Chapter 3
Local
Government3.1 On 31 March 1999 the Senate referred the provisions of the
bills relating to Commonwealth/State financial relations to the Select Committee
for inquiry and report by 30 April 1999. Commonwealth/State relations are only
discussed in this chapter to the extent that they are relevant to issues of the
impact of the proposed ANTS package on the local government sector. Background
3.2 From 1 July 2000, the Commonwealth proposes to provide States with
a stable and growing source of revenue by giving them all the revenue from the
GST, conditional on the States abolishing a number of financial taxes and charges
(such as the Financial Institution Duty, the debits tax and certain stamp and
conveyancing duties) and bed taxes and not re-introducing them. Financial Assistance
Grants are to be abolished from 1 July 2000, as are bed taxes. Financial Institutions
Duty (FID) and debits tax are to be abolished on 1 January 2001; the other designated
financial taxes from July 2001. 3.3 By 2003-04 the States are projected
to be $370 million better off than under existing arrangements. Reflecting the
strength of GST collections relative to the existing system of Commonwealth grants
and narrowly based State indirect taxes, the Budgets of the States are projected
to improve by $1.25 billion in 2004-05, $2.25 billion in 2005-06, and commensurately
larger amounts in subsequent years. [1] 3.4 The
States will take responsibility for the payments of general-purpose assistance
to local government currently made by the Commonwealth. 3.5 The Commonwealth
will make the payment of GST revenue conditional on the States making these general
purpose payments to local government in accordance with existing conditions. The
purpose is to ensure that local government is not worse off in that respect. The
Commonwealth Government argues that overall local government is expected to gain
from the removal and reduction of Commonwealth and State taxes that currently
increase their running costs. [2] The Impact
on Local Government 3.6 Funding for local government has traditionally
come from both Commonwealth and State governments. The proposed indirect tax changes
allow the Commonwealth to claim it will no longer need to provide general purpose
assistance to local government. States would have sufficient funds to ensure adequate
funding arrangements for local governments. 3.7 Submissions received from
Local Governments have principally addressed the terms of reference of the inquiry
which deal with the impacts of the tax reform legislation as they apply to Local
Government: i) the effects of the package on future federal-state financial
relations and the capacities of state and local governments to adequately finance
their respective responsibilities in both the short-term and the long-term including
the effects of the proposed transfer of responsibility for local government financial
assistance to the states, and whether it discriminates between states; ii)
mechanisms required to lock in commitments made by federal and state governments
with regard to the new arrangements; and iii) the effects of application
of the GST, and of changes to tax status, on local government and its activities,
particularly commercial activities. 3.8 Local government's role is to ensure
that the community has the infrastructure, information and services it needs in
order to function on a daily basis. A significant aspect of that role is the provision
of a wide range of services to the community, either as the direct provider or
as the `buyer' of those services. In either case, the sector's focus is not one
of commercial gain. There is no notion of `sales' or pursuit of profit. 3.9
Many of these services are funded through the rating system. Rates are taxes imposed
by local government which are utilised to ensure equitable access to fundamental
community services. Services provided by Local Government across one or more State
and Territory jurisdictions include : - road building and maintenance
- provision of water and removal of sewage wastes
- domestic waste
disposal and recycling
- environmental health
- provision or recreational,
cultural and sporting facilities
- childcare and aged care
- safety
and emergency management
- provision of housing
- operation of airports
- public transport
- planning and development controls.
3.10
Local Government across Australia accounts for 5 per cent of total government
outlays and nearly 4 per cent of total national taxation receipts. At nearly $6
billion each year, Local Government's national tax collections are greater than
those of the government of the State of Queensland – and thus greater than
those of Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania combined. 3.11
Of the revenues represented by Local Government taxes, fees and fines, 93 per
cent are sourced through taxes on property. The remainder is derived from regulatory
fees and penalties. 3.12 These revenues, along with those derived from
interest, borrowings and other own-source receipts make Local Government nearly
80 per cent self-sufficient. The majority of the shortfall in Local Government
self-funding is currently provided by the Commonwealth through untied financial
assistance, totalling $1.2 billion in 1997-98, and through specific purpose payments
to Councils. [3] Intergovernmental Financial
Relations3.13 In its submission to the Committee, the Australian Local
Government Association (ALGA), which is a federation of the peak Local Government
associations in the six States and the Northern Territory, enunciated its support
for reform of the national taxation system as a legitimate and worthy policy goal.
