Bridging the infrastructure gap
Each Small Town, Rural Community and Remote Area has distinct strengths and challenges that affect its residents' quality of life. However, there are several commonalities around infrastructure in smaller settlements.
In low-population areas, communities and their businesses rely more on available infrastructure for their productivity and wellbeing than their city counterparts. Yet infrastructure is more expensive to provide on a per-person basis in these areas, leading to lack of choice and higher prices.
Having poor infrastructure services in Small
Towns, Rural Communities and Remote Areas is limiting their opportunities for current and future growth and may undermine the long-term viability of some communities. There needs to be a more systematic approach to meeting infrastructure needs across sectors.
The 2019 Audit reported that infrastructure service quality in remote areas is often poor. It noted that better connection to the rest of the country is vital for individuals and economies, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.78
| 1.3 Recommendation Support a better quality of life by aligning funding and minimum standards with principles for sustainable infrastructure delivery in Small Towns, Rural Communities and Remote Areas. Proposed sponsor: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Supported by: State and territory regional service agencies | ||||
| When this should impact: |
| Where this should impact: |
| |
|
| 1.3.1 Ensure communities in Small Towns. ' Rural Communities and Remote Areas have access to infrastructure services in line with defined minimum standards. Proposed lead: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Supported by: State and territory regional service agencies | |||
|
| Based on community size, demographics and location, define minimum standards across economic infrastructure sectors (transport, energy, water, telecommunications and waste). Proposed lead: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Supported by: State and territory regional service agencies | |||
|
| Based on community size, demographics and location, define minimum standards across social infrastructure. Proposed lead: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Supported by: State and territory regional service agencies | |||
|
| Manage potential future population and economic growth by developing staged land use plans that accommodate infrastructure and land use requirements. Proposed lead: State and territory planning departments | |||
|
| Identify demand pressures by monitoring and forecasting population and service density for infrastructure services for small towns. Proposed lead: State and territory demographers Supported by: State and territory regional service agencies | |||
|
| Ensure nationally consistent governance arrangements for municipal services in remote areas by including the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands in the South Australian Government's Municipal Services (MUNS) program. Proposed lead: Office of Local Government South Australia Supported by: South Australian Department of Premier and Cabinet | |||
|
| 1.3.2 Improve the transparency and effectiveness of Community Service Obligations by redesigning them to include robust criteria, be cost-neutral and reflect community priorities. Proposed sponsor: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Supported by: State and territory regional service agencies | |||
|
| To ensure Community Service Obligations are delivering public value, establish an interdepartmental taskforce to review their performance and identify potential improvements. Proposed lead: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications | |||
|
| Improve understanding of costs and benefits of Community Service Obligations through mandatory public reporting on their performance. Proposed lead: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Supported by: State and territory regional service agencies. | |||
|
| Ensure assets are culturally responsive and will be well-utilised by undertaking service design for Community Service Obligations in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Proposed lead: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Supported by: National Indigenous Australians Agency, state and territory Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs departments, state and territory regional service agencies | |||
|
| 1.3.3. Facilitate sharing of infrastructure services and resources between communities and individuals by enabling the sharing economy. Proposed lead: Department of Transport, Infrastructure, Regional Development and Communications Supported by: Geoscience Australia, Digital Transformation Agency, Department of Finance, Services Australia, state and territory government property agencies | |||
|
| Ensure infrastructure assets in Small Towns, Rural Communities and Remote Areas are understood and used by incorporating them in the Digital Atlas of Australia. Proposed lead: Geoscience Australia Supported by: Office of the National Data Commissioner, Digital Transformation Agency | |||
|
| Support service provision and sharing of Community Service Obligation benefits by integrating their funding arrangements with place-centric asset-sharing platforms tailored to Small Towns, Rural Communities and Remote Areas. Proposed lead: Department of Finance Supported by: Services Australia, Digital Transformation Agency | |||
|
| Provide services efficiently by optimising investment in built assets and social infrastructure through developing integrated infrastructure strategies across governments. Proposed lead: Department of Finance Supported by: State and territory government property agencies | |||
Measuring progress
|
| Infrastructure minimum standards reporting Public reporting on infrastructure availability and quality against minimum standards in all communities with a population under 10,000 | ||
| Access | Target: 100% | Timeframe: |
|
|
| Localised Community Service Obligations Communities with minimum standards can participate in Community Service Obligation co-design
| ||
| Quality | Target: 100% | Timeframe: |
|
|
| Community Service Obligation contestability Community Service Obligation provision is contestable | ||
| Affordability | Target: 100% | Timeframe: |
|
