.svg)
The most liveable places in Australia
Could your postcode be affecting your health?
It’s a question many people may ask themselves after a long commute, a lifestyle change, or simply out of a desire for something more: Am I truly happy where I live?
Where we live doesn’t just shape our lives and routines – it can affect our health and wellbeing. Feeling settled and connected can reduce stress, support mental health, and even contribute to a longer, healthier life. In Australia, what drives livability can vary from person to person, with key factors including access to nature, pace of life, job opportunities, affordability, and feeling part of a community. Knowing what makes a place feel like home can make a real difference and shape major life decisions, from relocating to putting down roots.
With this in mind, health insurance comparison service iSelect assessed 88 regions across Australia, analysing ten factors, including income, health, safety, environment, and community. The study also compared liveability with health metrics to see whether the most liveable regions are associated with better physical and mental well-being. The result is a look at the places where people are not just living but can truly thrive with good access to support and positive lifestyle factors.
Key Findings
- Australia’s most liveable places are shaped by a combination of lifestyle, environment, and community factors, rather than a single defining metric. Regions that rank highly offer strong work–life balance, access to green and blue spaces, low crime rates, supportive health services, a sense of belonging, housing affordability, and flexible work options.
- Sutherland Shire in Sydney tops the national rankings, excelling in low unemployment, coastal access, and a strong sense of community, making it ideal for balanced living.
- Adelaide’s Central and Hills region scores highly for work–life balance, shorter commutes, and excellent healthcare access, allowing residents more time for leisure and social connection.
- Victoria’s Warrnambool and South West stands out for affordable housing, low unemployment, and high volunteering rates, reflecting strong community engagement.
- Queensland’s West Brisbane leads in work–life balance and remote work flexibility, with strong life expectancy and access to services enhancing overall liveability.
- Across Australia, liveability correlates with better health outcomes, including fewer premature deaths, improved mental health access, and slightly lower hospitalisation rates, demonstrating the tangible benefits of living in high-ranking regions.
The most liveable places in Australia
Australia’s most liveable place in our index is Sutherland Shire in Sydney, which takes the top spot due to its strong performance across a range of factors. Rather than leading in just one area, Sutherland Shire stands out for its balance, combining the lowest unemployment rate in the top 10 (2.3%), a strong sense of belonging (measured by the share of residents who have lived at the same address for more than five years), close proximity to blue spaces with the coast just 5.1 km away, and relatively low crime rates. While longer commute distances (15.2 km) may affect work–life balance, the overall mix of lifestyle, environment, and economic stability suggests that no single factor defines liveability on its own.
The Central and Hills area in Adelaide ranks second in our liveability index, performing especially well for work–life balance. It ranks in the top 10 for this factor due to its shorter commutes (8.1 km) and fewer people working long hours, giving residents more free time for hobbies and social connections. Strong access to medical practices (2,665.3 GPs per 100,000 people) also indicates that residents may have both the time and support to look after their health and wellbeing.
The Northern Beaches take third place, performing consistently well across safety, life expectancy, and environmental factors. Known for its coastal lifestyle, the area offers easy access to popular spots like Manly Beach and Palm Beach, which likely contribute to its strong lifestyle appeal.
At the other end of the rankings, North Moreton Bay in Queensland ranks =last in our index. A higher crime rate (9,944.9 per 100,000 people) and more limited access to healthcare contribute to its lower score. Similarly, more remote parts of the Northern Territory also rank poorly, with the NT’s outback region recording one of the highest crime rates in the dataset (19,874.6 per 100,000 people) alongside limited access to essential services. Ipswich, QLD follows closely, with comparable crime levels and weaker results across income and employment, highlighting that crime and financial pressure could be having a real impact on where you choose to live.
The most liveable places in New South Wales
Following the national rankings, where Sutherland takes the top spot, New South Wales emerges as one of the stronger-performing states overall. Both metropolitan and regional areas appear throughout the rankings, although they tend to stand out for different reasons.
Alongside Sutherland, Northern Beaches, Baulkham Hills, and Hawkesbury, all of which feature in the overall national top 10, the North Sydney and Hornsby region is the next-highest-ranking in the state. It recorded the highest life expectancy in New South Wales (86.8 years) and has the lowest affordability score among the top 10. This suggests that while health outcomes are strong, housing costs may place added financial pressure on residents.
Several regional areas in NSW also perform well. The Southern Highlands, Shoalhaven, and Blue Mountains benefit from access to green space and lifestyle factors, while the Richmond-Tweed region stands out for its work–life balance.
