What is the state of trust in Australian public services in regional Australia?

Context matters

In this project focus groups were undertaken in 22 different communities, each with different economic, demographic, environmental and geographic characteristics (see Appendix 2). Despite the differences between these communities, their broad perceptions and understanding of the drivers of trust in Australian public services were similar; although, nuanced differences were observable when types of services, the nature of service delivery and access to services were considered.

Regional citizens felt their communities were different from others, that they faced different and often unique issues and hence context-based services were important. Additionally, prevailing economic conditions of communities affected their trust in government services, with those facing additional adversity, such as drought, displaying reduced trust in government due to their perceived lack of support from government:

“Your brother might share this with you sometimes too, that he probably feels that [Regional Centre] is quite different from the rest of the country and that they feel like their issues are quite unique. I think [Regional Centre] also feels like that. That we’re just a little bit separate from the rest of [State] and things work a bit differently here to how they might work in the city.” [FG26]

“I think we’re exposed more to the drought, which at the present time is affecting a lot of people’s trust in the government. … They’re giving very limited resources out, access to services” [FG6]

For others, cost of living and employment conditions were high priorities, while a perceived “lack of humanity” in government affected peoples’ trust in it to deliver policies (and with that services) that would make a positive difference in their lives. These differences between communities were identified by a small number of participants who recognised the efforts of policy and programs, but who sought more bespoke services that better suited their community needs, and which would improve their trust in services:

“Perhaps around here there have been some small good changes and that happens everywhere but there’s a lot of lacking things that aren’t really looked at, and it seems like they don’t really want to listen to what people are talking about and saying within the communities and what they need. So, what’s the point in trusting them? Why not just do it ourselves?” [FG34]

This highlights the importance of context in designing and implementing services to ensure they meet the priority needs identified by the community and hence engender trust in service delivery.

Service similarities and differences

Given the low number of focus groups undertaken in urban areas, direct comparison of service delivery perceptions is difficult and was not the intent of this research; however, some case communities were in major regional centres, which does provide some insights. In one major regional centre, the perceived difference in the quality of public service delivery between their community and remote communities was stark:

“I think most of the time when they deliver their services they do them reasonably well. Probably with the exception I think in rural and remote areas, I think they do appallingly badly in those areas.” [FG19]

Some regional citizens who have also experienced metropolitan service delivery did not think that being in a regional area affected service delivery outcomes, with one participant thinking it might be easier in regional areas due to parking availability, while another found it much quicker:

“Well, I’ve lived in both, I don’t think it really makes any difference. Really. Still go to [Health Support Service], [Financial Support Service] here, it’s just – get the same service I would have got in Sydney.” [FG7]

“I think it’s easier to get face to face in [regional town] than it would have been in Sydney, because of the parking issues and all that sort of stuff.” [FG7]

“I moved from Sydney three years ago. In Sydney to go to my local [Financial Services Agency] office, it was a 10, 15 minute line up to put your name down, and then standing, not sitting because all the seats were already full, for two, three hours, to actually see somebody. The first time I went down to the local [Financial Services Agency] office here, I was in and out in 10 minutes.” [FG7]

While some participants did not feel they missed out on services, others noted that services were becoming increasingly difficult to access, which was seen as important if a user was new to the service:

“I don’t think we miss out, I think everyone’s in the same boat.” [FG12]

“I know people who find it difficult, but they’re [in remote areas], out of the area, but they’ve said, “We can still access it.” Through their internet, the communication, the technology; that’s helping really.” [FG35]

“We’re losing out a little bit insofar as offices are being closed in regional areas … It makes it more difficult to access the services. It takes away an option, whether make a phone call, or actually go and face someone. Especially if you’re accessing a service for the first time, and so it’s complicated, and it’s new, and you don’t have a good understanding of it.” [FG7]

“I think when you deal with mostly online or over the phone, you don’t notice as much and coming back to that trust, you trust that the federal government will ensure the services are available nationwide regardless of location. It becomes an issue when you physically have to utilise the retail offices and that’s where I think regional locations are clearly a bit difficult.” [FG32]

These service delivery experiences highlight the importance of online services to enable equity of access to all citizens, and the need to continue to provide access to shopfronts across regional areas.

Here, and throughout this report very few differences were identified between the perspectives and experiences of regional and urban citizens that did not emerge from highly localised effects such as the structure of the local economy. This highlights the importance of not assuming significant attitudinal difference when treating regional and urban citizens in policy terms. While it is acknowledged that regional communities often face different challenges to urban communities and hence may require alternative service delivery systems (e.g. mobile services), in terms of service delivery regional citizens expect the same service qualities as their urban counterparts.

Remoteness and resilience

Like urban citizens, regional citizens’ trust in Australian public service delivery was premised on their service experiences and outcomes; however, particularly in remote communities, citizens were aware they had less access to some services (not core services like Medicare, Centrelink or ATO but services such as allied support, etc.) and hence needed to source other forms of support:

“Because it’s just not there so you go find something else. … You do something else. You go somewhere else. You find an alternative.” [FG36]

In addition, some remote communities highlighted the underlying community cohesion that supported alternative support options, where the community worked to support their vulnerable people whether it be through community-run transport to services in regional centres, fundraising for locally-based health equipment (although often with poor support from authorities – see Box 1), or simply looking out for local community members:

“And [regional community] is a very helping community. If I had somebody coming in and they were not complying … they really had an issue and their family had an issue, I would go out of my way to help that family within my framework, … I’d do everything possible” [FG17]

However, some citizens felt that this need for self-sufficiency was inequitable when compared with services urban citizens were perceived to receive:

“But it shouldn’t be down to the people to look after themselves out here more or less. Whereas, if you go in the city, there’ll be three or four different places you can visit.” [FG6]

A number of remote community focus group participants were highly entrepreneurial in their work and their approach to addressing community needs. They attributed this to the demands of living in regional communities and the need to be flexible to survive, and the desire to help:

“Economically it's much harder than regional, so you need to be prepared to kind of flip and be diverse, have a bit of diversity and be resourceful.” [FG18]

“I actually went for a job interview this morning at the hospital, but still not enough hours in that either, so in my spare time, I volunteer for St John and we go and help people and take them to hospital.” [FG18]

The self-sufficiency and associated resilience of some regional and remote communities provides opportunities for bespoke, place-based service delivery approaches. Coupled with improved genuine engagement, government support for place-based service delivery could help to improve both service delivery outcomes and, consequently, lift public trust. Such support would need to be designed around local community needs, and account for existing community capabilities including available skills and formal and informal institutional support networks (see Appendix 1).