

57

n/a

62

60

59

59

59

59

58

58

58

57

56

56

Metropolitan

65+

Women

18-34

Large Rural

Overall

35-49

Men

Small Rural

Interface

50-64

Regional Centres


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 33 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Informing the community performance

70

2020 informing community performance (%)

1213

1111121213121214

9101211111211119

14

3535

363535

3840

3838

373532

353535

353636

3335

3231313231

3130

323130

3134

3232

323233

3134

31

13141313

13121111

1312

1615

141314

1312

1416

12

5555

54

434

45756655665

33334233234233333334




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Informing the community’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 33

The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance

71

2020 streets and footpaths importance (index scores)

79

79

78

78

79

78

77

77

77

77

75

75

79

79

78

78

80

79

79

78

77

76

76

75

78

79

78

78

80

78

77

77

75

76

75

74

78

80

77

78

79

78

77

77

77

75

74

76

78

79

78

78

78

77

77

77

77

76

75

75

78

79

77

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

74

74

79

81

78

78

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

n/a

n/a

75

75

79

79

78

77

n/a

n/a

n/a

77

n/a

n/a

74

74

81

80

79

79

79

78

78

78

78

77

76

74

50-64

Women

65+

35-49

Interface

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Overall

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men

18-34


2019 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area importance

72

2020 streets and footpaths importance (%)

3634353434343335

3234

393737

3532

4131

3942

36

424443

42434344

4446

4541

3939

4243

4040

3940

47

191818

191819181818

1816

201918

2116

2519

1514

2232

22322

232233

24121

11

111111

11111

11

1

111121111

111111

111




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23

The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance

73

2020 streets and footpaths performance (index scores)

65

62

61

60

59

59

57

58

58

57

60

55

64

62

59

59

58

58

57

58

58

56

59

54

62

60

57

57

56

57

57

57

56

54

56

53

63

60

58

58

57

57

58

57

56

55

57

53

64

62

58

59

58

58

59

57

57

55

56

54

n/a

62

n/a

59

57

58

n/a

57

56

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

n/a

59

57

58

n/a

57

56

54

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

n/a

58

56

57

n/a

57

56

54

n/a

n/a

64

60

59

59

58

58

57

57

57

55

54

54

Metropolitan

18-34

Regional Centres

Men

35-49

Overall

Small Rural

65+

Women

50-64

Interface

Large Rural


2019 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area performance

74

2020 streets and footpaths performance (%)

131414131213131413

1811

1410121413

1613

1113

343534

3334343433

3438

3336

3033

3533

3637

3032

282828

2828282828

2827

2828

2927

2728

2626

3029

151414

1514151515

1511

1614

1815

1416

1315

1715

877

987789

510

710

88

87

898

322233211111

44231234




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The condition of local streets and footpaths in your area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 35

Traffic management importance

75

2020 traffic management importance (index scores)

83

76

74

74

75

73

73

73

72

71

64

84

77

74

73

76

74

74

74

73

71

67

67

75

74

72

76

72

72

71

71

69

67

71

75

73

72

75

72

72

72

70

69

70

68

73

73

72

74

71

71

72

68

68

68

n/a

73

73

71

n/a

70

69

n/a

69

67

n/a

n/a

75

74

74

n/a

72

71

n/a

70

69

n/a

n/a

76

75

74

n/a

73

73

n/a

72

70

n/a

80

76

75

74

73

73

72

72

71

70

67

Interface

Women

65+

50-64

Metropolitan

Overall

35-49

Regional Centres

18-34

Men

Large Rural


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Traffic management importance

76

2020 traffic management importance (%)

29

30

31

27

27

25

23

26

29

28

45

28

19

25

33

28

29

31

29

41

40

40

41

41

41

42

42

42

43

36

38

40

40

42

38

38

41

46

23

23

22

24

24

26

27

25

23

23

14

27

28

26

20

26

24

22

19

5

6

5

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

4

5

9

6

4

6

7

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2020 Overall

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 ‘Traffic management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10

Traffic management performance

77

2020 traffic management performance (index scores)

66

59

59

59

58

57

58

58

56

60

56

52

65

60

58

57

57

56

57

58

55

56

55

51

67

62

61

60

56

58

59

60

57

61

58

59

65

62

61

60

56

57

59

60

57

59

57

57

67

59

62

60

57

59

60

60

57

62

58

61

n/a

n/a

63

60

n/a

60

60

61

58

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

61

n/a

59

60

60

57

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

60

n/a

58

58

59

56

n/a

55

n/a

64

62

60

59

59

58

58

58

57

56

55

52

Small Rural

Large Rural

18-34

65+

Metropolitan

Men

Overall

Women

50-64

Regional Centres

35-49

Interface


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Traffic management performance

78

2020 traffic management performance (%)

109101010101010910811111010912

8910

383736

38384040

393838

3234

4447

3838

403736

37

3031

3030

303130

313131

3031

2828

2931

2831

3131

1313

1513

131212131312

1815

97

1313

131314

12

7675

655556

11843

76

69

75

333343333322

443312

44




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Traffic management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15

Parking facilities importance

79

2020 parking importance (index scores)

73

75

74

72

73

71

70

66

68

69

66

74

75

74

72

73

71

70

64

69

69

66

73

72

73

71

73

70

69

64

66

67

66

73

73

74

70

72

70

69

65

66

68

68

74

74

74

71

72

70

70

67

67

67

67

74

n/a

74

71

n/a

70

69

n/a

67

68

n/a

74

n/a

75

73

n/a

71

70

n/a

67

68

n/a

74

n/a

74

72

n/a

71

70

n/a

68

68

n/a

75

75

74

72

71

71

69

69

68

67

66

65+

Regional Centres

Women

50-64

Metropolitan

Overall

35-49

Small Rural

Men

18-34

Large Rural


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Parking facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Parking facilities importance

80

2020 parking importance (%)

27

26

27

25

24

24

24

25

24

25

33

22

22

22

31

22

25

30

31

39

40

39

39

41

41

40

42

42

41

38

35

40

39

39

36

36

39

44

26

26

27

28

27

27

28

26

27

27

22

31

27

29

23

32

31

24

19

6

6

6

6

7

6

6

6

6

5

5

10

7

7

5

8

7

6

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 17

Parking facilities performance

81

2020 parking performance (index scores)

60

57

57

58

56

55

56

56

54

55

55

50

60

57

58

59

56

55

56

56

56

55

54

51

63

57

56

60

56

53

56

55

54

55

54

52

61

56

57

58

56

54

57

56

55

56

55

54

62

60

59

59

58

55

58

57

55

56

55

53

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

58

n/a

58

57

55

57

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

58

n/a

57

57

55

56

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

57

n/a

55

56

55

56

55

n/a

60

58

57

57

56

56

56

55

54

54

54

49

Small Rural

Interface

18-34

Large Rural

Men

Metropolitan

35-49

Overall

50-64

Women

65+

Regional Centres


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Parking facilities performance

82

2020 parking performance (%)

99910991099910991110811989

33343533343635

3635

3334

2536

3834

3234

363230

323231

323232323333

3334

3131

3030

3331

3034

32

161615161415151415

1515

2015

1315

1615

1616

17

8788

766

66

74

126578788

9

2222332323223322222

4




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Parking facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21

Enforcement of local laws importance

83

2020 law enforcement importance (index scores)