By comparison, Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs ranks lower than might be expected in 11th place. While the area is highly sought after, higher housing costs, lower affordability, and more limited access to green space appear to impact its overall well-being scores. Longer working hours and denser urban living may also reduce opportunities for social connection and recreation, highlighting that desirability alone may not translate to higher liveability.
At the other end of the rankings, regions such as the Hunter Valley, Sydney City, Inner South, Far West and Orana recorded lower overall scores. Across these areas, factors such as higher unemployment, reduced housing affordability, more limited access to healthcare, and fewer green or coastal spaces may all play a role.
The most liveable places in Victoria
The Warrnambool and South West region was Victoria’s top-performing area, standing out for having the lowest unemployment rate among the state’s top 10. Residents here also benefit from more affordable housing relative to income, and the highest volunteering rate in Victoria (22.4%), highlighting a strong sense of community.
Close behind is Melbourne’s Outer East region, which ranks highest in the state for belonging. It also performs well in terms of housing affordability and offers a good proportion of green space, giving residents plenty of options for outdoor recreation.
Melbourne’s Inner East region ranks third, recording the highest life expectancy in Victoria at 86.3 years. However, affordability pressures and a lower environmental score, partly due to its limited blue spaces, such as lakes and rivers, hold the region back. Similarly, the Latrobe-Gippsland region scores highly for its natural environment but ranks lower overall due to higher crime and health factors. Overall, Victoria’s top regions are closely matched, with belonging, affordability, and access to green and blue spaces emerging as key drivers of liveability.
At the lower end of the rankings, regions including North West Melbourne, West Melbourne, and Inner Melbourne face lower liveability index scores. Challenges in these areas include higher unemployment, lower housing affordability, limited green space, and longer commuting distances, which could be impacting liveability. Residents here often contend with the pressures of denser urban living, showing that even within a generally high-ranking state, well-being and lifestyle can vary widely.
The most liveable places in Queensland
Queensland’s most liveable regions in our index show a mix of coastal and metropolitan areas. West Brisbane leads the state, with the highest work–life balance score, a strong life expectancy of 85.6 years, and over half of its working population (53.8%) working from home, reflecting both flexibility and lifestyle advantages. Many of Queensland’s top-ranking areas are in greater Brisbane, where shorter commutes, access to healthcare, green space, and flexible work opportunities make city living surprisingly supportive of wellbeing.
The Sunshine Coast follows, with one of the strongest environment scores in the state and easy coastal access. Residents reported a low unemployment rate (3.4%) and relatively strong housing affordability, showing that lifestyle and practical benefits, when combined, can support liveability.
Some areas perform differently than expected. Toowoomba stands out with the lowest crime rate in the top 10 (1,261.4 per 100,000) and a stable local economy, highlighting that safety and affordability can help boost wellbeing even away from the coast. In contrast, the Gold Coast ranks lower than its reputation suggests: while it scores highly for environment and lifestyle appeal, lower belonging, volunteering rates, and higher living costs hold its ranking back.
Regions including North Moreton Bay, Ipswich, and Logan–Beaudesert rank lower due to higher unemployment, lower housing affordability, longer commutes, and less access to green space and the coast, highlighting how lifestyle and wellbeing can vary widely across Queensland.
The most liveable places in South Australia
Across South Australia, some areas stand out more than others in our liveability index. Adelaide Central and Hills region top the list, thanks to a strong work–life balance, short commutes of just 8.1 km, and excellent access to medical practitioners, along with solid housing affordability.
Other regions have their own strengths. South East South Australia and Barossa–Yorke–Mid North regions perform well for community belonging and volunteering, reflecting strong social connections. Meanwhile, Adelaide South and the South Australian Outback regions stand out for their green space, affordability, and lifestyle factors that can support overall wellbeing.
At the lower end of the rankings, the North Adelaide and West Adelaide regions face challenges such as higher unemployment, higher crime rates, and weaker social connection scores. These results show that while strong social connections are important for liveability in South Australia, economic stability, access to services, and manageable work–life demands are just as key.
The most liveable places in Western Australia
Inner Perth tops the list in Western Australia for the most liveable place index, ranking fifth nationally. The area performs strongly due to its excellent healthcare access (3,512 GPs per 100,000 people), high volunteering rates, and low unemployment rates (2.9%). However, it scored lower for a sense of belonging and had a relatively high crime rate, which brought the overall score down.
Inland, the Wheat Belt region shines for Western Australia, ranking second in WA and eighth nationally. Residents benefit from affordable housing, strong community connections, and the highest volunteering rate in the country. Its environmental score is lower due to the distance from the coast, and the region also has a low number of medical practices for residents. Along the coast, Bunbury leads with abundant green space, coastal access, and solid belonging and affordability, even if work–life balance isn’t as strong.
