The head of the peak body for Victoria's rural councils says while a proposal to direct more commonwealth money to local authorities has merit, the current system appears to be working quite well.
Rural Councils Victoria chair Councillor Mary-Ann Brown was commenting on a federal National Party proposal that the federal government give money directly to local authorities, rather than providing it to the states to distribute.
Nationals leader David Littleproud said local councils knew how to best spend money, but were hamstrung by layers of bureaucracy.
"Wouldn't it be more efficient to provide them with the money directly rather than passing it through the state governments to clip the ticket?" Mr Littleproud said.
It comes as think-tank the Grattan Institute calls for a crackdown on pork-barrelling.
But Cr Brown said federal Financial Assistance Grants already came directly from the federal government, through the Victorian Grants Commission.
"The other grant is the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program (LRCI), in response to COVID-19, and I certainly think local government would like to see that continue," she said.
"My view is that probably the Grants Commission has done a good job in terms of allocating the funds - but also the second grant program has been a really good one as well.
"I think it's more the quantity [of money] that's the issue, rather than the mechanism by which the money comes to councils."
Cr Brown said RCV had been advocating for an increase in the amount of money provided under the FAGs for some time.
Both commonwealth and state governments had given grants direct to cities and it would be good to see something similar provided to smaller regional communities.
Read more:
Moyne Shire mayor Ian Smith said councils already received some road money, directly from the federal government, but more grants would be "well worth looking at".
"The Remote Roads Upgrade Pilot Program money goes straight to the councils and by-passes the state government," Cr Smith said.
"I'm very keen to look at that style of funding."
He said he'd often wondered if one per cent of the Goods and Services Tax should go direct to councils.
Councils knew which roads and infrastructure projects needed funding, he said.
"We know exactly the important projects and going straight to councils allows us to get them done, with our existing work crews," he said.
The LRCI was a "great fund" and had helped Moyne shire complete a lot of projects.
"It's really given us a lift, over the years, getting good projects done," Cr Smith said.
Horsham Rural City Council mayor Robyn Gulline said she supported the Australian Local Government Association's position that untied federal funding should be increased,
That would enable local government to deliver the diverse range of services, they provided from limited tax revenue.
"Directly funding councils will ensure more funds are available to meet the specific needs of each local community,," Cr Gulline said.
Pork barrelling
Pork-barrelling - misusing public money for political gain - is common in Australia and it's undermining the country's democracy, according to a new Grattan Institute report.
"Taking the pork off the table would improve the quality of public spending and strengthen our democracy," Grattan Institute chief executive Danielle Wood said.
New politics: Preventing pork-barrelling catalogues egregious examples of coalition and Labor federal and state governments using grants for infrastructure and services to 'reward' voters in government seats and 'buy votes' in marginal seats.
This means worthy projects in other electorates missed out.
Of 19,000 grants allocated by the former federal coalition government under 11 grant programs between 2017 and 2021, $1.9 billion went to coalition seats but only $530 million to Labor seats.
Across a sample of programs in the three biggest states, government seats got more than $1 million on average, compared to just over $300,000 on average for opposition seats.
"Pork-barrelling may be legally grey, but it is not good government," Ms Wood said.
"It wastes taxpayers' money, undermines public trust in our political leaders and institutions, and promotes a corrupt culture."
The report found that most of the current rules designed to prevent the politicisation of grant programs left politicians too much wiggle room.
To crack down on pork-barrelling the Institute suggested:
- Grant programs should be open, competitive, and merit-based.
- Ministers should be able to establish grant programs and define the selection criteria but should not be involved in choosing who receives grants.
- A multi-party standing parliamentary committee should oversee compliance and interrogate any minister or public official who deviates from the rules.
- Funding for Auditors-General across the country should be increased to enable wider and more frequent auditing of grant programs.