3.14 The primary concern of Local Government is that aspects of the Government's
tax reform proposals will impact negatively on the provision of adequate and equitable
services to local communities throughout Australia. [4]
These include: - the removal of a direct contribution by the Commonwealth
to national standards of local services and the real risk of unfavourable treatment
of Local Government at the hands of the States;
- lack of attention to
future adequacy of Local Government means to meet increased demand and need for
local services;
- inappropriate taxation of regulatory services and those
provided solely for the community benefit;
- costs of administrative compliance.
3.15 The Western Australian Municipal Association (WAMA) is the peak
organisation of Local Government in Western Australia. WAMA strenously opposes
the transfer of responsibility for its financial assistance grants to the States.
It complains about inequities and distortions in the federal funding relationships
that have led to diminished and unpredictable revenues and substantial cost shifting
between the spheres of government. 3.16 As stated in the 1997-98 Report
on the Operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995, prepared
by the National Office of Local Government : The Commonwealth's involvement
in local government stems from its constitutional power to grant financial assistance
to any State for any purpose on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks
fit. This allows the Commonwealth to play an oversighting role: to influence local
government by allocating financial assistance through State and Territory governments
and by providing grants to develop the capacities of local government and,
While recognising that the States….have direct constitutional responsibility
for local government, the Commonwealth Government aims to work in partnership
with local government to contribute to national economic social and environmental
performance….The Commonwealth Government has a long term role of facilitating
a continuing national dialogue between the Commonwealth, the States and local
government to address emerging issues… 3.17 ALGA and all member associations
and delegates at the 1998 National General Assembly of Local Government strongly
oppose the Government's proposal to pass responsibility for Local Government financial
assistance to the States. ALGA argues that : Not only must the Commonwealth
recognise its ongoing responsibility to provide financial assistance to Local
Government, it must acknowledge the need to secure a revenue supplement for Local
Government at an adequate initial level and with potential to grow to meet the
expansion of Local Government roles and responsibilities. The steady decline
in general purpose financial assistance grants to Local Government relative to
total Commonwealth taxation revenues, must be reversed. The extreme vertical fiscal
imbalance in Australia's federal system must be countered through viable redistribution
mechanism. Despite the intention of federal financial assistance, which
totalled more than $1.2 billion in 1997-98, studies have shown that current grant
levels are inadequate to achieve full equalisation of Local Government services
between Councils, both interstate and intrastate. [5]
3.18 ALGA argues the proposal to transfer responsibility for funding would
not only divorce the Commonwealth from its stated duties, but would “freeze”
Local Government financial assistance at current, historically very low levels,
with at best real terms per capita maintenance. WAMA believes that it is a vital
role of the Commonwealth to underpin local governments' contribution to national
life to enhance the achievement of national policy objectives across a broad range
of economic, social and environmental issues. 3.19 Further, despite `guarantees',
ALGA is not convinced that there is adequate protection against reducing Local
Government financial assistance in the longer term, explicitly or implicitly through
reductions in tied grants and further cost shifting. ALGA noted that the nature
of the Government's `guarantee' on financial assistance in the hands of the States
remains, in any case, unspecified. 3.20 Local Government recommend that
to fulfil the expectations of Local Government, a guarantee would need to enshrine
principles, backed by sanctions, including that: - The grants would
remain untied
- Road funding would remain separately identified
- Intrastate
distribution would continue on the basis of horizontal fiscal equalisation, as
defined under the current Act
- Local Government must be protected from
cost shedding and unfunded mandates by Commonwealth and State governments
- The
States' grants commissions should form the model for independent distribution
bodies. [6]
3.21 ALGA emphasises that even
if all of these elements were fulfilled in the impending legislation, the removal
of a national focus for Local Government financial assistance would represent
a significant loss in the context of a viable federal relationship. 3.22
The November 1998 Premiers' Conference also endorsed as part of the tax plan a
move toward full reciprocal taxation by governments including Local Government.