73

75

72

70

73

71

69

71

69

68

66

68

74

74

72

71

73

71

71

70

69

68

67

66

73

74

73

71

72

71

71

70

70

68

68

67

73

74

71

70

71

70

71

70

70

69

66

69

71

74

72

72

72

71

71

70

70

70

67

68

n/a

74

73

n/a

n/a

70

71

70

68

n/a

66

n/a

n/a

75

73

n/a

n/a

71

71

72

70

n/a

68

n/a

n/a

74

71

n/a

n/a

70

70

71

68

n/a

66

n/a

73

73

73

71

71

70

70

69

68

68

66

66

Interface

Women

65+

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

Overall

50-64

18-34

35-49

Large Rural

Men

Small Rural


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Enforcement of local laws importance

84

2020 law enforcement importance (%)

26272727262524

272426

3330

232222

3126262626

38383738

3841

4040

4141

3636

373537

3935

3436

44

2626272627

2728

262725

2225

3029

2824

2729

2722

76666

5666

667

799

59974

222221111212

2431232

2

11111111111

11111

12




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Enforcement of local laws’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22

Enforcement of local laws performance

85

2020 law enforcement performance (index scores)

67

64

66

65

64

64

64

62

63

63

61

62

67

64

66

65

64

64

64

62

62

63

61

61

67

64

66

65

63

64

64

63

63

65

61

60

67

64

64

65

63

63

63

62

62

64

61

61

70

66

67

67

65

66

65

64

64

66

63

65

69

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

66

66

64

65

n/a

63

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

66

n/a

65

65

64

64

n/a

62

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

65

64

64

64

n/a

63

n/a

66

65

64

64

64

63

63

62

62

62

60

59

18-34

Metropolitan

Regional Centres

Women

Large Rural

Overall

35-49

65+

Men

Small Rural

50-64

Interface


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Enforcement of local laws performance

86

2020 law enforcement performance (%)

12121212121314131313

9131211111214

121011

383839

3937

4041

4040

3835

3938

383838

4439

3434

272625

2626

2625

2526

2629

2826262727

2625

2928

888

88

67

77

611

78897

68

108

433

34

33

33

35

4344

33

55

4

121212131412111211

1410

8131211

138

1114

16




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Enforcement of local laws’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 34

Family support services importance

87

2020 family support importance (index scores)

78

76

76

75

74

74

75

71

72

73

72

69

78

76

76

75

74

74

75

69

72

72

72

69

77

74

76

76

73

73

73

71

71

72

72

69

77

75

75

73

73

74

73

72

71

72

70

68

77

74

74

75

73

73

72

72

72

72

72

68

77

n/a

74

n/a

72

73

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

71

68

78

n/a

75

n/a

73

73

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

72

68

78

n/a

75

n/a

73

73

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

72

69

79

77

76

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

74

71

Women

Interface

18-34

Regional Centres

Overall

35-49

Metropolitan

Small Rural

65+

Large Rural

50-64

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Family support services importance

88

2020 family support importance (%)

312930

282828

26272729

3534

2928

2536

333231

26

4242

40414142

424444

4341

3942

4541

4343

4039

45

2021

2322

222324

222221

1821

2218

2516

1922

2220

445

55

54444

344

35

244

43

1112

2111111

1122

11

21

2222322222122222112

4




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Family support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19

Family support services performance

89

2020 family support performance (index scores)

70

69

67

67

68

67

68

67

67

65

67

64

68

68

67

66

67

66

66

67

67

65

67

63

70

68

67

67

68

66

67

66

67

65

65

64

69

69

67

66

66

66

66

66

66

64

65

62

70

68

68

67

67

67

66

66

67

67

66

65

72

n/a

69

68

n/a

68

n/a

67

69

n/a

n/a

66

71

n/a

68

67

n/a

67

n/a

66

68

n/a

n/a

64

70

n/a

67

67

n/a

66

n/a

65

68

n/a

n/a

64

69

69

66

66

66

65

65

65

65

64

63

63

65+

Metropolitan

Women

Overall

Small Rural

Men

Regional Centres

35-49

18-34

Large Rural

Interface

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Family support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Family support services performance

90

2020 family support performance (%)

11111111101112111112

913

91191212

107

12

3032

313031

3433

3334

2929

3431

2932

2933

3427

28

2120

212021

21202122

1822

2423

182121

2420

2317

54

444

444

54

67

55

55

66

53

21

21

2111

21

22

22

22

22

21

313132

3432

292929

2635

3120

3134

3231

2428

3538




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



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

Elderly support services importance

91

2020 elderly support importance (index scores)

84

82

80

80

81

81

79

80

79

79

78

76

83

81

80

80

81

80

78

79

79

79

77

75

82

80

79

79

78

80

78

78

77

77

76

74

82

79

79

79

79

78

78

78

78

78

77

75

82

80

80

80

77

80

78

79

78

78

77

75

83

80

79

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

78

77

75

83

81

80

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

79

n/a

79

77

75

83

81

81

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80

n/a

80

78

76

83

82

81

81

81

80

80

80

78

78

78

76

Women

50-64

65+

Small Rural

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Overall

Metropolitan

35-49

18-34

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Elderly support services importance

92

2020 elderly support importance (%)

393838

353636

353637

354142

3943

3246

3537

4440

4244

434444

444645

4645

4040

4241

4342

4340

4144

1515

161716

161615

1416

15151413

1910

1818

1112

22

22

222

22

22

2223

12

321

1

11

1

1

1

1111

111

1

1111211111111111

112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Elderly support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19

Elderly support services performance

93

2020 elderly support performance (index scores)

72

71

68

68

69

67

67

67

66

67

66

67

70

69

68

68

67

67

67

67

65

67

67

66

72

71

68

68

68

67

67

67

66

66

64

68

71

70

69

68

67

69

66

67

66

65

59

66

74

72

69

69

69

69

69

67

67

66

65

66

74

n/a

71

70

70

n/a

n/a

69

69

68

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

70

69

69

n/a

n/a

69

67

67

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

69

69

68

n/a

n/a

68

67

66

n/a

n/a

72

71

68

68

68

67

67

66

66

65

65

63

65+

Small Rural

Women

Overall

Men

Metropolitan

Large Rural

18-34

50-64

35-49

Interface

Regional Centres


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Elderly support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 30 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Elderly support services performance

94

2020 elderly support performance (%)

151414141415161515

12121415

2014

1712

1013

23

30333231

303434

3334

2730

3130

3431

2931

2830

32

2019

1919

201917

1920

1823

2521

181920

2019

2118

55

545

444

54

59

65

56

55

65

22

222

221

22

33

22

22

22

22

282829

3030

262728

2538

2817

2821

2927

3036

2819




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



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

Disadvantaged support services importance

95

2020 disadvantaged support importance (index scores)

78

77

n/a

76

73

74

74

75

74

71

70

76

72

n/a

73

73

72

72

74

72

70

69

75

72

75

72

72

71

71

71

70

70

67

76

73

73

75

72

71

73

73

73

72

69

77

72

74

74

73

73

73

74

73

72

69

77

n/a

n/a

74

72

72

72

n/a

72

n/a

68

78

n/a

n/a

75

73

73

73

n/a

72

n/a

69

77

n/a

n/a

75

73

73

73

n/a

72

n/a

69

77

77

76

75

74

74

74

74

73

72

71

Women

Interface

Regional Centres

18-34

65+

50-64

Overall

Metropolitan

35-49

Large Rural

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Disadvantaged support services importance

96

2020 disadvantaged support importance (%)

2930

27262728

25272728

3534

2824

3431

283029

64

4241

4141

4242

444343

443941

4143

4241

4343

4334

2122

242422

2323232321

2018

2323

1823

231819

444

55

4444424

45

334

54

1112111111

1122111

21

222232222232222112

42



Large RuralMen

Women18-3435-4950-64

65+Personal user*



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Disadvantaged support services’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9

