LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD

Review of

Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority

Submission Paper

November 2007

d

Loca l Government Boar

Glossary ‘Authorities’ Single and Joint Authorities in Tasmania ‘Board of Management’ Board of Management including the CEO ‘Copping Authority’ Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority ‘GPOC’ Government Prices Oversight Commission ‘LGO’ Local Government Office ‘LGB’ Local Government Board as appointed under the Act ‘Member Councils’ A Council that establishes or is part of a group of Councils

that establishes a single or joint Authority ‘PCRs’ Participating Council Representatives: Representatives from

Member Councils ‘Rules’ Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority Rules ‘SWS’ Southern Waste Solutions: trading name for the Authority ‘SWSA’ Southern Waste Strategy Authority ‘The Act’ Local Government Act 1993

- 2 -

Chapter 1 Introduction The Local Government Board (LGB) has commenced a review of single and joint Authorities (Authorities) in accordance with paragraph 1(b) of section 214I of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act). The LGB is responsible for providing advice to the Minister on the performance of Councils and Authorities in Tasmania. The review will enable the LGB to provide an appropriate level of advice to the Minister through the publication of a report with recommendations. The LGB concluded its first cycle of Council general reviews in 2007. The LGB initiated its first round of single and joint Authorities reviews in 24 August 2007 with the waste management Authorities:

1. Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority; and 2. Dulverton Waste Management Authority.

The Copping Authority has prepared a submission to the LGB by responding to guidelines developed for the review of single and joint Authorities. This paper sets out information from the Copping Authority’s primary submission together with additional information provided by the Authority in response to questions posed by the LGB during a hearing with the Authority on 24 October 2007 at Sorell Council Chambers. The LGB invites submissions from interested persons on any matter referred to in this document. Copies of the review guidelines and copies of this paper are available on the LGB website at: http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/lgo/information/board/index.html or from the Local Government Office as indicated below. The LGB will consider all submissions received in the course of public consultation. All care will be taken to give proper weight to evidence received in the course of a review both by submission and during hearings. The LGB also has regard to the necessity for sensitive materials to remain confidential. For example commercially sensitive or legally privileged information provided on this basis will be kept confidential by the LGB. It is preferred that submissions be lodged as electronic documents by e-mail to: lgboard@dpac.tas.gov.au. Alternatively, submissions in hard copy may be sent to:

The Chairperson Local Government Board GPO Box 123

Hobart, TAS 7001

- 3 -

Chapter 2 Review Process Whilst the LGB has extensive powers to conduct a review, it has a recommendatory role in relation to Local Government reform. The Act provides that the LGB’s written report to the Minister may contain recommendations on:

• the structure of an Authority and compliance with the Rules of an Authority, • the relationship between the Authority and the participating Council(s), • the management and operations of the Authority; or • any other relevant matter.

The LGB has determined that the primary focus of the reviews will be on the relationship between the Authority and the Member Councils (the owner/shareholder Councils). It is through robust processes for good governance that Councils will ensure that Authorities: · Remain accountable; · Perform in accordance with set functions and objectives; and · Ensure that public money is spent effectively. The LGB may carry out a review in any manner it considers appropriate but the Act requires that it provide ‘reasonable opportunity’ for public consultation and the relevant Authorities and Councils to make any submissions. Following the conclusion of the consultation process, the LGB will submit a written report on the Copping Authority to the Minister. The Authority will be given the opportunity to comment on the Report before it is sent to the Minister. The Act requires that the Minister provide the Preliminary Report, on a confidential basis, to the Authority concerned and to the relevant Member Councils, inviting submissions on any matter in the report. The Minister may accept, reject or ask the LGB to review its recommendations following any requests from the relevant Authorities or Councils. The Report is published once the Minister has approved it.

Chapter 3 Report Overview This Chapter will appear in the final report and will provide an overview of the LGB’s findings in the Review into the Copping Authority.

Chapter 4 Recommendations to the Minister This Chapter will appear in the final report and will set out a list of the recommendations made in the Report by the LGB to the Minister.

- 4 -

Chapter 5 Background The following Chapter sets out the information provided to the LGB by Copping Authority as background to the establishment of the Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority and an overview of current developments in regard to the operation of the Authority.

5.1. History Copping Authority Submission The three adjoining municipalities of Clarence, Sorell and Tasman, located to the east and south east of the greater Hobart region in Southern Tasmania, agreed that they had an interest in common to establish a putrescibles landfill to meet their refuse disposal needs for the foreseeable future. The imminent closure of existing landfills in these regions was the driver to achieve an outcome to meet tight deadlines. A comprehensive study of the region, including consideration of the potential advantages of the closest proximity to the population to the west of the Derwent River, conclusively identified a site at Copping, 51 kilometres from Hobart. A favourable geological assessment was made and a waste disposal facility at the site was defined as a Level 2 Category 3 activity under schedule 2 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. A Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DP&EMP) was approved with associated permit conditions by the Board of Environmental Management and Pollution Control. A joint Authority to be known as the Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority was established, pursuant to Section 30 of the Local Government Act 1993, with effect from the publication of a notice in the Tasmanian Government Gazette on 21 March 2001 – see Attachment 1[This document was provided to the LGB as an attachment to the Submission]. Rules for the Authority were established and certified in accordance with the requirements Local Government Act 1993 – see Attachment 2 [This document was provided to the LGB as an attachment to the Submission]. The Rules commit the participating Councils to use the Copping facility as their principal landfill refuse disposal site. On the 26th March 2001 Councillor Bryan Dean (Sorell), Alderman David Traynor (Clarence) and Councillor Neil Noye (Tasman) were elected as the inaugural representatives of the three member Councils. Councillor Dean was elected Chairman. At the 2003 Annual General Meeting of the Authority (November) Alderman David Traynor was elected Chairman, with Councillor Jack Rheinberger (Sorell) and

- 5 -

Councillor Guy Dobner (Tasman). Councillor Dobner has since been replaced by Councillor Bruce Wiggins in 2005. The structure of the financial interest of the participating Councils in the Authority relates to an estimate of refuse tonnes per annum generated by member Councils as at start up date 2nd July 2001, being: Member Council Tonnes per annum Financial Interest Clarence 19,000 60 Sorell 7,000 30 Tasman 1,000 10 Total: 27,000 100

A large rural holding of land at Copping with a total area of 704 hectares was purchased and is jointly owned by the three participating local authorities. A landfill facility was constructed for commencement of operations in August 2001. The total capital cost of the entity is estimated to be $2.7 million not including land acquisition costs. A Board of Management comprising three directors was appointed by the Authority (participating Council representatives) to manage the business affairs of the Authority. Southern Waste Solutions (SWS) was established by the Board as the trading name of the business. The Copping Refuse Disposal Site has been successfully operating since 2001. In addition to the disposal of waste from the member Councils the Authority has expanded its regional role. The Authority has awarded a contract for the operational aspects of the landfill site to Works Infrastructure Pty Ltd. and an environmental monitoring contract to Ecowise Environmental Pty Ltd. The Authority has won tenders and completed long term self haul contracts for disposal of waste from the Southern Midlands Council and Glamorgan Spring Bay Council. As a result of winning a twenty-year waste supply tender, a preload compaction chamber was installed by SWS at the Huon Valley Council waste transfer station in late 2003, and waste has been transported to Copping since that time. All Huon Valley Council waste has also been centralised to this site. The initial permit from the Department of Primary Industry Water & Environment (DPIWE) was for 35,000 tonnes per annum. A revised Environment Protection Notice (EPN) 690/1 was issued in February 2004 approving an increase to annual waste intake to 104,000 tonnes of category B waste (as defined in the Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004). The estimated maximum tonnage of category B waste in southern Tasmania in 2006 was 160,000 tonnes per annum.