At the lower end, WA’s outback regions and Mandurah rank lowest. The Outback records the lowest belonging score, the highest crime rate nationally (21,272 per 100,000 people), and the lowest life expectancy of 78.5 years. Mandurah faces high mental health prevalence (172 cases per 1,000 people) and long commutes, which can impact overall liveability.
Across the state, the most liveable areas strike a balance between community, affordability, and environment, while remoteness, safety concerns, and limited access to services continue to hold back lower-ranked regions.
The most liveable places in Tasmania
Whilst Tasmania was only divided into four main regions for this index, Hobart led the way, supported by the state’s best healthcare access (2,260 GPs per 100,000), the strongest work–life balance, and a solid environmental score, thanks to close coastal access of just 2.6 km. A moderate belonging score and reasonable housing affordability kept it comfortably ahead of the other regions in the state. The South East Tasmania region was second with its exceptional environment score, driven by 80.5% green space, but long commutes of 25 km lower its work–life balance.
Tasmania’s four regions are closely ranked, with just a 2.43-point difference between the top and bottom-ranked regions. The West and North West boast excellent green and blue space (82.1%/8.5 km), but lower life expectancy, higher unemployment (4.6%), and limited work-from-home access (24.2%) temper its overall score. Overall, Tasmania combines strong environmental credentials with moderate social and economic well-being across the state.
Does the area you live in really improve your health?
To assess whether there is a correlation between health and liveability, we also examined national health data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). The liveability index isn’t just a feel-good measure; it’s backed by real health evidence. Regions that score higher don’t just look good on paper – their residents tend to experience measurably better health outcomes.
More liveable regions clearly see tangible health benefits: fewer early deaths, better access to mental health care, and slightly lower hospitalisation rates. Looking at all the health measures together explains around half of the difference in livability scores between regions. The other half comes from broader lifestyle factors, such as housing, the environment, and feeling connected to one’s community.
Some of the top regions in our ranking illustrate this connection. Sutherland in Sydney, ranked the most liveable city in Australia, and Adelaide Central and Hills region, ranked second, both fall in the bottom twelve nationally for premature and potentially avoidable deaths, according to AIHW. Sydney’s Northern Beaches, ranked third most liveable overall, is in the top fifteen nationally for Medicare mental health access, while Inner Perth, which came fifth on our index ranking, also scores highly for mental health service access. These AIHW rankings show that these potentially happier areas often align with better health outcomes.
In short, more liveable places don’t just feel nicer, they are healthier places to live. While no single factor guarantees better liveability, the data suggests that where you live can play a meaningful role in shaping both your wellbeing and quality of life. Understanding these patterns can help Australians make more informed decisions about where to live, work, and put down roots in the future.
“The research shows that where we live can have a significant impact on both physical and mental well-being. Factors like access to healthcare, proximity to green spaces or the beach, manageable commutes, and opportunities for social connection can all influence daily stress, activity, and overall quality of life. Areas that support these aspects tend to help residents maintain better long-term health and well-being.
“Additionally, there are practical steps people can take to protect their health, such as staying active, spending time outdoors, maintaining social connections, and attending regular check-ups. Communities and local services also play a role by providing safe, accessible spaces, healthcare options, and opportunities for recreation and engagement.
“Having reliable health insurance can be an important part of this, allowing people to see their preferred medical care at the time of their choosing, access to preventative support, and peace of mind so they can focus on enjoying a healthier, happier life.”
Andres Gutierrez
General Manager – Health at iSelect
About the data
To identify the most liveable places in Australia, 88 Statistical Area Level 4 (SA4) regions were evaluated across ten indicators spanning economic security, health, safety, environment, and social cohesion. SA4 regions are defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) as broad labour market areas and provide a consistent geographic framework for comparing socio-economic conditions nationwide.
Each of the ten indicators was weighted equally at 10% of the overall index to avoid overemphasising any single domain. All metrics were standardised to a common scale so that regions could be compared fairly across measures with different units and ranges. For indicators where a higher raw value represents a less favourable outcome (such as unemployment rate or crime rate), scores were reversed before aggregation so that a higher index score always represents more favourable conditions. The ten standardised scores were then combined to produce a composite index score out of 100 for each SA4 region.
Because no single dataset is available annually at a consistent geographic level, the index drew on the most recent available data for each indicator. Data years range from the 2021 Census through to 2026, reflecting stable structural conditions rather than short-term fluctuations. Where necessary, monetary values were aligned to ensure comparability with contemporary housing price data.