An independent study commissioned by ALGA from KPMG in March 1998 confirmed that
Local Government would be a net loser under reciprocal taxation. Local Government
had not been able to secure from the Government an assurance of revenue neutrality
for individual Councils and rejects the alternative of the use of untied financial
assistance as aggregate compensation. 3.23 Local Government strongly asserts
that : Local Government needs to be a party to further negotiations as
its interest in this area cannot effectively be represented by the States. The
Government must begin to recognise the vital role of Local Government in any intergovernmental
consultation process, and further, the vital link between the three spheres of
government that Commonwealth oversight of Local Government financial assistance
ensures. 3.24 WAMA quotes the following in support of its argument for
adequate funding : The identified road funding component leaves an estimated
shortfall of $1 billion each year in Local Government's capacity to maintain its
share of the nation's road network. Local Government already spends $2.3 billion
each year on roads. In 1997-98, the Commonwealth contributed only $370 million
in identified road funding to this vital national asset. The situation
has been exacerbated by the erosion of Local Government financial assistance,
an inevitable consequence of vertical fiscal imbalance without fixation to a suitable
benchmark. Since 1983-87, and the ending of the tax-sharing arrangement, financial
assistance to Local Government has fallen from over 0.9 per cent of total Commonwealth
tax collections to around 0.6 per cent, from 2 per cent of personal income tax
collections to just 1.1 per cent in 15 years. 3.25 Local Government believes
that current reform environment presents the ideal opportunity to reshape intergovernmental
financial relationships to deliver each sphere a greater capacity to fulfil its
funding roles and responsibilities while making each other more responsible for
raising its own revenues. 3.26 WAMA believes the proposal for States/Territories
to maintain financial assistance at current levels is completely unsustainable
and requests that the Committee consider guaranteeing Local Government a fixed
6 per cent share of GST revenues. WAMA argues in its submission that : A
6 per cent share of GST revenue allocated to Local Government untied financial
assistance would return funding over the medium term to the share of Commonwealth
taxation it represented in the early 1980's. This level of assistance is considered
sufficient to enable equalisation of Councils' financial capacities and provide
in the longer term for growth in Local Government roles and functions. Further,
in support of the Submission prepared by the South Australian Local Government
Association on behalf of five State/Territory associations including WAMA, WAMA
recommends that Local Government financial assistance should be distributed between
the States on the basis of fiscal equalisation as opposed to the current per capita
method. 3.27 While fiscal equalisation applies in the distribution of State/Territory
funding, and between local governments within each State and Territory, there
is a `gap' in the system in that fiscal equalisation is not currently applied
between the local government sectors in each State and Territory. 3.28
To rectify this, WAMA recommends the following: - An extension of the
assessments of inter-State relativities made by the Commonwealth Grants Commission
to include the local government sector on a whole of State basis;
- To
ensure populous States such New South Wales and Victoria do not lose out under
this scenario, any redistribution of funds that may result from this proposal
should be subject to the provision that ensures that general purpose grants to
the local government sector in each State be retained at the 1999-2000 levels
indexed for inflation and population growth. [7]
3.29
Local Government endorses the Government's decision to leave general rates, important
essential services and charges for regulatory services GST-free. This supports
a long-standing contention that a GST on rates is `a tax on a tax' and that regulatory
fees and essential community services should not bear a tax. 3.30 Local
Government views a GST as a means of dealing with the problem of a distorted and
increasingly narrow national tax base. WAMA, in its submission, raised the questions
of equity and compliance in relation to inappropriate taxation of regulatory services
and services provided solely for community benefit. Councils have been
encouraged … to adopt a more entrepreneurial attitude to service delivery
in some areas. Further, National Competition Policy has obliged Local Government
to delineate those activities with commercial elements. Local Government accepts
that some activities, conducted for commercial gain, in direct competition with
the private sector, could be considered legitimate subjects of GST taxation on
the grounds of competitive neutrality. The Government's pronouncements
to date and the proposed legislation…..still leave considerable grey areas
in assessing the GST treatment of particular activities, notably regulatory and
essential service activities. In particular, according to expert analysis commissioned
by ALGA from PricewaterhouseCoopers, the GST Bill does not conform with Government
assurances that all non-commercial activities of Local Government will remain
GST-free. [8] 3.31 WAMA asserts that regulatory
charges should not be taxed. It also maintains that, regardless of theoretical
contestability, any activity embodying a significant community service obligation
or for which a Council levies only a nominal charge, should not be subject to
a GST. Imposition of a GST here would unnecessarily raise the cost of community
services and discourage the provision of these services. 3.32 The GST Bill
does not incorporate a test, similar to charitable institutions or otherwise,
that gives GST-free status to the `non-commercial' activities of Local Government.
