[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 0

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services

[In]Sight: Australia’s regional competitiveness index is the lens regions need to make the most of their advantages.

This report provides an analysis of Infrastructure and Essential Services in [In]Sight: Australia’s regional competitiveness index. Other analysis reports, a detailed user guide and the online

interactive map including 624 regional competitiveness profiles are available at www.regionalaustralia.org.au/insight

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 1

Making the Most of Our Regional Infrastructure and Essential Services

Infrastructure and essential services are necessary to support the effective functioning of local economies and the quality of life that a region needs to attract and retain residents and businesses. The most competitive regions in this theme have strong scores not only on the transportation infrastructure indicators, but also on the measures of essential services such as schools, medical facilities and healthcare workers. These are necessary ancillary factors that build the human capital essential for driving a successful modern economy. The regional areas that are most competitive in this theme are our largest Regional Cities. Newcastle in New South Wales and Greater Geelong in Victoria are examples of Regional Cities that serve as important infrastructure hubs. Despite a few stand out performers, many areas in regional Australia perform poorly in this theme. Only 17 regional Local Government Areas (LGAs) ranked in the top 100 overall, while all of the LGAs below the median rank of 283 are regional. This result reflects the inherent competitive disadvantage of distance. While location cannot be changed, its negative impact can be mitigated. The greatest competitive challenge for regional Australia is minimising the competitive impact of distance. An increase in the quality of infrastructure would provide some small gains, but overcoming the tyranny of distance requires a systematic utilisation of technology and other resources. It would enable regional Australia to access the same services such as education and health, despite not having the advantage of proximity to infrastructure hubs.

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 2

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 3

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 4

Introduction This report examines the key trends within the Infrastructure and Essential Services theme in [In]Sight: Australia’s regional competitiveness index. Infrastructure and essential services are vital to a region’s competitiveness. The Infrastructure theme is designed to reflect competitiveness in both traditional physical infrastructure and essential services that provide areas with economic opportunities in the short term, but also livability and the ability to adapt to macroeconomic forces in the long term. Each Local Government Area (LGA) in Australia is grouped into a regional type. These are Regional Cities, Connected Lifestyle Areas, Industry and Service Hubs and the Heartland Regions (see Figure 2). Trends across regional areas in each state and the Northern Territory are also reviewed.i This report is one of a series of 10 examining the trends in each of the themes of [In]Sight.

Measuring Infrastructure and Essential Services in [In]Sight Infrastructure and essential services are measured using eleven indicators in [In]Sight. These competitiveness measures reflect the competitive benefits of proximity when accessing infrastructure and essential services. This theme does not include measures of infrastructure quality as they are generally not consistently available for most infrastructure service types. Transport infrastructure - roads, rail, airports and ports - is critical to the efficient delivery of goods and services and support a region’s competitiveness in economic markets by reducing freight costs.

x Distance to airport (sourced from GIS calculations): the distance to the nearest commercial airport. Access to commercial airports improves the competitiveness of regions for business (air post) and improves accessibility for tourists. A lesser distance to an airport station results in a higher ranking.

x Distance to port (sourced from GIS calculations): the distance to the nearest port. Access to port infrastructure reduces freight costs. A lesser distance to a port results in a higher ranking.

x Road infrastructure (sourced from GIS calculations): the percentage of households greater than 10km driving distance from a major highway. The access to major highways reduces transportation costs and improves general accessibility. A greater percentage of households situated close to a major highway (dual carriageway or principal road) results in a higher ranking.

x Rail infrastructure (sourced from GIS calculations): the distance to the nearest rail station (either freight or passenger). Access to local rail infrastructure reduces freight costs. Lower values result in a higher ranking.

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 5

Educational infrastructure - access to primary, secondary, technical and further education and tertiary education services – indicates the accessibility of essential education services.

x Access to tertiary education services (sourced from ABS Census data): the percentage of the working age population attending university or another higher education institution. A greater percentage of people attending a university results in a higher ranking.

x Access to technical or further education services (sourced from ABS Census data): the percentage of the working age population attending technical or further education institutions. A greater percentage of people attending a technical and further education institution results in a higher ranking.

x Access to primary education services (sourced from My Schools data and GIS calculations): the distance to the nearest primary school (km). A shorter distance to a primary school results in a higher ranking.

x Access to secondary education services (sourced from My Schools data and GIS calculations): the distance to the nearest secondary school (km). A shorter distance to a secondary school results in a higher ranking.

