Jump to Content

Appendix E : Ranking of Councils on a Relative Needs Basis 2000-01

Councils often compare the grant they receive with the grants of other councils in their State and assume that, if another council gets a similar sized grant, then that other council has been assessed as having similar needs. Such an assumption can be incorrect.

In determining the allocation of general purpose grants and the local roads grants to councils, local government grants commissions implicitly determine a ranking for each council in their State on the basis of relative needs. A comparison of councils on the basis of relative needs is preferred to a comparison on the basis of the actual grant they receive.

In this appendix, the grant per capita is used as the basis of the comparison of relative need for the general purpose grants. For local roads grants, the allocation of grants for each council in 2000-01 is divided by their length of local roads to obtain a relative need measure. In tables E.1 to E.7, councils within a State are sorted on the value of:

  • the general purpose grant per capita;
  • the local roads grants per kilometre; and
  • and their ranking obtained for both measures.

Councils are ranked from the council in the greatest relative need to the council in the least relative need. For each State, the position of the average general purpose grant per capita and the average local roads grant per kilometre are also shown within the ranking of councils. These State averages are taken from tables 3.5 and 3.6.

Councils should use these rankings when comparing the financial assistance grants they receive with the financial assistance grants other councils in their State receive. For instance, Appendix D shows that the Shire of Cooloola in Queensland (URM) received $1,556,401 in general purpose grants in 2000-01 while the City of Caloundra (URL) received $1,040,041. The Shire of Cooloola's grant is $46.86 per capita while the City of Caloundra's grant is $14.60 per capita. This suggests that the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission has assessed the Shire of Cooloola as having the greater relative need. In table E.3 below, the Shire of Cooloola is shown to rank 126 among Queensland councils for general purpose grants while the City of Caloundra is a minimum grant council and is ranked 149.

Table E.1: New South Wales councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding, by per capita and kilometre, 2000-01

Table E.2: Victorian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding, by per capita and kilometre, 2000-01

Table E.3: Queensland councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding, by per capita and kilometre, 2000-01

Table E.4: Western Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding, by per capita and kilometre, 2000-01

Table E.5: South Australian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding, by per capita and kilometre, 2000-01

Table E.6: Tasmanian councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding, by per capita and kilometre, 2000-01

Table E.7: Northern Territory councils ranked by financial assistance grant funding, by per capita and kilometre, 2000-01

Back to Top