Disadvantaged support services performance

97

2020 disadvantaged support performance (index scores)

65

63

63

61

61

62

61

60

60

63

60

64

63

61

61

62

61

61

62

60

61

58

64

62

62

61

61

61

60

56

61

63

59

64

61

62

61

60

61

59

58

60

59

59

65

62

63

62

62

62

61

61

62

61

60

67

65

n/a

n/a

65

64

62

n/a

63

n/a

61

64

64

n/a

n/a

65

62

61

n/a

61

n/a

60

66

63

n/a

n/a

66

63

60

n/a

63

n/a

59

62

62

62

61

61

60

59

59

59

59

58

65+

Men

Metropolitan

Large Rural

18-34

Overall

35-49

Interface

Women

Regional Centres

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Disadvantaged support services’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Disadvantaged support services performance

98

2020 disadvantaged support performance (%)

7

7

6

6

6

7

8

7

8

7

7

8

6

7

7

7

5

6

8

25

25

25

25

24

28

28

27

28

23

25

30

24

27

23

29

24

22

24

23

23

23

22

23

23

22

22

23

22

23

26

23

23

24

27

21

23

22

7

6

6

6

6

6

5

6

6

5

6

10

7

6

8

6

7

8

6

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

4

4

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

36

37

38

39

39

35

35

36

34

41

35

23

37

36

35

28

41

38

37

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 15

Recreational facilities importance

99

2020 recreational facilities importance (index scores)

75

73

73

72

72

72

72

72

72

71

70

70

75

74

75

74

72

74

73

74

73

72

72

72

74

73

74

72

71

72

72

73

73

71

70

71

75

73

75

73

72

72

73

73

73

71

71

72

75

72

73

72

73

72

72

72

72

71

71

70

74

72

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

71

70

70

75

73

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

71

70

70

75

72

74

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

71

70

70

75

74

74

73

73

72

72

72

72

72

71

69

35-49

50-64

Women

Interface

Small Rural

Large Rural

Overall

Regional Centres

Metropolitan

65+

Men

18-34


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Recreational facilities importance

100

2020 recreational facilities importance (%)

242325

2425

232323

2223

26252426

2226

2030

2722

4546

464645

464747494744

434644

4546

4343

4649

2626

25262426

2626252627

272625

2724

3123

2325

4434

43

43

33344

44353

33

1111

11

11

1

11

11

11

1

1

11

1

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Recreational facilities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28

Recreational facilities performance

101

2020 recreational facilities performance (index scores)

75

74

71

71

70

70

70

68

69

68

70

68

74

72

70

70

69

69

69

68

68

69

68

66

73

73

70

69

70

69

68

68

69

69

66

66

73

72

69

70

69

69

69

67

67

68

67

65

74

73

70

69

70

69

69

67

69

70

68

66

n/a

74

71

n/a

71

70

71

69

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

73

70

n/a

70

70

70

68

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

70

n/a

70

69

70

67

68

n/a

n/a

n/a

74

73

70

70

70

70

69

68

68

68

67

67

Metropolitan

65+

Women

Regional Centres

Overall

Men

18-34

35-49

50-64

Small Rural

Interface

Large Rural


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Recreational facilities performance

102

2020 recreational facilities performance (%)

23232222

212223

2221

2819

2320222323

2123

2126

4244

4243

4343

444444

4443

444140

4341

4442

4341

2221

2222

232321

2222

1925

222324

222224

2224

20

66

77

76677

376

97

67

787

4

32323

22221333

332

343

2

4444433334333434223

6




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Recreational facilities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 39

The appearance of public areas importance

103

2020 public areas importance (index scores)

75

75

73

74

74

74

73

73

74

73

71

71

75

76

76

75

75

74

74

74

74

73

72

71

75

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

75

73

72

72

75

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

74

74

72

72

75

75

73

75

74

73

74

73

73

73

71

70

75

75

n/a

75

74

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

71

70

76

76

n/a

75

75

n/a

n/a

74

n/a

n/a

72

71

74

75

n/a

74

74

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

n/a

71

71

76

75

75

74

74

74

74

74

73

73

72

71

50-64

Women

Interface

35-49

65+

Small Rural

Regional Centres

Overall

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Men

18-34


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

The appearance of public areas importance

104

2020 public areas importance (%)

2524

262626

242526

2324

3027

2526

2229

222829

24

4747

464748

4748

484948

4345

4648

4647

4344

4851

2525

242423252523

252424252524

2822

3025

2122

2322

22222

2333232

422

2

1

1

1

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘The appearance of public areas’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 27

The appearance of public areas performance

105

2020 public areas performance (index scores)

74

73

73

74

72

73

72

73

72

70

71

69

73

72

72

73

71

72

71

71

71

69

70

68

72

74

72

73

72

72

71

72

71

69

69

66

72

73

72

73

71

71

71

72

71

69

69

66

73

74

72

72

72

72

72

73

71

69

70

67

n/a

n/a

73

n/a

72

72

72

73

72

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

70

71

71

72

71

n/a

69

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

n/a

70

72

71

73

71

n/a

70

n/a

73

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

71

71

70

65

Metropolitan

Small Rural

65+

Regional Centres

35-49

Women

Overall

18-34

Men

Large Rural

50-64

Interface


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

The appearance of public areas performance

106

2020 public areas performance (%)

2626

2425242425

2423

2716

2724

2725262526

2327

4545

4546

464746

4648

4643

4446

4546434546

4644

2120

212021

2020

2221

2028

20221920

212119

2221

6566655665

876

6666

675

2222222222

42

2322232

2

11111111111

1111

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘The appearance of public areas’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 38

Art centres and libraries importance

107

2020 art centres and libraries importance (index scores)

69

66

67

65

65

65

64

64

63

64

61

63

69

67

67

65

65

65

62

67

63

62

61

61

69

66

67

66

64

64

63

62

62

61

60

61

70

67

68

66

65

66

63

66

64

64

60

65

70

67

69

67

65

65

63

64

66

63

61

62

70

68

n/a

66

66

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

63

62

n/a

70

69

n/a

67

67

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

62

n/a

71

68

n/a

67

67

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

64

62

n/a

69

68

68

66

66

65

64

64

63

62

61

60

Women

65+

Metropolitan

35-49

50-64

Overall

Large Rural

Interface

Regional Centres

18-34

Men

Small Rural


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Art centres and libraries importance

108

2020 art centres and libraries importance (%)

17171615

181617161719

161618

1314

2015

191717

3939

3939

4040404242

4339

3735

3535

4333

3940

45

32333434

303333

3333

2934

3336

3635

2936

3233

28

9999

988

7779

118

1212

512

886

22223211

222

22

43132

22

1111111

11

11111

11




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Art centres and libraries’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19

Art centres and libraries performance

109

2020 art centres and libraries performance (index scores)

77

76

76

74

74

74

74

73

73

73

75

73

76

75

75

76

74

73

74

73

72

71

75

73

76

75

75

75

73

72

73

72

72

70

72

72

75

74

74

75

72

71

72

70

71

70

68

71

76

75

75

75

73

69

73

72

71

73

72

73

78

n/a

77

n/a

76

n/a

75

74

73

n/a

n/a

74

76

n/a

74

n/a

73

n/a

73

72

72

n/a

n/a

73

76

n/a

74

n/a

72

n/a

73

71

71

n/a

n/a

73

77

75

75

74

74

74

74

73

72

72

71

71

65+

Metropolitan

Women

Regional Centres

35-49

Small Rural

Overall

Men

50-64

Large Rural

Interface

18-34


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Art centres and libraries performance