- 6 -

SWS successfully tendered to Break O’Day Council to install a preload compaction chamber at Scamander waste transfer station, under a twenty-year waste supply contract. Transport commenced for disposal at Copping in December 2006. A contract to develop a management plan for the whole 704ha Copping site is in progress and has identified a second potential site for a landfill development, which will approximately duplicate the site originally defined in the DP&EMP, and indicating the overall landfill life to be approximately 200 years. A five-year review, which is a condition of the EPN, was completed by consultants GHD in December 2006 and submitted to the Department of the Environment. The report summarised ground water sample tests over the prior five years and current which confirmed that the landfill has had no detriment effect on the environment. Intake of waste at Copping for the twelve months to 30 June 2006 was 56,000 tonnes and similar volumes have been received to March 2007. The EPN has been extended to Low Level Contaminated Soil and Quarantine Waste. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: Is there a process for review of Member Council’s respective contributions (Equity Contributions)? The PCRs have instituted a review (commencing October 2007) with a view to examining Member Council’s respective contributions. This review will consider alternate options for determining contributions (i.e. other than tonnage). These options have not yet been determined. LGB: Is there an advantage for Councils that are not members of the Authority but are customers? There is a fixed waste cost for participating Councils using the landfill but the Chairman of the Board of Management has been authorised to negotiate costs for other customers on a case-by-case basis. Each component of the cost supply chain is charged separately i.e. disposal fees are relatively consistent and transport and transfer station costs are priced on a case-by-case basis. LGB: What are the PCRs views on the respective voting values/shares of Council Representatives? In practice does it cause any issues? As the Chairperson, Mr Traynor advised that he strives for consensus in all determinations so the voting value has not raised any issues, in his experience. The PCR Chairman has not been voted against to date as no conflict has occurred to date. The Rules require a 100 per cent attendance to achieve a quorum. So each PCR or their proxy must attend, vote and agree on determinations. The issue as to whether there could be two or three PCRs from Clarence due to its relatively higher exposure has been discussed previously but not pursued as the experience to date has not raised problems. The venture is seen as a cooperative enterprise. Member Councils alternate representatives are allowed to attend meetings at any time, and have on a few occasions.

- 7 -

LGB: Can the LGB have a copy of the Participating Councils Agreement? The LGB has now been provided with a copy of the Participating Councils Agreement. Additional Information provided by the PCRs

• The Authority has commercial competitors in the private sector at national and local level.

• The Government Prices Oversight Commission (GPOC) undertook a review into Copping Authority due to a complaint alleging that the Copping Authority was taking advantage of its significant position in the market. GPOC confirmed that the Authority was operating fairly. The review ultimately produced a positive outcome for the Copping Authority.

• The PCRs believe many competitors do not meet current environmental guidelines and licence conditions hence the Authority is not always competing in level playing field.

• The PCRs are aware of documentation deficiencies and some features of internal management that require review; hence the PCRs have commissioned KPMG to conduct an “Internal management review”. The first stage of the review relates to the structure of the organisation. The second stage of review will make the necessary recommended adjustments to the Rules and procedures as well as position description for roles of Directors and Employees.

5.2. Current Developments Copping Authority Submission (a) Medical Waste Treatment/Technology An additional permit was approved in June 2005 for a maximum of 6,000 tonnes per annum of untreated medical waste to be disposed of at Copping until the 31st December 2007, after which all medical waste must be treated before disposal to landfill. Annual intake of medical waste is currently approximately 550 tonnes and waste is now received from the North, North West and Southern Tasmania. In February 2006 the Authority approved capital expenditure to enable the Board to proceed with the development of medical waste treatment technology; in support of the Department of Health and Human Services having granted SWS preferred contractor status. Engineers have been appointed to design the required plant and the waste transfer station to be installed at the Lutana Quarry and to be operating by mid 2008. (b) Controlled Waste Storage The Authority is examining the feasibility of building future cells and leachate infrastructure at Copping to a waste Category C standard to best utilise the developing network of collection facilities and to also give effect to recent emphasis by the State Government to establishing improved facilities for disposal of controlled waste. A remediation facility has already been established at the landfill site and is converting industrial waste to level 2 standards before disposal on site. Since closure

- 8 -

of inner city sites for controlled waste this facility has become important to industrial waste generators. (c) Waste Transfer Station - Lutana The Authority, in attempting to establish a suitably sited waste transfer station and specialised waste processing and treatment facility, has contracted with Totally Organic to operate a waste transfer station adjoining their current operation in a quarry site at Lutana. The site is already zoned to be operated as a waste transfer station. The development of the site is underway and may be operational in mid 2008 when, apart from receiving and processing medical waste, its location will provide convenient access for commercial and industrial waste generators such as Zinifex, the Australian Antarctic Division, and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. (d) Transport Innovation A unique preload compaction chamber has been developed to meet the specifications of SWS as a means of achieving maximum payloads of general waste. The preload compaction chamber compacts waste at waste transfer stations in advance of loading it into purpose built high payload transport equipment which is fully sealed and leak proof. This integrated system which minimises transport costs, reduces heavy vehicle traffic, and is environmentally safe is a feature of SWS operations. This technology, currently installed at Huonville and Scamander will be installed at Lutana to facilitate the safe transport of processed medical waste. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: What further future activities are proposed by the Authority? The Lutana Transfer Station, controlled waste and medical waste are the key opportunities for expansion, as well as developing trends in waste compactor technology, and transport. LGB: Is there any identified need for Expansion? The Authority will continue to try and acquire new customers e.g. other Councils or commercial and industrial clients (e.g. Veolia, Australian Antarctic Division, Australian Quarantine Inspection Service). The search for new clients is usual business for the Authority. The Board of Management is always looking for economies of scale. LGB: Are there any future plans to involve further Member Councils? Have any other Council’s expressed an interest in being involved in the operations at Copping to date? What has been the Authorities response to date? No approaches from other southern Councils to the PCRs have been made in recent times. However other Councils have indicated that they will look at Copping services in the future.

- 9 -

The new Rules being developed by the PCRs as a result of a recent KPMG review will allow for new members to visit and participate in the Authority. Any Council that makes an enquiry would be given a copy of the Rules. PCRs have discussed the option of involving other Councils but have not actively pursued options. The Chairman stated that any additional volume attracted to the landfill would provide a better spread of costs. Future capital expenditure at the site will be relatively small. The existing cell has significant capacity and the next cell will be comparatively inexpensive to prepare. Good infrastructure is already in place and no great additional development expenditure is required to expand the activities.

- 10 -

Chapter 6 Relationship between the Authority and the participating Council(s)

A basic principle of the Act is that Councils are accountable to the community. Authorities are bodies created by Councils either singly or jointly to perform functions or exercise powers that would otherwise have been performed or exercised by the Councils. Councils retain responsibilities for the strategic direction of the Authorities, monitoring the activities of the Authority through the reporting and consultation arrangements and retain the power to wind-up Authorities if necessary. Good reporting and oversight arrangement should ensure that member Councils are made aware of areas of concern in management and operations.

6.1. The current role undertaken by PCRs. Copping Authority Submission The PCRs attend joint Authority general meetings that are held on a quarterly basis and the Annual General meeting of the Authority. The PCRs bring forward issues on behalf of, and report back to, the Councils they represent. The quarterly meetings are usually held at Sorell Council offices, however several have been held at Tasman and Clarence Council Chambers. The Authority’s Annual General Meetings are held in November, usually at the Clarence City Council offices but in the past they have been conducted at Sorell (2003) and the Public Buildings in Franklin Square, Hobart (2001). See Section 3.10 for meeting attendance details. The time normally has been early evening to facilitate elected members attending just after work. Small numbers of elected members and invited staff have been able to attend. The quorum under the Rules for quarterly and Annual General meetings is full attendance, so PCRs are mindful of the need to arrange for the attendance of their proxy if unable to attend a meeting. In addition to the general meetings required by the Rules, the PCRs may attend other informal meetings, briefing sessions or site inspections as required. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: How do the PCRs regard their role as differentiated from that of the Board of Management’s role? How do the PCRs perceive the balance between acting on behalf of the Member Council and acting in the ‘best interests of the Authority as a whole.

