of

This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any

process without written permission from Brimbank City Council.

The survey form utilised in the commission of this project and the

results are copyright. Apart from

any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission

from the Managing Director Metropolis Research Pty Ltd.

Any representation, statement, opinion, or advice expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith but on the

basis that Metropolis Research Pty Ltd, its agents and employees are not liable (whatever by reason of negligence, lack of

care or otherwise) to any person for any damages or loss whatsoever which has occurred or may occur in relation to that

person acting in respect of any representation, statement, or advice referred to above.

This report was prepared by Metropolis Research Pty Ltd on behalf of the Brimbank City Council. For more information,

please contact:

Managing Director

Metropolis Research Pty Ltd

P O Box 1357

CARLTON VIC 3053

(03) 9272 4600

d.hubner@metropolis-research.com

Page

of

S

URVEY AIMS AND METHODOLOGY

:............................................................................................................................6

K

EY FINDINGS

:........................................................................................................................................................6

S

ATISFACTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF

C

OUNCIL

:....................................................................................................8

I

SSUES TO ADDRESS FOR THE

C

ITY OF

B

RIMBANK

:........................................................................................................11

P

ERCEPTION OF SAFETY

:.........................................................................................................................................12

T

RAFFIC AND PARKING

: ..........................................................................................................................................12

K

EY RESULTS

........................................................................................................................................................13

R

ATIONALE

..........................................................................................................................................................14

M

ETHODOLOGY

,

RESPONSE RATE AND STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE

...................................................................................15

G

OVERNING

M

ELBOURNE

......................................................................................................................................16

G

LOSSARY OF TERMS

.............................................................................................................................................17

M

ETHODOLOGICAL VARIATION

................................................................................................................................20

C

OMPARISON RESULTS

...........................................................................................................................................21

S

ATISFACTION BY PRECINCT

.....................................................................................................................................22

S

ATISFACTION BY RESPONDENT PROFILE

.....................................................................................................................23

S

ATISFACTION BY TOP ISSUES FOR THE

C

ITY OF

B

RIMBANK

.............................................................................................29

S

ATISFACTION OF RESPONDENTS DISSATISFIED WITH SERVICES AND FACILITIES

...................................................................31

R

EASONS FOR LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH

C

OUNCIL

’

S OVERALL PERFORMANCE

..............................................................32

M

OST IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENT BY DISTRICT AND BY RESPONDENT PROFILE

...................................................................35

C

OMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT

........................................................................................................41

R

EPRESENTATION

,

LOBBYING AND ADVOCACY

.............................................................................................................43

R

ESPONSIVENESS OF

C

OUNCIL TO LOCAL COMMUNITY NEEDS

........................................................................................45

M

AKING DECISIONS IN THE INTERESTS OF COMMUNITY

.................................................................................................47

M

AINTAINING COMMUNITY TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

...................................................................................................49

P

ROVIDING IMPORTANT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT MEETS COMMUNITY NEEDS

.....................................................................51

P

ROVIDING

"

VALUE FOR RATES

"...............................................................................................................................52

I

NFORMING THE COMMUNITY

..................................................................................................................................54

S

UPPORTING A HEALTHY LOCAL ECONOMY

.................................................................................................................55

M

EETING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES

.............................................................................................................56

D

ELIVERING CLIMATE ACTION LEADERSHIP

,

INITIATIVES

.................................................................................................58

R

EASON FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH ASPECTS OF GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP

..............................................................60

C

ONTACT WITH

C

OUNCIL IN THE LAST

12

MONTHS

......................................................................................................62

F

ORMS OF CONTACT

..............................................................................................................................................62

S

ATISFACTION WITH

C

OUNCIL

’

S CUSTOMER SERVICE

....................................................................................................63

P

LANNING FOR POPULATION GROWTH

......................................................................................................................68

S

ATISFACTION WITH ASPECTS OF HOUSING IN THE LOCAL AREA

.......................................................................................76

Page

of

I

MPORTANCE OF

C

OUNCIL SERVICES AND FACILITIES

.....................................................................................................80

S

ATISFACTION WITH

C

OUNCIL SERVICES AND FACILITIES

................................................................................................82

I

MPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION CROSS TABULATION

...................................................................................................87

S

ATISFACTION BY BROAD SERVICE AREAS

....................................................................................................................88

S

ATISFACTION BY

C

OUNCIL DIVISION

.........................................................................................................................91

E

NGINEERING

.......................................................................................................................................................92

W

ASTE

S

ERVICES

................................................................................................................................................102

R

OADS AND

C

LEANSING

.......................................................................................................................................110

P

ARKS AND

P

UBLIC

R

EALM

...................................................................................................................................113

E

CONOMIC

D

EVELOPMENT

...................................................................................................................................117

C

OMMUNITY

F

ESTIVALS AND

E

VENTS

......................................................................................................................120

S

TATUTORY

P

LANNING

.........................................................................................................................................123

E

MERGENCY MANAGEMENT

..................................................................................................................................128

L

EISURE AND

C

OMMUNITY

F

ACILITIES

.....................................................................................................................131

C

OMMUNITY

S

ERVICES

........................................................................................................................................136

N

EIGHBOURHOOD

H

OUSES AND

C

OMMUNITY

C

ENTRES

.............................................................................................139

E

ARLY

Y

EARS

......................................................................................................................................................143

C

OMMUNITY

S

UPPORT

(

PROGRAMS

/

SOCIAL SUPPORT FOR OLDER PEOPLE

)...................................................................145

I

SSUES BY PRECINCT AND BY RESPONDENT PROFILE

.....................................................................................................153

V

ERBATIM COMMENTS FOR TOP ISSUES

...................................................................................................................156

Page

of

P

ERCEPTION OF SAFETY DURING THE DAY

.................................................................................................................161

P

ERCEPTION OF SAFETY AT NIGHT

...........................................................................................................................162

P

ERCEPTION OF SAFETY WHILE TRAVELLING ON

/

WAITING FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT

..........................................................163

P

ERCEPTION OF SAFETY IN AND AROUND YOUR LOCAL SHOPPING DISTRICT

/

CENTRE

.........................................................165

P

ERCEPTION OF SAFETY IN PARKS AND OPEN SPACES

...................................................................................................166

P

ERCEPTION OF SAFETY WALKING ALONE IN YOUR STREET AFTER DARK

...........................................................................167

R

EASONS FOR FEELING LESS SAFE

............................................................................................................................168

L

OCATIONS WHERE RESPONDENTS FELT UNSAFE

........................................................................................................171

S

ATISFACTION WITH ASPECTS OF TRAFFIC AND PARKING

..............................................................................................172

V

OLUME OF TRAFFIC ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS

..........................................................................................................174

V

OLUME OF TRAFFIC ON MAIN ROADS

.....................................................................................................................175

S

PEED OF TRAFFIC ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS

.............................................................................................................176

A

VAILABILITY OF PARKING ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS

...................................................................................................178

A

VAILABILITY OF PARKING ON MAIN ROADS

..............................................................................................................179

A

VAILABILITY OF PARKING IN SHOPPING STRIPS

/

COMMERCIAL AREA

.............................................................................180

A

GE STRUCTURE

.................................................................................................................................................181

G

ENDER

............................................................................................................................................................181

I

DENTIFY AS BEING OF

F

IRST

N

ATIONS

.....................................................................................................................182

I

DENTIFY AS

LGBTIQA+ ......................................................................................................................................182

D

ISABILITY

.........................................................................................................................................................183

L

ANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME

................................................................................................................................183

H

OUSEHOLD STRUCTURE

......................................................................................................................................184

H

OUSING SITUATION

...........................................................................................................................................185

E

MPLOYMENT SITUATION

.....................................................................................................................................186

P

ERIOD OF RESIDENCE IN THE

C

ITY OF

B

RIMBANK

......................................................................................................186

of

This Executive Summary provides an overview of the results from the

.

Metropolis Research conducted this, Council’s first independent

since 2012, as a door-to-door, 15-minute interview survey of 600 respondents

conducted over the financial year, with 150 surveys completed each quarter.

The survey was conducted as a random sample, door-to-door, in-person interview style

survey, after having been previously conducted as a telephone interview survey by a different

provider contracted by the Victorian Government.

This in-person method provides a richer interaction with the community, includes a more

representative sample of the community, and importantly, recorded a response rate of 39%

which was significantly larger than that obtained from the telephone methodology.

The survey also includes a broader range of issues and gathers feedback on the performance

of Council providing a broad range of services and facilities. This depth of coverage was an

important improvement over the previous survey, that focused on a small number of key

services.

The aim of the research was to measure community satisfaction with the broad range of

Council provided services and facilities, aspects of governance and leadership, planning and

development, customer service, and the performance of Council across all areas of

responsibility.

The survey also measured the importance to the community of 24 individual services and

facilities and explored the top issues the community feel needs to be addressed in the

municipality ‘at the moment’.

The key finding from the survey this year was that satisfaction with the overall performance

of Brimbank City Council increased measurably this year, up eight percent from the unusually

low 6.2 recorded last year to 7.0 this year.

This was the highest satisfaction score recorded for the City of Brimbank, the previous high

being 6.7 back in 2011.

