Liverpool Dead Last in NSW: 21/100 Overall, 53 Points Behind Sydney
Liverpool recorded an overall score of 21/100 in 2023-24, ranking #128 of 128 NSW councils and trailing Sydney by 53 points across every published dimension.
Liverpool finished the 2023-24 reporting year with an overall score of 21/100, placing it last among 128 NSW councils and last in its 34-council metro peer group. That is not a marginal underperformance — it is the floor of the state, and no single community program changes what the data says about how the council is actually run.
The dimension breakdown leaves no room to argue the headline number is a quirk of methodology. Liverpool scored 21/100 on Sustainability, 23/100 on Community Services, 17/100 on Lifestyle & Amenity, and 25/100 on Core Operations — all for 2023-24. Core Operations at 25/100 is the council's strongest result, and it is still the kind of figure that would normally trigger intervention conversations rather than press releases. Lifestyle & Amenity at 17/100 is the standout failure: this is the dimension ratepayers experience most directly through parks, streetscapes, libraries and local amenity, and Liverpool is delivering less than one-fifth of what the scoring framework considers a competent result.
The comparison with Sydney, which sits at the top of the same metro peer group, is the one Liverpool residents should be asking their councillors about. Sydney posted an overall score of 74/100 in 2023-24 — a 53-point gap over Liverpool. Dimension by dimension the picture is the same: Sydney 67 to Liverpool 21 on Sustainability (46 points), Sydney 86 to Liverpool 23 on Community Services (63 points), Sydney 61 to Liverpool 17 on Lifestyle & Amenity (44 points), and Sydney 81 to Liverpool 25 on Core Operations (56 points). Two councils, same metropolitan area, same reporting year, and a gap on Community Services wider than most councils' total scores.
The standard defence — that inner-city Sydney is not a fair benchmark for a growth council on the urban fringe — only goes so far. Liverpool is #34 of 34 in its peer group, which means every other metro council in NSW, including those managing similar greenfield pressures, outperformed it in 2023-24. The problem is not that Sydney is unusually good; it is that Liverpool is isolated at the bottom.
For ratepayers the implications are concrete. A Core Operations score of 25/100 points to weakness in the basic administrative and financial machinery that determines whether rates translate into services. A Sustainability score of 21/100 suggests the council is not positioning itself to absorb future cost shocks, whether from infrastructure renewal, climate adaptation or population growth. And a Community Services score of 23/100 — against a Sydney benchmark of 86/100 — tells residents that the services most people associate with their council are being delivered at a fraction of what a top-performing peer manages.
Initiatives like the 2168 Children's Parliament — launched by the council with Mission Australia, and this year running online-safety research workshops with Western Sydney University — are worthwhile civic programs, but they do not move any of the four dimensions Council Scorer measures. What would move them is sustained attention to the operational basics: asset condition, service reliability, financial discipline and amenity investment. Liverpool's 2023-24 numbers suggest none of those are currently receiving the focus the scoreboard would reward.
The next reporting cycle will show whether this is a floor or a trend. Until then, residents and candidates heading into the next council term should treat the 21/100 overall score as the baseline conversation, not a footnote. Compare Liverpool against its metro peers on the NSW rankings, pull it up alongside neighbours on compare councils, or check its position on the interactive map — then read the full breakdown on the Liverpool council profile.