Health infrastructure - access to hospitals, allied health and GP services - supports the ability of a community to provide a skilled and unskilled workforce to meet the demand for goods and services.

x Distance to a medical facility (GIS calculations): the distance from the nearest medical facility. A lesser distance to a medical facility results in a better ranking.

x Access to allied health services (sourced from ABS Census data): the percentage of workforce employed in allied health services (excluding hospitals). Allied health services are generally provided at a more local level than hospitals. A greater proportion of allied health professionals lead to a higher ranking.

x Access to GP services (sourced from ABS Census data): the number of GP services (patient consultations) per year. A greater number of GP visits per capita results in a higher ranking.

Further information on this theme and the measurement and construction of the index is available in the [In]Sight 2014 User Guide.ii

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 6

Infrastructure and Essential Services and Competitiveness in Regional Australia There is a consistent pattern to the results of this theme (Figure 1). Only 17 regional LGAs are in the top 100 for this theme, while all those below the median rank of 283 are regional. The densely populated metropolitan areas and regional cities of the eastern states are most competitive, while the outer regional and remote areas fare poorly.

Figure 1: LGA Competitiveness for Infrastructure and Essential Services, Australia Source: [In]Sight: Australia’s regional competitiveness index Indicators of transport infrastructure in regional Australia One of the attractive features of regional Australia is the lifestyle that it can provide. While a resident in a regional LGA is on average 24.4 km from a major road, residents in more populated regional areas often have very competitive access to railway stations, roads and airports without the hassle of metropolitan traffic. This ease of access is particularly evident in hubs such as Albury and Dubbo in New South Wales. Both LGAs rank highly on transport indicators. The residents of Dubbo in New South Wales are, on average, 1.5 km from a major road and 3.7 km from a railway station.

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 7

Similarly, residents of Albury in Victoria are 1.2 km from the nearest major road and 4.4 km from the nearest railway station. This is part of the reason that population growth has been strong in more populated Regional Cities, as outlined in the RAI’s submission to the Senate committee inquiry into Australia’s Hidden Metropolis: the Future Role and Contribution of Regional Capitals to Australia. Some components of hard infrastructure are very difficult or impossible to change, but can be effectively compensated for by investment in other types of infrastructure. Many areas are a very large distance from a port, making rail, air or road links very important for these areas to achieve cost effective transportation. For example, Alice Springs in the Northern Territory is over 900 km from a port, but the average resident there is only 2.8 km from a railway station. Indicators of access to education in regional Australia [In]Sight measures educational resources in two ways: utilisation of tertiary and technical education services, and distance to primary and secondary schools. Regional students in a small number of areas need to travel large distances to the nearest primary or secondary schools. Children in 24 regional areas are more than 100 km from the nearest primary school and 13 regional areas are more than 100 km from the nearest secondary school. Because children in these areas are so distant from a school they may rely on education by correspondence. In other cases large distances may result in poor school attendance. Utilisation measures indicate ease of access and uptake rates for tertiary and technical education. Armidale Dumaresq, a hub for regional education ranks in the top 50 for access to both tertiary and technical education, with 4.2 per cent and 17.5 per cent respectively. 30 LGAs have no participants in tertiary or technical education. In regional Australia, on average 2.8 per cent of adults were participating in tertiary education in 2011, which is very similar to the average of 3.2 per cent in metropolitan areas. Technical education has an average uptake of 8.5 per cent in metropolitan and 2.2 per cent in regional areas. The regional average is influenced by very low participation rates in areas further from metropolitan and Regional Cities. Finding ways to bridge the gap in access to technical education is an important challenge for regional Australia. Indicators of access to health services in regional Australia Residents in regional areas are much further away from medical facilities, which is to be expected given the wide dispersion of the population in remote LGAs. The shortage of GP services is a well recognised issue for regional Australia. More than a million people, which works out to one in 20 Australians, live in seven under-served but highly populated areas – Tamworth, Goulburn, Mt Isa, the Northern Territory and rural parts of Western Australiaiii. This challenge should be approached with innovative alternatives such as e-health services and the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 8

Ballarat in Victoria and Orange in New South Wales are two of the best performing regional areas for health related social infrastructure. Residents in both LGAs are within 4 km of a medical facility, ranking 132nd and 75th respectively. 47 regional LGAs are on average more than 100 kilometres from the nearest medical facility. Regional Australians are on average 48.8km from a medical facility. A resident of a metro area visits a GP 5.4 times a year on average compared to 4.7 times in regional areas.