Overall satisfaction has recovered from the lower-than-average result in 2023 to be

somewhat above the long-term average since 2008 of 6.6.

Page

of

Metropolis Research is unable to make a strong statement as to why Brimbank City Council

reported a lower-than-average overall satisfaction score in 2023. It is noted that many results

across metropolitan Melbourne recorded lower-than-average satisfaction scores with the

state-run survey last year, without any significant issues of concern being raised.

The variation in results between the telephone and the door-to-door methodology is typically

around two to three percent. This is due to the much higher response rate from the door-to

door approach, which encourages participation from a wider cross-section of the community,

including many who tend to be relatively satisfied with Council.

Satisfaction with many aspects of Council performance were similar to or a little higher than

the metropolitan Melbourne average this year, suggesting an improvement in performance

by Council.

There were two areas of performance which stand out as positive results for the City of

Brimbank this year. This includes satisfaction with Council’s community consultation and

engagement (7.4 out of 10, 2% higher than the metropolitan average), and overall satisfaction

with the customer service experience (7.5 out of 10, 4% higher than the metropolitan

average).

These results reflect well on the performance of Council engaging with the community.

In terms of services and facilities, Metropolis Research draws particular attention to the three

core kerbside collection services (garbage, recycling, and FOGO), all of which outperformed

the metropolitan average, and all of which recorded “excellent” levels of satisfaction.

The local library service also performed at an “excellent” level of 8.4 out of 10, two percent

above the metropolitan average.

The main issues of concern in the City of Brimbank related to concerns around safety, policing,

and crime, traffic management, and road maintenance and repairs, all of which appear to

exert a negative influence on satisfaction with overall performance for those who raise the

issue.

The following table outlines the key satisfaction results, including the LGPRF reporting

requirement scores.

Council’s Overall performance

7.0

6.2

7.0

Making decisions in the interests of community

6.9

5.7

7.0

Community consultation and engagement

7.2

5.5

7.4

Maintaining trust and confidence of the community

7.0

n.a.

7.1

Representation, lobbying and advocacy

6.9

5.7

7.1

Responsiveness of Council to local community needs

7.0

n.a.

7.2

Overall satisfaction with customer service experience

7.1

7.0

7.5

Maintenance and repair of sealed local roads

7.0

6.0

7.2

Page

of

Satisfaction with the overall performance of Brimbank City Council increased measurably this

year, up eight percent to 7.0 out of a potential 10.

This was a statistically significant increase on the unusually low 6.2 recorded last year and was

now six percent above the long-term average satisfaction since 2008 of 6.4 or “solid”.

This result was identical to the metropolitan Melbourne average of 7.0 and marginally lower

than the western region councils’ (7.1), both as recorded in the 2024

research.

Overall satisfaction with the City of Brimbank in 2024 was at a “good”, up from a “solid” level.

A little less than half (40%) of respondents were “very satisfied” with Council’s overall

performance (rating satisfaction at eight or more out of 10), whilst five percent were

dissatisfied (rating zero to four). Metropolis Research notes this was an unusually small

proportion of “dissatisfied” respondents, which reflects well on Council’s performance.

There was some variation in satisfaction with Council’s overall performance observed this

year, although most of this variation was not statistically significant, as follows:

•

– included young adults (aged 18 to 34 years),

senior citizens (aged 75 years and over), female respondents, respondents from multilingual

households, respondents from group households, rental household respondents, new and

newer residents (less than 5 years in the City of Brimbank), respondents employed part-time

/ casually employed, and respondents engaged in study.

•

– included middle-aged adults (aged 45 to 59 years),

respondents who had contacted Council in the last 12 months, respondents identifying with

disability, and respondents from mortgagor households.

It is noted that respondents from all five districts comprising the City of Brimbank rated

satisfaction at “good” levels, with Deer Park respondents reporting the lowest satisfaction,

but still at a “good” level of 6.8 out of 10.

The most important things that Council should do to improve its performance included

improvements to communication and consultation (7%), roads maintenance and repairs (4%),

and safety, policing, and crime related improvements (3%).

Satisfaction with 10 of the 11 included aspects of governance and leadership were all rated

at “good” levels of satisfaction.

Page

of

Satisfaction with Council’s community consultation and engagement was a stand-out positive

result for the City of Brimbank this year, recording a “very good” satisfaction of 7.4 out of 10.

The other 10 governance and leadership aspects included Council meeting its responsibilities

towards the environment (7.3 up from 6.2), delivering climate action leadership and

initiatives (7.2), supporting a healthy local economy (7.2), maintaining community trust and

confidence (7.1 up from 6.9), performance providing infrastructure that meets community

needs (7.1), representation, lobbying and advocacy (7.1 up from 5.7), performance informing

the community (7.1), making decisions in the interests of the community (7.0 up from 5.7),

responsiveness of Council to local community needs (7.0), and performance providing value

for rates (6.7 up from 5.7).

The average satisfaction with the six core aspects of governance and leadership was 7.1 out

of 10, or a “good” level, which was identical to the western region councils’ (7.1) average, and

marginally higher than the metropolitan Melbourne average (6.9), as recorded in

.

Governance and leadership issues did not appear as substantive issues to address in the

municipality, nor were there significant issues raised by more than a handful of respondents

who were dissatisfied with Council’s overall performance relating to governance and

leadership performance. There were, however, several comments received from

respondents dissatisfied with aspects of governance and leadership around the amount of

and value for rates.

One-fifth of respondents reported that they had contacted Brimbank City Council in the last

12 months, with telephone (64%), website (13%), email (8%), and visits in person (8%) the

most common methods.

Overall satisfaction with the customer service experience

increased measurably this year, up

five percent to 7.5 out of 10, which was a “very good” up from a “good” 7.0 recorded last

year.

Overall satisfaction with the customer service experience was measurably higher than the

metropolitan Melbourne average (7.1) and somewhat higher than the western region

councils’ average of 7.2.

This was a very positive result for Council, and when read in conjunction with the higher-than

average satisfaction with community consultation and engagement, reflects well on the

performance of Council engaging with the community, be that via traditional customer

service, or more broadly in terms of consultation and engagement.

Satisfaction with the courtesy and professionalism of staff (7.9), the provision of accurate

information (7.7), and the speed and efficiency of service (7.0) were all somewhat higher than

the metropolitan Melbourne average.

Page

of

These results suggest that Brimbank City Council is providing high quality customer service,

regardless of the method by which residents contact Council.

The average importance of the 24 included Council services and facilities was 8.9 out of 10,

or “extremely important”, with the spread of importance scores relatively narrow, from a low

of 8.5 out of 10 for community and cultural activities, to a high of 9.3 for the regular fortnightly

recycling service.

The average satisfaction with the 24 Council provided services and facilities

included in the

survey was 7.7 out of 10 this year, which was a “very good” level of satisfaction.

The average satisfaction with these services and facilities in the City of Brimbank (7.7) was

marginally (1%) higher than the metropolitan Melbourne average of 7.6.

There was some measurable variation in the average satisfaction with these services and

facilities against the average satisfaction with all 34 services and facilities, as follows:

•

– included regular fortnightly recycling (8%

higher), fortnightly food and green waste collection (7% higher), regular weekly garbage

collection (7% higher), and local library services (7% higher).

•

– included planning and / or building permits

(70 respondents 9% lower satisfaction) and sealed local roads (5% lower).

Many of these services and facilities with the highest levels of satisfaction were also those

with higher-than-average importance. This shows that many of the services and facilities of

most importance to the community were those with which the community was most satisfied.

The main exception to this was the maintenance and repair of sealed local roads.

The maintenance and repair of sealed local roads was the 11

th

most important service but

received the 2

nd

lowest satisfaction score. Community concerns around roads were a theme

of this report, with 10% of respondents nominating roads as one of the top three issues to

address.

Despite this focus on roads by some respondents, satisfaction with the maintenance and

repair of sealed local roads was marginally (2%) higher than the metropolitan average (7.0).

Satisfaction with all but one service recorded satisfaction scores higher than the overall

satisfaction with Council this year, suggesting most services and facilities were a positive

influence on satisfaction with Council’s overall performance.

Satisfaction with planning and / or building permits (6.8) was the only service to record a

satisfaction score lower than the overall satisfaction with Council, although still “good”.

Page

of

There were no services and facilities included in the survey this year that received “solid”,

“poor”, “very poor”, or “extremely poor” categorised scores.

Satisfaction with planning for population growth by all levels of government was rated as

“good” with a score of 7.2 out of 10.

This result was somewhat higher than the metropolitan Melbourne (7.0) average, but

marginally lower than the western region councils’ (7.3) result.

Just one percent of respondents raised planning and development related issues as one of

the top three issues to address for people living in the City of Brimbank, reinforcing that

planning and development was not a significant concern in Brimbank. This was consistent

with the higher-than-average satisfaction with the service of building and planning permits

(6.8 compared to metropolitan average of 6.2), and the “good” satisfaction of 7.2 out of 10

for town planning policies.

Satisfaction with the availability of housing that meets community needs was 7.0 out of 10,

with six percent “dissatisfied”.