• The PCR Chairman stated that the Authority looks to the intention of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Authority’s role to protect the PCRs’ Council’s investment in a commercial entity (with the aim of payment of dividends to member Councils).

- 11 -

• The Chairman advised that the PCRs role should be strategic and focused on major changes into the future. He did not see the role as interfering in the day-to-day management of the Authority as this is the role of Board of Management.

• The PCRs have commissioned KPMG to review the governance operation of the Authority but see implementation of the review outcomes as operational matters rather than member driven.

• The member Councils own the site (as they are Tenants in common) – the Authority is the lessee and pays for the lease. The ownership liability rests with the Councils as the owners, and they receive a commercial return for the lease.

LGB: How do the PCRs reconcile the interest of the Council vs. the commercial interests of the Authority? The Chairman of the PCRs advised that the Councils can be satisfied that the Authority complies with all the relevant environmental guidelines and thorough reporting arrangements through the Board. The liability of the member Council is covered in provisions in the lease to the Authority. In effect, there are double checks on environmental matters. The Lease administrator is a Council officer with Clarence City Council. Land ownership matters and developments of a major nature need to be cleared with the Lease administrator on behalf of member Councils. Ultimate responsibility lies with the member Councils. LGB: What degree of consultation is presently undertaken with Councils? What do the PCRs consider to be issues that would require input from Member Councils? The PCR Chairman advised that consultation with Councils goes beyond Quarterly reports to include-Council workshops, informal reporting and site-tours. The PCR Chairman had intended to prepare a KPMG PowerPoint presentation for a further round of consultation but this current LGB review has deferred that consultation. The PCRs are proposing to communicate the final KPMG option to the Councils. The PCRs have reached a decision in their own minds on the outcome of the review but will take feedback from Councils. LGB: What consultations have occurred re Strategic Decisions? Examples? The PCR Chairman advised that no consultations have occurred as the activity has been business as usual. One possible issue has been the use of neighbouring land for forestry purposes. Councils have been forewarned of this issue as it has been political at the current time. The PCRs are proposing to communicate the final KPMG options paper to the Councils. The PCRs have reached a decision in their own minds on the KPMG report but will take further feedback from Councils. LGB: What is the process for reporting changes to the Corporate Plan to the Member Councils. The PCR Chairman advised that any major changes to the Corporate Plan would be communicated to Councils (as required in rule 33), such as if there were a major change in direction. Changes are also reported in the annual report.

- 12 -

Any formal communication is outside existing rules then it must be a matter for Councils to consider. If any proposed change is within the ambit of the rules then it would be a matter for the Authority. The addition of a new member is an example of a matter for member Councils, but the addition of a new customer would be within terms of reference for the Authority. The information or matter of new customers would be communicated to the member Councils. The PCRs do not ask for input from their council colleagues as other elected members are not in a position to provide input as they do not have the information needed (It was acknowledged that the PCRs have a role in informing the other Councillors). LGB: What has been the degree of input from Member Councils in the proposed changes to the Rules of Copping? The Chairman of the PCR’s advised that the proposed Changes to the Rules are an example of a consultative process which would involve the three General Managers and Clarence City Council’s in house Lawyers. The Rule changes are triggered by the PCRs. The Chairman advised that the initial rules were based on the Hobart Water Authority’s rules and do not precisely reflect the needs of the Copping Authority. The LGB explored the proposed changes to the existing rules regarding advice from the Board in the matter of adverse developments. The current rule indicates that the adverse development notice goes to the ‘Members’ which means direct to the member Councils. The proposed rules indicate that notice of any adverse development will only go to the PCRs, rather than the members. The original rules potentially bypass the PCRs in the notification process, as the Board was not required to inform the PCRs, but was required to inform the member Councils. LGB: What are the key means used to set the strategic direction for the Authority? The PCR Chairman advised that the initial Terms of Reference have broad parameters setting out the Strategic Direction of the Authority: e.g. aggressive marketing of the Authority. Such Strategic direction does not need formal concurrence from member Council Councillors. LGB: Are there areas in which the PCRs feel that they might require qualified advice or information additional to that, which is currently received from the Board of Management? The PCR’s have experienced a range of matters where qualified advice have been sought; including:

• Management structure and issues advice from KMPG ; • Remuneration advice on pay matters and Directors Fees from TCCI (2002) –

which advice was largely accepted and the similar advice from KPMG( 2007); • Independent legal advice, from Clarence City Council’s legal officer.

- 13 -

LGB: What has been the process for setting the remuneration of directors and staff salary rates? The PCR Chairman advised that:

• The Directors’ contracts set out the process for review of Directors fees. Such reviews are required to be undertaken annually but can become bi-annual by agreement with the Directors.

• Remunerations reviews have been undertaken just twice since 2002 by the PCR’s but this was not by agreement with the Directors.

• Directors have provided advice on what their annual remuneration should be however the PCR’s have made their own determination on remuneration. This has been based on independent advice from the TCCI during a review in 2002 and a further review had been conducted by KMPG. The 2002 TCCI review set base rate- and CPI has been applied at an annual review.

• The 2007 KPMG review would take effect upon its adoption by the Authority. LGB: How do the PCRs manage considerations arising from the dual role of Directors (as Employees)? This is now being considered by the KPMG report. There is a view that there should not be dual roles. However there has been clear delineation from day one between Directors’ fees and operational and staff fees. LGB: How do the PCRs propose to resolve the issue of the Board of Management contracts and terms of appointment in the long term? The existing Board Contracts expire on 21 November 2007 and the PCRs intend to extend the contracts to 30 June 2008 to allow the new structure recommended by KPMG to be introduced from that date. A PCR meeting was to be held on 2 November to formalise the extension of the Contracts. LGB: Has consideration been given to increasing the number of Member Representatives per Member Council? Is there a risk of corporate knowledge being lost? The PCR Chairman indicated that all proxy PCRs receive all the minutes and agendas and they can attend and speak at any meeting but not vote. The member Council General Managers have been invited and can attend any PCR meeting. Clarence City Council proxy, Doug Chipman, has attended several Authority meetings leading to the risk being mitigated to a certain extent. There has also been some attendance by proxy members. LGB: Has consideration been given to the appointment of non-elected members? The Chairman of the PCRs advised that Councils set up the Authority nominating only elected members as PCRs based on the rules of the Hobart Water Authority. A change in PCRs to include non-elected members was not seen as part of the need for the KPMG review. However, General Managers would not be excluded from the Authority meetings if they wished to attend, but they would not be able to vote.

6.2. The background and relevant experience of the current PCRs;

Refer to Chapter 17.