Wollongong and Greater Geraldton: a social infrastructure competitiveness comparison Wollongong is a major Regional City in New South Wales that is well connected to transport networks. Port Kembla in Wollongong is the primary coal port for southern and western New South Wales. It hosts one of Australia’s largest seaports and industrial complexes. Wollongong is also an important commercial and services hub which hosts a large regional university and provides families with good access to health and education. Wollongong achieves a top 100 rank in eight of the 11 indicators in the Infrastructure theme, giving it a rank of 26 amongst Australia’s 564 LGAs.

Port Kembla Harbour, image released under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3. Greater Geraldton in Western Australia is also home to a major port used for trade in resources. It has very good transport links, obtaining a top 100 score in each indicator of transport infrastructure. However Geraldton’s social infrastructure and essential services are not as well developed as in Wollongong. The latter has a per capita GP services utilisation of 3.97, and only 1.8 per cent of the working age population pursuing technical education. In Wollongong, the per capita GP services uptake is 6.41, with 9.3 per cent of the working age population enrolled in a technical education program. As a result, Greater Geraldton achieves only a middling rank overall, 227 of 564, due to scores across the indicators of essential services. Since 2011 Greater Geraldton has implemented keystone projects such as an upgrade of the Geraldton Universities Centre. These are important steps towards improving the competitiveness of Geraldton as an emerging Regional City and supporting future economic growth.

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 9

Infrastructure and Essential Services in Different Types of Regions Overall trends are important but it is also important to consider different groups of regions with similar foundations in regional Australia. The RAI identifies four distinct and important groups of areas that have different development pathways (Figure 2). These groups are categorised based on proximity to major metropolitan regions, which are an important source of competitive advantage.

Figure 2: Four types of regional communities Source: RAI Talking Point: The Foundations of Regional Australia There is a consistent divide between the regional types in the Infrastructure and Essential Services theme. Regional Cities are either most competitive or highly competitive on all but one indicator - access to GP services. The Heartland Regions occupy the opposite end of a highly contrasting spectrum. They rank as least competitive of the regional types on all of the 11 indicators in this theme, reflecting their lack of proximity to other major settlements. In the transportation indicators (Table 1) Regional Cities are the most competitive. Connected Lifestyle Regions perform less well than Industry and Service Hubs on the distance to airport indicator, but much better on the access to ports and access to railway indicators.

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 10

The divide between the remote Heartland Region and the other regional types is especially clear in the road infrastructure indicator. The average distance from residents in Heartland Regions areas to the closest major road is 34.8 km, more than seven times greater than in Connected Lifestyle Regions and over 17 times greater than in Regional Cities. Table 1: Summary of average results for each regional type within transportation indicators.

Group Regional Cities Connected Lifestyle Regions

Industry and Service Hubs Heartland Regions

Distance to Airport (km)

Most competitive (41.1)

Less competitive (61.2)

Highly competitive (44.7)

Least competitive (121.1)

Distance to Port (km)

Most competitive (72.4)

Highly competitive (74.2)

Less competitive (154.7)

Least competitive (215.6)

Road Infrastructure

(km)

Most competitive (2.2)

Competitive (4.5)

Highly competitive (3.5)

Least competitive (34.8)

Rail Infrastructure (km)

Most competitive (8.2)

Competitive (15.2)

Less competitive (29.3)

Least competitive (58.8)

Regional Cities are also competitive in the indicators of access to education (Table 2). Tertiary education has greater uptake in Regional Cities than in Connected Lifestyle Regions and Industry and Service Hubs. Technical education follows a different pattern, Regional Cities and Industry and Service Hubs are similarly competitive in that indicator. This reflects the concentration of regional universities in Regional Cities and the technical intensive job markets in Industry and Service Hubs. In terms of access to primary and secondary education indicators, the Heartlands perform poorly compared to the other regional types. This performance is exaggerated by immense distances to the nearest school in a few Heartland Regions. Residents in over 24 LGAs are more than 100 km from a primary school on average.