110

2020 art centres and libraries performance (%)

242625

232324

272524

2720

262223

2127

1926

2128

4342

4243

4244

4444

4442

4445

4143

4243

4342

4342

19171818

1818

17181919

2119

1818

2018

2318

2015

3444

54

345

34

35

23

343

33

11112

1122

12

1211

111

11

10101010109887

1097

131313

899

1111




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Art centres and libraries’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26

Community and cultural activities importance

111

2020 community and cultural activities importance (index scores)

64

62

62

61

61

61

61

61

60

61

62

58

64

62

61

59

60

63

61

61

61

60

60

57

65

62

57

60

63

61

61

61

61

61

62

57

66

62

63

61

62

64

62

61

62

61

64

58

66

63

59

61

62

63

62

61

62

61

65

58

65

n/a

n/a

61

62

62

62

61

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

65

n/a

n/a

62

61

62

62

63

n/a

n/a

n/a

59

65

n/a

n/a

61

60

63

62

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

65

63

62

62

62

62

62

62

61

61

60

58

Women

Regional Centres

Interface

50-64

35-49

18-34

Overall

65+

Metropolitan

Large Rural

Small Rural

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Community and cultural activities importance

112

2020 community and cultural activities importance (%)

131212121211111111121315

1314

111514

1314

11

3635343537

373737373736

363432

3240

343635

38

38404039

384041

41393738

383939

3936

3740

3737

1010101110109

9101110

9109

147

1210

109

222222122222343122

32

11111

1111111111

12




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Community and cultural activities’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 21

Community and cultural activities performance

113

2020 community and cultural activities performance (index scores)

71

70

70

69

69

69

66

68

67

67

68

67

69

70

70

69

68

69

69

67

67

67

67

68

70

70

71

70

69

69

69

68

69

67

64

67

69

71

70

70

69

69

65

67

67

67

63

68

71

71

71

70

69

69

68

68

69

68

65

69

72

n/a

71

71

n/a

70

n/a

69

n/a

68

n/a

69

71

n/a

70

69

n/a

69

n/a

68

n/a

68

n/a

68

71

n/a

70

68

n/a

68

n/a

67

n/a

67

n/a

68

70

70

70

70

69

68

68

67

67

67

66

66

65+

Metropolitan

Women

35-49

Regional Centres

Overall

Small Rural

50-64

Large Rural

Men

Interface

18-34


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Community and cultural activities performance

114

2020 community and cultural activities performance (%)

1717171717181817

1518

14171718

1519

1419

1519

4242424241

4344

4444

4243

4341

4241

4243

4341

41

2625252525

252425

2625

2726

2527

2724

2724

2824

56555

555

54

65

85

65

75

54

21212

111

112

12

32

122

21

999

1097889

109886

9877

912




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Community and cultural activities’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 26

Waste management importance

115

2020 waste management importance (index scores)

83

83

82

82

82

82

81

80

80

80

79

79

83

83

82

84

82

82

81

81

81

79

80

78

81

81

80

79

80

79

79

79

78

78

77

76

82

82

80

81

81

80

80

79

79

79

78

79

81

80

80

79

81

79

79

80

78

76

77

77

n/a

80

79

n/a

80

80

79

n/a

n/a

77

77

n/a

n/a

81

80

n/a

81

80

79

n/a

n/a

76

77

n/a

n/a

80

79

n/a

79

79

78

n/a

n/a

76

77

n/a

84

84

83

83

83

82

82

82

81

81

80

79

Metropolitan

Women

35-49

Interface

50-64

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

Large Rural

18-34

Men

Small Rural


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Waste management importance

116

2020 waste management importance (%)

444142

3638

353536

324847

4442

3940

4941

4846

43

424443

4645

4647

4749

4241

4342

4344

4143

3941

45

111313

1614

1616

1516

91112

121414

914

111110

1111

21

11

1111

122

1111

1

1

111

1

1

1

1

1

1




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Waste management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28

Waste management performance

117

2020 waste management performance (index scores)

72

73

69

68

68

70

68

66

68

66

66

64

73

75

70

70

70

68

70

69

70

68

69

67

74

75

71

69

71

71

71

70

71

69

70

68

74

76

70

69

70

71

70

69

70

67

68

66

75

77

72

71

72

73

72

71

73

70

69

68

75

n/a

73

n/a

73

n/a

72

n/a

74

71

71

n/a

74

n/a

72

n/a

71

n/a

70

n/a

73

69

69

n/a

75

n/a

72

n/a

72

n/a

72

n/a

73

70

69

n/a

70

70

66

66

65

65

64

64

64

63

63

62

65+

Metropolitan

Men

Regional Centres

Overall

Interface

Women

Small Rural

18-34

50-64

35-49

Large Rural


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 41 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Waste management performance

118

2020 waste management performance (%)

20232425

242526

242425

1820

1818

2119

171818

25

4042

4544

4547

474748

424341

3740

4238413939

41

2321

1818

1817

1618

1721

2323

2323

212424

2324

21

108

767

6566

89

1012

109

1110

1212

7

543

343332255

76

555763

322322222211

34233223




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Waste management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 41

Business and community development and tourism importance

119

2020 business/development/tourism importance (index scores)

71

73

67

67

66

64

66

65

63

64

57

71

74

68

68

67

65

66

66

65

65

59

72

74

67

69

69

67

68

67

65

66

60

71

73

67

70

68

69

67

67

64

67

60

70

73

69

69

68

70

67

67

65

65

59

n/a

n/a

68

70

68

n/a

67

67

65

66

n/a

n/a

n/a

68

69

68

n/a

67

67

65

65

n/a

n/a

n/a

67

68

66

n/a

66

66

63

64

n/a

74

73

69

69

68

68

68

67

66

65

58

Small Rural

Regional Centres

50-64

Women

35-49

Large Rural

65+

Overall

Men

18-34

Metropolitan


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

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

Business and community development and tourism importance

120

2020 business/development/tourism importance (%)

21

19

21

21

21

21

20

20

18

10

28

19

30

19

23

19

23

24

20

38

36

36

38

38

38

38

39

39

32

42

41

41

38

39

36

37

39

41

30

32

31

30

30

31

31

31

31

38

26

31

23

30

29

33

30

27

28

8

9

9

8

8

7

8

8

9

16

3

6

4

9

7

10

8

6

7

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 18

Business and community development and tourism performance

121

2020 business/development/tourism performance (index scores)

66

62

62

62

62

61

61

60

59

59

59

58

65

62

62

61

62

59

60

60

59

59

59

58

66

64

63

60

63

61

61

60

60

64

60

58

n/a

62

63

59

62

62

60

62

59

61

59

59

63

63

64

59

63

63

61

62

59

63

60

59

n/a

63

64

n/a

63

n/a

62

n/a

60

n/a

60

59

n/a

63

64

n/a

63

n/a

62

n/a

61

n/a

60

59

n/a

63

64

n/a

63

n/a

62

n/a

60

n/a

60

59

63

61

61

61

61

60

59

59

58

58

58

57

Interface

65+

18-34

Large Rural

Women

Regional Centres

Overall

Metropolitan

Men

Small Rural

35-49

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Business and community development and tourism performance

122

2020 business/development/tourism performance (%)

101010111011111010

610121111910109911

323333

3432

3435

3535

2940

3434

3131

3338

3228

31

32313129

313130

3031

3328

3132

3233

3032

3234

30

111010

1010

109

99

9811

1013

1110

1012

139

434

33

33

33

22

445

43

35

43

121312

141412121312

2211

798

1113

710

1216




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development and tourism’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22