3.33 WAMA seeks assurance that legislation will be put in place to ensure
that a test is available for Local Government to apply in determining which of
its charges fall outside of the scope of the GST, bearing in mind that some services
and activities could be considered commercial for some Councils yet constitute
a community service obligation for others. 3.34 WAMA acknowledges the Government's
commitment to directly ameliorate the costs of changeover and compliance with
the new GST and to simplify its application. It also emphasised the need to recognise
Local Government's obligations to meet significant compliance costs given the
great diversity of commercial activities undertaken by Local Government. Change-over
costs to Councils, including price impact analysis, education of staff and so
on, could amount to over $20,000 each, or around $3 million if extrapolated across
all western Australian Councils. 3.35 The Municipal Association of Victoria,
the peak body for Victoria's 78 councils, has undertaken considerable analysis
and conducted a number of case studies relating to the proposed tax reform. The
overwhelming finding from this work, is that there is no real economic or community
benefit from inclusion of local government in the `GST loop'. [9]
3.36 The Municipal Association of Victoria noted that: i) Local
Government will always pay more GST than it collects and will always be in a position
whereby it is seeking reimbursement from the ATO; ii) the systems and resources
required to administer the GST in an organisation as diverse as a Council are
extensive and costly; iii) Local Government will be placed in a position
whereby it is forcing the community to pay GST on services where only a nominal
fee or charge applies. These services are not commercial and are provided by Councils,
in most case, because private sector organisations are not willing to do so. [10]
3.37 As a result communities will be required to subsidise the increased
cost burden on local government caused by the introduction of this tax. A typical
Victorian Council (defined as one with a population of 100,000 or more) will:
- Raise $400,000 pa in GST revenue from its “commercial activities”;
- Pay $3.5 million pa GST on its purchases, which will be reimbursed quarterly
by the ATO;
- Face establishment costs from administration of the tax of
up to $1 million;
- Experience a permanent reduced bank balance ranging
from $200,000 to $1m; and
- Incur on-going administrative costs of $100,000
pa.
3.38 The Municipal Association of Victoria concluded: For
every dollar of GST revenue raised by local government, 25 cents would be spent
by the municipality on collection. (This figure excludes the extensive costs of
establishing administrative systems.) Local government is further concerned
that the compensation systems to the community, as outlined in the Reform Package,
may not be realised, and as such, will impact on local government, creating even
greater demand for local services. In summary, there is no real economic
or community benefit from inclusion of local government in the “GST loop”.
[11] 3.39 Organisations representing Local Government
raised many of their concerns with the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee.
The following evidence is that reported by that Reference Committee. Representatives
raised the point that the proposed tax package will negatively impact on the provision
of adequate and equitable services to local communities. These organisations considered
that this would occur through: - the loss of the Commonwealth's direct
commitment to national standards in relation to local services and the real risk
of unfavourable and inconsistent treatment of Local Government by State Governments;
- the lack of attention to the capacity of Local Government to meet the
increased demand for local community services;
- inappropriate taxation
of regulatory services and those provided solely for community benefit [12];
- higher costs of compliance and administration as a result of the GST;
and
- lack of clear legislative basis to ensure that certain services are
GST-free. [13]
3.40 The Australian Local
Government Association (ALGA) stated that Local Government should not be required
to levy a GST on nominal charges for community service activities and facilities.
[14] The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) and
the Local Government and Shires Association of NSW (NSW LGSA) also raised this
matter. The NSW LGSA stated that in a reply to a letter of 17 September 1998 sent
by it to the Prime Minister, the Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia,
Mr Lynton Crosby wrote: The non-commercial activities of Government will
be outside the scope of the GST. This means that where a service is provided free
of charge or for a nominal charge, the GST will not apply. However, the Government
intends to apply the GST to the commercial activities of all level of government
in the normal manner. [15] 3.41 ALGA informed
the Committee that the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government
had explained subsequently that the undertakings in the letter were not correct.
The GST Bill does not conform to Government assurances that all activities of
Local Government for which a nominal fee is charged, but would usually be considered
non-commercial, will remain GST-free. [16] However
ALGA added: We assumed it was the case and in our approach to the whole
issue we presumed that what we were told and the information contained in that
letter were accurate. We believe that is an issue of concern and that, in one
way, we had been misled into believing that those nominal charges would be free
of GST. Now we are finding in the legislation package that, in actual fact, they
will be subject to the GST. [17] 3.42 ALGA and
other evidence noted that the imposition of a GST on Local Government regulatory
and community service activities would `unnecessarily raise the cost of community
services and may discourage their provision. It would put Councils in the position
of either absorbing increased costs or passing on costs by increasing fees'. [18]
The Association stated that the first option is impractical in the current operating
environment for most Councils and the second option is undesirable, as it would
lead to inequitable outcomes for people in the community reliant on these services.
