Local Government (Content of Plans and Strategies) Order 2014

The Order introduces several distinctive concepts that shape its operation. “Relevant asset” is the threshold concept for the asset management obligations. Clause 4 lists roads, bridges (including culverts), traffic infrastructure, stormwater infrastructure, and buildings as automatic inclusions. It then adds a dynamic threshold: any other class of assets (excluding land) where the total value held by the council equals or exceeds 5% of the council’s total asset base becomes a “relevant asset”. This means councils must continuously monitor the composition and valuation of their asset portfolio. A class that falls below 5% is not subject to the detailed planning requirements of clauses 7, 8 and 9; if it rises above 5%, the full suite of obligations is triggered. Land is explicitly excluded, so land holdings are not covered by the asset management plans even if they form a large proportion of the asset base. This could create a gap where a council’s major value sits in land, but no strategic planning for that land is required under this Order.

“Underlying surplus or deficit” is a critical financial indicator defined in clause 3. It is calculated as recurrent income less recurrent expenses, with capital income specifically excluded. The definition names three exclusions: income received specifically for new or upgraded assets, physical resources received free of charge, and other income of a capital nature. The Order does not define “recurrent expenses” with the same precision. If a council includes capital expenditure on existing assets as a recurrent expense, the underlying surplus could appear worse than the true operational position. Conversely, if capital expenditure is treated as capital (and thus not subtracted), the underlying surplus is inflated. The lack of clarity on what counts as “recurrent expense” is a noteworthy ambiguity.

“Comprehensive result” adopts the AASB 101 definition of “total comprehensive income”, which includes items such as asset revaluation increments, fair value changes on financial instruments, and foreign currency translation differences. Because these items bypass the profit and loss statement but affect net assets, the comprehensive result can diverge significantly from the net surplus or deficit. The Order requires estimates of both net surplus or deficit and comprehensive result (clause 5(2)(b)(iv) and (v)). This means a council could report a net deficit but a positive comprehensive result due to asset revaluations, or vice versa. The requirement may confuse ratepayers who are not familiar with these accounting concepts.

“Whole of life costing” in clause 8(1) captures costs across the entire asset lifecycle including planning, design, construction, acquisition, operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and disposal. The Order does not prescribe a methodology for calculating whole of life costs, leaving councils to develop their own approaches. This flexibility could lead to inconsistent cost estimates across councils, reducing comparability. The requirement is placed in the asset management policy, not the financial plan, creating a risk that the costing is not fully integrated with financial forecasts.

“Minimum core level of asset maturity and competence” from clause 9(1) links the asset management strategy to a national framework from 2007. That framework sets capability benchmarks for asset management. The Order requires councils to detail a program of tasks and resources to achieve that level. The framework’s age (2007) means the benchmarks may be outdated, yet the ambulatory reference means any substitution will update the requirement automatically. Councils must locate and track this framework, which is not incorporated into the text of the Order.

The primary duty holders under the Order are all 29 Tasmanian councils. Each council must prepare the five documents with the mandated content. The Order does not distinguish between small rural councils with minimal assets and large urban councils with substantial infrastructure; the same content requirements apply to all, though the 5% threshold in clause 4(d) may reduce the scope of “relevant assets” for smaller councils if no single class except land reaches that proportion. However, the automatic inclusion of roads, stormwater, and buildings ensures that even small councils will have at least those three classes to manage.

Council staff are directly affected, particularly finance officers, asset managers, engineers, and strategic planners. The order adds to preparation time and requires specialised knowledge of accounting standards, asset lifecycle modelling, and risk assessment. External accountants and auditors must verify compliance. The Tasmanian Audit Office will assess whether each document includes the prescribed content; adverse findings could damage the council’s reputation. Ratepayers and residents are indirectly affected because the content of the plans influences rate levels, service quality, and infrastructure funding. The Order does not give individuals a right to enforce these content requirements, but community groups could use the documents to hold councils accountable for promises in strategic plans.

The private sector is affected through contracting and procurement: councils will need to commission condition assessments, valuations, and climate risk studies from consultants and engineering firms. The requirement for whole-of-life costing (clause 8(2)(b)(viii)) will shift how councils evaluate capital projects, potentially favouring higher upfront quality over lower initial cost. The climate change adaptation requirement (clause 8(2)(b)(vii)) will affect developers and insurers, because councils’ asset policies may impose stricter standards for new assets or modifications to existing ones.

