How do Australians feel about their lives? It depends on where they live

Now in its 25th year, the latest annual Australian Unity Wellbeing Index provides a timely snapshot of Australians’ subjective wellbeing. It reveals clear differences by age, income and region.

The survey measures both personal and national wellbeing, showing how Australians feel about their own lives and about life in the nation more broadly.

By tracking Australians’ satisfaction with life, the index complements traditional economic indicators of national progress, such as GDP and unemployment.

At a population level, Australians feel more satisfied about national life than they did in recent years. But beneath the surface, not everyone is feeling the optimism.

Tracking how Australians feel

The Personal Wellbeing Index averages people’s satisfaction across seven areas of personal life. These include standard of living, personal relationships and health.

The National Wellbeing Index does the same for six aspects of life in Australia, such as the economy, government and the environment.

In June 2025, just after the federal election, the index surveyed more than 10,000 adults. These were mostly drawn from Life in Australia, the country’s most methodologically rigorous, nationally representative research panel.

The silhouettes of beachgoers and birds against the setting sun — More than 10,000 Australians from across the country were surveyed as part of the research. HC Digital/Unsplash

We combined survey results with Census data to estimate the average wellbeing of Australians in 148 of the 150 federal electorates.

We didn’t estimate wellbeing for Lingiari (Northern Territory) or Durack (Western Australia). This was because these electorates have the highest proportion of First Nations people in the country and our measurement approach may not be relevant or appropriate to Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing.

Electorates were then ranked from lowest to highest on each wellbeing measure and organised into ten roughly equal groups to highlight broad patterns.

We also compared inner and outer metropolitan (capital city) electorates with provincial (regional) and rural ones to explore how wellbeing varies across Australia.

A country of contrasts

Personal wellbeing remained steady in 2025 compared to last year, but strong divides persist.

Younger adults and people living in low-income households, renting or experiencing unemployment continued to report some of the lowest levels of satisfaction with their personal lives.

There were also differences depending on where people live. Two life areas most clearly set capital cities apart from regional and rural Australia: health and personal relationships.

On average, rural electorates had higher personal wellbeing. They reported particularly high relationship satisfaction, but lower satisfaction with health. Capital city electorates showed the opposite pattern.

There were sharp contrasts within cities themselves. Almost all electorates in the top 10% and lowest 10% for personal wellbeing were in metro areas.

Echoing national patterns, the highest-scoring electorates typically had older populations living on higher incomes. Those with the lowest personal wellbeing tended to have younger residents and higher rates of unemployment and renting.

National optimism – to an extent

In contrast, there was a clear boost in national wellbeing at the population level. Satisfaction rose across five of the six areas measured by the National Wellbeing Index compared with 2024.

This may reflect a post-election “honeymoon” period for the newly re-elected government, along with some relief following two long-awaited interest rate cuts earlier in the year.

But not all Australians are feeling equally positive about life in the nation. On average, capital city electorates reported much higher satisfaction with all areas of national life than regional or rural ones.

The most satisfied electorates tended to be more affluent, with higher employment, and with more residents born overseas or who speak a language other than English at home. This could suggest socioeconomically secure migrants evaluate life in Australia favourably compared with life elsewhere. It may simply reflect the broader affluence and diversity of metropolitan areas.

Wellbeing front and centre

In identifying some of the patterns that divide Australians’ wellbeing, the findings can help government, policymakers, and communities target investment to make the biggest difference.

Some solutions lie at the national or state level, such as improving income support and access to health services. Others can be driven locally, through initiatives that strengthen community connection and relational support.

Importantly, these gaps aren’t inevitable. Australia has the means to close them. We saw this during the pandemic, when temporary increases to income support coincided with one of the biggest boosts in wellbeing ever recorded by the index.

Policies that improve wellbeing deliver broad social and economic benefits. These include boosting participation in work and community life, reducing demand on health services and creating long-term savings.

To capture these benefits, wellbeing must be embedded into how governments plan and measure progress.

Countries around the world are putting wellbeing at the heart of policy and budgeting. Australia’s Measuring What Matters framework is a strong start, but dashboards and data will only take us so far.

To truly make a difference, wellbeing measurement must be formally embedded in long-term decision-making. This would mean success is judged not only by economic growth, but by how equitably people feel about their lives and futures.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Georgie Frykberg, Deakin University; Kate Lycett, Deakin University; Sarah Khor, Deakin University, and Tanja Capic, Deakin University

Georgie Frykberg received funding from Australian Unity as part of the Deakin University-Australian Unity industry partnership to conduct the annual survey of Australians' subjective wellbeing.

Kate Lycett receives funding from Australian Unity, s part of the Deakin University-Australian Unity industry partnership to conduct the annual survey of Australians' subjective wellbeing. She also receives funding from VicHealth and the Victorian State Government.

Sarah Khor received funding from Australian Unity as a part of the Deakin University-Australian Unity industry partnership to conduct the annual survey of Australian's subjective wellbeing.

Tanja Capic does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.