Satisfaction with the affordability of housing was measurably lower, at 6.6 out of 10, which

was also a “good” level of satisfaction. A total of 12% of respondents providing a score were

“dissatisfied” with the affordability of housing.

The main issues to address for people living in the City of Brimbank ‘at the moment’ were

safety, policing, and crime issues (12% compared to metropolitan average of 2%), traffic

management (11% compared to metropolitan average of 14%), and road maintenance and

repairs including roadworks (10% compared to metropolitan average of 7%).

All three of these issues appear to exert a small negative influence on satisfaction with

Council’s overall performance for the respondents who raised each issue.

Particular attention is drawn to the significant (12%) proportion of respondents who

nominated safety, policing, and crime related issues.

This result was consistent with the fact that the perception of safety in the public areas of the

City of Brimbank at night was 4% lower than the metropolitan Melbourne average (6.6

compared to 7.0 out of 10).

Page

of

A range of other issues were nominated by a relatively small proportion of respondents, and

which appeared to exert a negative influence on satisfaction with Council’s overall

performance for the respondents who nominated the issue.

These issues included education / schools (10 respondents), parks and gardens (40

respondents), footpaths (39 respondents), street trees (23 respondents), rubbish and waste

issues including kerbside collections (21 respondents), parking both enforcement and

availability (28 respondents), cleanliness of the area (19 respondents), Council rates, fees, and

charges (12 respondents), and illegal dumping of rubbish (12 respondents).

Respondents were asked to rate their

perception of safety in the public areas of the

municipality during the day (8.1 out of 10), in parks and open spaces (7.6), in and around the

local shopping district / centre (7.6), travelling on / waiting for public transport (7.6), walking

alone in your street after dark (6.7), and in the public areas of the municipality at night (6.6).

The perception of safety in the public areas of the City of Brimbank during the day was

measurably (3%) lower than the metropolitan Melbourne average (8.1 compared to 8.4), and

at night was measurably (5%) lower than the metropolitan Melbourne average (7.1).

A total of 12% of respondents providing a score felt “unsafe” walking alone in their street

after dark and 14% felt unsafe in the public areas of the City of Brimbank at night.

Female respondents felt 4% less safe than male respondents walking alone in their street after

dark, and one percent less safe in the public areas of the municipality at night. These gender

based variations were towards the lower end of results observed by Metropolis Research.

These results were consistent with the fact that “safety, policing, and crime” related issues

were the most nominated issue to address for residents living in the City of Brimbank.

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with six aspects of traffic and parking

.

Satisfaction with the volume of traffic on residential streets (7.1 out of 10) and main roads

(6.6), the speed of traffic on residential streets (6.9), and the availability of parking on

residential streets (7.2), main roads (6.8), and in and around shopping strips / commercial

areas (7.0) were all recorded at “good” levels of satisfaction.

These relatively modest levels of satisfaction with aspects of traffic and parking were

consistent with the fact that traffic management was nominated as an issue to address by

11% of respondents, and parking availability and enforcement was nominated as an issue by

five percent of respondents.

Page

of

The following table includes a summary of the key results as defined by Brimbank City Council

officers.

The table includes the 2023/24 City of Brimbank result, as well as comparisons to the

metropolitan Melbourne and western region councils’ averages, as sourced from the 2024

research conducted independently by Metropolis Research.

Economic development / tourism

73

78

74

Value for rates

67

69

66

Making decisions in interests of community 70

71

69

Providing important Infrastructure

71

n

.a.

n.a.

Waste

83

79

81

Meeting responsibilities towards

73

78

76

Public area cleansing

74

75

74

Parks and gardens

76

81

79

Roads maintenance

72

72

70

Footpaths

73

74

73

Traffic management

72

74

72

Parking

73

75

72

Community and culture

77

77

79

Town planning

72

n

.a.

n.a.

Planning and / or building permits

68

64

62

Emergency management

74

76

74

Leisure and recreation

79

77

77

Libraries

84

83

82

Informing the community

71

n.a.

n.a.

Supporting a health local economy

72

n.a.

n.a.

Services for families and children

79

74

76

Services for youth

77

74

75

Support services for disadvantaged persons 77

77

74

Page

of

Metropolis Research Pty Ltd was commissioned by Brimbank City Council to undertake this,

its first independent

.

The survey has been designed to measure community satisfaction with a range of Council

services and facilities as well as to measure community sentiment on a range of additional

issues of concern in the municipality.

The

comprises the

following:

•

Satisfaction with Council’s overall performance.

•

Satisfaction with aspects of Council’s governance and leadership performance.

•

Importance of and satisfaction with 24 Council services and facilities.

•

Satisfaction with aspects of Council’s customer service performance.

•

Issues of importance for Council to address in the coming year and relationship with

satisfaction with overall performance.

•

Most important thing Council should do to improve its performance.

•

Satisfaction with planning for population growth.

•

Satisfaction with aspects of aspects of housing.

•

Perception of safety in the public areas of the municipality.

•

Satisfaction with aspects of traffic and parking.

•

Respondent profile.

The

has been designed to provide Council with a wide range

of information covering community satisfaction, community sentiment and involvement.

The survey meets the requirements of the Local Government Victoria (LGV) annual

satisfaction survey by providing importance and satisfaction ratings for the major Council

services and facilities as well as scores for satisfaction with Council overall.

The

provides in-depth coverage of Council services and

facilities as well as additional community issues and expectations. This information is critical

to informing Council of the attitudes, levels of satisfaction and issues facing the community

in the City of Brimbank.

Page

of

A particular strength of this survey program is identifying the issues of importance to the

community and how these issues may be impacting on community satisfaction with the

performance of Council.

In addition, the

includes a range of demographic and socio

economic variables against which the results can be analysed.

For example, the survey includes data on age structure, gender, language spoken at home,

disability, period of residence, and household structure.

By including these variables, satisfaction scores can be analysed against these variables and

issues that sub-groups in the community have with Council’s performance or services can be

identified.

The

was conducted as a door-to-door, in-person, interview

style survey of approximately 15 minutes duration.

A total of 150 surveys were conducted in each of four quarters, with fieldwork completed in

September 2023, November 2023, January 2024, and April 2024.

The survey was conducted of a randomly approached sample of households (of all dwelling

types) drawn proportionally from across each of the suburbs and localities comprising the City

of Brimbank.

The door-to-door, face-to-face interview style survey methodology was employed for this

project, as it provides the richest interaction with residents, encourages their thoughtful

participation in the research, records a substantially higher response rate, and provides a

sample that is more representative of the underlying Brimbank community than can be

obtained via other methods.

Most surveys were completed on Saturdays and Sundays from 11am till 5pm, as this is the

best time to ensure that the sample is most randomly selected and therefore representative

of the underlying population, with no more than 15% completed daylight hours weekdays.

The sample was pre-weighted by precinct population, to ensure that each precinct

contributed proportionally to the overall municipal results.

The final sample of surveys were then weighted by age and gender, to ensure that each age

/ gender group contributed proportionally to the overall municipal result.

Page

of

A total of 3,507 households were approached with a view to inviting them to participate in

the research. Of these:

•

No answer - 1,923

•

Refused – 983

•

Completed - 601

This provides a response rate of 38%, which represents the proportion of households

personally invited to participate in the research who participated.

This strong response rate reflects well on the door-to-door methodology, as well as the level

of engagement of the Brimbank community with their local council.

The 95% confidence interval (margin of error) of these results is plus or minus 4% at the 50%

level. In other words, if a yes / no question obtains a result of 50% yes, it is 95% certain that

the true value of this result is within the range of 46% and 54%.

This is based on a total sample size of 600 respondents, and an underlying population of the

City of Brimbank of approximately 208,000.

The 95% confidence level around the precinct level results is approximately plus or minus 9%,

based on an average sample size of approximately 120 respondents.

The 95% confidence level around the gender-based results is approximately plus or minus 6%,

and for the age groups averages around plus or minus 10%.

is a service provided by Metropolis Research since 2010.

included a sample of 800 respondents in 2024.

The sample is drawn in equal numbers from every municipality in metropolitan Melbourne,

and then weighted by age and gender to reflect the profile of the metropolitan Melbourne

community.

provides an objective, consistent and reliable basis on which to

compare the results of the survey

It is not intended to provide a “league table” for local councils, rather to provide a context

within which to understand the results.

This report provides comparisons against the metropolitan Melbourne average, which

includes all municipalities located within the Melbourne Greater Capital City Statistical Area

as well as the western region (which includes Brimbank, Hobsons Bay, Maribyrnong, Melton,

Moonee Valley, and Wyndham).

Page

of

The results of this report are presented at both the municipal and precinct level. The term

precinct is used by Metropolis Research to describe the sub-municipal areas for which results

are presented, as agreed with officers of Council. The precinct boundaries are most often the

sub-municipal areas as presented in Council’s

.

A measurable difference is one where the difference between or change in results is

sufficiently large to ensure that they are in fact different results, i.e., the difference is

statistically significant. This is because survey results are subject to a margin of error or an

area of uncertainty.

Metropolis Research uses the term

to describe a change or difference

between results that Metropolis Research believes to be of sufficient magnitude that they

may impact on relevant aspects of policy development, service delivery and the evaluation of

performance and are therefore identified and noted as significant or important.