The Order also affects the Department of Premier and Cabinet, which administers it and must monitor compliance. The Minister under the Act has powers to intervene if a council fails to adopt adequate plans. The Order does not impose direct obligations on state government, but the state’s own infrastructure planning must align with council asset plans for projects that involve joint funding or land use.

The Order imposes duties exclusively on councils. For the long-term financial management plan (clause 5), the council must include estimated revenues and expenses for each year, with separate capital works, capital expenditure, and asset management requirements. It must prepare statements of comprehensive income (including recurrent revenue, recurrent expenses, underlying surplus or deficit, net surplus or deficit, and comprehensive result), a statement of financial position (current/non-current assets and liabilities, net assets, equity including reserves), and a cash flow statement (receipts, payments, borrowings, investments, net cash changes). The plan must describe financial management strategies with targets and rationale, compare projected performance against financial indicator targets determined by the council (including any specified under section 84(2A) of the Act), and disclose all assumptions used. Notably, clause 5(3) requires separate estimates for renewal, upgrade and new capital expenditure, imposing granularity.

For the financial management strategy (clause 6), the duties are lighter: provide an overview, state financial principles, list key strategies, and set aims and targets. This strategy is meant to be a higher-level document that guides the long-term financial plan, but the Order does not specify how it relates to the plan’s more detailed content.

For the long-term strategic asset management plan (clause 7), the council must provide an overview with details of asset classes and subclasses, capital expenditure requirements for renewing/upgrading existing and providing new relevant assets, current estimated or required service levels, actual service levels being achieved, future requirements and capital works programs, known or possible expansion areas (with acquisition dates, cost estimates, service level impact, asset lifecycles, financial considerations), lifecycle management (useful life, valuations by class and subclass, maintenance, renewal/replacement plans, acquisitions, disposals, risk management), standards and guidelines used for decision making, and areas for improvement (data quality issues, forecast reliability, mitigation actions, commentary on estimate reliability). This list is extensive and demands detailed data collection.

For the asset management policy (clause 8), the council must state its goals and objectives for asset management to facilitate service delivery, and include principles covering agreed service levels, asset information, resourcing, compliance with legislation, continual improvement, promotion of sustainability and community resilience, planning for climate change adaptation and mitigation, and adoption of whole-of-life costing. The policy must also assign responsibility for service delivery and asset management.

For the asset management strategy (clause 9), the council must outline existing assets and the services they provide, outline the condition of each asset (including financial status and estimated lifecycle costs), state goals and objectives relating to service delivery, detail strategies to be implemented to achieve the objectives of the council’s strategic plan and asset management policy, and prepare an improvement plan with a program of tasks and resources required to achieve the minimum core level of asset maturity and competence.

The Order does not grant any rights to individuals or third parties. It does not create a right of appeal for ratepayers if a plan is deficient. Enforcement is through the Act’s mechanisms, not through private action.

The Order itself contains no penalty provisions. Enforcement arises exclusively through the Local Government Act 1993. Under that Act, the Minister can issue directions to a council to comply with its obligations, including the duty to include the prescribed content in its plans. Non-compliance could lead to the Minister appointing an administrator, dismissing the council, or taking over the preparation of plans. The Tasmanian Audit Office will review the plans as part of the annual audit of each council. A plan that omits required content will likely result in a qualified audit opinion or an adverse finding, which can damage a council’s standing with the community, lenders, and state government.

The Act may also impose fines for failing to comply with a ministerial direction, but the Order does not create any strict liability offence for missing a line item. The more significant enforcement mechanism is political and financial: councils that produce inadequate plans may face difficulty obtaining loans or state grants, because lenders and the state rely on these documents to assess financial sustainability.

The requirement to compare projected performance against targets (clause 5(2)(f)) creates self-exposure. If a council sets ambitious targets and fails to meet them, the comparison is published. This acts as a disciplinary mechanism without direct legal penalty. The underlying surplus or deficit (clause 3) is a standard measure of operational performance; if a council consistently reports a deficit, it may face pressure from the state or rating agencies.

