For many councils, particularly in Queensland, “sustainability” has long been shorthand for “financial sustainability”.
That’s not surprising. The Queensland Local Government Act defines financial sustainability in very clear terms, and the State’s sustainability frameworks and oversight mechanisms are built around financial and asset ratios. Similar patterns exist elsewhere in Australia. While other States often reference economic, social and environmental sustainability or ecologically sustainable development in their legislation, the hard performance architecture still centres on financial health and service delivery.
In other words: what gets measured most consistently is not how sustainable a community is, but how solvent a council is.
Financial sustainability still matters
None of this is to say that the financial lens is wrong. If a council cannot fund its operations, maintain its assets or service its debt, everything else is at risk. Communities rely on councils to keep the basics working: roads, water, waste, open space, local facilities. Long-term financial planning, realistic revenue settings and disciplined asset management are foundational.
Across Australia, state agencies and auditors-general rightly track indicators such as:
- operating surplus or deficit
- liquidity and debt service capacity
- asset renewal and maintenance backlogs
- own-source revenue and dependency on grants
These metrics tell us whether a council can sustain its current level of service into the future. In an environment of rising costs, ageing infrastructure and changing expectations, that focus is understandable and necessary.
But it is no longer sufficient.
A narrow focus can hide growing risk
Climate change is quietly re-writing what sustainability means for local government.
A council can present as financially sustainable on paper and still be highly exposed to climate risk, social vulnerability or economic disruption. Its ratios may look sound, while underlying vulnerabilities are growing: more frequent flood damage, rising insurance premiums, chronic heat stress in certain suburbs, or increasing reliance on a single industry.
Traditional performance frameworks were not designed for this reality. They answer the question: can the organisation continue to function as it is? They do not fully answer the more important question: will our community still be able to thrive here in 20–30 years?
Across States, broader sustainability is starting to appear in integrated planning and reporting frameworks: community wellbeing indicators, environmental targets, climate action plans. But these measures are often less consistent, less scrutinised and less consequential than the financial metrics. A weak operating result triggers immediate attention; a lagging adaptation initiative often does not.
A broader definition of sustainability
Climate Jobs has adopted a broad definition of climate and sustainability for local government.
In this framing, a sustainable council is one that can continue to support a community that is safe, livaeble and viable in a changing climate. That includes:
- environmental sustainability: reducing emissions, protecting ecosystems, and building resilience to heat, fire, flood and coastal change
- social sustainability: ensuring people are safe, connected and supported, with particular attention to those most at risk
- economic sustainability: supporting local jobs, skills and transitions as industries and technologies change
- governance sustainability: making decisions that are transparent, trusted and aligned with long-term risk and opportunity
Financial sustainability is still essential. It sits underneath these dimensions, enabling councils to invest and respond. But it is not the whole story.
How this plays out in everyday council work
This broader lens is not abstract. It is visible every day in the services councils provide and the decisions officers and elected members make:
- a road renewal program that considers flood risk and evacuation routes, not just pavement condition
- a planning scheme amendment that reduces exposure to coastal hazards or urban heat
- a community facility upgrade that improves energy performance, comfort and accessibility
- a procurement decision that favours lower-emissions materials and supports local industry
- a youth or community program that builds social connection and preparedness for emergencies
Each of these decisions has financial implications. But their real significance lies in how they shape the resilience and sustainability of the community over time.
Where performance metrics need to evolve
If councils are to take this broader definition seriously, performance frameworks will need to evolve alongside it.
That does not mean abandoning financial discipline. It means complementing financial metrics with a clearer set of indicators for environmental, social and climate resilience outcomes. For example:
- exposure metrics: assets, people and services located in high-risk areas
- adaptation metrics: proportion of capital works assessed for climate risk; number of assets upgraded to more resilient standards
- emissions and resource metrics: operational emissions trends, waste diversion rates, water efficiency
- community resilience metrics: measures of social connection, preparedness, perceived safety and trust in local institutions
Some councils and state agencies are already moving in this direction. The opportunity now is to bring these strands together so that “doing well” as a council is no longer defined solely by a set of financial ratios, but by a balanced view of how financially sound, climate-ready and socially resilient the community is.
Why this broader frame is smart
Taking a broader view of sustainability is not just philosophically satisfying. It is pragmatic.
- It helps councils make better investment decisions, by aligning capital works, land use and service planning with future climate and demographic realities.
- It strengthens the case for funding, as councils can demonstrate how projects reduce long-term costs and risks, not just deliver short-term outputs.
- It supports workforce capability, by making it clear that climate and sustainability are not niche topics, but part of everyone’s role.
- It provides a more honest conversation with communities about what it will take to remain liveable and viable in the decades ahead.
For Queensland councils, and indeed councils across Australia, the challenge now is to keep the strengths of existing financial sustainability frameworks, while expanding the definition of what it means to be a sustainable local government.
Climate Jobs’ work starts from that broader definition: climate and sustainability are not separate from the day-to-day business of councils. They are woven through it. And as performance frameworks catch up, the councils that have already started thinking this way will be the ones best placed to lead.
- Climate, environment and resilience responsibilities are expanding across almost every department.
- Skills shortages are worsening in areas that matter deeply for climate action — planning, environmental health, emergency management and technical expertise.
- Regional and remote councils are feeling the pressure most, with fewer options to attract talent or access specialist learning.
- Traditional qualification pathways aren’t keeping pace. Enrolments are down, and the training package has narrowed.
- Financial constraints remain real, forcing councils to make tough choices.
Explore the Local Government Climate Capability Framework to explore how to integrate this broader definition of sustainability across your workforce.