Council’s general town planning policy importance

123

2020 town planning importance (index scores)

76

76

73

72

75

73

71

73

71

73

67

76

76

74

73

74

73

72

74

72

71

67

76

76

74

73

74

72

71

73

71

70

64

76

74

74

72

75

73

72

73

71

72

68

76

74

74

72

74

72

73

73

70

72

66

76

74

73

n/a

74

72

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

66

77

75

73

n/a

74

73

n/a

n/a

71

n/a

66

76

74

73

n/a

74

72

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

66

76

76

74

73

73

72

72

71

71

70

65

50-64

65+

35-49

Metropolitan

Women

Overall

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Interface

18-34


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Council’s general town planning policy importance

124

2020 town planning importance (%)

26

26

27

26

27

25

25

25

25

28

22

26

26

26

27

18

29

33

29

39

40

40

41

40

41

41

42

42

40

40

39

37

39

39

31

42

40

44

26

25

24

24

24

25

25

25

24

24

28

26

27

26

25

40

22

20

17

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

4

5

5

3

6

4

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

4

4

3

4

5

4

5

4

4

4

4

3

4

3

4

3

2

3

6

2020 Overall

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 ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13

Council’s general town planning policy performance

125

2020 town planning performance (index scores)

61

56

54

55

55

55

55

57

53

53

48

50

59

53

54

54

54

54

54

54

55

51

53

50

57

53

54

54

53

53

53

56

51

51

51

49

57

54

52

51

51

52

53

54

52

50

49

48

59

55

54

53

54

54

55

55

55

53

53

51

60

n/a

55

n/a

54

55

56

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

51

60

n/a

55

n/a

54

55

55

n/a

n/a

53

n/a

50

59

n/a

54

n/a

53

54

54

n/a

n/a

52

n/a

50

57

55

55

54

54

54

53

52

52

51

50

49

18-34

Metropolitan

65+

Large Rural

Men

Overall

Women

Regional Centres

Interface

35-49

Small Rural

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Council’s general town planning policy performance

126

2020 town planning performance (%)

6655556556566

465

8446

2730

272625

2828292928

262627

2528

2530

2723

26

3029

313030

31313232

2930

3330

3029

3029

3030

31

1412

131414

12121214

1214

1513

1714

1311

1417

13

67

777

665

667

768

76

5985

181718191917171715

1919

14171615

2118171718




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Council’s general town planning policy’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 22

Planning and building permits importance

127

2020 planning and building permits importance (index scores)

75

74

75

73

71

72

71

71

71

70

70

66

75

74

74

73

71

71

70

71

71

69

68

64

75

76

74

74

72

72

72

69

69

70

68

66

74

74

74

74

71

71

70

69

69

69

71

67

74

74

73

73

71

72

71

69

70

69

70

66

74

n/a

73

74

71

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

66

74

n/a

74

73

71

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

65

74

n/a

74

73

71

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

66

76

74

74

73

71

71

71

71

70

70

68

65

65+

Metropolitan

50-64

Women

Overall

35-49

Large Rural

Interface

Regional Centres

Men

Small Rural

18-34


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Planning and building permits importance

128

2020 planning and building permits importance (%)

27262627

2626252525

312426

2521

2528

1927

3230

38393938

3939414041

3937

3639

3938

3833

393843

25252525

2527252725

22312726

2726

2536

262217

6665

65

55

555

65

875

964

3

11212

111

11

123

21121

1

3323323232333323212

5




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Planning and building permits’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 19

Planning and building permits performance

129

2020 planning and building permits performance (index scores)

58

57

53

55

51

52

52

51

50

49

47

48

57

57

51

54

51

52

52

50

50

49

49

51

60

55

49

46

50

51

51

49

51

48

47

51

55

55

50

46

49

50

52

48

50

50

48

50

57

58

53

49

53

54

54

53

53

54

51

53

n/a

58

n/a

n/a

53

53

54

51

53

n/a

50

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

n/a

54

55

55

54

54

n/a

50

n/a

n/a

60

n/a

n/a

53

54

54

51

53

n/a

49

n/a

57

55

54

51

51

51

51

51

50

49

47

46

Regional Centres

18-34

Metropolitan

Interface

Men

Overall

Women

35-49

65+

Large Rural

50-64

Small Rural


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Planning and building permits performance

130

2020 planning and building permits performance (%)

665556565657

54657

546

2224

242322

2525

262625

2327

2118

2421

2723

2019

272627

2725

2826

272728

2629

2726

2728

2927

2726

141313

1413

1212

121212

1212

1516

1513

1114

1614

8989

86

7677

94

1012

98

69

118

22222323

2723

25232323

252121

2419

2519

2121

26




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning and building permits’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 28

Environmental sustainability importance

131

2020 environmental sustainability importance (index scores)

79

78

75

74

74

74

73

n/a

74

72

72

70

77

76

74

73

73

73

72

n/a

73

71

70

69

76

75

73

73

72

72

72

72

72

70

70

68

77

77

74

72

71

73

73

77

73

71

74

69

77

75

74

73

73

73

73

71

72

70

77

69

77

75

n/a

72

n/a

73

73

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

68

76

74

n/a

71

n/a

72

72

n/a

n/a

70

n/a

68

75

73

n/a

71

n/a

71

71

n/a

n/a

69

n/a

67

78

76

76

75

74

74

74

73

73

72

70

70

Women

18-34

Metropolitan

35-49

Regional Centres

Overall

50-64

Interface

Large Rural

65+

Small Rural

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Environmental sustainability importance

132

2020 environmental sustainability importance (%)

3433

3129302929

2726

36353433

2828

4038

3635

27

3739

3940

4041

4042

4139

3437

3737

3638

3636

3641

2021

23242123

2424

2418

212122

2223

1721

2020

21

55556

55564

455

77

34

56

6

2222212222

42234

12

33

3

1111111111211111

112




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Environmental sustainability’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 25

Environmental sustainability performance

133

2020 environmental sustainability performance (index scores)

64

63

62

63

61

63

62

62

62

59

59

60

64

63

63

64

61

64

63

63

63

61

62

64

64

64

64

65

62

64

64

64

63

62

63

62

64

63

62

63

62

64

63

63

63

61

61

60

65

65

64

63

64

65

63

64

64

62

63

63

n/a

65

64

n/a

n/a

65

64

64

64

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

64

n/a

n/a

66

64

64

64

62

n/a

n/a

n/a

65

64

n/a

n/a

67

63

64

65

62

n/a

n/a

62

61

61

61

60

60

60

60

59

57

57

56

Metropolitan

65+

Men

Regional Centres

Large Rural

18-34

35-49

Overall

Women

50-64

Small Rural

Interface


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Environmental sustainability performance

134

2020 environmental sustainability performance (%)

10111010111011111111

710108109109811

333537373639

394039

3325

3535

3134

323336

3033

3331

3029

3030

292929

3338

3429

3431

343631

3332

1098

78

7677

912

912

12911

1011

139

332

2322223

44

45

43

34

43

111212

14131312121212

138

10101110

89

1213




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Environmental sustainability’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 31

Emergency and disaster management importance

135

2020 emergency and disaster management importance (index scores)

