EQUITY is often confused with equality, but they are not the same. 
Equality means giving everyone the same resources, while equity means distributing resources based on need to ensure fair opportunities. 
Imagine two communities hit by a flood, one on higher ground and relatively safe, while the other is fully exposed. 
If both receive the same amount of recovery funding, the vulnerable community remains at risk, while the better-protected one benefits unnecessarily. 
True equity means directing resources where they are needed most to achieve fair outcomes.
This principle is at the heart of my fight for a fairer distribution of Financial Assistance (FA) Grants. 
Under the current federal model, a 30 per cent of per capita minimum funding requirement ensures that some councils receive support regardless of need, while others, mainly regional, rural, and remote councils, miss out. 
These councils face higher service-delivery costs and infrastructure maintenance burdens, but receive disproportionately less funding. 
This imbalance isn’t just frustrating; it’s a financial strain on communities that can least afford it. 
It’s also the reason city rates are often half of what regional residents pay, a stark and unfair reality.
I have been accused online of merely complaining about this inequity without taking action. That is simply not true. 
Mid Murray Council recently put forward a motion to the Local Government Association of South Australia (LGA) advocating for a fairer FA Grants model. 
The motion did not demand immediate change, but sought LGA support for reform to ensure funding is allocated based on actual need rather than an arbitrary per-capita percentage. 
However, the LGA Board deferred the motion, with advice from staff suggesting further research is needed before any action can be taken.
One of the reasons councils are members of the LGA is to have a strong, unified voice advocating for policies that benefit all councils. 
The LGA’s constitution states its purpose is to “promote the interests and position of local government.” 
Yet, despite mounting financial pressures on regional councils, meaningful discussion on this issue continues to be delayed. 
There is already ample evidence demonstrating the financial challenges regional councils face, including higher costs and lower revenue-raising capacity than their metropolitan counterparts.
The LGA has advised that further research is necessary, because changes to the funding model could impact some councils. 
However, economic modelling was identified as a priority by the LGA board in October, and five months later, councils are still waiting for this work to begin. 
Meanwhile, three years of ESCOSA advice and the Interim Report from the Inquiry into Local Government Financial Sustainability have already highlighted the growing financial strain on regional councils. The urgency for action cannot be ignored.
Currently, at least 51 of South Australia’s 68 councils are disadvantaged by the FA Grants model, and 61 per cent of those assessed by ESCOSA have not been classified as financially “sustainable”. 
Yet, funding decisions continue to be made under an outdated framework that does not reflect the true costs of delivering services in regional, rural, and remote areas.
With an election now called, I encourage our community to raise this issue with federal candidates. 
Regional councils cannot continue shouldering an unfair financial burden. 
A fair and sustainable funding model is not about taking resources away from others; it is about ensuring all communities receive the support they need to thrive.
This is a crucial moment for regional South Australia, especially as we face the impacts of drought. 
If we don’t push for change now, when will we? 
Our communities deserve a funding model that reflects reality, not outdated formulas. 
I will continue to fight for this issue because our communities deserve better. 
Future generations should not be left to struggle with the consequences of inaction.
This is a legacy worth fighting for.