The ambulatory reference to AASB 101 means that if the accounting standard changes, councils must adopt the new definitions. Failure to do so could lead to a qualification on the financial statements, which is a serious compliance concern. The same applies to the national framework on asset maturity: if the framework is substituted, councils must update their improvement plans within a reasonable time.

In practice, enforcement is likely to be incremental. The Audit Office will flag deficiencies, the council will remedy them in the next planning cycle, and only persistent or major non-compliance will trigger ministerial intervention. The Order’s specificity reduces the scope for councils to argue that they substantially complied; if a required item is missing, the plan is legally incomplete.

The Order is a statutory rule made under the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas). It operates within the framework of that Act, which requires councils to prepare the underlying documents. The Order specifies the content; the Act specifies the process, frequency, and consultation requirements. For example, section 70 of the Act requires a long-term financial plan; the Order says what it must include. Section 70B requires a long-term strategic asset management plan; clause 7 says what it must include. The Order also references section 84(2A) of the Act, which allows the Governor to prescribe financial indicators for councils. If such an order is made, the council must include those indicators in its comparison under clause 5(2)(f). If no such order exists, the requirement is limited to the council’s own chosen indicators.

The Order incorporates external standards by reference. AASB 101 (for profit entities) is incorporated for accounting definitions. This means councils must interpret “comprehensive income” and “comprehensive result” as those terms exist in the latest version of AASB 101. Changes to that standard automatically flow into the Order. This is efficient but creates a moving target; councils must monitor AASB amendments. The reference is to the for-profit version of AASB 101, even though councils are not-for-profit public sector entities. The Australian Accounting Standards Board also issues AASB 1049 (Whole of Government and General Government Sector Financial Reporting) and other standards specific to the public sector. The Order does not incorporate those, so councils may need to apply both the for-profit standard for reporting under this Order and other standards for their audited financial statements.

The Order also references the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks published by the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council in May 2007. This is a national policy document, not a law. By requiring councils to reach the “minimum core level of asset maturity and competence” from that framework, the Order gives it legal effect for Tasmanian councils. If the framework is amended or substituted, councils must update their improvement plans accordingly.

Other laws interact indirectly. The asset management policy requires compliance with all applicable legislation (clause 8(2)(b)(iv)). This catches environmental laws, workplace health and safety laws, and planning laws. The requirement to plan for climate change adaptation and mitigation (clause 8(2)(b)(vii)) intersects with the Tasmanian Climate Change Act, though the Order does not mention it. Whole-of-life costing may interact with the way asset values are determined for financial reporting under AASB 116 (Property, Plant and Equipment). There is no express interaction with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, if any exist. The Order is standalone in its content specifications.

The Order does not override the Act. If the Act is amended to change the documents required, the Order may become partially redundant or need to be read down. No such conflict is evident in the current version.

Based on the version supplied, which is current as at 12 April 2026, the Order appears to be the original version notified on 19 February 2014 as Statutory Rule 2014-035. There is no indication of any formal amending orders. The text does not include a table of amendments or a note of earlier versions. The Order has been in force for over twelve years without formal amendment. However, the ambulatory references to AASB 101 and the 2007 national framework mean the Order’s requirements effectively change when those external documents change. This is a form of “tacit amendment” or dynamic incorporation. For example, if AASB 101 is revised to change the presentation of other comprehensive income, the meaning of “comprehensive result” in the Order shifts without any change to the statutory rule text. Similarly, if the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council substitutes a new version of the national framework, the “minimum core level of asset maturity and competence” changes.

The Act itself has been amended several times since 2014, including potential changes to sections 70, 70A, 70B, 70C, and 70D. The Order must be read with the current version of the Act. If the Act expands the list of required documents or grants new powers to prescribe content, the Order may need to be supplemented. No such supplement appears in the provided text.

Practitioners should verify the current status of the Order on the Tasmanian legislation website to confirm whether any amending orders exist that were omitted from this extract. The version provided is the original, and it is possible that a later amendment was not included in the user’s text. The deep dive assumes no formal amendments, but this is a caveat.

The source text does not mention any court cases, and there is no publicly known litigation directly concerning this Order. The Order is a technical specification instrument; disputes are unlikely to arise independently. Judicial review could occur if a council’s plan is challenged as invalid for failing to include required content, but no reported Tasmanian case has done so. The definition of “underlying surplus or deficit” and the 5% threshold could be litigated if a council argues a particular income stream is not “capital” or whether an asset class has reached the threshold. The ambulatory references to AASB 101 could be challenged if a council argues that a later amendment to the accounting standard should not apply because it was not contemplated by the Order, but such a challenge would likely fail given the express language.

