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. Many of the Closing the Gap targets,
including those related to life expectancy and employment, are deeply
influenced by geography. (Australian Government, n.d.).
This geographic divide has real consequences. Outcomes such as life
expectancy and unemployment remain relatively consistent for
non-Indigenous Australians across regions. In contrast, for First
Nations people, these indicators worsen with remoteness, life expectancy
falls, unemployment rises, and the disparity grows.
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.