The Difference Proximity Makes: a comparison of Derwent Valley and North Burnett Proximity is a source of competitive advantage. In the Infrastructure and Essential Services theme this is particularly evident with similar sized towns typically achieving vastly different overall ranks depending on whether they are a Connected Lifestyle Region, which are close to metropolitan areas or in the Heartland Regions which are very remote areas. The Derwent Valley in Tasmania is a Connected Lifestyle Region about an hour’s drive from Hobart and includes a number of small towns. It has a population of around 10,000 people. Due to its proximity to Hobart it has above average transport links, health services and education services, achieving an overall rank of 152 in this theme. North Burnett in Queensland also has a population of around 10,000 people concentrated in a number of small towns. It is a Heartland Region approximately an hour and a half drive from the nearest population centre of Hervey Bay on the Fraser Coast. This is a sufficiently large distance to contribute to North Burnett’s much lower rank in transportation, education and health services. It is ranked at 416 in this theme.

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 11

Table 2: Summary of average results for each regional type within each education access indicator.

Group Regional Cities Connected Lifestyle Regions

Industry and Service Hubs Heartland Regions

Access to Tertiary Education

Highly competitive (3.5%)

Competitive (3.0%)

Most competitive (3.6%)

Least competitive (2.5%)

Access to Technical Education

Most competitive (5.0%)

Competitive (2.9%)

Competitive (2.8%)

Least competitive (1.5%)

Access to Primary Education (km)

Most competitive (2.3)

Competitive (9.0)

Highly competitive (4.2)

Least competitive (42.9)

Access to Secondary

Education (km)

Most competitive (7.1)

Competitive (12.8)

Highly competitive (9.4)

Least competitive (39.0)

Again, residents in Heartland Regions are typically more distant from a medical facility (Table 3). There is also proportionally less allied health staff in the Heartland Regions. None of the regional types perform consistently well on these indicators – a highly competitive score in one indicator is not supported by competitiveness in other indicators. Table 3: Summary of average results for each regional type within each health access indicator.

Group Regional Cities Connected Lifestyle

Industry and Service Hubs The Heartlands

Distance to a Medical Facility

(km)

Most competitive (8.7)

Competitive (12.9)

Competitive (15.4)

Least competitive (67.1)

Access to Allied Health Services

Most competitive (12.0%)

Competitive (10.4%)

Competitive (11.2%)

Least competitive (8.5%)

Access to GP Services

Highly competitive (4.9)

Most competitive (5.1)

Competitive (4.8)

Least competitive (4.5)

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 12

Infrastructure and Essential Services in Regional Australia - A State Perspective A consistent pattern of state competiveness is evident across these indicators. Good access to primary and secondary education is supported by good access to and enrolment in tertiary or technical education. A state that is competitive on one indicator is typically competitive across all the other indicators, while a state that performs poorly on one indicator performs poorly across the other indicators. Tasmania has highly concentrated transportation infrastructure (Table 4) due to the small size of the island, giving it a very competitive average score on access to air, road, rail and port. However this advantage is tempered by the need to get goods across to the mainland to access markets outside the state. Regional Victoria is competitive across all indicators and South Australia also performs well. Regional New South Wales suffers in distance to ports but otherwise performs very well. Regional areas in Queensland and the Northern Territory typically have poorer access to transportation services. Table 4: Summary of average results for the regional LGAs of each state within transportation indicators.

Group NSW Victoria QLD SA WA Tasmania Northern Territory

Distance to Airport

(km)

Highly competitive

(62.4)

Competitive (97.5)

Competitive (96.3)

Competitive (86.6)

Least competitive

(151.8)

Most competitive

(34.0)

Less competitive

(125.2)

Distance to Port (km)

Less competitive

(220.9)

Competitive (142.6)

Less competitive

(205.2)

Competitive (115.8)

Competitive (174.0)

Most competitive

(31.4)

Least competitive

(273.4)

Road Infrastructure (km)

Highly competitive

(6.8)

Most competitive

(3.7)

Least competitive

(76.5)

Highly competitive

(13.7)

Highly competitive

(18.3)

Highly competitive

(12.0)

Less competitive

(63.4)

Rail Infrastructure (km)

Highly competitive

(23.9)

Most competitive

(16.0)

Less competitive

(58.6)

Competitive (41.4)

Least competitive

(73.0)

Highly competitive

(23.1)

Insufficient data

Regional New South Wales, regional Victoria and Tasmania score very well on indicators of access to education (Table 5). Again, regional Queensland and the Northern Territory perform poorly on these indicators.