Metropolis Research will describe some results or changes in results as being marginally,

somewhat, or notably higher or lower.

These are not statistical terms, rather they are interpretive. They are used to draw attention

to results that may be of interest or relevant to policy development and service delivery.

In order of significance, “marginal” is the least significant, followed by “somewhat”, and with

“notable” the most significant of the subjective terms used to describe variations that were

not statistically significant.

These terms are often used for results that may not be statistically significant due to sample

size or other factors but may nonetheless provide some insight into the variation in

community sentiment.

Page

of

Average satisfaction results are presented in this report with a 95% confidence interval

included. These figures reflect the range of values within which it is 95% certain that the true

average satisfaction falls.

The 95% confidence interval based on a one-sample t-test is used for the mean scores

presented in this report. The margin of error around the other results in this report at the

municipal level is plus or minus 4.0%.

In other words, if a yes / no question was to obtain a 50% yes result, it is 95% certain that the

true value is between 46% and 54%.

Metropolis Research typically categorises satisfaction results to assist in the understanding

and interpretation of the results.

Metropolis Research has worked primarily with local government and developed these

categories as a guide to satisfaction with the performance of local government across a wide

range of service delivery and policy related areas of Council responsibility.

The scores presented in the report and are designed to give a general context about

satisfaction with variables in this report, and are defined as follows:

•

scores of 7.75 and above are categorised as excellent.

•

scores of 7.25 to less than 7.75 are categorised as very good.

•

scores of 6.5 to less than 7.25 are categorised as good.

•

scores of 6 to less than 6.5 are categorised as solid.

•

scores of 5.5 to less than 6 are categorised as poor.

•

scores of 5 to less than 5.5 are categorised as very poor.

•

– scores of less than 5 are categorised as extremely poor.

Page

of

Respondents were asked:

Satisfaction with the performance of Brimbank City Council ‘across all areas of responsibility’

increased measurably and significantly this year, up eight percent from 6.2 to 7.0 out of 10.

This was a “good”, up from a “solid” level of satisfaction.

This result was the highest level of satisfaction recorded for the City of Brimbank since the

survey program commenced in 2008 and was measurably (6%) above the long-term average

satisfaction since 2008 of 6.4 out of 10 or “solid”.

The following graph provides a breakdown of these results into the proportion of respondents

who were “very satisfied” (i.e., rated satisfaction at eight or more out of 10), those who were

“neutral to somewhat satisfied” (i.e., rated satisfaction at five to seven), and those who were

“dissatisfied” (i.e., rated satisfaction at less than five).

The scale used for the 2014 to 2023 results was incompatible with this breakdown and

therefore no time series results were available for publication for these years.

In 2024, 40% of respondents were very satisfied with Council’s overall performance,

compared to five percent who were “dissatisfied”.

Page

of

Metropolis Research notes that this level of dissatisfied respondents was towards the lower

end of what is typically observed, as it is highly unusual to record less than five percent

dissatisfied respondents.

Metropolis Research notes that the survey was conducted using a different methodology in

2024 than was undertaken from 2014 to 2023, when the survey was undertaken by a different

provider.

Metropolis Research conducted the survey in 2008 to 2012, using the same door-to-door, in

person interview methodology, whilst the survey was conducted from 2014 to 2023 as a

telephone survey.

It is typically found that the telephone methodology tends to under-report the level of

community satisfaction with Council, as it achieves a significantly lower response rate.

Lower response rates reflect a sample that is skewed towards those in the community with

more negative issues with Council, who tend to be those more willing to participate in the

survey on the telephone.

The door-to-door methodology obtains a significantly higher response rate, reflecting the fact

that the personal interaction tends to encourage participation from a broader cross-section

of the community, including those who tend to be more satisfied with Council.

of

It is estimated that the methodological differences will account for between two and three

percent of the difference in satisfaction recorded this year.

The long-term average satisfaction from 2008 to 2012 was 6.4 out of 10, but this included the

unusually low result of 5.7 recorded in 2009, when the Council experienced some governance

related issues, with the surveys being conducted in the field at the time that these issues

became public.

The long-term average satisfaction from 2014 to 2023 when the survey was conducted by

telephone by a different provider was 6.3 out of 10.

By way of comparison, this result was identical to the metropolitan Melbourne average

satisfaction with local government of 7.0 out of 10, but marginally (1%) below the average for

the six western region councils (7.1).

These comparison results were sourced from the 2024

research,

conducted independently by Metropolis Research in January 2024, using the same door-to

door, in-person methodology.

Metropolis Research notes that through the period from 2010 to 2012, the City of Brimbank

typically outperformed the metropolitan Melbourne average, however, during the period

2014 to 2023, when the research was conducted by telephone with a different provider, the

City of Brimbank consistently under-performed the metropolitan Melbourne average.

Page

of

Whilst there was no statistically significant variation in satisfaction with Council’s overall

performance observed across the municipality, it is noted that respondents from Deer Park

and Sydenham districts were marginally less satisfied than average, although still at “good”

levels.

It is noted that 10% of respondents from Deer Park District were dissatisfied with Council’s

overall performance.

of

The following section provides a comparison of satisfaction with Council’s overall

performance by respondent profile, including age structure, gender, language spoken at

home, contact with Council, diverse population groups, household structure, housing

situation, period of residence in the City of Brimbank, and employment status.

There was some notable and some measurable variation in satisfaction with Council’s overall

performance observed, with attention drawn to the following:

•

– included young adults (aged 18 to 34 years),

senior citizens (aged 75 years and over), female respondents, respondents from multilingual

households, respondents from group households, rental household respondents, new and

newer residents (less than 5 years in the City of Brimbank), respondents employed part-time

/ casually employed, and respondents engaged in study.

•

– included middle-aged adults (aged 45 to 59 years),

respondents who had contacted Council in the last 12 months), respondents identifying with

disability, and respondents from mortgagor households.

Page

of

Approximately half of the young adults (aged 18 to 34 years), senior citizens (aged 75 years

and over), and respondents from multilingual households were very satisfied with Council’s

overall performance. By contrast, 10% of middle-aged adults (aged 45 to 59 years) and 13%

of respondents who had contacted Council in the last 12 months were dissatisfied.

of

More than half of the nine LGBTIQA+ identifying respondents, and almost half of the 11 First

Nations’ identifying respondents were very satisfied with Council’s overall performance,

whilst 17% of the 55 respondents identifying with disability were dissatisfied.

of

It is noted that almost half of the group household respondents were very satisfied with

Council’s overall performance.

of

It is noted that approximately half of the rental household respondents, and new and newer

residents (less than five years in the municipality) were very satisfied with Council’s overall

performance.

of

Approximately half of the 61 self-employed respondents and the 45 respondents engaged in

study were very satisfied with Council’s overall performance.

of

The following graph provides a comparison of satisfaction with Council’s overall performance

for respondents nominating each of the 12 most nominated issues to address for the City of

Brimbank ‘at the moment’.

It is important to bear in mind that these results do not prove a causal link between the issues

and satisfaction with Council’s overall performance, however, they do highlight whether

these issues were likely to be exerting a negative influence on satisfaction for those who

raised the issues.

The 290 respondents who did not nominate any issues to address were measurably more

satisfied than the municipal average, which was an expected result, given that these

respondents did not feel compelled to nominate issues of concern to them in the municipality

and therefore they will always report higher satisfaction.

A detailed discussion of the issues nominated by respondents is included in the Current Issues

to Address section of this report.

As is clear in the graph, the respondents nominating 11 of these 13 issues were, on average,

somewhat less satisfied with Council’s overall performance than the average of all

respondents.

The issues that appear to be most negatively related to overall satisfaction were education

and schools (10 respondents at 5.0 out of 10), parks and gardens, footpaths, street trees,

rubbish and waste issues, parking, traffic management, cleanliness of the area, and roads.

Page

of

Metropolis Research notes that the Council services of sealed local roads (7.2), local traffic

management (7.2), parking facilities (7.3), footpaths (7.3), street trees (7.3), and the cleaning

and maintenance of public areas (7.4) all recorded satisfaction scores somewhat lower than

the average satisfaction with services and facilities of 7.7 or “very good”.

This reinforces the results to this relationship between issues and overall satisfaction section,

highlighting the importance of these services to many in the community, and that these

services were all likely to be exerting a negative influence on satisfaction with Council’s overall

performance.

The following table provides an alternative approach to exploring the relationship between

issues and overall satisfaction.

The table outlines the proportion of respondents “dissatisfied” with Council’s overall

performance who nominated each of the top issues, with a comparison of the proportion of

all respondents who nominated the issue.

Dissatisfied respondents were notably more likely than average to nominate traffic

management, parks, gardens, and open spaces, footpaths, parking, street trees, education

and schools, and rubbish and waste issues.

It is important to bear in mind the relatively small sample of 116 dissatisfied respondents.

