Final Report on RREF 2001 - Department of Health

Part C: Outcomes
• The Northern and Southern Metropolitan Regions and Loddon Mallee are
characterised by extreme variation, more than 40%, between LGAs within each
region;
• Gippsland stands out as having similarly high levels of need across all LGAs,
starting from a highest base, 31%, with a range of 33%.
In applying the need weightings to determine regional allocations of growth funds, it needs to be
emphasised that:
• The share of growth funds received will depend on the size of the total population
of each LGA as well as the weighting.
• The average of the weightings across the LGAs in each region is given for
comparison purposes only and does not translate into the weighted population for
the region, nor can growth funds for regions be estimated simply by applying the
average weighting to the base resources currently received. The weighted regional
populations for the RREF are built by adding the weighted base population for each
LGA, these regional totals are then calculated as a share of the total RREF weighted
base population for the state, and growth funds are allocated in proportion to those
shares.
6.5 COMPARISON WITH CURRENT RREF
The distribution of weightings in the revised RREF set out in Table 6.2 show that it provides a
much more fine-grained recognition of need than the current RREF.
Table 6.2: Comparison of need weightings for rural and metropolitan regions
Weighting Metropolitan LGAs Rural LGAs Total
Revised Revised Revised
Under 10% 2 2
10-19% 7 7
20-29% 10 5 15
30-39% 6 15 21
40-49% 3 19 22
50-59% 3 5 8
Over 60% 3 3
Total 31 47 78
Under the current RREF: Metropolitan LGAs and regions received no weighting for any need
factors and only a few fringe areas rural areas received a weighting only for rurality, with most
rural LGAs receiving the maximum weighting of close to 30%. The result was that the State
was effectively divided into two – metropolitan areas with no weightings, and rural areas with a
high and fairly uniform weighting. That outcome gave only a very crude recognition to
variations in need between rural and metropolitan areas and failed to recognise variations within
either. While the 30% rural weighting was arbitrary, it provides a convenient benchmark for
reporting outcomes of the revised RREF, as set out in Table 6.2.
<strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> July 2001 71