- 14 -

6.3. (i) Arrangements for reporting by the Board of Management to the PCRs and/or Member Councils, including regularity of provision of reports and of information provided in annual and quarterly reports;

Copping Authority Submission A draft Quarterly Report is prepared by the Ms Bell on behalf of the Board. This draft includes a brief synopsis of issues the Board feels need to be reported to member Councils. In addition, Ms Bell prepares a brief Profit and Loss statement carefully designed to not provide commercially sensitive information and a quarterly Governance Compliance Checklist of outstanding actions needed in accordance with the Rules, the EPN, and statutory requirements – [Example provided to the Board with Submission]. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: From whom is the commercially sensitive information referred to in the submission above withheld (i.e. does this include being withheld from the PCRs or the GMs)? Do PCRs receive all confidential information from the Board of Management? . The Chairman of the PCRs expressed doubt as to the PCRs receiving all the confidential information that the Board of Management are aware of. The PCRs were not likely to know the detail of every offer made by the Board to every Council or client, however it would be provided if requested. LGB: Of the information that the PCRS are informed on, how much is transmitted to Councils? The Chairman of the PCRs advised that some sensitive matters are reported to member Councils such as possible commercial arrangements with another Council without the commercial details. If a councillor privately asked for information as part of an informal discussion, then the Chairman would provide considerable information on that basis. The PCRs were interested to know what information if any should be provided to member councillors. The PCRs are not always fully aware of negotiations nor the ultimate negotiated rate suffice to know that any negotiated rate was profitable for the Authority and that they trusted the Board of Management Chairman to negotiate a commercial price. There are no mechanisms in place to report a deal that may be negotiated detrimental to the Authority. Mr Wiggans asked: is there any reason why Councillors or GMs would want to know the commercially negotiated rate? Mr Arnold responded: that they may wish to be assured that there are no sweetheart deals in other words that all was fair and above board. PCR Chairman responded: If the Board did a deal that cost the Authority money or created liability then the Authority would not know. The Authority takes it on trust that it operates within the parameters.

- 15 -

LGB: Why is the Corporate Plan information withheld from member Councils? Why aren’t Councils provided with this information in the closed confidential part of their agenda? The Chairman of the PCRs advised that PCRs filter the information provided to Councils and generally councillors are not interested in details such as the Corporate Plan. The quarterly reports generate very few questions by councillors when they are considered. Ms Cooper responded that if information, such as the detail of the corporate plan was provided regardless it would then be available to Councillors should they require it. Processes for questions on Quarterly Reports are not used by elected members – except ad hoc questions. LGB: Do the PCRs see the Board of Management Minutes and the member Councils see the PCR minutes? The PRC Chairman advised that PCRs are not provided with the Board of Management minutes nor the negotiated rates of individual clients. The PCRs do however receive a report from the Board instead. Usually, the Board of Management attends all Authority meetings and are excluded from certain parts of the Authority meetings. In the main, all the Board of Management are usually present. The PCRs minutes do not go to the member Councils. LGB: Are 3 directors on the Board of Management enough? The Chairman of the PCRs advised that the KPMG review found no reason to change from the current 3 directors. There has never been a need to remove anyone from the Board of Management and there have only been a couple of changes within the PCRs over the life of the Authority. LGB: Has there been any issues with directors complying with the Rules. The Chairman of the PCRs advised that to his knowledge there had not been any issues with the Directors complying with the Rules. Copping Authority Submission The mandatory actions or corporate compliance issues addressed by the quarterly Governance Compliance Checklist include:

Action or compliance requirement Frequency Required by Authority agenda to members, directors 21 days notice Rules Authority agenda to neighbour landowners as required above EPN Site operations report Quarterly Authority/Board Board of Management quarterly report to Authority Quarterly Authority/Act Authority quarterly report to Members Quarterly Act Site groundwater monitoring Six monthly EPN Site operation contract compliance review Annual Authority/Board of

Management Operations under EPN review Annual DTAE Volumetric survey under EPN Annual DTAE Sources of waste reporting Annual DTAE Annual General Meeting Annual by Nov. Rules/Act

- 16 -

Three year Corporate Plan & budget Annual Rules/Act Host Council contribution review Annual Rules Financial statements and audit Annual Rules Annual Report incl. Financial statements Annual Rules Directors performance and salary review Annual Authority Site monitoring result reporting Annual EPN Code of tendering review 4 yearly or earlier Act Review of DP&EMP 5 yearly EPN

As Authority Chairperson Ald Traynor adds to the written report to incorporate issues of interest on behalf of the Authority and forwards the report with attachments to the three General Managers of the member Councils. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: Which of the above mandatory actions or corporate compliance issues above are reported on to the Member Councils? The Chairman of the PCRs advised that some compliance actions are reported: e.g. the volumetric survey and the ground water compliance matters are reported to General Managers directly, as they are the lease holders. The Site administrator for the lease is also advised directly on compliance matters that may affect the lease. LGB: Would the inclusion of budget figures in the statement of general performance promote better transparency? The Chairman of the PCRs advised that every report includes a profit and loss statement and EMPCA combined performance statement. The PCRs believed that reporting was sufficient. Information on reporting had been obtained from Clarence City Council’s legal officer at the time of the change to the Act with respect to reporting changes. LGB: How is the remuneration of directors reported? The Chairman of the PCRs advised that Directors remuneration are not reported and not required to be. LGB: Do the PCRs see any difficulty with the Board complying with Rule 29(g)? The PCRs believed they were complying with Rule 29(g). LGB: Can the Board of Management report directly to Councils? The Board of Management has not reported directly to Councils but Board of Management are involved in the discussions with Councils in workshop settings. LGB: How is the reporting of confidential matters handled within the Authority? The Board of Management Chair Barry Palmer has sole responsibility for securing and closing commercial transactions. There are limited formal requirements to report back to the PCRs. The PCRs are not satisfied that Member Councils would keep confidentiality. Their concerns are centred around their competitive nature with Hobart and Glenorchy in particular, and that information could not afford to be leaked from members. The Board of Management drafts a regular quarterly report, which informs PCRs on most issues excluding some commercial transactions. The reporting to Member Councils by the PCRs occurs through the quarterly reports but is otherwise ad hoc.

- 17 -

Reporting occurs when the PCRs determine it is necessary. Only some of the confidential matters are covered in the quarterly reports. The PCRs reported that a public question at a Clarence City Council meeting a few months ago, highlighted the need to keep matters confidential. Mayor Campbell refused the question. All Copping reports are considered in closed agenda in one of the Member Councils.

6.4. Arrangements for reporting by the PCRs to the Member Councils;

Copping Authority Submission The Authority provides annual and quarterly reports to the member Councils – see examples Attachment 4 (Annual) and Attachment 5 (quarterly). [These documents were provided to the LGB as an attachment to the Submission] The arrangements for reporting by the PCRs to the Member Councils relate to the presentation of these reports, together with the opportunity for the PCRs to provide verbal reports on Authority participation. A presentation to SWSA has been conducted informing members of that Authority of the operations of the CRSDJA. A presentation to a Local Government Association of Tasmania annual conference has been conducted informing participants of that conference of the operations of the Authority. The Authority Chairperson has also conducted presentations to member Councils. The arrangements at the member Council level are believed to be as follows: Clarence City Council The General Manager of Clarence arranges for the Report and attachments to be formally received at the next available meeting of the Clarence Council. The report is then able to be commented on by other elected members, questions asked and Ald Traynor may give additional information or simply answer questions. The Authority reports are formally listed on the Clarence City Council meeting agendas in a section of the agenda format titled “Reports from Single and Joint Authorities” that has been established to facilitate the receipt of both informal and formal reporting from various bodies upon which Council has a representative involvement. In addition to advice of receipt of the written report the name of the Council representative reporting is also listed. In addition to the above, Clarence Council holds regular workshops on a range of issues including waste management. If an issue is of concern or interest to Clarence elected members then a workshop provides an opportunity for discussion. Presentations have been made to Clarence on aspects of the Authority’s operations through this mechanism.

