(1) What was the basis of the Government's decision to move to tied grants for funding under the Roads to Recovery Act and does the decision mean that there will be two streams of local roads assistance, with existing grants paid under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act and the roads to recovery grants paid under the Roads to Recovery Act.

(2) How do the distribution of grants under the Roads to Recovery Act compare with those that apply under existing arrangements for the distribution of roads grants.

(3) How do the criteria used under the Act vary from formulae used by States Grants Commissions.

(4) In the development of the formula used under the Roads to Recovery Act were the State Grants Commissions consulted as to which methodologies should be used.

(5) On the basis of the formula used under the Roads to Recovery Act, will Victoria, Queensland and South Australia gain under the roads to recovery allocation at the expense of New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.

(6) How does the monetary value of the grants under the Roads to Recovery Act compare to that which would have occurred if the grants had been determined on the basis of the formula used to determine the interstate distribution of road funds on the basis of the National Principles in the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act.

(1) The Roads to Recovery Programme is designed to address the specific problem that much of the local government road infrastructure will reach the end of its economic life at about the same time and its replacement being beyond the financial capacity of local government. Tied grants are therefore appropriate. There are therefore two streams of assistance.

(2) A table setting out the allocations by percentage by State/Territory for Financial Assistance Grants scheme funds identified for roads (2000/01 estimated) and Roads to Recovery (life of programme) follows.

(3) Allocations between councils within each State are in accordance with formulae adopted by State Grants Commissions for the distribution of Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs) identified for roads for 2000/01. The Grants Commission formulae have no bearing on allocations between States.

(4) No. Some factual information was sought from the States Grants Commissions but their views were not sought in relation to methodology.

(5) All jurisdictions gain. The new Programme provides a 75 percent increase in Commonwealth local roads funding overall, with some jurisdictions receiving as much as a 112 per cent increase.

(6) The following table shows the State allocations under Roads to Recovery and the allocation as it would have been using Local Road FAGs State shares.