The requirement to “plan for climate change adaptation and mitigation” in the asset management policy may generate litigation in the future if ratepayers or environmental groups claim a council’s plan is inadequate under the Order. This would be a judicial review of the council’s policy, not of the Order itself. The Order would be the legal benchmark. Similarly, the requirement to use “whole of life costing” could be the basis for a claim that a council failed to properly evaluate a capital project, but again, the claim would be about the council’s decision, not the Order.

Given the absence of any reported cases, the litigation history is effectively nil. This could indicate that councils find the requirements clear and manageable, or that enforcement is informal and disputes are resolved without litigation. The Order’s specificity reduces ambiguity, which in turn reduces the likelihood of litigation. The lack of litigation also means there is no judicial interpretation of key terms like “recurrent expenses” or “other income of a capital nature”, leaving those definitions ambiguous. Practitioners should be cautious and document their reasoning.

Several traps and ambiguities in the Order could trip up councils.

First, the definition of “comprehensive income” in clause 3 appears to be incorrectly drafted. It says “comprehensive income has the same meaning as other comprehensive income in AASB 101”. In accounting standards, “other comprehensive income” is the subset of total comprehensive income that is not net profit or loss. “Comprehensive income” (or total comprehensive income) is the sum of profit or loss and other comprehensive income. By equating “comprehensive income” with “other comprehensive income”, the definition captures only the non-profit items, not total comprehensive income. However, clause 5(2)(b)(v) requires estimates of “comprehensive result”, which the definition correctly equates to “total comprehensive income” (presumably via the definition of “comprehensive result”). So the two terms are inconsistent within the same clause: “comprehensive income” takes a narrow meaning, while “comprehensive result” takes the broad meaning. Councils will need to apply the definitions exactly as written: the statement of comprehensive income under clause 5(2)(b) requires estimates of “comprehensive result” (total comprehensive income), not “comprehensive income” (other comprehensive income). But the heading “comprehensive income” in clause 5(2)(b) might mislead practitioners into using the wrong figure. This is a drafting flaw.

Second, the definition of “underlying surplus or deficit” excludes income received specifically for new or upgraded assets. It does not address whether the corresponding expenditure on those assets is also excluded from the expense side. If a council receives a grant for a new road and spends the money, is that expenditure “recurrent” or “capital”? The definition does not define “recurrent expenses”. If the expense is included, the underlying deficit will be worsened by capital spending funded by capital income. A council that spends heavily on infrastructure out of current revenue might report a worse underlying surplus than one that defers expenditure. This could incentivise councils to treat capital expenditure as “capital” (and thus not included in recurrent expenses) to improve the underlying surplus figure, but the definition does not expressly allow that.

Third, the 5% threshold in clause 4(d) is dynamic and includes the phrase “any other class of assets, except land, where the total value of all assets within that class held by the relevant council is 5% or more of the total asset base of that council.” This requires councils to know the value of each separate class of assets. If asset values change due to revaluation, a class may cross the threshold. The Order does not specify how often this must be assessed. A council that fails to identify a class as relevant could omit it from the long-term strategic asset management plan and asset management policy, resulting in non-compliance.

Fourth, the requirement in clause 5(2)(f) to compare projected financial performance against targets for financial indicators “including those indicators specified in an order made under section 84(2A) of the Act”. If no such order exists, the requirement is limited to the council’s own targets. But if an order is made after the plan is prepared, the plan could become non-compliant. The Order does not provide a transition period.

Fifth, the improvement plan under clause 9(2)(e) must detail “the resources required to achieve the relevant minimum core level of asset maturity and competence”. The term “relevant” suggests different levels may apply to different assets, but the source document (the 2007 national framework) may not differentiate. Councils will need to interpret which level is “relevant” for each asset class or subclass. The ambulatory reference to “as amended or substituted from time to time” means the framework could be replaced with a completely different set of requirements, potentially rendering existing improvement plans obsolete.