- 18 -

Sorell Council Annual and quarterly reports issued by the Authority are circulated to Sorell councillors via Briefing Notes. Cr Rheinberger is also available to answer questions at briefing sessions and other meetings, or as otherwise requested. Tasman Council The General Manager of Tasman arranges for Authority reports to be formally received at the next available meeting of the Tasman Council. The report is then able to be commented on by other elected members and Councillor Wiggins may give additional information or answer questions. Tasman Council also holds regular workshops on a range of issues which provide an opportunity for discussion. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: Are Annual and Quarterly Reports being tabled in Council Meetings? The PCR minutes are placed on agenda’s at Clarence and Tasman but only in the briefing basket at Sorell, with no formal avenue to deal with queries other than workshops. LGB: Are the statutory requirements for Annual and Quarterly Reports being met? PCRs stated that to their knowledge they are. Clarence legal officer gave advice on how Authority complied with statutory disclosures in quarterly reports after changes to the Act. The Board asked to be directed to the Statement of Activities in the Annual Report and the reporting against performance in relation to goals and objectives set for the preceding financial year. The PCRs advised that they would have to take this question on notice. LGB: Has the Authority ever considered using the Auditor-General in the preparation of Audit material? PCRs advised that they had not considered using the Auditor-General. The PCRs have used an Expression of Interest process to engage WHK Pinnacle in the first instance in a similar manner to Hobart Water.

6.5. The process within Member Councils for review of material submitted to it by the PCRs or the Board of Management;

Copping Authority Submission This is an operational level matter for consideration by the three General Managers. The Board of Management does not provide any information directly to the member Councils. Copping Authority Hearing

- 19 -

LGB: Is there any qualified advice provided to member Councils with the Reports from the PCRs? If qualified advice was sought, what would be the process? No qualified advice given but if a General Manager of a member council considered it necessary, they would obtain it. Background information for Council reports is prepared by the PCRs – not by the Board of Management. If General Managers considered asking for an alternative course of action i.e. changes of rules, General Managers would give advice to their Councils. Most items are matters of communication rather than asking for decision hence do not require qualified advice. LGB: Do PCRs provide written briefings and/or verbal briefings (could be prepared by the Board of Management)? PCRs provide verbal briefings to member Councils. There is not usually more than a motion that it be received. LGB: How can other councillors ask questions of the PCRs? Councillors can ask informally either at workshops or on the street. LGB: Would PCRS see the need for more formal briefing arrangements? Mr Rheinburger advised that this was not necessary from an information point of view. Councils have not asked for information in any other way. But it could be provided if that would promote better governance.

6.6. Degree of feedback provided by the Council in response to reporting;

Copping Authority Submission In response to formal quarterly reporting minimal feedback and questioning is received from elected members of the three Councils. However it would generally be the case that, if the substance of the material/issue required a formal Council comment and or agreement, the Council would write to the Joint Authority accordingly, and if not of significance the PCR would advise the Joint Authority of the Council’s position. A number of elected members have participated in tours of the Copping site. Currently tours are organised quarterly with a number of bookings already received for the next tour. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: What references or report is made in the Councils Annual Report of the Authorities activities? It was agreed that limited information, if any, was provided and that it was a matter for General Managers to include information in the annual report of the Councils.

- 20 -

6.7. Processes for reporting and monitoring by the PCRs including how the Authority is meeting its stated objectives and functions, charters, plans and strategies and assessing performance against these.

Copping Authority Submission The Authority reviews the Corporate Plan on an Annual basis. The strategic directions of the Authority and strategies to achieve these objectives are clearly re-stated in that annual plan. Changes to the Corporate Plan can and are made during the course of a year in response to market and other external factors. Operational matters pertaining to these strategies are delegated to the Board of Management. The Board of Management is responsible for reporting against the strategies determined by the Authority. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: When and how does the Board of Management report against these strategies? The Board of Management in its quarterly reports makes a response to the Corporate Plan strategies. Each Director reports separately on the targets within their range of responsibility and a combined effort is achieved to make sure all the strategies are covered. LGB: How are changes to Corporate Plan reported and acted upon? The Corporate Plan is prepared for the May PCR meeting and the Corporate Plan is discussed and changes made. The Corporate Plan is then submitted to the Annual General Meeting for approval. All documents at the AGM are collected at the end of the meeting. The General Managers do not see the Corporate Plan unless they attend the AGM and the Corporate Plan is kept under wraps. It is not provided to the Councils. LGB: Who sees the Corporate Plan? The Board of Management, the PCRs and the General Managers of the participating Councils have seen the Corporate Plans for both 2006 and 2007. They have not been tabled publicly in Council meetings so Councillors have not seen them although the document is referred to in Council AGMs. The PCRs keep the Corporate Plan confidential from the Members Councils, including their General Managers. LGB: Why don’t Councils see the Corporate Plan? The PCR Chairman advised that a Council can operate a commercial entity in its own right but in this case a group of Councils is operating in a commercially sensitive environment. PCRs are deciding what information is available to Elected members. The Corporate Plan is not a purely strategic document and includes significant operational material, which could be damaging if disclosed commercially. The Corporate Plan is the major document that the Board of Management uses in their accountability. Copping Authority Submission The Board of Management reports to the Authority against the following Indicators: • Tonnage through the gate by Customer

- 21 -

• Medical Waste tonnages • Capital Expenditure by each Project • Profit & Loss, • Balance Sheet Copping Authority Hearing LGB: How often does the Board of Management report on these? Each indicator is reported on at each quarterly meeting but sometimes details are brief and not in full due to commercially sensitive information. Copping Authority Submission These indicators are in addition to the provision of the Governance Compliance Checklist [This document was provided to the LGB as an attachment to the Submission]. The Board of Management also reports against the set Budget at the quarterly meetings. The Board of Management’s report contains details of all unders and overs with detailed explanations where required.

6.8. Any additional reporting processes in place; Copping Authority Submission Any other reporting is an ad hoc arrangement in response to specific requests by member Councils, or requests of the Board of Management by the Authority.

6.9. Processes for complying with the strategies, budgets and plans agreed by the PCRs;

Copping Authority Submission The Board of Management provides detailed fiscal details by reporting against the approved Budget. Quarterly reports prepared by Ms Bell on behalf of the Board of Management clearly indicate progress against the Budget. At Authority meetings the PCRs ask questions of her on the budget and where any variance is noted a detailed analysis is sought from her. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: What is your view regarding the current requirement under the Rules for the Corporate Plan to be prepared by the Board of Management rather than the PCRs? No view

6.10. Level of attendance by the PCRs at the Authority’s annual general meeting;

Copping Authority Submission The respective PCRs have attended every AGM (2001-2006) with the exception of Tasman in 2002 and Sorell in 2003 when both PCRs were represented by their respective proxy member. Under the Rules the quorum for an AGM is full attendance of PCRs.

- 22 -

6.11. Whether annual and quarterly reports are formally tabled through Council meeting agendas for the information of the public (excluding commercial-in confidence information).

Copping Authority Submission (i) Clarence City Council Authority reports are formally listed on Council agendas and the report would comprise an agenda attachment. Both the agenda item and associated attachment (excluding commercial-in confidence information) are available for inspection by the public. As a consequence of tabling a Report at Council, an Alderman could ask a question which may relate to a sensitive or commercial-in-confidence matter. On the one occasion when this did occur, the Mayor deferred the matter for discussion in the closed section of Council’s meeting. (ii) Sorell Council Quarterly and Annual reports are distributed as a briefing note in Councillor’s meeting papers. The public do not have access to these briefing notes. (iii) Tasman Council Authority reports are formally listed on Council agendas and the report would comprise an agenda attachment. Both the agenda item and associated attachment (excluding commercial-in confidence information) are available for inspection by the public.

6.12. Policies, codes of practice and processes in place to ensure transparency, accountability, openness and responsiveness to the participating Councils.