[19] 3.43 ALGA noted that many Council charges,
other than rates, are likely to be subject to a GST: They cover those community
services that, under the legislation, are likely to have a GST applied to them.
Therefore, the consumers and the users of those services will have to pay additional
costs. People who use pools provided by the council, particularly in isolated
areas and rural and remote areas of Australia, will have to pay extra GST. We
have concerns about the simple use of facilities like cemeteries and crematoriums
supplied by local authorities; charges associated with libraries…Meals on
Wheels; community transport and all these things. [20]
3.44 It was also noted that some Councils provide more community services
than others. Councils in Victoria, for example, provided a significant range of
community services while those Councils in rural and regional Australia also stepped
in to provide services where no other public or private sector organisation in
the community had done so because of lack of profitability. [21]
For example, the MAV noted: We bring people into an elderly citizens centre
and provide maybe 60 or 70 meals every lunchtime. There would be a notional fee
charged for those individuals to cover some of the costs because, as you would
understand, providing something like six million or seven million meals a year
across the state [of Victoria] is a massive cost to local government. [22]
GST: An example of the impact on Local Government The MAV
cited the example of the nominal fees charged by councils for services in Victoria:
`We have had a quick look at a range of fees that are collected in Victoria. We
calculated 217 fees across a range of services of which about 117 will have a
GST applied to them. I will run through some of them. They include baby capsule
hire; bus hire for children; school holiday programs; adult day care centres for
the aged; aged service bus hire; gentle exercise programs for the elderly that
are held at leisure centres and in centre based activities; lawnmowing services
for the aged poor; neighbourhood centres; podiatry services; the provision of
the servicing of senior citizens, and it is picked up on fees charged for membership;
and social support activity programs'. Source: Committee Hansard, 12.3.99,
p1206 3.45 The Association also raised the problem of services provided
by Councils similar to HACC funded services which are GST-free – `that is,
separate from the services which councils provide outside the HACC framework which
would have a GST on them'. MAV further added: There is a component of the
HACC agreement which deals with home based maintenance, but councils provide services
that are different from that agreement and maintenance outside the agreement.
They would be the ones that would be affected by a GST where there was a fee charged.
Our understanding is that the ones that have components that fall under the HACC
agreement will be exempt. [23] 3.46 ALGA pointed
out that if community services were provided by a charity at a nominal fee, then
the service would be GST-free. [24] However, under
the provisions of the legislation, the 50 per cent nominal value rule does not
apply to Local Government services – only to charities, even though many
of the Local Government services are provided on a not for profit basis: 3.47
We believe we provide services which are going to be similar to those of charities
in terms of our welfare activities and that sort of thing. The charities are given
a concession. In effect, in the legislation where their activities are provided
at under 50 per cent market cost, they are deemed to be non-commercial activities
for the purpose of the GST. 3.48 Local government services that would be
provided in exactly the same sense, and local government being not-for-profit
organisations, the nominal charge would be subject to the GST. It comes back to
the question of a commercial/non-commercial divide. We were given the expectation
that non-commercial charges of local government would not be subject to a GST.
[25] 3.49 It was suggested that some Councils
would be faced with a choice – either provide services free of charge, exempting
them from charging a GST on nominal fee services, and increase Rates to cover
the additional cost, or withdraw or scale down some services. However, it was
noted that some Councils charge nominal fees `to prevent unfettered access to
services' and that `nominal charges actually have some value in themselves'. [26]
3.50 The Association cited the example of Local Government involvement
in the area of public housing that will be adversely affected by the tax changes.
The Association noted that Local Government has an extensive role in supporting
community housing through its planning functions and for some Councils, the direct
provision of housing, including housing for the aged and crisis accommodation,
particularly for lower income groups in the community. As residential rents will
be input taxed Local Government will not be able to claim input tax credits for
acquisitions used to carry out those activities. The Association noted that the
impact `will be to significantly increase the cost of providing low cost housing'.
