Australia’s Business Banking Desert Index

Australia had 2,489 fewer bank branches in 2025 than in 2017

Australia’s authorised deposit taking institutions reported 3,205 branches at June 2025, down from 5,694 eight years earlier. The decline changes how some businesses deposit cash, verify documents, discuss complex facilities or resolve account restrictions.

This index compares physical branch numbers with active businesses and remoteness categories. It deliberately does not score mobile apps, online lending or service quality, because APRA’s points of presence collection measures physical access.

Victoria and Western Australia had the highest business load

Victoria recorded 748 branches for 754,400 active businesses, or roughly 1,009 businesses per branch. Western Australia followed at 997, while New South Wales had about 856 and Queensland 745.

The Northern Territory recorded the lowest ratio, about 382 active businesses per branch, but its geography makes that figure deceptive. Forty four branches spread across a vast area may provide less practical access than a much higher ratio in metropolitan Melbourne.

A state ratio is therefore a pressure measure, not a travel time map. It shows the number of businesses sharing the remaining branch network, while the remoteness data shows where physical locations disappeared.

Cities lost the most branches; very remote areas lost almost half

Major cities fell from 3,359 branches in 2017 to 1,746 in 2025. Inner regional Australia declined from 1,305 to 828, outer regional areas from 807 to 506, remote areas from 148 to 87, and very remote areas from 75 to 38.

APRA also recorded 3,365 Bank@Post locations in 2025, including 966 across outer regional, remote and very remote areas. Those outlets support selected transactions, but they do not provide every branch service or credit conversation.

Businesses that handle cash feel the distinction most directly. Hospitality, retail and community services may need secure deposits and change, while a professional firm can operate for years without visiting a branch. The same closure therefore creates very different operating costs.

Planning around reduced physical access

A business choosing transaction banking should check daily deposit limits, cash processing arrangements, outage support and the nearest location able to handle its actual tasks. The closest logo on a map may be an ATM or Bank@Post outlet rather than a full branch.

Borrowers should also separate access from credit appetite. A bank may have no nearby branch and still offer a competitive digital facility, while a local branch does not guarantee approval. The index measures the cost of reaching physical service, not the availability of finance.

For regional firms, a second transaction account can reduce operational dependence during outages, provided fees and reconciliation remain manageable. Important identification and authority records should be current before an urgent payment or lending request exposes an avoidable verification problem.

One branch count can conceal a full day of lost work

Suppose a regional retailer must travel 90 minutes each way to resolve a cash deposit problem that cannot be handled at Bank@Post. The cost includes mileage, paid cover and the owner’s time, not merely the account fee. Recording those incidents for a year creates a fair basis for comparing banks. A more expensive account with reliable local service may cost less overall, while a digitally run professional business could reasonably reach the opposite conclusion.

Local branch availability can also change abruptly, so a continuity plan should name the next workable deposit point, identify who can operate the account and preserve an alternative payment route. Those details are mundane until a closure, flood or security hold stops the usual process. The index turns a national trend into a reason to test that process before it becomes urgent.