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 13

Table 5: Summary of average results for regional LGAs of each state within each education access indicator.

Group NSW Victoria QLD SA WA Tasmania Northern Territory

Access to Tertiary

Education

Most competitive

(3.7%)

Highly competitive

(3.1%)

Less competitive

(2.0%)

Competitive (2.9%)

Less competitive

(2.3%)

Most competitive

(3.7%)

Least competitive

(1.5%)

Access to Technical Education

Most competitive

(3.0%)

Highly competitive

(2.8%)

Competitive (2.0%)

Less competitive

(1.6%)

Least competitive

(1.3%)

Most competitive

(3.0%)

Highly competitive

(2.5%)

Access to Primary

Education (km)

Highly competitive

(6.1)

Most competitive

(4.6)

Competitive (33.7)

Less competitive

(55.4)

Competitive (47.1)

Highly competitive

(15.7)

Least competitive

(92.2)

Access to Secondary Education

(km)

Highly competitive

(18.8)

Highly competitive

(13.3)

Least competitive

(57.6)

Competitive (26.6)

Competitive (34.4)

Most competitive

(9.4)

Competitive (31.4)

Regional Victoria scores highly on every indicator of access to healthcare (Table 6). Regional New South Wales, regional South Australia and Tasmania are also competitive in this area. Regional Western Australia, regional Queensland and the Northern Territory do not perform well in these indicators. States with shorter distances between medical facilities also have a higher number of average visits to a GP per year per capita. New South Wales, for example is highly competitive on all the health measures, whereas Western Australia is less competitive on both access to GP services and access to allied health services.

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 14

Table 6: Summary of average results for the regional LGAs of each state within each health access indicator.

Group NSW Victoria QLD SA WA Tasmania Northern Territory

Distance to a

Medical Facility

(km)

Highly competitive

(21.7)

Most competitive

(11.8)

Less competitive

(120.8)

Highly competitive

(26.2)

Competitive

(49.3)

Highly competitive

(20.7)

Least competitive

(129.2)

Access to Allied Health

Services

Highly competitive

(10.6%)

Most competitive

(12.0%)

Highly competitive

(9.5%)

Highly competitive

(10.5%)

Least competitive

(6.5%)

Highly competitive

(9.8%)

Competitive (7.9%)

Access to GP

Services

Highly competitive

(5.3)

Most competitive

(5.4)

Competitive

(4.0)

Most competitive

(5.4)

Less competitive

(3.8)

Highly competitive

(5.3)

Least competitive

(2.6)

States with LGAs that are more remote, such as Western Australia and the Northern Territory tend to have poorer infrastructure and essential services on average. States that are geographically smaller such as Tasmania tend to be competitive in their infrastructure.

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 15

Developing Regional Australia’s Infrastructure and Essential Services Infrastructure and essential services support the activity and growth of local economies and the quality of life that a region needs to attract and retain residents and business. Distance is an inherent challenge to a region’s competitiveness in this theme. Areas that are close to metropolitan areas or Regional Cities are competitive on both physical infrastructure and essential services measures. However, Heartland Regions which have small populations relatively isolated from population hubs do not perform well on this theme. [In]Sight reveals a relatively low level of essential services such as schools and medical facilities within easy travel distance in these Heartland Region LGAs. An increase in infrastructure quality can offset competitive disadvantage and should be a focus for policy. However, bridging the basic access gap requires engagement in innovative use of technology and other resources that alleviate the tyranny of distance. As Australia transitions into a knowledge economy, it is vital that its entire labour force, including the 40 per cent of the national workforce in regions prepare for the changes and challenges ahead. It is essential that we build the human capital necessary to drive a successful modern economy. Achieving this goal requires strong essential services resources such as education and health services in all regions. Overall, regional Australia also needs to look to other sources of competitiveness such as human capital, innovation and technological readiness to overcome its relatively fixed competitive disadvantages in infrastructure and essential services.