Copping Authority Submission Transparency, accountability, openness and responsiveness to the participating Councils are underpinned by the requirements of the Rules and the Act, and the reporting arrangements that have been put in place. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: What are the requirements of the Rules and the Act in relation to transparency, accountability, openness and responsiveness and is the Authority complying with them? What reporting arrangements are in place? No major changes to the Rules are proposed and no major reporting changes. The lease of the land by the initial three Councils will be clarified with respect to the role of lease administrator. There are no other transparency changes other than what is set out in the rules and the act and informal processes described here. The land Lease has not been signed and it is awaiting advice from Clarence City Councils independent solicitor.

- 23 -

Copping Authority Submission In addition to the reporting processes the Authority offers regular inspection tours of the Copping facility to member Councils in order to improve knowledge and awareness of Authority strategies and operations. A “Code for Tenders & Contracts” has been adopted to comply with the requirements of the Act and Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 – [This document was provided to the LGB as an attachment to the Submission].

- 24 -

Chapter 7 The Structure And Rules Of An Authority

7.1. The functions and objectives set for the Authority, whether the Authority is currently fulfilling these and the strategies for doing so in the future

Copping Authority Submission The Principal Objectives of the Authority (as defined by the Authority Rules Clause 6) are: (a) To manage a putrescible landfill disposal site which conforms to the

DP&EMP and permit conditions; and (b) To be a successful landfill disposal site business by – (i) operating efficiently in accordance with sound commercial practice; (ii) maximising the net worth of the Authority’s assets; and (iii) operating the site to maximum benefit of members. The functions of the Authority (as defined by the Authority Rules Clause 7) are to: (a) establish and maintain a putrescible landfill disposal site in accordance with

the DP&EMP, permit conditions and other relevant laws and statutes; (b) facilitate the operation of the Copping Refuse Disposal Site in accordance with

the Principal Objectives of the Authority; (c) perform waste management functions outside the boundaries of the municipal

areas of the member Councils consistent with the Rules and in accordance with the Competitive Neutrality Principles;

(d perform any function specified in the Act or any other act or in these Rules

consistent with the Principal Objectives of the Authority; (e) perform any function duly granted to, or imposed on any municipal, regional

or public Authority by any Act or Regulation (Federal or State) with respect to the disposal of waste in Tasmania consistent with the Principal Objectives of the Authority; and

(f) to require the Board of Management to carry out the specified functions of the

Authority. Details in regard to the Authority’s performance in respect to these functions and objectives can be found in the Annual Report & Financial Statement [This document was provided to the LGB as an attachment to the Submission].

- 25 -

Copping Authority Hearing LGB: Where are the details referred to in the paragraph above in the annual report? Are they publicly available? The PCRs advised that they would take this question on notice. Copping Authority Submission The strategic intent of the organisation is detailed in the Corporate Plan (see Attachment 7.2, Section 11). [This document was provided to the LGB as an attachment to the Submission] LGB: Are the Corporate Reports signed off by the Member Councils? The PCRs sign off the Corporate Reports without reference to Councils.

7.2. Codes of conduct or induction process notifying PCRs and/or relevant employees of their statutory responsibilities.

Copping Authority Submission No formal processes are in place for the induction of PCRs, Board directors or employees. Whilst no formal procedures are in place the Authority is conscious of the need for an appropriate briefing of persons commencing roles within the organisation. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: What strategies has the Authority put in place to meet statutory obligations? There are no strategies in place to meet the statutory obligations of the Authority. Copping Authority Submission The Authority has sought professional external advice in this regard (refer KPMG Report Attachment 8) [This document was provided to the LGB as an attachment to the Submission] and the preparation of draft human resource policies and job descriptions has been commissioned. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: Do the Directors have any declaration of interest under the Act? There have been no declarations to date.

7.3. The operation of any committees or advisory groups established under the Rules and any reporting structures in relation to these.

Copping Authority Submission No committees or advisory groups have been established by the Authority. The Board of management has established a Site Operations Committee with representation from the site contractors, the land owner (Councils) and the Board.

7.4. Processes to ensure that ongoing statutory obligations are met including referral of adverse developments, pecuniary interest, misuse of office and misuse of information

- 26 -

Copping Authority Submission The Authority (and Board) is aware of the 2005 amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 that introduced additional requirements on authorities in regard to these matters, and has received written advice from the member Councils in regard to the requirements. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: Is this written advice available? The PCRs advised that they would take this question on notice Copping Authority Submission Whilst the Authority Rules are silent in regard to pecuniary interest of PCRs, the Act includes requirements for the disclosure of interests of Authority representatives, Board directors and employees. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: How are these statutory requirements communicated and what proposals are in place for achieving this? Yet to be clarified. LGB: Who within the Authority takes responsibility for the communication of these to: the PCRs, Board of Management and Employees? The PCR Chairman advised that he seeks disclosures at the commencement of Authority meetings and, to date, none have been declared. How are disclosures on the part of Directors and Staff managed as required by the Act? Yet to be clarified. Copping Authority Submission The process to be followed in the event of a disclosure (as set out in S48 of the Act) requires the interest to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting, the PCR to not be present during the deliberation or voting on the matter, and the declaration of the interest to be advised to relevant General Manager for recording in the register of interest of councillors. The Authority Secretary also maintains a register of interests, noting that Authority meetings may involve the attendance of PCRs, Board directors and employees. Adverse developments identified by PCRs, or advised by the Board in accordance with Rule 34, are similarly to be advised to the General Manager of the member Councils in accordance with the requirements of Section 35A of the Act. The Authority is aware that the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 in regard to improper use of information (S339) and misuse of office (S339A) applys to PCRs.

- 27 -

Chapter 8 The Management and Operations of the Authority

8.1. The governance role of the Board of Management of the Authority.

Copping Authority Submission In accordance with the Rules the Authority has appointed Directors to form a Board of Management. The Authority has appointed persons who collectively have the skills and expertise to carry out the powers, functions and responsibilities of the Board. The Board must ensure that the business of the Authority are managed and conducted in accordance with the Principal Objectives (see Section 4.1) and the Corporate Plan of the Authority, and with sound commercial practice. The Board prepares a Corporate Plan for the approval of the Authority in each financial year which covers a period of not less than 3 financial years, and contains a summary of the projected financial results – see Attachment 7 [This document was provided to the LGB as an attachment to the Submission]. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: How is the Board currently operating? What are the specific powers that have been delegated to the Board? Copy of the delegations document to the Board has now been provided to the LGB. LGB: Is there a formal CEO and if so what is the Role of 'CEO' of the Board? Is there a formal record/minute of this appointment? No. The Board of Management Chairman Mr Palmer advised to cease representing himself as the CEO and had consequently stopped using his business card. The reason for this request was to conform with the rules. Original PCRS confirmed that role/appointment but current PCRs asked Mr Palmer to stop acting in that role. PCRs advised that there was no formal minute appointing Mr Palmer to the role. The PCRs stated that the new Rules would require a CEO. LGB: How are the statutory responsibilities of the CEO managed within the Authority? Clearly by assumption or appointment. Terms of Appointment do not refer to CEO – business development. Broad range of delegations to ‘the Board’. List of delegations has been provided.

