Metropolitan Sydney: Can sub-regional organisations do what's needed ?

1. Metropolitan Sydney:Can sub-regional organisations do what's needed? Presentation to the LGNSW Regional Collaboration and Shared Services Roundtable, 30 April 2015 Alex Gooding

2. Regional collaboration: why do it? • Increased strategic capacity: • Organisational • Regional • Inter-governmental • Economies of scale • Economies of scope • More complex projects • Greater specialisation • Improved service quality and greater access to technical expertise • Organisational development

3. “What is needed” in a metropolitan context? • Governance and the city • Local governance reform in the metropolitan area is not just about local government • Sydney is by far the largest NSW region in terms of population and economic activity and has the most complex issues • Very different local government structure compared to rural regions – e.g. there are no real equivalents of “regional capital councils” • Sydney metro councils are on average much larger than rural ones but with 44 across Greater Sydney local government engagement in metropolitan management is very complex • The State Government is the de-facto urban manager but the city has suffered from a high level of governance fragmentation, disjointed planning and underinvestment in infrastructure

4. “What is needed” in a metropolitan context? • State and Local Government responses to date • Until the announcement of the Greater Sydney Commission there had been no planning or urban management body focussed solely on the city since the Cumberland County Council in the 1950s • There has been a succession of State Government metropolitan plans and strategies which are usually only partially implemented • Local Government has had variable involvement in these processes: some bigger and more politically important councils (e.g. City of Sydney) are engaged but the majority have a limited role • Some metropolitan ROCs have had a strong role in advocacy on planning issues – others less so • Without reform, Local Government runs the risk of being increasingly marginalised from metropolitan planning and management – and the city also suffers as a result

5. ILGRP views on metropolitan governance The Panel is convinced that for Sydney to remain Australasia’s pre-eminent global city, very substantial changes are needed to the way the region is governed at both local and State levels…. Achieving more effective metropolitan governance requires a partnership approach involving State, local and, if possible, federal governments. (ILGRP 2013: 96) ...local government is fragmented...and lacks credibility as a significant player and partner in metropolitan planning and management. There are simply too many voices striving to be heard... (ILGRP 2013: 98)

6. ILGRP recommendations for the metropolitan area • Substantially reduce the number of metropolitan councils to 15-18 to: • Create high capacity councils that can better represent and serve their local communities on metropolitan issues, and be true partners of State and federal agencies • Establish a more equitable pattern of local government across the metropolitan area, taking into account planned development • Underpin Sydney’s status as a global city • Support implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy, especially the planning and development of major centres and the preparation and implementation of sub-regional Delivery Plans. (ILGRP 2013:98)

7. ILGRP recommendations for the metropolitan area • If the number of metro councils is substantially reduced: • Sub-regional arrangements would focus primarily on working with government on sub-regional Delivery Plans and Regional Action Plans – no need for ‘fully-fledged’ Joint Organisations (JOs) • A Metropolitan Council of Mayors (CoM) could be established • If the number of councils is not substantially reduced: • Establish multi-purpose JOs as recommended for the rest of NSW, with close collaboration in strategic planning, infrastructure provision and shared services being especially important • These JOs would also be critical in strengthening partnerships with State and federal agencies for more effective metropolitan governance and growth management. • Given the large number of councils in the inner and middle rings there may be a need to split some of the planning sub-regions (into multiple JOs)

8. State Government Fit for the Future responses • Fit for the Future (FFTF) Assessments • Councils must submit proposals demonstrating how they will meet the FFTF criteria by 30 June 2015 • IPART just appointed (with additional Tribunal member) as the Expert Advisory Panel to assess these proposals • IPART is currently seeking submissions on its assessment methodology, which proposes to use the ILGRP merger proposals as a starting point

9. State Government Fit for the Future responses • Joint Organisations • In-principle support for the creation and funding of JOs outside Greater Sydney and the Central Coast • Working with councils in five non-metro regions to design and pilot JOs • Piloting to continue to end 2015 while legislation is developed to support the rollout of JOs in 2016

10. Council responses to Fit For the Future • Widespread opposition to council mergers • Some metropolitan councils proposing shared services agreements and/or JOs as an alternative to mergers, with different boundaries to those recommended by the ILGRP • While the IPART assessments are yet to run their course, at this stage it seems unlikely that the number of councils in the metro area will be reduced to the ILGRP target of 15 to 18.