[27] Summary of outcomes sought by Local Government
on Intergovernmental Financial Relations3.51 The following sections of
this chapter set out the summary of the Select Committee in relation to Intergovernmental
Financial Relations. On the effects of the tax package on the capacity of Local
Government to adequately finance its responsibilities in both the short-term and
the long-term, ALGA recommends : - that Local Government financial
assistance remain a responsibility of the Commonwealth;
- that Local Government
financial assistance be enhanced to provide an adequate revenue supplement and
equalise the financial capacity of Local Government through the hypothecation
a fixed share of a growth tax. A 6 per cent share of the GST, as currently designed,
allocated as untied Local Government financial assistance would return it over
the medium term to the share of Commonwealth taxation it represented in the early
1980s and provide for longer term growth of Local Government roles and function;
- that States be required to allow greater autonomy to Local Government
revenue raising. This includes removing controls on and arbitrary exemptions from
rates;
- that any extension of reciprocal taxation arrangements occur in
full consultation with Local Government and be achieved in such a way that it
is, at least, revenue neutral for Councils.
3.52 On mechanisms required
to lock in commitments made by Federal and State governments with regard to the
new arrangements for payment of Local Government financial assistance (notwithstanding
irreconcilable inconsistencies between Local Government financial assistance as
a national initiative and its proposed payment by the States), ALGA recommends
as a minimum : - that the Commonwealth legislate to preserve the distributive
principles of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995
- that
legislation protect Local Government from cost-shedding and unfunded mandates
by the States and Commonwealth
- that the legislation prescribe sanctions
for non-compliance and a mechanism for independent monitoring of compliance.
3.53 On the implications for future federal-state financial relations
of not extending the GST to the “necessities of life”, ALGA recommends
: - that shortfalls of GST revenues available for payment to the States
be balanced in part by the Commonwealth retaining of responsibility for the payment
of Local Government financial assistance.
3.54 On the effects of
application of the GST, and of changes to tax status, on local government and
its activities, particularly commercial activities, local government bodies expressed
concern that the zero-rating the Commonwealth Government proposes for parts of
their activities is not to be built into the GST legislation in the way the health
and education zero-ratings are. Local government bodies expressed concern that
the zero rating the Commonwealth Government proposes for parts of their activities
is not to be built into the GST legislation in the way the health and education
zero ratings are. ALGA therefore seek : - a draft of a written determination
from the Treasurer confirming that Local Government rates are outside of the scope
of the GST for the purposes of Division 81. It is critical that such a written
determination is in place prior to the GST Bill receiving Royal Assent.
- that
regulatory charges be afforded the same status as Local Government rates. Accordingly,
a draft written determination should be issued by the Treasurer confirming that
certain regulatory charges should be treated similarly to Local Government rates.
- a legislative basis on which Local Government can apply a consistent
rule to determining the GST status of goods and services it supplies for a specific
charge incorporating:
i) a similar provision inserted in Division
38 of the GST Bill to that available to charities under section 38-250 (“the
50 per cent consideration test”); and ii) a provision in Division
38 which provides GST-free treatment for activities set out in a table similar
to the approach of classifying health services under section 38-10 of the GST
Bill. - appropriate provision of funds to assist Local Government with
the changeover to and continued administration of a GST. [28]
Footnotes[1]
ANTS, p.78. [2] ANTS, p.25. [3]
Submission No.631, pp.5-6. [4] Submission No.
631, p 3. [5] Submission No.900, p.4. [6]
Submission No.631, p.10. [7] Submission No.900,
p 5. [8] Submission No.900, p 6. [9]
Submission No. 605, p3. [10] Submission No.605,
p4 [11] Submission No.605, p4 [12]
Local Government regulatory activities include building regulation/inspection,
zoning/planning, pollution regulation etc. Community service activities include
aged and disabled housing/public housing, childcare centres, health centres, meals
on wheels, parks and gardens, swimming pools etc. See Submission No.631A, p7.
[13] Submission No.631A, pp.1-12; Submission
No.900, p2; Submission No.596, pp 3-4; Submission No.887, p2. See also Evidence
pp.1201-03 [14] Submission No.631A, p1). See
also Evidence, p744 [15] Submission No.887, p4
[16] Submission No.631A, p1. See also Evidence,
p1202. [17] Evidence, p1202 [18]
Submission No.631A, p1. See also Submission No.742, p6; Submission No.900, p6;
Submission No.605, p9 [19] Submission No.631A,
p1 [20] Evidence, 12.3.99, p1201 [21]
Evidence, pp.1207, 1212 [22] Evidence, p1206
[23] Evidence, pp.1214, 1215 [24]
Evidence, p1202 [25] Evidence, p1216 [26]
Evidence, p1208; p1210 [27] Submission No.631A,
p10. See also Evidence, pp.1212-13. [28] Submission
No.631, pp.12-14.
Top
|