The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 6.1 aims for universal access to safe and affordable drinking water. While Australia reports achieving this target, significant disparities exist in regional and remote areas. Poor water quality and access hinder health and economic outcomes in these communities. High-income countries like the US, Canada, and New Zealand are investing heavily to address similar challenges. In Australia, major public investments in drinking water infrastructure are a national priority, with the Productivity Commission recommending subsidies to ensure affordable access to a basic level of service. The ADWG provides a national framework for drinking water quality, setting health-based and aesthetic guideline values. While not mandatory standards, they inform state and territory regulations, industry reporting, and federal policy. Annual public reports summarizing performance against these values are recommended, but data collation at the national level remains incomplete. The Urban National Performance Report (NPR) covers utilities serving over 10,000 connections, leaving approximately two million Australians unrepresented. Sub-national reporting is more comprehensive in major cities but fragmented elsewhere, with significant gaps in remote areas. Unsafe water access in remote Indigenous communities is a persistent national policy issue despite decades of inquiries and research. This paper aims to quantify these gaps using publicly available data and propose a solution: a national drinking water quality database.

The literature review highlights existing research on water quality disparities in regional and remote Australia, particularly concerning Indigenous communities. It cites reports and studies documenting inadequate water access and quality, linking them to adverse health and economic outcomes. The review also examines international examples of large investments to improve water infrastructure and policies in high-income countries grappling with similar issues. Key reports and recommendations from Australian governmental bodies and organizations representing Indigenous peoples, health providers, water utilities, and local governments are reviewed, all emphasizing the need for improved access to safe and reliable drinking water, particularly in disadvantaged communities. The ADWG’s role in establishing guidelines and advocating for transparency and public reporting is discussed, along with existing limitations in data collection and accessibility at the national level. Existing national and sub-national reporting frameworks are evaluated, pointing out their strengths and weaknesses in capturing the true extent of water quality issues in regional and remote areas.

The study employed a mixed-methods approach combining data collection and analysis. First, four definitions of a basic level of drinking water quality were established, referencing the ADWG and SDG Target 6.1 indicators: 1. **SDG 6.1:** No exceedances of ADWG health-based guideline values for fecal contamination (*E. coli*) and two priority chemicals (arsenic, fluoride). 2. **ADWG Health:** Compliance with all ADWG health-based guideline values for microbial contamination, 212 chemical parameters, and radiological quality. 3. **ADWG Good:** Compliance with all ADWG health-based and aesthetic guideline values for physical characteristics. 4. **Metropolitan:** Compliance with all ADWG health-based and aesthetic guideline values, benchmarking against capital city values for chemical parameters. Second, a national dataset of exceedances against ADWG values was constructed from publicly available reports of 177 utilities for the 2018–2019 financial year. Data collection involved reviewing public reports, government agency websites, and using search engines. The study faced significant data limitations, particularly concerning New South Wales, where public reporting is not mandatory. Third, water quality, population, and location data were matched to estimate the number of people lacking access to basic water quality based on the four definitions. Population data was sourced using a hierarchy of data sources: utility data, ABS census data, and government organization data for remote communities. Finally, data was analyzed to identify key exceedances, compare capital cities with remote Indigenous communities, and identify data gaps. The limitations of the data, such as the lack of consistent reporting across jurisdictions and the absence of data from private supplies and water carting, are acknowledged throughout the analysis. Geographic locations were classified according to the ABS Remoteness Area classification to categorize communities as regional, remote, very remote and major cities.

The study found substantial discrepancies between reported national drinking water access (consistent with SDG Target 6.1) and the reality in regional and remote areas. At least 25,245 people across 99 locations with populations under 1000 reportedly accessed water services that did not comply with health-based guideline values. Including larger towns and water systems, the estimated service gap rises to at least 174,488 people across more than 115 locations. Considering health parameters and the ADWG definition of 'good' aesthetic characteristics, the reported service gap rises to at least 627,736 people across 408 locations. Forty percent of all locations with recorded health exceedances were remote Indigenous communities. The most common health-based exceedances were for trihalomethanes, nitrate, *E. coli*, and fluoride. Common aesthetic exceedances involved hardness, sodium, and total dissolved solids. Data gaps were extensive, particularly in New South Wales, where public reporting is not mandatory. Capital cities showed significantly higher service levels compared to remote areas and Indigenous communities. The study estimated that at least 0.7% (SDG 6.1), 3.1% (ADWG Health), 11.1% (ADWG Good), and 25.0% (Metropolitan) of the approximately 5.7 million people living outside capital cities in 2018–19 lacked access to the defined levels of service. Tables 2-5 provide detailed breakdowns by state/territory and location size.

The findings highlight significant disparities in drinking water quality and access across Australia, particularly in regional, remote, and Indigenous communities. The study demonstrates that national reporting based solely on SDG 6.1 underestimates the extent of the problem. The variations in service levels across different definitions highlight the need for locally relevant benchmarks that go beyond the minimal standards of SDG 6.1. The prevalence of exceedances in small and remote towns, especially remote Indigenous communities, underscores the need for context-specific policy initiatives that address cultural, geographical, and socioeconomic factors. The high prevalence of chlorine-related aesthetic exceedances in the Metropolitan benchmark highlights the need for greater consideration of consumer preferences and expectations. The major data gaps identified, especially in New South Wales, emphasize the urgent need for mandatory standardized reporting across all jurisdictions. The study advocates for participatory processes involving communities in defining acceptable service levels.

This study demonstrates the significant gaps in drinking water quality and policy in regional and remote Australia, particularly impacting Indigenous communities. The discrepancies between national reporting and the actual situation highlight the limitations of using standardized global indicators. The authors advocate for a nationally consistent, publicly accessible drinking water quality database to improve transparency, accountability, and inform evidence-based policy interventions. Future research should focus on longitudinal data collection to track service improvements over time, address data gaps, and incorporate structural and process indicators alongside outcome-based indicators to provide a more comprehensive understanding of water security in Australia.

The study is limited by its reliance on publicly available data, which resulted in significant data gaps, especially in New South Wales. Population estimates are less reliable where utilities do not provide population data for service areas. The analysis did not account for all potential contaminants, breaches of operational guidelines, boil water notices, or service disruptions not captured in water quality reports. The study focused on a single year, precluding an assessment of changes over time. The absence of standardized reporting conventions across jurisdictions hindered a more comprehensive analysis of compliance with guidelines. The study did not account for variable testing frequencies, meaning the absence of a contaminant in testing does not equate to its absence in reality. Finally, many remote Indigenous communities lack external water suppliers, resulting in limited or no water monitoring data.