Traffic management

9

28%

11%

Parks, gardens and open spaces

6

19%

7%

Footpath maintenance and repairs

5

16%

6%

Parking

4

13%

5%

Provision and maintenance of street trees

4

13%

4%

Education, schools, kindergarten

3

9%

2%

Safety, policing and crime

3

9%

12%

Rubbish and waste collection issues

3

9%

3%

Roads maintenance and repairs

2

6%

10%

Council customer service / responsiveness

2

6%

0%

All other issues

10

31%

33%

Page

of

The following graph provides the average satisfaction with Council’s overall performance of

respondents dissatisfied with individual services and facilities.

Services and facilities with fewer than 10 dissatisfied respondents have been excluded from

these results.

It is important to bear in mind that for many of these services, there were relatively few

dissatisfied respondents (an average of approximately 30 dissatisfied respondents), hence the

relatively large 95% confidence interval around these results.

Attention is drawn to the fact that respondents who were dissatisfied with individual services

and facilities were also, on average, measurably and significantly less satisfied with Council’s

overall performance than the municipal average of all respondents (7.0), with most reporting

“poor” to “extremely poor” levels of satisfaction.

It is also acknowledged that a relatively small sample of respondents were dissatisfied with

most core services and facilities, with a significant degree of overlap between services.

In other words, respondents who were dissatisfied with one service and facility were likely to

be dissatisfied with several services and facilities and were also measurably less satisfied with

Council’s overall performance.

This reflects the fact that some (a small number) of respondents were dissatisfied with

Council’s performance, and this tended to influence their satisfaction ratings for many, if not

all, services and facilities included in the survey.

Page

of

The opposite is also true for many respondents who tended to provide the same satisfaction

rating for many, if not all, services, and facilities. This again reflects the fact that these

respondents tended to see Council performance as being generally consistent across the full

range of services and facilities provided by Council.

The services and facilities that appear to be most strongly associated with lower overall

satisfaction scores this year for the small number of respondents who were dissatisfied with

these services include street trees, hard rubbish, roads, playgrounds, sports grounds, and

business growth. Metropolis Research recommends caution in the over-interpretation of

these results, however, given how similar these results are for most of the services.

Respondents were asked:

“

There was a total of 364 comments received from respondents outlining the reasons why they

rated satisfaction with Council’s overall performance at the level they did.

These comments have been broadly categorised into 25 different categories (including

“other”), as outlined in the following table.

The table also provides the number of comments by category for respondents who were

“satisfied” (i.e., rated satisfaction at six to 10), “neutral” (i.e., rated satisfaction at five out of

10) and those who were “dissatisfied” (i.e., rated satisfaction at less than five).

Most of the statements provided by respondents were general statements about satisfaction

with Council’s performance, with 32% of the comments being generally positive in nature,

11% generally neutral in nature, and 16% generally negative in nature.

The most common issues raised by respondents that impacted on their satisfaction with

Council’s overall performance were related to communication and consultation (21

comments), roads and traffic (20 comments), Council governance, management, and

performance (18 comments), and rates and financial management (15 comments).

In relation to communication and consultation, it is noted that many of these comments were

relatively broad in nature, reflecting the view that Council was not listening to or engaging

effectively with the community, rather than negative comments about specific

communication and consultation services and activities. Metropolis Research suggests that

these comments often reflect lower underlying satisfaction with Council rather than being

the driver of the lower satisfaction.

The detailed comments that underpin these summary results are included as an appendix to

this report.

Page

of

Respondents were asked:

When asked to nominate the most important thing that Brimbank City Council should do to

improve its performance, a total of 276 respondents (46%) provided a response.

These open-ended responses were categorised as outlined in the following table, with the

verbatim comments available on request.

Generally positive statements

118

32%

115

3

0

Generally negative statements

59

16%

46

7

6

Generally neutral statements

41

11%

35

6

0

Communication, consultation, engagement

21

6%

12

4

5

Traffic / roads

20

5%

14

4

2

Council governance, management, performance

18

5%

6

6

6

Rates and financial management

15

4%

11

3

1

Cleanliness and maintenance of the area

12

3%

11

0

1

Council services and facilities

12

3%

12

0

0

Parks, gardens open spaces and trees

10

3%

8

1

1

Council customer service and responsiveness

8

2%

6

1

1

Environment and climate change

4

1%

3

1

0

Planning, housing, development

3

1%

2

0

1

Emergency, bushfire, flood management / response 2

1%

2

0

0

Local business / economy

2

1%

2

0

0

Parking

2

1%

2

0

0

Waste management

2

1%

1

1

0

Community support

1

0%

0

1

0

Equal treatment of areas

1

0%

1

0

0

Footpath maintenance and repairs

1

0%

0

1

0

Infrastructure

1

0%

0

0

1

Multicultural issues

1

0%

0

1

0

Public transport

1

0%

1

0

0

Shops / restaurants and entertainment venues

1

0%

1

0

0

Other

8

2%

6

2

0

Page

of

The most common improvement nominated by respondents related to communication,

consultation, and the provision of information, with 41 respondents (7% of the sample).

It is noted that this result reflects the previous question as to the reasons for rating overall

performance at the level it was rated, which identified communication and consultation as a

common reason for dissatisfaction with Council.

The other areas in which respondents were most likely to suggest improvements should be

made related to roads (4%), safety, policing, and crime (3%), Council governance,

performance, and accountability (2%), cleanliness and maintenance (2%), customer service /

responsiveness (2%), parks and gardens (2%), footpaths (2%), and traffic management (2%).

Communication, consultation and provision of information

41

7%

Roads maintenance and repairs

23

4%

Safety, policing and crime

21

3%

Council governance, performance and accountability

15

2%

Cleanliness and maintenance of area incl. rubbish, litter

15

2%

Council customer service / responsiveness

13

2%

Parks, gardens and open spaces

11

2%

Footpath maintenance and repairs

10

2%

Traffic management

10

2%

Provision and maintenance of general infrastructure

9

1%

Community services quality and provision

8

1%

Council rates / fees / charges

8

1%

Look after community / community needs

8

1%

Provision and maintenance of community facilities

7

1%

Building, housing, planning and development issues

6

1%

Financial issues and priorities for Council

6

1%

Parking

5

1%

Rubbish and waste issues inc garbage

5

1%

Services and facilities for the elderly

5

1%

Environment, sustainability, climate change, conservation

4

1%

General positive

4

1%

Provision and maintenance of street trees

4

1%

Street cleaning and maintenance

4

1%

Public transport

3

0%

Equal attention to all areas

2

0%

Focus on the basics

2

0%

Population and growth

2

0%

Support for local business / economic development

2

0%

All other improvements

23

4%

No improvement

325

54%

Page

of

The following tables provide a comparison of the most important thing that Council should

do to improve its performance across the five districts comprising the City of Brimbank, as

well as by respondent profile (including age structure, gender, and language spoken at home).

There was relatively little significant variation observed, however, attention is drawn to:

•

– respondents were somewhat more likely than average to

nominate communication and consultation.

•

– respondents were notably more likely than average to nominate building,

housing, planning, and development related improvements.

Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 7% Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 7%

Safety, policing and crime

3% Roads maintenance and repairs

5%

Footpath maintenance and repairs

3% Safety, policing and crime

4%

Council governance and performance

3% Council customer service / responsiveness 4%

Roads maintenance and repairs

3% Cleanliness and maintenance of area

3%

Look after community / community needs 2% Council governance and performance

2%

Cleanliness and maintenance of area

2% Parks, gardens and open spaces

2%

Parks, gardens and open spaces

2% Prov. and maint. of community facilities 2%

Traffic management

2% Traffic management

2%

Prov. and maint. of general infrastructure 2% Community services quality and provision 2%

All other improvements

18% All other improvements

14%

No improvement

53% No improvement

53%

Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 7% Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 6%

Council governance and performance

5% Roads maintenance and repairs

5%

Cleanliness and maintenance of area

3% Safety, policing and crime

4%

Safety, policing and crime

3% Footpath maintenance and repairs

3%

Roads maintenance and repairs

3% Council customer service / responsiveness 2%

Council rates / fees / charges

3% Cleanliness and maintenance of area

2%

Traffic management

2% Parks, gardens and open spaces

2%

Parks, gardens and open spaces

2% Look after community / community needs 2%

Council customer service / responsiveness 2% Prov. and maint. of general infrastructure 2%

Community services quality and provision 2% Street cleaning and maintenance

1%

All other improvements

19% All other improvements

15%

No improvement

49% No improvement

56%

of

Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 5% Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 10%

Safety, policing and crime

3% Council rates / fees / charges

4%

Roads maintenance and repairs

3% Parks, gardens and open spaces

3%

Cleanliness and maintenance of area

3% Prov. and maint. of general infrastructure 3%

Council customer service / responsiveness 3% Roads maintenance and repairs

3%

Parks, gardens and open spaces

2% Safety, policing and crime

3%

Traffic management

2% Prov. and maint. of community facilities 2%

Footpath maintenance and repairs

2% Parking

2%

Prov. and maint. of general infrastructure 2% Building, housing, planning, development 2%

Look after community / community needs 2% Community services quality and provision 2%

All other improvements

14% All other improvements

17%

No improvement

59% No improvement

49%

Council governance and performance

6% Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 9%

Safety, policing and crime

6% Roads maintenance and repairs

6%

Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 5% Services and facilties for the elderly

4%

Roads maintenance and repairs

4% Cleanliness and maintenance of area

3%

Look after community / community needs 3% Safety, policing and crime

3%

Footpath maintenance and repairs

2% Council customer service / responsiveness 3%

Traffic management

2% Footpath maintenance and repairs

3%

Cleanliness and maintenance of area

2% Community services quality and provision 3%

Rubbish and waste issues inc garbage

2% Prov. and maint. of general infrastructure 3%

Council customer service / responsiveness 2% Parking

2%

All other improvements

15% All other improvements

17%

No improvement

51% No improvement

44%

Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 6% Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 7%

Cleanliness and maintenance of area

3% Roads maintenance and repairs

4%

Environment,sustainability,climate change 3% Safety, policing and crime

3%

Financial issues and priorities for Council 3% Council governance and performance

2%

Street cleaning and maintenance

3% Cleanliness and maintenance of area

2%

Provision and maintenance of street trees 3% Council customer service / responsiveness 2%

Council governance and performance

3% Parks, gardens and open spaces

2%

Equal attention to all areas

3% Footpath maintenance and repairs

2%

Council rates / fees / charges

2% Traffic management

2%

No improvement

71% Prov. and maint. of general infrastructure 1%

All other improvements

18%

No improvement

54%

of

Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 7% Communication, consultation, prov. of info.