11. What are the options for metro councils? • Two major choices: • Support ILGRP merger proposals to build strategic capacity within councils and to support increased local government engagement in the metropolitan planning and management process, or • Lobby for and participate in the creation of strong metro sub-regional JOs (with or without some limited mergers) to achieve these ends. • Doing nothing (or very little) is not an option • Government clearly intends to complete the FFTF process • Would result in the further loss of councils' strategic capacity and increased marginalisation from metro planning and management • State Government control would be further consolidated • This would also be a poor result for Sydney’s future management

12. How would strong sub-regional metro JOs do “what’s needed”? The following is a hypothetical discussion as we don’t yet have a State Government commitment to metro JOs • Metro JOs would have to undertake the tasks ILGRP proposed for merged councils: • Better represent and serve their local communities on metropolitan issues, and partner State and federal agencies • Help overcome some of the inequities of the distribution of local government across the metropolitan area • Support Sydney’s status as a global city • Support implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy, especially the planning and development of major centres.

13. How would strong sub-regional metro JOs do “what’s needed”? • Metro JOs would also undertake those functions proposed by ILGRP for all JOs, including: • Strategic regional and sub-regional planning • Inter-government relations and regional advocacy • Information and technical exchanges between member councils • Collaboration with State and federal agencies in infrastructure and service provision • Strategic procurement

14. Why invent new JOs when we already have ROCs? • ROCs have demonstrated that to date they have been the primary and most successful form of multi‐purpose shared services provided by local government • Some ROCs also have been very successful regional advocates but • ROCs are historically constrained by factors such as the varying size, number and wealth of participating councils, as well as their level of commitment and institutional leadership involved • As a result they have a patchy and uneven record of achievement • Need a new legislative framework for collaboration with new management structures, mandated membership and greater consistency at least in terms of core roles • Need to reconsider local government regional boundaries • Also important to address transition from ROCs to JOs

15. What would strong metro JOs look like? • Would be very similar to non-metro JO pilot outcomes to date: • Core JO functions such as regional strategic planning, inter-governmental collaboration and regional leadership and advocacy should be enabled in legislation. • Optional JO functions should also be enabled, including regional service delivery and creating regional strategic capacity • Each JO should prepare a Regional Strategic Plan • At a minimum the mayor would represent each council and would be authorised to make binding decisions. • Each JO should appoint a suitably skilled Executive Officer • JOs should be recognised by other bodies and levels of government, including in legislation (especially in relation to planning).

16. What would strong metro JOs look like? • Issues specific to metropolitan sub-regional JOs: • Getting the balance right in terms of the number and size of metro sub-regional JOs • Establishing a “team” approach that enables large and small councils to collaborate within each JO • Developing a framework for meaningful and substantial engagement with Federal and State Government agencies involved in urban planning and management • Specifically, clarifying the role of and relationship of JOs to the Greater Sydney Commission

17. What would strong metro JOs look like? • Issues specific to metro sub-regional JOs: • Resolving potential differences in boundaries between JO proposals and the regions used by government agencies • Need for a process to establish metro JOs and to reallocate funding currently earmarked to support metro mergers to assist with the formation of these JOs • Need to decide whether it would be worthwhile to run metro JO pilots – or will the current non-metro pilots provide enough information? • Establishing a metropolitan-wide local government grouping to participate in strategic planning with government – Mayors, JO chairs or both?

18. What is the Greater Sydney Commission? • The GSC will oversee the implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney. “It will look at the ‘big picture’ of what’s needed to build vibrant communities so Sydneysiders get the most out of their neighbourhoods, their region and their city.” (GSC webpage) • Six sub-regions have been established (see map) and the GSC will take on a coordination role to help each subregion: • identify places for housing and jobs which are close to transport and services • identify new and improved services, such as public transport, that will be essential as communities grow • improve local environments and open spaces • help create well-designed neighbourhoods and suburbs(GSC webpage) • There is very little detail on how the GSC will operate, nor is there any reference to the ILGRP recommendations or the FFTF process • Obviously however there is the potential for JOs (or combinations of JOs) to provide a framework for the GSC process.

19. ILGRP and GSC subregions compared GSC subregions ILGRP subregions

20. Key issues – can metro JOs deliver on: • Overcoming council parochialism and partisan politics? • Becoming more than just a “get out of jail card” for councils wishing to avoid mergers? • Enhancing strategic capacity and providing more efficient service delivery? • Developing a credible and equal relationship with the State Government, especially the GSC? • Transitioning from (or coexisting with) ROCs to form new regional bodies with different boundaries?

21. Alex Gooding Gooding Davies Consultancy 0418 164 759 Alex@goodingdavies.com.au www.goodingdavies.com.au