8.2. Processes for ensuring that referrals of adverse developments are occurring (s35A)

Copping Authority Submission

- 28 -

Under Rule 34, the Board is required to immediately advise the Authority of adverse developments, which in turn is to advise the General Manager of the member Councils in accordance with the requirements of Section 35A of the Act. An adverse development occurring at the Copping site would also need to be advised to the Lease Administrator. Adverse developments are considered to be matters that have occurred which will significantly effect the financial viability or operating ability of the Authority or otherwise significantly affect the Authority in an adverse manner. The Board and the Authority have a clear understanding of what would constitute an adverse development. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: Have any adverse developments been identified to date? No LGB: What is their understanding of what constitutes an adverse developments and examples of this? Examples of an adverse development could include: non-compliance with an EMP, a high level emergency, fiscal emergency, and other corporate governance development. These would be for the Board of Management to advise the PCRs. LGB: How is the Authority discharging its responsibilities in relation to OHS and risk management (which are usually the responsibility of a CEO)? Matters relating to the lease would be advised at officer level i.e. Mr Palmer is advising directly. Neighbours receive information or reports of compliance including required standards etc.

8.3. Monitoring of competitive neutrality issues Copping Authority Submission The Authority and member Councils are conscious that waste management services at the scale undertaken by the Authority comprise a significant business activity. This fact formed part of the rational to establish a joint Authority with Rules based on corporatisation and competition principles. The Authority’s compliance with competitive neutrality principles was tested by the Government Prices Oversight Commission (GPOC) in 2003. The GPOC assessment was undertaken in response to a complaint lodged by the proposed developer of a high temperature waste incinerator in southern Tasmania. The Commission found that the joint Authority’s waste disposal services constitute a Significant Business Activity for the purpose of the competitive neutrality principles. The Commission was satisfied that the operation of the Authority is consistent with the requirements of the corporatisation model. The Commission also found that full cost attribution was reflected in the pricing of the joint Authority’s waste disposal services.

- 29 -

As a consequence GPOC found that the operation of the joint Authority’s waste disposal services complied with the competitive neutrality principles as set out in Clause 3 of the Competitive Principles Agreement, and the complaint against it was not justified. The Authority has more recently monitored competitive neutrality issues through the KPMG review that it commissioned. The KPMG report (see Attachment 8) [This document was provided to the LGB as an attachment to the Submission], includes a relevant recommendation for a minor improvement (Pages 21-22).

- 30 -

Chapter 9 Other relevant matters

9.1. Communications and education programmes Copping Authority Submission Communication and education programmes in regard to waste management are seen as more the role of the Southern Waste Strategy Authority than the Authority. However the Authority does make arrangements for site visitors from member Councils or client Councils on a quarterly schedule, together with some ad hoc tours for interested parties as required. Copping Authority Hearing LGB: How does the work of the Authority interrelate to that of the Southern Waste Strategy Authority? Mr Wiggins advised that it doesn’t really interrelate. Southern Waste Strategy Authority is more strategic and policy oriented providing advice to member Councils and technical information and advice to member Councils. LGB: Is there any role in informing the public and how does the Authority ensure the public that environmental licence conditions and guidelines are being met? PCR’s? The PCR Chairman advised that the PCR’s had discussed a strategy of exposing non-compliant competitors as one way of informing the public of their compliance compared with other landfill operators but had determined not to expose such matters in the better interests of Local Government as a whole. Such disclosure would be destructive on a regional level. The PCR’s conceded that it may be valuable to reassure public that site is fully compliant. The PCR’s believed that the general public perception would be that all waste management sites are operating according to regulations. The Authority had only received 3 phone calls from Public members in 6 years of operations. The LGB was advised that limited public interest is exemplified by the number of phone calls received by the PCRs from members of the public in 6 years: 3 phone calls. LGB: Is the Annual General Meeting (AGM) open to the Public? The AGM is not open to the public.

9.2. Community engagement programmes and feedback processes

Copping Authority Submission The Authority has a limited customer/client base and operates a limited access bulk disposal site. As such community engagement programmes are seen as more the role of the Southern Waste Strategy Authority.

- 31 -

The Authority does however seek to maintain a positive relationship with its neighbours and the local community. For example the Authority supports the annual Falls Festival held nearby through the provision of waste disposal services. The Copping site also incorporated land used by the Blue Hills Sporting Shooters Club. Since taking over the site this sub-lease has been reaffirmed under a peppercorn lease arrangement.

9.3. Marketing and media processes Copping Authority Submission The Chairperson of the Authority is the spokesperson for the purposes of providing any official comments relating to the affairs of the Authority to the media, whether it be for a formal press release/statement or responding to a request to comment on a specific issue. There is also the opportunity for comments to be made on issues of a specific or technical nature by another member of the Authority or the Board when approval to do so has been provided by the Chairperson. Given the specific charter and role of the Authority, the experience so far is that there has been limited involvement in media matters. Marketing strategies are focussed on a narrow customer base consistent with the overall objectives of the Authority. This limits the need for a broad range of marketing strategies. Nevertheless, a number of initiatives have been implemented including: • Adoption of a logo for letterhead and other printed material • A brochure promoting the Copping Landfill site to Southern Councils • Articles included in Local Government Association (LGAT) publications • Promotional activities at LGAT conferences including presentations to the

Conference • Inviting Southern Councils on a regular basis to view and promote the

‘best practice’ landfill site.

9.4. Policies and processes in place to ensure transparency, accountability, openness and responsiveness directly or indirectly to the community

Copping Authority Submission The Authority is accountable to its local government owners, who in turn are highly accountable to their local communities.

9.5. Best Practice Copping Authority Submission The Authority and Southern Waste Solutions are justifiably proud of their achievements in regard to not only being environmentally compliant, but indeed exceeding the environmental requirements associated with operating a major landfill disposal site.

- 32 -

The Authority and Southern Waste Solutions have been innovative in establishing new technologies into our region for the transport and handling of waste, including: (i) A unique preload compaction chamber as a means of achieving maximum payloads of general waste. This integrated system which minimises transport costs, reduces heavy vehicle traffic, and is environmentally safe is a feature of SWS operations. (ii) The development of medical waste treatment technology; in support of the Department of Health and Human Services having granted SWS preferred contractor status.

9.6. Additional Information Copping Authority Submission Following the completion of the first five years of operation of the Authority the following organisational review mechanisms have been initiated and are currently in progress. KPMG Organisation Review The Authority has commissioned professional external advice through consultants KPMG to undertake an organisational review process. KPMG were engaged In February 2007 to undertake the review and provide a report and recommendations. The Terms of Reference for the review comprised the following elements: • Management structure • Roles and responsibilities of the Board of Directors • Remuneration packages • Governance structures, procedures and Rules • Reporting procedures to owner Councils and other stakeholders • Office and administration arrangements • Communication procedures. The review process is not yet completed - a copy of KPMG’s draft report is enclosed [This has been provided as confidential information] Copping Authority Hearing LGB: Who set the terms of reference for the KPMG review? The PCR Chairman advised that the PCRs set the Terms of Reference for the KPMG review and provided a summary for sign off. The Rules provide that Member Councils must endorse a copy of any rule changes. Legal Officers within the Clarence City Council reviewed the Expression of interest documents. LGB: did the Member Councils sign off these Terms of Reference, and what were they and what have been the consultations with the Member Councils? The Terms of Reference were not referred to the member Councils and there has been no consultation with them.

