When looking at Australia’s population distribution, a clear trend
emerges: the more remote the area, the higher the proportion of First
Nations people compared to non-Indigenous Australians. As of the 2021
Census, nearly 15% of all individuals identifying as First Nations live
in remote or very remote parts of the country (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2023) .
Remoteness is defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
using the Accessibility and Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA+), which
measures the relative access to services based on road distances to
population centers. Areas are classified into five categories: Major
Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote, and Very Remote
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023).
Closing the Gap can’t be tackled with one-size-fits-all solutions.
It’s not just about improving outcomes at a national level, it also has
to be about where people live. While most non-Indigenous Australians are
based in urban and regional centers, a much larger proportion of First
Nations people (approximately 15%) live in remote or very remote areas
(Australian Government, n.d.).
Examples of this are clear in outcomes like life expectancy and
unemployment. For non-Indigenous Australians, these indicators remain
relatively stable across regions. But for First Nations people, the more
remote the location, the worse the outcomes. Life expectancy drops,
unemployment rises, and the gap widens with distance.
The more remote the location, the worse the outcomes: lower life
expectancy, higher unemployment, and a growing gap. Addressing
geography is critical to real change.