Sixth, the requirement to include “planning for climate change adaptation and mitigation” in the asset management policy (clause 8(2)(b)(vii)) is open-ended. No guidance on what constitutes adequate planning. A council could face audit criticism for a policy that is too vague or too brief. The cost of climate risk assessments for all relevant assets could be substantial.

Seventh, the Order does not specify the duration of the long-term financial management plan or the long-term strategic asset management plan. The Act might specify a minimum number of years, but the Order does not. Councils must check the Act to ensure their plan covers the required period.

To comply with the Order, a Tasmanian council must ensure each of the five documents meets the specific content requirements set out in clauses 5 to 9. The following practical steps can guide compliance.

First, establish a register of all asset classes held by the council, valued at current replacement cost or fair value. Monitor the total value of each class excluding land. Calculate whether any class (besides roads, stormwater, and buildings) equals or exceeds 5% of the total asset base. If a class crosses that threshold, it becomes a “relevant asset” and must be included in the long-term strategic asset management plan, asset management policy, and asset management strategy. Update this register at least annually, and after any major revaluation.

Second, adopt definitions for accounting terms consistent with the Order. Because the Order defines “comprehensive income” as AASB 101’s “other comprehensive income”, ensure that the statement of comprehensive income in the long-term financial plan separately identifies “comprehensive result” (total comprehensive income) and does not confuse it with “comprehensive income”. Document the definitions and the sources used.

Third, prepare the long-term financial plan (clause 5) with estimates for each year. Include separate line items for renewal, upgrade, and new capital expenditure. Produce the required financial statements: statement of comprehensive income (with the five specified line items), statement of financial position (with four categories), and cash flow statement (with receipt, payment, borrowing, investment detail). Describe financial management strategies, set financial targets, and include a comparison of projected actuals against those targets. Disclose all assumptions (interest rates, inflation, population growth, grant funding, etc.). If an order under section 84(2A) exists, include those indicators in the comparison.

Fourth, produce the financial management strategy (clause 6) as a separate document or part of the financial plan. It should contain an overview, principles, key strategies, and aims/targets. This document should be concise but must cover all four listed matters.

Fifth, develop the long-term strategic asset management plan (clause 7) covering all relevant assets and subclasses. For each class, provide capital expenditure requirements for renewal, upgrade, and new assets. State current estimated service levels and actual service levels achieved. Identify future requirements and capital works programs. For expansion areas, include acquisition dates, cost estimates, service level impact, asset lifecycles, and financial considerations. Address lifecycle management: expected useful life, total valuation by class and subclass, maintenance activities, renewal/replacement plans, acquisition/disposal plans, and risk management. Cite the standards and guidelines used. Include an areas for improvement section: identify data quality issues, reliability of forecasts, and actions to mitigate them. This plan should be integrated with the financial plan so that capital costs feed into the financial estimates.

Sixth, adopt an asset management policy (clause 8) that states the council’s goals for asset management to facilitate service delivery. Include principles covering service levels, asset information, resourcing, legislative compliance, continual improvement, sustainability, climate change adaptation/mitigation, and whole-of-life costing. Assign responsibility for service delivery and asset management. Ensure the policy is formally adopted by council resolution.

Seventh, prepare an asset management strategy (clause 9) that outlines existing assets and the services they provide, the condition of each (including financial status and lifecycle costs), goals and objectives for service delivery, strategies to achieve the strategic plan and asset management policy objectives, and an improvement plan with a program of tasks and resources required to achieve the minimum core level of asset maturity and competence. Locate the current version of the 2007 national framework (or its substitute) to determine the required level.

Eighth, coordinate the documents. The asset management strategy should align with the asset management policy and the strategic plan. The long-term financial plan should incorporate the capital costs and service level objectives from the asset management plan. The financial management strategy should set the overall financial framework. The council should establish a review cycle to update all documents at least every four years (or as required by the Act), and more frequently if material changes occur.

Ninth, retain records of all assumptions, methodologies, and data sources used. This will assist auditors and demonstrate compliance. Engage the council’s auditor early to review draft documents for missing content.

Tenth, monitor changes to AASB 101 and the national framework. Appoint a staff member to track amendments to these external documents and assess their impact on the council’s plans. Update the plans accordingly.

Finally, note that the Order does not specify the format or software for these documents, so councils may use spreadsheets, word processing, or specialised asset management software as long as all required content is present. The key is completeness, not presentation.