- 33 -

LGB: Why weren’t Councils consulted on the KPMG review? The Board Chairman advised that the KPMG review was an internal review of the Authority’s management arrangements, instigated at the Authority’s own volition. LGB: What is the status of the KPMG review of Authority Structure? No Councils have seen the KPMG report (as at hearing date). Councils are aware of the review. KPMG has now issued the final report. The Board of Management has seen the draft report and will see the final report. The development of a final version of the Rules to reflect the KPMG final report will be the next step. A legal advisor is currently with Clarence City Council considering the draft Rules. New Rules will also cover leasing and subleasing, sale of land and operations offsite. They will not remain confidential in the long term. Councils have seen an early version. Copping Authority Submission (ii) Revision of Authority Rules The Authority and the member Councils have also substantially completed a process to revise and update the Authority’s Rules. A copy of the most recent version of the draft Rules dated 13 August 2007 is enclosed – [This has been provided as confidential information]

- 34 -

Chapter 10 List of Supporting Documentation for Copping Submission Document Ref Document title Source Date Drafted

Submission Submission to the Local Government Board Review of the Authority PCRs August 2007 Attachment 1 Notice of establishment of Joint Authority in Tasmanian Government

Gazette on 21 March 2001 PCR March 2001

Attachment 2 Rules for the Joint Authority PCR 5/2/2001 Attachment 3 Governance Compliance Checklist (Mandatory Actions Schedule) PCR Attachment 4 Annual Report & Financial Statement 2005-06 PCR Attachment 5.1 Statement of General Performance – PCR Quarter ended September 2005 Attachment 5.2 Statement of General Performance – PCR Quarter ended December 2005 Attachment 5.3 Statement of General Performance – PCR Quarter ended March 2006 Attachment 5.4 Statement of General Performance – PCR Quarter ended June 2006 Attachment 5.5 Statement of General Performance – PCR Quarter ended September 2006 Attachment 5.6 Statement of General Performance – PCR Quarter ended December 2006 Attachment 5.7 Statement of General Performance – PCR Quarter ended March 2007 Attachment 5.8 Statement of General Performance – PCR Quarter ended June 2007 Attachment 6 Code for Tenders and Contracts PCR Attachment 7.1 (Confidential)

Corporate Plan PCR 2006

Attachment 7.2 (Confidential)

Corporate Plan PCR 2007

Attachment 8 (Confidential)

KPMG CRDSJA Organisation Review (draft Report) PCR 6 August 2007

Attachment 9 (Confidential)

Draft Amended Rules for the Joint Authority PCR 13 August 2007

- 35 -

Chapter 11 Additional Documents provided by Copping Authority Document Ref Document title Source Date Drafted

(Confidential) KPMG Letter to PCR Chairman PCR 4 September 2007 Participating Council Agreement PCR 2 October 2000 Delegation of Powers to the Board PCR 16 July 2001 PCR Minutes PCR 2001- 2007 Board of Management Minutes Board 16 September 2006, 23 October 2006, 18 July 2007, 17 April

2007, 14 June 2007, 30 January 2007 Director of Operations Report Board 31 May 2005, 30 April 2006, 31 July 2006, 30 June 07, 30

September 2006, 31 December 3006, 30 March 07, 30 September 2007

Board Chairman Annual Report Board 2005/06, 2004/05 Board Quarterly Report Board 30 September 2007, 30 November 2005, 30 April 2007, 30

February 2007, 30 June 2007, 30 September 2006, File note on Meeting between Chairman of Board

and Chairman of PCR 11 October 2007 Board October 2007

Board functions and responsibilities Board Letter to PCR Chairman from Andrew Paul, GM,

CCC Board 7 September 2005

Draft letter to Councils from Board of Management Board August 2007 Board Quarterly Financial Summary Board 30 June 2007, 31 March 2007, 31 December 2006, 31 March

2007, 30 June 2006 Statement of General Performance (Quarterly

Report) Board 30 September 2006, 31 December 2006, 31 March 2007, 30

June 2007, 30 June 2006, 30 September 2006 Council Agenda Papers

Tasman Agenda - tabling Statement of General Performance (Quarterly Report) 30 September 2006

11 December 2006

Council Agenda Sorell Councillor Briefing Notes tabling Statement of 12 December 2006

- 36 -

Papers General Performance (Quarterly Report) 30 June 2006

Council Agenda Papers

Sorell Councillor Briefing Notes tabling Statement of General Performance (Quarterly Report) 30 June 2007

11 September 2007

Council Agenda Papers

Clarence Agenda - tabling Statement of General Performance (Quarterly Report) 30 June 2006 & 30 September 2006

11 December 2006

Council Agenda Papers

Clarence Agenda - tabling Statement of General Performance (Quarterly Report) 30 September 2006

20 November 2006

- 37 -

Chapter 12 Summary of Public Submissions This Chapter will appear in the Final Report. A summary of public submissions will be included here.

Chapter 13 List of Persons making submissions This Chapter will appear in the Final Report. It will set out a list of persons making submissions during the course of the Review.

Chapter 14 List of Additional Documents Provided with Public Submissions

This Chapter will appear in the Final Report. It will set out a list of any additional documents provided with Public Submissions.

Chapter 15 Notices calling for submissions This Chapter will appear in the Final Report. Copies of the Public Notices calling for submissions will be attached.

Chapter 16 Map Indicating Area Of Authority Operations

This Chapter will appear in the Final Report. Maps indicating the area of Authority operations will be provided.

- 38 -

Chapter 17 Participating Council Representatives, CEO and Board of Management of [Name of Authority]

Copping Authority Submission [Details of PCRS as appointed at time of drafting] Participating Council Representatives Chair, Alderman David Traynor, Clarence City Council,

David Traynor has been an Alderman of the City of Clarence since 1991. He has been an inaugural member of the Authority since March 2001 and Chairperson since November 2003. He has been a member or Chairperson of a number of other Authorities, Boards, and Committees. He is a training consultant specialising in Management, Safety and Risk Management training. His academic qualifications include an MBA as well as post graduate qualifications in public sector management, OH&S management, and corporate management.

Councillor Jack Rheinberger

Sorell Council, Jack Rheinberger has served as local government councillor at Sorell for the past seven years and previously on a NSW Shire Council for six years. He has many years experience at senior management level in the retail industry in NSW, ACT and Tasmania. He has previously served via Ministerial appointment on the Theatre Royal Management Board and currently on the Tasmanian Library Advisory Board. He is the current Deputy Chairperson of the Authority.

Councillor Bruce Wiggins

Tasman Council, Bruce Wiggins was elected to the Tasman Council in 2000. He is currently the Chair of the Southern Waste Strategy Authority. He has owned and conducted a successful company involved in primary production for the past twenty years.

Mr Gerald Jones Secretary to the PCRs: Board of Management Mr. Graeme T. Howard, Civ.Eng. FIPWEAust

Director, A Civil Engineer and a Fellow of the Institute of Public Works Engineers (Australia). His experience in local government covers engineering and management of waste collection and disposal. Provision of essential services encompasses thirty-eight years in the positions of City Engineer Hobart, Deputy City Engineer Glenorchy and Municipal Engineer Kingborough.

Mr. Barry H. Palmer, FAICD, MCIT

Chairman, Thirty years as a Tasmanian road transport and sea cargo business owner and later Managing Director Hammond Palmer Transport Pty Ltd and Division Manger TNT Seafast, based in Tasmania with national operations. Director and chairman positions have been held in industry and employer organisations including Tasmanian Road Transport

- 39 -

Association, Hobart Chamber of Commerce, TT Line Company Pty Ltd, Tasea Enterprises Pty Ltd, Southern Cross Marine Culture Pty Ltd, Cosy Cabins Around Tasmania and RNB Trading Pty Ltd.

Ms Christine E. Bell, BEc, MCommLaw, CA, FAICD, MIAMA.

Director, Ms Bell is a Chartered Accountant, a Fellow of Australian Institute of Company Directors and a Member of the Australian Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators with Bachelor of Economics and Master of Commercial Law Degrees. She is a Director of the MAIB, Transend Networks Pty Ltd and MIT Fund Limited and operates her own consulting business. Her experience includes high-level management at both Clarence and Glenorchy City Councils. As client director of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu her clients included local governments, government business enterprises, state government agencies, companies and businesses. She was in charge of the firm’s internal and efficiency audit functions and consulted in the areas of strategic planning, management accounting and quality assurance.

- 40 -