8%

Roads maintenance and repairs

7% Council governance and performance

5%

Safety, policing and crime

4% Council customer service / responsiveness 4%

Council governance and performance

3% Prov. and maint. of community facilities 3%

Council customer service / responsiveness 3% Traffic management

2%

Cleanliness and maintenance of area

2% Parks, gardens and open spaces

2%

Look after community / community needs 2% Safety, policing and crime

2%

Council rates / fees / charges

2% Financial issues and priorities for Council 2%

Parks, gardens and open spaces

2% Roads maintenance and repairs

2%

Services and facilties for the elderly

2% Prov. and maint. of general infrastructure 2%

All other improvements

8% All other improvements

15%

No improvement

58% No improvement

53%

Building, housing, planning and developme

14% Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 6%

Equal attention to all areas

6% Roads maintenance and repairs

4%

Council customer service / responsiveness 6% Safety, policing and crime

3%

Services and facilties for the elderly

4% Council governance and performance

2%

Safety, policing and crime

4% Footpath maintenance and repairs

2%

Look after community / community needs 4% Parking

2%

Prov. and maint. of general infrastructure 3% Cleanliness and maintenance of area

2%

Population and growth

3% Traffic management

1%

No improvement

56% Council customer service / responsiveness 1%

Community services quality and provision 1%

All other improvements

14%

No improvement

62%

Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 7% Communication, consultation, prov. of info. 7%

Cleanliness and maintenance of area

5% Roads maintenance and repairs

4%

Safety, policing and crime

5% Safety, policing and crime

3%

Parks, gardens and open spaces

4% Council governance and performance

2%

Roads maintenance and repairs

4% Cleanliness and maintenance of area

2%

Traffic management

4% Council customer service / responsiveness 2%

Environment,sustainability,climate change 4% Parks, gardens and open spaces

2%

Prov. and maint. of general infrastructure 3% Footpath maintenance and repairs

2%

Rubbish and waste issues inc garbage

3% Traffic management

2%

Footpath maintenance and repairs

2% Prov. and maint. of general infrastructure 1%

All other improvements

21% All other improvements

18%

No improvement

38% No improvement

54%

of

Respondents were asked:

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with 11 aspects of Council’s governance

and leadership performance.

Of these 11 aspects, six are considered core aspects of Council’s governance and leadership,

including community consultation and engagement, responsiveness to local community

needs, representation, lobbying, and advocacy, maintaining community trust and confidence,

making decisions in the interests of the community, and providing value for rates.

The average satisfaction with these six core aspects of governance and leadership was 7.1 out

of 10, or a “good” level of satisfaction.

This result was somewhat (2%) above the metropolitan Melbourne average of 6.9, and

identical to the average for the six western region councils (7.1).

This was the highest average satisfaction with core aspects of governance and leadership

recorded for the City of Brimbank and was measurably above the long-term average

satisfaction since 2008 of 5.9 or “poor”.

Metropolis Research notes that the exact set of core governance and leadership aspects

included in the survey has changed somewhat over time, so these time series result for

average satisfaction with governance and leadership should be interpreted as indicative only.

Page

of

As was discussed in the methodological variation section of this report, the survey was

conducted as a telephone survey by a different provider from 2014 to 2023, recording a long

term average of 5.7 out of 10, or “poor”.

The long-term average recorded from 2008 to 2012 (including the year that Council

experienced a governance related major issue) was 6.1 or “solid”, with the 2010, 2011, and

2012 average satisfaction with governance and leadership recorded at a higher level than the

metropolitan Melbourne and western region councils’ average, as recorded in

.

The average satisfaction with the 10 included aspects of governance and leadership were best

categorised as follows:

•

– for community consultation and engagement and Council meeting its

responsibilities towards the environment.

•

– for supporting a healthy local economy, delivering climate action leadership and

initiatives, responsiveness to local community needs, providing infrastructure that meets

community needs, informing the community, making decisions in the interests of the

community, and providing value for rates.

Metropolis Research notes that satisfaction with many core aspects of governance and

leadership tend to be recorded at or just below the overall satisfaction with Council, and this

was the case for the City of Brimbank this year.

It is also noted that satisfaction with providing value for rates was the lowest rated aspect of

governance and leadership, which is also a commonly observed result.

Page

of

The following graph provides a breakdown of these results into the proportion of respondents

who were “very satisfied” (i.e., rated satisfaction at eight or more out of 10), those who were

“neutral to somewhat satisfied” (i.e., rated satisfaction at five to seven), and those who were

“dissatisfied” (i.e., rated satisfaction at less than five).

Consistent with the overall satisfaction scores discussed in the preceding section, it is noted

that approximately half of the respondents who provided a score were “very satisfied” with

most of these aspects of governance and leadership.

It is noted, however, that 43% of respondents were very satisfied with Council’s performance

making decisions in the interests of the community and providing value for rates, although

12% of respondents dissatisfied with Council’s performance providing value for rates.

The following graph provides a comparison of satisfaction with the seven aspects of

governance and leadership that were also included in the 2024

research.

The City of Brimbank recorded higher than metropolitan average results for six of the seven

aspects, recording a 3% lower satisfaction with meeting environmental responsibilities.

Satisfaction with most of the six aspects of governance and leadership was similar in the City

of Brimbank than the western region councils’ average, although it was 5% lower for meeting

environmental responsibilities and two percent lower for providing value for rates.

Respondents in the City of Brimbank were, however, two percent more satisfied than the

western region councils’ average with representation, lobbying, and advocacy.

of

Satisfaction with Council’s community consultation and engagement performance increased

measurably and significantly (up 19%) from the 2023 average of 5.5 recorded by the previous

survey provider using the telephone methodology, to 7.4 out of 10 this year.

This was a “very good” level of satisfaction, up from the previous “poor” recorded in eight of

the last 10 years with the previous survey provider, with the other two years (2016 and 2020

recording “very poor” levels of satisfaction).

This was the highest satisfaction with consultation and engagement recorded for the City of

Brimbank and was measurably and significantly higher than the long-term average

satisfaction since 2008 of 5.9 out of 10, or “poor”.

It is noted that the long-term average satisfaction from the previous surveys conducted by

Metropolis Research from 2008 to 2012 was 6.1 out of 10, or “solid”, although it is important

to bear in mind the significantly lower than average satisfaction recorded in 2009, when the

Council experienced a significant governance related event.

Metropolis Research notes the significant variation in satisfaction recorded from 2014 to 2023

when the survey was conducted by telephone by a different provider.

It is noted that this was a significant variation, outside the normal variation that would be

expected to result from the difference in methodology.

Page

of

Metropolis Research strongly suggests that these historical results were an under

representation of the underlying level of community satisfaction with Council’s consultation

and engagement performance over this period.

Whilst there was no statistically significant variation in this result observed across the

municipality, it is noted that 23 respondents from Keilor District were notably more satisfied

than average and at an “excellent” rather than a “very good” level of satisfaction.

Page

of

Whilst there was no statistically significant variation observed by respondent profile, it is

noted that adults (aged 35 to 44 years) and senior citizens (aged 75 years and over) were

notably more satisfied than average and at “very good” and “excellent” levels respectively.

Satisfaction with Council’s representation, lobbying, and advocacy performance increased

measurably and significantly (up 14%) from the 2023 average of 5.7 recorded by the previous

survey provider using the telephone methodology, to 7.1 out of 10 this year.

This was a “good” level of satisfaction, up from the previous “poor” recorded in seven of the

last 10 years with the previous survey provider, with the other three years (2014, 2015, and

2017 recording “very poor” levels of satisfaction).

This was the highest satisfaction with representation, lobbying, and advocacy recorded for

the City of Brimbank and was measurably and significantly higher than the long-term average

satisfaction since 2008 of 5.9 out of 10, or “poor”.

It is noted that the long-term average satisfaction from the previous surveys conducted by

Metropolis Research from 2008 to 2012 was 6.2 out of 10, or “solid”, although it is important

to bear in mind the significantly lower than average satisfaction recorded in 2009, when the

Council experienced a significant governance related event.