85

85

81

82

83

81

81

81

81

80

79

77

85

84

80

82

83

82

81

80

81

81

80

77

84

82

81

81

81

80

80

80

78

80

77

76

84

83

82

81

81

80

80

80

80

80

76

76

84

81

80

81

80

81

80

80

79

79

77

75

85

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

n/a

80

80

79

80

n/a

76

85

n/a

n/a

n/a

82

n/a

80

80

79

80

n/a

76

84

n/a

n/a

n/a

81

n/a

80

80

79

79

n/a

76

84

83

82

81

81

81

80

80

80

80

78

77

Women

Interface

Small Rural

Large Rural

18-34

Regional Centres

Overall

50-64

35-49

65+

Metropolitan

Men


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Emergency and disaster management importance

136

2020 emergency and disaster management importance (%)

464748

4545444546

4341

51474747

3952

4848

4741

353533

3436

353434

3835

333535

3636

3335

3033

40

131314

1414

15141414

1611

1312

1216

1012

161313

433434444

524

42

6244

53

111111111

211

112111

22

11111111121

1111

13




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Emergency and disaster management’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16

Emergency and disaster management performance

137

2020 emergency and disaster management performance (index scores)

75

73

72

72

74

72

72

73

71

70

73

70

73

72

72

71

72

71

71

72

70

69

70

69

70

72

72

70

71

70

69

71

69

68

69

68

68

71

71

70

71

69

68

71

68

68

69

67

68

71

70

71

71

70

68

73

69

69

70

67

n/a

72

n/a

n/a

73

71

70

75

70

n/a

n/a

68

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

70

70

69

72

69

n/a

n/a

67

n/a

71

n/a

n/a

70

70

68

73

69

n/a

n/a

67

70

70

70

69

69

68

68

68

68

66

66

66

Regional Centres

65+

Small Rural

Large Rural

Women

Overall

35-49

18-34

Men

Metropolitan

Interface

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Emergency and disaster management performance

138

2020 emergency and disaster management performance (%)

1720

18171717

201919

1013

211921

16171617

1518

3638

393736

3938

3738

3137

3836

373735

4135

3233

221819

1919

1918

2020

2321

2322

182122

2420

2320

544

44

5455

35

466

55

55

64

222

22

2222

13

323

32

23

32

191918

2121

18181716

3120

121615

1819

121920

23




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Emergency and disaster management’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 23

Planning for population growth in the area importance

139

2020 population growth importance (index scores)

80

79

79

75

78

76

77

77

75

77

74

79

80

78

75

79

77

77

78

76

78

74

80

79

78

75

78

77

76

75

75

78

73

79

77

77

76

77

75

76

75

74

74

74

76

79

78

76

77

75

75

74

73

74

70

n/a

78

78

n/a

77

75

75

n/a

73

n/a

70

n/a

78

77

n/a

77

74

75

n/a

73

n/a

71

n/a

78

77

n/a

77

75

75

n/a

73

n/a

73

80

78

78

77

77

77

76

75

75

75

73

Interface

50-64

35-49

Regional Centres

Women

65+

Overall

Metropolitan

Men

Large Rural

18-34


2019 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Planning for population growth in the area importance

140

2020 population growth importance (%)

37

38

39

36

35

34

33

34

34

36

48

37

34

34

39

30

42

41

36

37

35

36

38

37

38

38

38

39

36

31

40

38

39

36

39

35

37

39

19

19

18

19

20

21

21

20

19

19

13

18

21

19

18

23

18

16

18

5

5

4

4

5

4

5

5

5

6

4

4

5

5

4

6

5

3

4

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 13

Planning for population growth in the area performance

141

2020 population growth performance (index scores)

62

57

52

52

52

52

52

49

49

49

48

51

62

56

50

51

52

52

52

51

50

48

49

n/a

62

57

51

52

53

52

52

50

49

48

50

n/a

59

55

51

52

52

51

51

49

48

47

55

n/a

61

60

54

54

54

54

55

51

50

50

57

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

55

54

54

55

52

51

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

59

n/a

55

54

54

54

51

50

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

n/a

52

52

52

52

48

49

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

54

52

52

51

51

51

49

47

47

46

44

Regional Centres

18-34

Metropolitan

65+

Men

Overall

Women

35-49

50-64

Large Rural

Interface

Small Rural


2019 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Planning for population growth in the area performance

142

2020 population growth performance (%)

77876777666

126

4779

667

232524

2423

2828

2625

2219

2820

212322

2624

1821

302930

2930

3030

3131

3129

2931

2530

3031

2932

29

171616

1616

1415

1416

1519

1519

2717

1717

182016

888

78

66

67

713

511

129

87

119

7

141514

16161515

1714

1915

111311

1315

1013

1619




MenWomen

18-3435-4950-64

65+



Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Planning for population growth in the area’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 16

Roadside slashing and weed control importance

143

2020 roadside slashing and weed control importance (index scores)

78

76

76

76

76

74

75

71

72

67

78

76

76

76

75

73

73

71

75

67

78

76

76

76

75

74

73

71

76

66

76

73

75

n/a

75

73

74

71

76

69

76

74

75

77

74

73

75

70

75

65

78

76

78

n/a

n/a

75

76

71

n/a

68

78

77

77

n/a

n/a

74

76

72

n/a

66

74

73

74

n/a

n/a

71

71

68

n/a

65

82

80

80

80

78

78

76

76

75

74

50-64

65+

Women

Small Rural

Large Rural

Overall

35-49

Men

Interface

18-34


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Roadside slashing and weed control importance

144

2020 roadside slashing and weed control importance (%)

38

30

29

30

28

28

32

30

24

32

38

43

35

41

32

35

46

40

39

41

40

40

42

40

40

42

42

39

39

38

39

39

38

38

37

42

19

24

25

25

23

26

23

24

28

24

18

15

22

16

24

22

13

15

3

4

4

4

5

5

4

4

5

4

3

3

4

2

5

4

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2020 Overall

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 6

Roadside slashing and weed control performance

145

2020 roadside slashing and weed control performance (index scores)

62

61

56

56

56

57

55

52

54

53

61

60

54

55

56

55

54

51

53

51

58

54

52

53

54

54

51

50

51

50

61

56

55

56

57

57

51

54

54

52

62

52

54

55

55

55

52

53

52

51

63

n/a

55

55

55

53

n/a

n/a

53

51

63

n/a

57

56

56

56

n/a

n/a

55

52

67

n/a

60

61

61

59

n/a

n/a

59

58

55

54

49

49

49

49

48

48

48

46

18-34

Interface

Men

Overall

Women

35-49

Small Rural

Large Rural

65+

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Roadside slashing and weed control’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Roadside slashing and weed control performance

146

2020 roadside slashing and weed control performance (%)

9

12

10

10

11

10

11

11

14

12

8

9

9

9

12

8

7

8

27

34

34

31

34

32

32

35

38

31

27

24

27

27

32

29

25

23

28

28

29

27

28

30

28

28

28

28

27

31

29

28

28

27

26

31

19

15

16

18

15

16

17

16

12

17

20

19

18

20

14

20

22

19

15

9

9

11

9

9

10

8

5

10

16

15

15

14

12

15

18

15

2

2

3

3

3

2

3

2

3

2

2

3

2

3

2

2

2

3

2020 Overall

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

Interface

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10

Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance

147

2020 unsealed roads importance (index scores)

82

81

81

80

81

79

80

79

78

75

78

84

82

81

79

82

80

80

78

78

77

79

81

81

79

78

80

79

79

77

77

76

76

81

80

79

78

80

79

79

78

77

70

78

82

80

78

79

80

78

78

76

76

72

76

n/a

80

n/a

80

81

77

78

n/a

76

n/a

77

n/a

82

n/a

82

83

80

81

n/a

79

n/a

80

n/a

81

n/a

80

82

79

80

n/a

78

n/a

79

83

82

81

81

81

80

80

79

78

76

76

Small Rural

50-64

Interface

35-49

Women

65+

Overall

Large Rural

Men

Regional Centres

18-34


2019 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area importance

148

2020 unsealed roads importance (%)

