Families in some of Western Australia's most remote communities are paying nearly twice as much for fuel as those in Perth, a cost burden which flows directly into food prices, household expenses and long-term health outcomes.

In places such as Kalumburu in the Kimberley, fuel prices have climbed as high as $3.75 a litre, compared with metropolitan prices which hover closer to half that amount.

For communities already facing geographic isolation, limited infrastructure and constrained economic opportunities, the impact is profound. Every additional dollar paid at the bowser is passed on through freight, retail and services, compounding disadvantage in places where incomes are lower and choice is limited.

Djarindjin Aboriginal Corporation (Djarindjin) is calling on the Western Australian Government to intervene, arguing the current approach to fuel taxation and freight pricing is structurally unfair and economically damaging to remote communities across the state.

The corporation, a member of the Kimberley Remote Aboriginal Community Leaders Network, says the cost of fuel has become one of the most powerful drivers of food insecurity in the bush. According to Djarindjin chief executive Nathan McIvor, the price paid for transport underpins the cost of almost everything which reaches a remote community.

"When you are paying nearly double for fuel, that cost gets passed onto everything," Mr McIvor said.

'"A loaf of bread or a tin of beans can cost two or three times what Perth families pay. This is not just unfair, it is driving food insecurity and poor health outcomes, particularly in First Nations communities."

The issue, he argues, is not a single market failure but a combination of policy settings and industry practices which disproportionately affect people who have no alternatives. Remote communities rely almost entirely on long-distance road transport. They cannot shift behaviour in response to price signals in the way urban consumers can.

At the centre of Djarindjin's argument is the application of fuel excise. Remote communities pay the same state fuel excise as metropolitan areas, despite vastly different circumstances. There are no public transport alternatives, no competitive supply options and no realistic way to absorb price shocks. The result is a flat tax which penalises people simply for where they live.

"The state has the power to change this immediately," Mr McIvor said. "Removing or subsidising fuel excise in remote areas would reduce transport costs across the board and make food and essential goods more affordable. It is a practical step that aligns directly with Closing the Gap commitments."

Federal programs which subsidise essential food items in remote settings have demonstrated price reductions of between 30 and 50 per cent. Djarindjin argues applying similar logic to fuel would deliver even broader benefits, because fuel costs sit at the base of the entire supply chain. Lower fuel prices do not just benefit one retailer or one product. They ripple through every service which depends on transport.

Alongside taxation, Djarindjin is also calling for regulation of freight company fuel surcharges, which it says lack transparency and consistency. Fuel levies applied by freight operators can vary from 10 to 30 per cent on the same route, with little explanation of how those figures are calculated. In some cases, communities have reported fuel levies being applied to depot activities such as forklift use.

Originally introduced to assist line-haul operators covering long distances, fuel surcharges have expanded without standardisation. While some freight providers attempt to absorb costs to support communities, those costs are ultimately passed on.

"Without clear guidelines, communities have no way of knowing whether a surcharge is reasonable or excessive," Mr McIvor said. "We are not calling out individual operators. We are calling for a system that is transparent, consistent and fair."

The health consequences of high fuel and freight costs are well documented. As transport costs rise, nutritious food becomes less affordable, pushing households toward cheaper, calorie-dense options. Over time, this contributes to higher rates of malnutrition, diabetes and chronic disease.

The economic impacts extend further still. High operating costs deter investment, undermine local enterprises and make it harder for community-controlled organisations to build sustainable services.

Djarindjin's advocacy on fuel costs sits alongside its broader work to challenge the structural drivers of inequality in remote Australia. In recent years, the corporation has emerged as a leading voice on energy sovereignty, arguing remote communities must move from being passive consumers of expensive, unreliable power to active producers and owners of their own energy systems.

Through a proposed large-scale solar project in the Kimberley, Djarindjin has outlined a model which would reduce reliance on diesel, lower long-term energy costs and keep economic value on Country. Speaking at industry forums, the corporation's leadership has challenged governments and companies to support Indigenous-led solutions rather than imposing one-size-fits-all programs from the outside.

"We created our own solutions because the system was not working for us," Mr McIvor previously said of Djarindjin's energy plans. "And they work."

A same philosophy underpins the current call on fuel pricing. The corporation is not arguing for special treatment, but for policy settings which recognise reality. Geography is not a lifestyle choice, and remoteness should not attract a financial penalty which undermines health, economic participation and basic dignity.

Djarindjin is calling for a two-part response. First, the WA Government should remove or subsidise state fuel excise in remote communities to immediately lower fuel and freight costs. Second, industry or government regulators should establish standardised methods for calculating fuel levies, supported by transparency requirements and regular reviews.

"Remote communities should not be punished for their geography," Mr McIvor said. "These are evidence-backed solutions that would lower the cost of food and essentials, support better health outcomes and create a fairer system for people who already face systemic disadvantage."

The issues raised are not new. Kimberley leaders have been calling for action on fuel and freight costs for years. What has changed is the urgency, as prices rise and the cost-of-living crisis bites hardest in places least able to absorb it.

For Djarindjin, the message is consistent across energy, transport and economic policy. Sustainable outcomes in remote Australia will only be achieved when communities are empowered to shape the systems which affect their daily lives.

Fuel, similar to power, is not just a commodity. It is a foundation of health, opportunity and self-determination.