Metropolis Research notes the significant variation in satisfaction recorded from 2014 to 2023

when the survey was conducted by telephone by a different provider. It is noted that this

was a significant variation, outside the normal variation that would be expected to result from

the difference in methodology.

Page

of

Metropolis Research strongly suggests that these historical results were an under

representation of the underlying level of community satisfaction with Council’s

representation, lobbying, and advocacy performance over this period.

There was no measurable or notable variation in satisfaction with Council’s representation,

lobbying, and advocacy observed across the five districts comprising the City of Brimbank,

with respondents from all five districts rating satisfaction at “good” levels.

Page

of

Whilst there was no statistically significant variation in this result observed by respondent

profile, it is noted that older adults (aged 60 to 74 years) were somewhat (3%) less satisfied,

whilst senior citizens (aged 75 years and over) were notably (5%) more satisfied than average

and at a “very good” level of satisfaction.

Satisfaction with the responsiveness of Council to local community needs was 7.2 out of 10,

or a “good” level of satisfaction.

Whilst there was no statistically significant variation in this result observed across the

municipality, it is noted that 25 respondents from Keilor District were somewhat (3%) more

satisfied than average and at a “very good” level.

Page

of

There was measurable and notable variation in this result observed by respondent profile.

Middle-aged and older adults (aged 45 to 74 years) were notably (4%) less satisfied than

average, whilst senior citizens (aged 75 years and over) were measurably more satisfied than

average, and at a “very good” rather than a “good” level of satisfaction.

Page

of

Satisfaction with Council’s performance making decisions in the interests of the community

increased measurably and significantly (up 13%) from the 2023 average of 5.7 recorded by

the previous survey provider using the telephone methodology, to 7.0 out of 10 this year.

This was a “good” level of satisfaction, up from the previous “poor” recorded in each of the

last 10 years with the previous survey provider.

This was the highest satisfaction with making decisions in the interests of the community

recorded for the City of Brimbank and was measurably and significantly higher than the long

term average satisfaction since 2011 of 5.9 out of 10, or “poor”.

Metropolis Research notes the significant variation in satisfaction recorded from 2014 to 2023

when the survey was conducted by telephone by a different provider. It is noted that this

was a significant variation, outside the normal variation that would be expected to result from

the difference in methodology.

Metropolis Research strongly suggests that these historical results were an under

representation of the underlying level of community satisfaction with Council’s performance

making decisions in the interests of the community over this period.

Whilst there was no statistically significant variation in this result observed across the

municipality, it is noted that 21 respondents from Keilor District were notably (4%) more

satisfied than average and at a “very good” level.

Page

of

There was notable and measurable variation in satisfaction with this aspect of performance

observed by respondent profile. Young adults and adults (aged 18 to 44 years) and senior

citizens (aged 75 years and over) were notably more satisfied than average and at “very good”

levels, whilst middle-aged and older adults (aged 45 to 74 years) were notably less satisfied,

although still at a “good” level. Female respondents were somewhat (2%) more satisfied than

male respondents.

Page

of

Satisfaction with Council’s performance maintaining the trust and confidence of the local

community was 7.1 out of 10 this year, or a “good” level of satisfaction.

This question was not previously included in the survey program by the different provider but

was included from 2009 to 2012.

It is important to bear in mind that the 2009 result was influenced by the significant

governance related event that occurred whilst the survey was in the field in 2009.

This 2024 result of 7.1 was the highest satisfaction with Council’s performance maintaining

trust and confidence recorded and was measurably above the long-term average satisfaction

since 2009 of 6.2 or “solid”.

Whilst there was no statistically significant variation in this result observed across the

municipality, it is noted that 23 respondents from Keilor District were marginally (2%) more

satisfied than average and at a “very good” level.

Page

of

There was notable and measurable variation in this result observed by respondent profile.

Middle-aged and older adults (aged 45 to 74 years) were notably less satisfied than average,

whilst senior citizens (aged 75 years and over) were measurably more satisfied than average,

and at a “very good” rather than a “good” level of satisfaction.

Page

of

Satisfaction with Council’s performance providing important infrastructure that meets

community needs was 7.1 out of 10, or a “good” level of satisfaction.

This result was not included in

and therefore no metropolitan

comparisons were available.

Whilst there was no statistically significant variation in this result observed across the

municipality, it is noted that 22 respondents from Keilor District were somewhat (3%) more

satisfied than average and at a “very good” level.

Whilst there was no statistically significant variation in this result observed by respondent

profile, it is noted that senior citizens (aged 75 years and over) were notably (4%) more

satisfied than average and at a “very good” level.

It is also noted that female respondents were somewhat (2%) more satisfied than male

respondents.

Page

of

Satisfaction with Council’s performance providing value for rates increased measurably and

significantly this year, up 10% to 6.7 out of 10. This was a “good”, up from a “poor” level.

This was the highest score recorded for this variable and was measurably above the long-term

average satisfaction since 2021 of 6.1 out of 10, or “solid”.

Page

of

There was no statistically significant variation in this result observed across the municipality,

with respondents from all five districts rating satisfaction at “good” levels.

There was no statistically significant variation in this result observed by respondent profile,

although it is noted that middle-aged and older adults (aged 45 to 74 years) were notably

(4%) less satisfied than average, whilst senior citizens (aged 75 years and over) were notably

(5%) more satisfied. Female respondents were somewhat (2%) more satisfied than males.

Page

of

Satisfaction with Council’s performance informing the community was 7.1 out of 10, or a

“good” level of satisfaction.

There was no statistically significant or meaningful variation in this result observed across the

five districts comprising the City of Brimbank, with respondents from all five districts rating

satisfaction at “good” levels.

There was measurable and notable variation in this result observed by respondent profile.

Middle-aged adults (aged 45 to 59 years) were measurably less satisfied than average,

although still at a “good” level, whilst senior citizens (aged 75 years and over) were somewhat

(3%) more satisfied than average and at a “very good” level.

Female respondents were measurably (5%) more satisfied than male respondents.

Page

of

The average satisfaction with Council’s performance supporting a healthy local economy was

7.2 out of 10, or a “good” level of satisfaction. Whilst there was no measurable variation in

this result observed across the municipality, it is noted that respondents from Deer Park

district were somewhat (3%) less satisfied than average, although still at a “good” level.

Page

of

Whilst there was no statistically significant variation in this result observed by respondent

profile, it is noted that middle-aged adults (aged 45 to 59 years) were somewhat (3%) less

satisfied, and senior citizens (aged 75 years and over) were notably (4%) more satisfied, and

at a “very good” rather than a “good” level. Female respondents were notably (3%) more

satisfied than male respondents.

Satisfaction with Council’s performance meeting its responsibilities towards the environment

increased measurably and significantly (up 11%) from the 2023 result of 6.2 recorded by the

previous survey provider using the telephone methodology, to 7.3 out of 10 this year.

This was a “very good” level of satisfaction, up from the previous “solid” recorded in nine of

the last 10 years with the previous survey provider, with the 2016 result categorised as

“poor”.

This was the highest satisfaction with Council meeting its environmental responsibilities

recorded for the City of Brimbank and was measurably higher than the long-term average

satisfaction since 2008 of 6.4 out of 10, or “solid”.

It is noted that the long-term average satisfaction from the previous surveys conducted by

Metropolis Research from 2008 to 2012 was 6.8 out of 10, or “good”, whilst the average

satisfaction for the 2014 to 2023 period conducted by telephone by the other provider was

6.3 or “solid”.

Page

of

Metropolis Research notes the significant variation in satisfaction recorded from 2014 to 2023

when the survey was conducted by telephone by a different provider.

Metropolis Research strongly suggests that these historical results from 2014 to 2023 were a

under-representation of the underlying level of community satisfaction with Council’s

representation, lobbying, and advocacy performance over this period.

There was no measurable variation in this result observed across the five districts, although

respondents from Deer Park were somewhat (3%) less satisfied and at a “good” level.

Page

of

There was notable and measurable variation in this result observed by respondent profile,

with middle-aged and older adults (aged 45 to 74 years) notably (3% to 4%) less satisfied than

average. Senior citizens (aged 75 years and over) were measurably more satisfied than

average and at an “excellent” level.

Female respondents were notably (3%) more satisfied than male respondents.

Satisfaction with Council’s performance delivering climate action leadership and initiatives

was 7.2 out of 10, or a “good” level of satisfaction.

This aspect of performance was not included in

and therefore no

metropolitan comparison results were available for publication.

Whilst there was no statistically significant variation in this result observed across the five

districts, it is noted that respondents from Deer Park district were somewhat (3%) less

satisfied than average, although still at a “good” level of satisfaction.

Page

of

There was notable and measurable variation in this result observed by respondent profile,

with middle-aged and older adults (aged 45 to 74 years) notably (3%) less satisfied than

average. Senior citizens (aged 75 years and over) were measurably more satisfied than

average and at an “excellent” level.

Female respondents were somewhat (2%) more satisfied than male respondents.

Page

of

The following table outlines the verbatim comments received from respondents as to reasons

why they were dissatisfied with any of the 10 aspects of governance and leadership.