42

41

43

39

40

39

39

44

41

43

36

39

51

39

44

34

46

48

39

37

39

38

39

37

39

38

39

39

40

37

40

32

39

36

38

34

34

42

17

16

15

17

17

18

17

14

15

15

21

17

14

17

16

23

17

15

13

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

1

3

2

2

3

2

3

2

2

2

1

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

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12

Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance

149

2020 unsealed roads performance (index scores)

52

46

45

45

44

43

50

43

43

41

42

52

44

44

43

43

42

48

40

43

41

40

52

45

45

44

44

43

45

43

44

42

41

n/a

45

46

43

43

43

44

44

42

43

40

51

46

48

45

45

45

47

45

44

44

43

n/a

48

46

46

45

45

n/a

n/a

45

n/a

42

n/a

48

47

45

44

43

n/a

n/a

42

n/a

40

n/a

50

48

46

46

46

n/a

n/a

44

n/a

43

55

46

45

44

44

43

43

43

43

42

41

Regional Centres

65+

18-34

Men

Overall

Women

Interface

Small Rural

35-49

Large Rural

50-64


2019 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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Maintenance of unsealed roads in your area performance

150

2020 unsealed roads performance (%)

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

7

5

9

5

5

6

5

6

6

5

5

20

21

19

21

20

22

22

20

22

21

29

19

19

22

19

22

22

19

20

30

30

28

28

29

30

30

29

29

25

30

29

31

30

30

30

26

30

32

21

22

24

23

22

22

22

24

21

23

15

21

23

20

22

21

23

23

20

17

16

17

16

16

15

14

16

15

17

7

19

17

17

16

17

19

19

13

6

7

7

7

7

7

7

4

7

9

10

6

5

6

7

4

4

5

10

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 24

Business and community development importance

151

2020 business/community development importance (index scores)

72

69

71

71

69

67

67

70

67

70

70

71

68

70

70

69

66

68

69

68

70

n/a

73

69

71

71

70

68

67

70

69

72

n/a

n/a

69

72

73

70

67

69

71

69

72

n/a

n/a

69

71

70

69

68

67

72

67

69

71

n/a

69

71

71

69

68

n/a

n/a

67

70

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

71

71

71

70

69

69

69

68

68

68

68

Regional Centres

50-64

Women

35-49

Overall

65+

Interface

Large Rural

Men

18-34

Small Rural


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Business and community development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 8 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Business and community development importance

152

2020 business/community development importance (%)

21

21

21

21

22

20

20

19

24

20

23

21

22

20

22

25

20

41

41

40

43

43

42

45

43

42

41

37

39

43

38

42

40

44

30

31

31

28

27

31

27

30

28

32

31

30

30

35

30

28

26

5

5

5

5

4

5

5

5

4

5

5

6

4

5

4

5

5

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 8

Business and community development performance

153

2020 business/community development performance (index scores)

64

64

59

62

61

61

61

60

60

60

58

62

63

58

61

60

60

55

59

60

61

56

62

59

59

60

61

60

58

59

59

65

56

63

58

58

60

59

60

61

59

59

62

56

64

63

60

61

61

60

54

59

59

61

58

65

n/a

n/a

63

62

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

63

60

60

60

59

59

58

58

57

57

55

18-34

Interface

Large Rural

Women

65+

Overall

Regional Centres

Men

35-49

Small Rural

50-64


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Business and community development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Business and community development performance

154

2020 business/community development performance (%)

8

8

7

7

7

8

8

7

9

8

6

8

7

11

6

6

7

33

35

34

33

33

34

35

34

31

33

36

32

35

38

36

29

31

32

31

30

32

29

31

30

31

33

32

32

32

32

32

31

33

32

10

9

10

9

10

9

8

9

11

10

9

10

9

8

11

13

9

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

5

3

7

5

3

2

5

5

3

14

13

15

16

17

15

17

17

11

14

10

13

14

9

11

14

19

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 12

Tourism development importance

155

2020 tourism development importance (index scores)

69

61

61

62

59

60

60

57

64

56

48

71

62

63

63

61

62

62

60

n/a

59

51

70

64

63

63

62

63

62

61

n/a

59

53

n/a

64

64

65

63

67

64

62

n/a

62

57

64

67

67

66

65

67

65

63

72

59

50

n/a

66

65

67

65

n/a

64

63

n/a

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

67

65

64

64

62

62

61

60

58

58

51

Regional Centres

65+

50-64

Women

Overall

Large Rural

35-49

Men

Small Rural

18-34

Interface


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q1. Firstly, how important should ‘Tourism development’ be as a responsibility for Council?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Tourism development importance

156

2020 tourism development importance (%)

16

14

16

16

18

19

18

8

21

15

14

15

16

13

15

19

17

33

31

32

34

34

36

37

21

36

34

31

30

35

27

31

34

38

35

36

35

34

35

32

31

40

33

36

37

36

35

40

38

34

31

12

13

13

12

10

10

10

22

8

12

12

14

10

16

12

10

9

3

4

3

3

3

3

2

6

2

2

6

4

2

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 9

Tourism development performance

157

2020 tourism development performance (index scores)

66

64

70

63

64

63

61

63

62

62

58

67

64

64

64

64

63

61

62

60

61

61

67

64

65

64

63

63

65

63

61

61

56

64

64

71

64

62

63

64

63

60

62

56

63

64

67

64

65

63

66

61

62

62

53

n/a

66

n/a

64

66

64

n/a

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

63

63

63

63

63

62

62

62

61

61

59

Small Rural

Women

Regional Centres

18-34

65+

Overall

Large Rural

35-49

50-64

Men

Interface


2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Q2. How has Council performed on ‘Tourism development’ over the last 12 months?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14 Note: Please see Appendix A for explanation of significant differences.

Tourism development performance

158

2020 tourism development performance (%)

13

13

12

13

13

12

13

9

13

12

15

12

13

14

13

11

13

34

36

37

34

34

35

36

30

36

34

37

34

35

35

35

34

34

29

28

26

29

27

28

28

29

30

30

28

30

28

30

27

31

29

10

10

11

9

9

9

9

11

9

11

9

11

9

10

10

11

9

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

4

3

3

4

4

3

3

4

3

3

10

10

11

12

13

13

13

18

9

11

6

10

11

8

10

11

12

2020 Overall

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?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 14

Detailed demographics

159

Gender and age profile

160

2020 gender

2020 age

Men49%

Women51%

6%

19%

23%19%

32%

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


S3. [Record gender] / S4. To which of the following age groups do you belong?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 62 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

2020 household structure (%)

16

10

3

4

25

23

18

1

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

161


S6. Which of the following BEST describes your household? Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 10

Years lived in area

162

2020 years lived in area (%)

18

17

12

14

15

13

14

14

15

16

15

15

17

16

14

14

14

16

66

68

73

69

69

73

71

72

68

2020 Overall

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

2015 Overall

2014 Overall

2013 Overall

2012 Overall

0-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years Can't say


S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11

Years lived in area

2020 years lived in area (%)

18

17

12

14

15

25

16

11

12

18

18

35

16

7

6

16

15

15

17

16

16

27

16

13

16

16

22

20

10

8

22

22

23

24

25

19

29

23

24

23

21

16

35

23

16

17

17

21

18

17

17

12

25

17

17

18

21

12

23

13

27

29

29

28

27

24

17

25

34

27

27

6

18

37

56

2020 Overall

2019 Overall

2018 Overall

2017 Overall

2016 Overall

Metropolitan

Interface

Regional Centres

Large Rural

Men

Women

18-34

35-49

50-64

65+

0-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years 20-30 years 30+ years Can't say

163


S5. How long have you lived in this area?/How long have you owned a property in this area?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 11 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 five years of data only.

