In the remote communities across Central Australia, fuel gauges and household budgets tell the same story. Living costs in remote Indigenous communities are around 39 per cent higher than those in major urban centres, yet the government payment designed to help people cope has stood still for more than a quarter-century.
This is not an abstract policy failure. Walk through communities spread across the 777,000 square kilometres that the Central Land Council represents, and you meet families calculating every litre of fuel, every fresh vegetable, every medical trip. The remote area allowance, a federal supplementary payment meant to address the tyranny of distance, was last increased in 2000. It has not been indexed since.
Dr Josie Douglas, a Wardaman woman and General Manager of the Central Land Council, puts the human reality simply. "The subsidy helps, but fuel prices will quickly erode those savings," she said. "Prices for key items like fresh food will rise sharply, and families will struggle to keep up."
The numbers back her up. At December 2023, about 90,000 people received the allowance of $9.10 per week for singles, $15.60 per week for couples and $3.65 per child. Sixty-nine per cent of recipients are First Nations people, making it a crucial lifeline for some of Australia's most economically vulnerable households.
Yet the gap between cost and support has become a chasm. Higher prices for basic goods in remote Indigenous communities stem from small populations and geographical remoteness, which limits buying power and increases freight costs. Vehicle maintenance, electricity, telecommunications, and above all else, fuel: all cost significantly more out here than in Sydney or Melbourne.
The fuel premium is particularly stark. Aboriginal people in remote communities are paying approximately $4 per litre for diesel, nearly double the price in metropolitan areas. In some communities, power disconnections run into the dozens per year as prepayment tariffs leave families unable to afford electricity. One remote community pays electricity at rates triple those charged in Adelaide.
The federal government introduced the remote area allowance in 1984 to meet "additional costs associated with residence in remote areas". That logic still holds. What no longer holds is the payment. Living costs in remote areas are almost 40 per cent higher on average than costs in urban areas, yet the remote area allowance provides only an additional 1.5 to 2.8 per cent in income support, depending on the base payment.
This is the core problem the Central Land Council is raising with government. The mismatch between cost reality and government support has become untenable. Rising fuel and food prices mean that every fortnight, families in remote communities fall further behind. The allowance that was designed to bridge the gap has become a symbol of how distant Canberra policymaking can be from the lived experience of remote Australia.
There is a practical case for change, and it rests on numbers, not sentiment. To address cost-of-living disparities adequately, an increase of $120 to $300 per week has been estimated as necessary. Researchers, community organisations, and now the Central Land Council are all pointing to the same conclusion: the current system fails to meet its own stated purpose.
Dr Douglas said it plainly: "With fuel prices hitting our people so hard, it's time for the government to raise it. Cost of living pressures are being felt nationwide, but low-income families in remote communities are bearing the brunt."
The case for maintaining the current freeze is harder to articulate. Fiscal responsibility demands that government payments reflect reality. If a policy was designed to address cost differences 25 years ago, and those differences have only grown, then the policy has failed. Maintaining it does nothing to promote individual responsibility or reward work; it simply leaves people behind.
There is also the question of what government support for remote communities actually costs. About half a million Australians live in remote areas far from cities, where the tyranny of distance makes living and doing business challenging, and many things taken for granted by most Australians are unavailable or difficult to get. Yet for those in remote Australia there is frequently a strong personal or cultural connection to a place and community as well as to the way of life it offers.
These communities are not merely surviving; they are sustaining cultures, languages, and connections to country that are uniquely Australian. The cost of supporting that continuity is not lavish. Increasing the remote area allowance to something approaching its intended purpose would be a small expenditure in national terms, reaching a tiny fraction of the population, yet it would directly affect whether families can afford to stay and whether young people have any reason to remain.
The Central Land Council is not asking for unlimited support or making ideological arguments. It is asking that a payment designed to meet a specific cost difference actually meet that cost difference. After 25 years of inaction, that is a reasonable ask. The government now has an opportunity to correct a policy that time has rendered ineffective. Whether it does so will say something about how seriously Canberra takes the word "remote" in remote area allowance.