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 16

Making the Most of [In]Sight Infrastructure is a critical component of the economic growth of regional areas. The RAI policy brief Local Infrastructure Australia examines the case for the establishment of a body dedicated to catalysing the renewal of local infrastructure while managing costs. It would provide local governments with a reputable and accessible means to improving infrastructure projects and have long term impacts on reducing the existing backlog. To learn more about how people in regional Australia support our nation’s competitiveness please also see the other papers in the [In]Sights for Competitive Regions series:

x Human Capital: find out if regional Australia is ‘work-ready’ and how we can ensure that the next generation will be able to grow Australia in the future.

x Demography: find out more about how a regions population size and dynamics provide sources of competitive advantage.

x Labour Market Efficiency: find out how we are engaging the potential workforce in different parts of regional Australia and where are the best opportunities to maximise people’s contribution.

x Technological Readiness: find out if regions have the infrastructure and resources necessary to develop in the digital age.

x Innovation: find out whether regions have the innovative capacity to develop a competitive edge.

x Business Sophistication: find out whether local economies have the flexibility to respond to changes in the economy.

x Institutional Foundations: find out whether regions have the capacity to support economic growth.

x Natural Resources: find out how natural resources contribute to the economic prosperity of regions and how resource diversity or dependency can affect economic stability.

These publications and the 624 [In]Sight competitiveness profiles are available for review at www.regionalaustralia.org.au/insight Regional comparisons, data downloads and expert advice from the RAI are also available for people and organisations interested in putting [In]Sight to work.

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 17

Appendix – Infrastructure and Essential Services Theme Rankings, LGAs in Regional Australia Top Performing Regional Cities LGAs LGA Rank State Newcastle 8 NSW Hobart 9 Tasmania Wollongong 26 NSW Lismore 40 NSW Launceston 50 Tasmania Glenorchy 57 Tasmania Wagga Wagga 60 NSW Ballina 71 NSW Gosford 77 NSW Coffs Harbour 78 NSW

Top Performing Connected Lifestyle Regions LGAs LGA Rank State Kingborough 88 Tasmania Gawler 104 SA Bellingen 118 NSW Queenscliffe 127 Victoria Byron 128 NSW Kiama 137 NSW West Tamar 144 Tasmania Victor Harbor 151 SA Derwent Valley 152 Tasmania Lithgow 156 NSW

Industry and Service Hubs LGAs LGA Rank State Armidale Dumaresq 45 NSW Burnie 64 Tasmania Whyalla 107 SA Nambucca 109 NSW Devonport 111 Tasmania Warrnambool 112 Victoria Greater Taree 114 NSW Central Coast 133 Tasmania Albany 141 WA Broken Hill 148 NSW

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 18

Heartland Regions LGAs LGA Rank State Waratah/Wynyard 130 Tasmania Latrobe 163 Tasmania Port Lincoln 168 SA Glenelg 169 Victoria Port Augusta 171 SA Warrumbungle Shire 180 NSW Glen Innes Severn 181 NSW Lockhart 189 NSW George Town 191 Tasmania Southern Grampians 197 Victoria

[In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services – November 2015 19

About Us Independent and informed by both research and ongoing dialogue with the community, the Regional Australia Institute (RAI) develops policy and advocates for change to build a stronger economy and better quality of life in regional Australia - for the benefit of all Australians. To find out more about the RAI contact us at info@regionalaustralia.org.au or visit www.regionalaustralia.org.au/

Disclaimer and Copyright This research report translates and analyses findings of research to enable an informed public discussion of regional issues in Australia. It is intended to assist people to think about their perspectives, assumptions and understanding of regional issues. No responsibility is accepted by the RAI, its Board or its funders for the quality of advice or decisions made by others based on the information presented in this publication. Unless otherwise specified, the contents of this report remain the property of the RAI. Reproduction for non-commercial purposes with attribution of authorship is permitted.

Contacts and Further Information To discuss [In]Sights for Competitive Regions: Infrastructure and Essential Services further please contact: Jack Archer Chief Executive Officer Jack.Archer@regionalaustralia.org.au (02) 6260 3733 Further information on the work of the RAI can be found at www.regionalaustralia.org.au

End Notes

i All trends are explored based on the averages of the regional LGAs within the given area. This is to explore the trends within the given area rather than the overall result. ii http://www.regionalaustralia.org.au/insight-userguide-pdf/ iii Grattan Institute (2013). Access all areas: new solutions for GP shortages in rural Australia.