Languages spoken at home

164

2020 languages spoken at home (%)

Languages other than English

33%

English only67%

7

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

12

CHINESE

GREEK

ITALIAN

HINDI

VIETNAMESE

ARABIC

CROATIAN

FRENCH

GERMAN

SPANISH

DUTCH

HUNGARIAN

JAPANESE

KOREAN

RUSSIAN

OTHER


Q11. What languages, other than English, are spoken regularly in your home?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 7 Note: Respondents could name multiple languages so responses may add to more than 100%

Country of birth

165

2020 country of birth (%)

Countries other than Australia

40%

Australia60%

6

5

4

1

1

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

17

INDIA

CHINA

UNITED KINGDOM

GREECE

NEW ZEALAND

JAPAN

KOREA

FRANCE

GERMANY

HUNGARY

UNITED STATES

CANADA

OTHER


Q12. Could you please tell me which country you were born in?Base: All respondents. Councils asked state-wide: 3

90

82

82

80

72

70

59

58

52

39

24

23

23

17

17

17

16

16

14

12

8

87

79

79

79

71

64

57

50

47

34

22

19

20

13

15

16

10

15

7

10

4

Waste management

Parking facilities

Appearance of public areas

Local streets & footpaths

Sealed local roads

Recreational facilities

Unsealed roads

Art centres & libraries

Informing the community

Community & cultural

Environmental sustainability

Consultation & engagement

Enforcement of local laws

Planning & building permits

Population growth

Business & community dev.

Family support services

Emergency & disaster mngt

Elderly support services

Lobbying

Disadvantaged support serv.

Total household use

Personal use

Personal and household use and experience of council services

2020 personal and household use and experience of services (%)

166


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

Appendix A: Index scores, margins of error and significant differences

167

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 scale shown in the second table for each performance measure category, with ‘can’t say’ responses excluded from the calculation.

Appendix A:Index Scores

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX

FACTOR INDEX 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


168

SCALE CATEGORIES % RESULT INDEX

FACTOR INDEX VALUE

Improved 36% 100 36

Stayed the same 40% 50 20

Deteriorated 23% 0 0

Can’t say 1% -- INDEX SCORE 56

Demographic

Actual survey sample

size

Weighted base

Maximum margin of error

at 95% confidence

interval

Overall 26,923 24,800 +/-0.6

Men 12,646 12,242 +/-0.9

Women 14,277 12,558 +/-0.8

Metropolitan 6,510 5,600 +/-1.2

Interface 2,502 2,000 +/-2.0

Regional Centres 3,203 3,200 +/-1.7

Large Rural 7,504 6,800 +/-1.1

Small Rural 7,204 7,200 +/-1.2

18-34 years 2,934 6,346 +/-1.8

35-49 years 5,502 5,753 +/-1.3

50-64 years 6,946 4,787 +/-1.2

65+ years 11,541 7,915 +/-0.9

The sample size for the 2020 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey was n=26,923. 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=26,923 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 for demographic sub samples are listed in the table below, based on a total population of 3,747,200 people aged 18 years or over across the State, according to ABS estimates.

Each LGA is weighted to an equal population of 400 for analysis purposes, so that each LGA contributes equally to the State-wide result.

Appendix A: Margins of error

169


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. In the example below:

• The result among 50-64 year olds is significantly lower than the overall result.

Further, results shown in green and red indicate significantly higher or lower results than in 2019. In the example below:

• The result among 35-49 year olds is significantly higher than the result achieved among this group in 2019.

Appendix A:Significant difference reporting notation


Overall Performance – Index Scores (example extract only)

58

54

57

65

66

65+

50-64

35-49

18-34

Overall

170

Appendix A: Index score significant difference calculation

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.


171

Appendix B: Further project information

172

Further information about the report and explanations about the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey can be found in this section including:

• Background and objectives

• Analysis and reporting

• Glossary of terms

Detailed survey tabulations

Detailed survey tabulations are available in supplied Excel file.

Contacts

For further queries about the conduct and reporting of the 2020 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey, please contact JWS Research on

(03) 8685 8555 or via email on [email protected]

Appendix B:Further information


173

The 2020 results are compared with previous years, as detailed below: • 2020, n=26,923 completed interviews, conducted in the

period of 30th January – 22nd March.

• 2019, n=26,739 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 1st February – 30th March.





• 2014, n=27,906 completed interviews, conducted in the period of 31st January – 11th March.


• 2012, n=29,384 completed interviews, conducted in the 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.

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 60% mobile phone numbers to cater to the diversity of residents, particularly younger people.

A total of n=26,923 completed interviews were achieved across the state. Survey fieldwork was conducted in the period of 30th January – 22nd March, 2020.

Appendix B:Survey methodology and sampling


174

Appendix B:Analysis and reporting


In 2020, 62 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 2012-2020 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.

Metropolitan Interface Regional Centres Large Rural Small Rural

Banyule Cardinia Greater Bendigo Bass Coast AlpineBoroondara Casey Greater Geelong Baw Baw AraratBrimbank Mornington Peninsula Horsham Campaspe BenallaFrankston Whittlesea Latrobe Colac Otway BulokeGlen Eira Yarra Ranges Mildura Corangamite Central Goldfields

Greater Dandenong Wangaratta Glenelg GannawarraKingston Warrnambool Golden Plains Hepburn

Knox Wodonga Macedon Ranges HindmarshManningham Mitchell IndigoMaroondah Moira LoddonMelbourne Moorabool MansfieldPort Phillip Mount Alexander Murrindindi

Stonnington Moyne Northern GrampiansWhitehorse Southern Grampians Pyrenees

Surf Coast Queenscliffe Swan Hill StrathbogieWellington West Wimmera

Yarriambiack

Non-participating councils: Ballarat, Bayside, Darebin, East Gippsland, Greater Shepparton, Hobsons Bay, Hume, Maribyrnong, Melton, Monash, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Nillumbik, South Gippsland, Towong, Wyndham, and Yarra.

175

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 each Council according to the most recently available Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates, whereas the results were previously not weighted.

• The service responsibility area performance measures have changed significantly and the rating scale used to assess performance has also changed.

As such, the results of the 2012 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey should be considered as a benchmark. Please note that comparisons should not be made with the State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey results from 2011 and prior due to the methodological and sampling changes. Comparisons in the period 2012-2020 have been made throughout this report as appropriate.

Appendix B:2012 survey revision


176

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 2020 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 2020 State-wide Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey were optional. Comparison of optional questions is made against other participating councils in the council group and against all councils State-wide that also asked the same optional question.

Councils also had the ability to ask tailored questions specific only to their council. 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:Core, optional and tailored questions


177

Appendix B:Analysis and reporting

Reporting

Every council that participated in the 2020 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.


178

Core questions: Compulsory inclusion questions for all councils participating in the CSS.

CSS: 2020 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


179

THERE ARE OVER 6 MILLION PEOPLE IN VICTORIA...

FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RETHINKING.

Contact us03 8685 8555

John ScalesManaging [email protected]

Katrina CoxDirector of Client [email protected]

Follow us@JWSResearch

Mark ZukerManaging [email protected]

j00858 css 2020 state-wide report - local government · 2020. 6. 9. · art centres and libraries...

Documents