Of the 62 comments received, the most common responses were related to the perceived

value for rates.

Rates are high / too high / expensive

8

Council rates are high compared to services provided by them / no value for rates

4

I am not aware of it / don't see any

2

Not informed about what the Council is doing

2

The Council does not execute good governance

2

Can be better compared to other Councils

1

Council does not communicate

1

Council doesn't address above issues

1

Council is not doing much

1

Council services and facilities provided are not on par with the rates we pay

1

Council takes rate payers' money and gives no communication with what they do

1

Dumping all around, will sit there for months

1

First time answering any Council survey, poor communication

1

High rates compared to other Councils

1

I am not aware of community consultation sessions by Council

1

I don't get enough from the rates

1

I don't get informed about their services

1

I don't see enough representation from the Council

1

I have not seen any measures by the Council to support a healthy local economy

1

I haven't received any consultation

1

I know that there are some cultural activities from my friends, but I did not receive any mail

informing me about what the community is up to. I have to find out myself on the internet

1

I would like Council to inform the people more about what they're doing and what services

they have

1

If Council plants a tree in this area, the rates go up

1

Irresponsible with the residents' complaints

1

I've not seen any evidence or what they have done to improve this area and environment

1

Never seen anything from them

1

No community engagement

1

No information provided

1

Not done anything important as per rates increase

1

Not enough MCH nurses and midwives

1

Rates are expensive

1

Rates are going up and less value

1

Page

of

The Council can make a guess

1

The Council is difficult to be prompted to act and they don't particularly listen well to the

people

1

The Council is not responsible towards its community, we don't know they exist

1

The Council is poor in areas like town planning

1

The new experience of me hasn't been great as it's not that great

1

There are no provisions for environmental sustainability and supporting renewable energy

1

They are also very slow in responding

1

They can do a lot more for what they charge for rates. For e.g. work on parks, maintenance

of footpaths

1

They can do more for people regarding what people pay

1

They charge fines a lot

1

They need to do more things like safety near Sunvale Community Playground Park. A lot of

vandalism is happening

1

They only know how to do politics, that's it

1

They seem to be out for themselves

1

They spent 10K on a swimming pool bench, it is stupid

1

They used to be good in these things, but they have become careless

1

They want to go into international politics. They seem to have interest in war on Gaza

instead of our local needs

1

Very high rates. Lots of increases are hard on people

1

of

Respondents were asked:

In 2024, one-fifth (20%) of respondents reported that they had contacted Council in the last

12 months.

This result was somewhat lower than Metropolis Research has observed in several

municipalities across metropolitan Melbourne this year.

Respondents who had contacted Council were asked:

The 119 respondents who had contacted Council were asked the method by which they had

last contacted Council.

The most common method of contacting Council was via telephone during office hours (64%),

with the website (13%), visits in person (8%), and email (8%) the other common methods.

The relatively low proportion of respondents contacting Council by visiting in person was

notable, although without recent times series results, it was not possible to comment on

whether this was a new, post-pandemic norm, or whether this was a longer standing result.

Yes

119

20%

No

480

80%

Not stated

2

Page

of

Respondents who had contacted Council were asked:

The 119 respondents who had contacted Council in the last 12 months were asked to rate

their satisfaction with four aspects of customer service, including “overall satisfaction with

the customer service experience”.

The average satisfaction with the four aspects of customer service was 7.5 out of 10, or a

“very good” level of satisfaction.

By way of comparison, this result was somewhat (3%) higher than the metropolitan

Melbourne average satisfaction with the same four aspects of 7.2 out of 10, or “good”.

Satisfaction with these four aspects of customer service can best be summarised as follows:

•

– for staff courtesy and professionalism.

•

– for the provision of accurate information and overall satisfaction with the

customer service experience.

•

– for the speed and efficiency of service.

Telephone

76

64%

Website

15

13%

Visit in person

10

8%

Email

9

8%

Telephone

3

3%

Live chat

3

3%

Mail

1

1%

Social media

0

0%

Directly with a Councilor

0

0%

Report IT

0

0%

Other

1

1%

Not stated

1

Page

of

The following graph provides a breakdown of these results into the proportion of respondents

who were “very satisfied” (i.e., rated satisfaction at eight or more out of 10), those who were

“neutral to somewhat satisfied” (i.e., rated satisfaction at five to seven), and those who were

“dissatisfied” (i.e., rated satisfaction at less than five).

It is noted that more than half of the respondents who provided a score were “very satisfied”

with each of the four aspects of customer service, whilst 16% of respondents were

“dissatisfied” with the speed and efficiency of service.

of

The following graph provides a comparison of satisfaction with these four aspects of customer

service against the metropolitan Melbourne average, as sourced from the 2024

research.

was conducted independently by Metropolis

Research in January 2024, using the same door-to-door, in-person methodology.

It is noted that satisfaction with all four aspects of customer service was somewhat higher

than the metropolitan Melbourne average, although the difference was not statistically

significant.

The following graph provides a comparison of satisfaction with the four aspects of customer

service based on the method of contacting Council.

Metropolis Research notes the extremely small sample size for these results and advises

caution in the interpretation of these results.

It is noted, however, that the 10 respondents who visited in person were somewhat less

satisfied with the courtesy and professionalism of staff than those telephoning Council or

visiting the website.

It is also noted that respondents who contacted Council by telephone were the least satisfied

with the speed and efficiency of service.

Page

of

The long-term average satisfaction with the customer service experience from 2014 to 2024

was 7.3 out of 10, or a “very good” level of satisfaction. The 2024 result was only somewhat

(2%) higher than this long-term average satisfaction.

Metropolis Research notes that this variation between the historical results (2014 to 2023)

conducted by telephone and the 2024 result was significantly smaller for customer service

than was observed for other aspects of performance, particularly satisfaction with

governance and leadership

.

Page

of

Although the sample size was very small at the district level, there was some notable variation

in satisfaction with the customer service experience observed, with 31 respondents from

Sunshine district measurably more satisfied than average and at an “excellent” level. The

three respondents from Keilor district were notably less satisfied than average.

Whilst there was no statistically significant variation observed by respondent profile, it was

noted that older adults (aged 60 to 74 years) were the least satisfied, and that respondents

from multilingual households were notably more satisfied than respondents from English

speaking households.

Page

of

Respondents were read the following preamble:

Respondents were then asked:

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with planning for population growth by all

levels of government.

It is noted that the 2014 to 2023 surveys were conducted by telephone with a different

provider, and also the question used was somewhat different, in that it did not include

reference to ‘by all levels of government’.

Metropolis Research included this extra detail in the question, as it was clear that planning

for population growth has always been a joint responsibility of local and state government

(with some federal government involvement), and that it was unreasonable to expect

respondents to be able to distinguish between the activities of local and the activities of the

state government.

The average satisfaction with planning for population growth by all levels of government was

7.2 out of 10, or a “good” level of satisfaction.

Bearing in mind the changes to the question, this result was somewhat lower than the 2023

result of 7.4 or “very good” and continued the long-term decline in satisfaction recorded from

the most recent high point of 7.8 recorded back in 2017 and 2018.

This was the lowest satisfaction with planning for population growth recorded since 2014

(7.2). By way of comparison, this result was marginally (1%) lower than the western region councils’

average of 7.3 or “very good”, but somewhat (2%) higher than the metropolitan Melbourne

average of 7.0 out of 10.

These comparison results were sourced from the 2024

research.

was conducted independently by Metropolis Research in January 2024,

using the same door-to-door, in-person methodology.

Page

of

There was no statistically significant variation in satisfaction with planning for population

growth by all levels of government observed across the municipality. It is noted, however,

that respondents from Sydenham district were somewhat (3%) more satisfied than the

municipal average, and at a “very strong” level of agreement.

Page

of

It is noted that, with the exception of Deer Park respondents, at least half of the respondents

providing a score were “very satisfied” with planning for population growth from each of the

other four districts.

The following section outlines a comparison of satisfaction with planning for population

growth by all levels of government by respondent profile, including age structure, gender,

language spoken at home, housing situation, period of residence in the City of Brimbank, and

household structure.

There was some notable variation in satisfaction with planning for population growth

observed, as follows:

•

– included senior citizens (aged 75 years and over),

respondents from English speaking households, rental household respondents, new residents

(less than one year in the municipality), medium term residents (five to less than 10 years in

the municipality), respondents from one-parent families, and group households

•

– included older adults (aged 60 to 74 years), respondents

from multilingual households, mortgagor households, longer-term residents (10 years or

more in the municipality), respondents from two-parent families with youngest child aged 0

to 4 years, sole person households, couple households without children.

of

It is noted that more than half of the young adults and adults (aged 18 to 44 years), senior

citizens (aged 75 years and over), female respondents, and respondents from English speaking

households were “very satisfied” with planning for population growth.

of

It is noted that more than half of the homeowner households, rental households, new

residents (less than one year in Brimbank) and medium term residents (five to less than 10

years in Brimbank) were “very satisfied” with planning for population growth, whilst 12% of

mortgagor household respondents were “dissatisfied”.

of

It is noted that more than half of the respondents from two-parent families with youngest

child aged 5 years and over, one-parent families, and group household respondents were