Belonging: % Living at the same Address for 5 Years
Residential stability was measured as the proportion of the population residing at the same address as five years prior, sourced from the 2021 Census via ABS TableBuilder. To calculate this rate, the number of persons reporting the same primary residence as five years ago was divided by the area’s total population. This metric serves as a proxy for community belonging and social integration, as higher rates of residential tenure often correlate with stronger local social networks and a sense of place. This indicator is scored positively, with higher stability indicating more favourable conditions for social cohesion.
Employment: Unemployment Rate
The unemployment rate for each SA4 was derived from the ABS Labour Force Survey. Monthly counts of employed and unemployed persons from January 2021 to January 2026 were averaged to smooth short-term fluctuations, and the unemployment rate was calculated as the average number of unemployed persons divided by the sum of the averages of employed and unemployed persons. A lower unemployment rate reflects stronger job opportunities and greater economic stability. This indicator is scored in the negative direction, meaning regions with lower unemployment receive higher index scores.
Housing Affordability: Median House Prices to Median Annual Household Income
Housing affordability was assessed using the median house price-to-income ratio, calculated by dividing the 2024 median price of established house transfers (sourced from ABS Data by Region) by the estimated median household income for each region.
To estimate the median household income, an interpolation formula was applied to the cumulative frequency distribution of weekly income bins for each region, yielding the distribution’s midpoint. The weekly income was then multiplied by 52 to compute the annual income. This was then adjusted to 2024 values using the ABS Wage Price Index (Total Hourly Rates of Pay, excluding bonuses), applying an adjustment factor of 1.1075 based on index values from June 2021 to June 2024.
This ratio captures the degree of financial pressure that housing costs place on residents. A higher ratio indicates poorer affordability and is scored in the negative direction.
Health: Life Expectancy at Birth
Life expectancy at birth was sourced from ABS life tables, which report estimates over rolling three-year periods. Three overlapping periods – 2020–2022, 2021–2023, and 2022–2024 – were averaged to produce a smoothed estimate for each region for 2020-2024. Life expectancy reflects the overall health and long-term living conditions of a region, with higher values indicating better outcomes. This metric also serves as one of the independent health measures used in the correlation analysis.
Mental Wellbeing: Long-Term Mental Health Prevalence
The prevalence of long-term mental health conditions was drawn from the 2021 Census via ABS TableBuilder. For each region, the count of persons reporting a long-term mental health condition was divided by the region’s 2021 population and expressed as a rate per 1,000 people. A lower prevalence suggests better community-level mental well-being, so this indicator is scored in the negative direction.
Healthcare Access: General Practitioners
Healthcare access was measured as the number of general practitioners (GPs) per 100,000 residents, sourced from the Health Workforce Data Dashboard (2024). The count of general practice medical practitioners in each area was divided by the region’s 2021 Census population and multiplied by 100,000 to produce a standardised rate. A higher rate indicates greater access to timely primary care.
Work–Life Balance
Commute burden was measured using 2021 Census data as the proportion of employed persons whose one-way distance to work was 30 kilometres or more. This threshold reflects sustained daily travel associated with increased fatigue, stress, and reduced time for recovery.
Safe Work Australia, 2019/20 to 2023/24
Work–life balance was assessed as a composite sub-index of four equally weighted components (25% each), combined to produce a score out of 100, which was then incorporated into the overall index at a 10% weighting. The four components and their scoring directions are detailed below.
| Component | Measure | Weight Within Category | Direction |
| Median hours worked | Average median weekly hours worked (2021–2025) | 25% | Negative |
| % working 50+ hours | Proportion of workers working 50 or more hours per week (2021–2025 average) | 25% | Negative |
| Working from home | Proportion usually working from home (2024) | 25% | Positive |
| Median distance to work | Median commuting distance in kilometres (2021 Census) | 25% | Negative |
Median hours worked and the proportion working 50 or more hours were derived from ABS Characteristics of Employment data. Five-year averages of the bin counts (2021–2025) were used to smooth annual variation, and the median was estimated using interpolation across the hour-range bins. The proportion of working from home was taken from 2024 ABS labour force data, calculated as the count of persons who usually worked from home divided by the total of those who did and did not usually work from home. Median distance to work was calculated from 2021 Census commuting distance bins using the same interpolation method.
For the SA4 regions of Western Australia – Outback (North) and Western Australia – Outback (South), separate data was not available for all work–life balance components. In these cases, the combined data for Western Australia – Outback (North and South) was applied to both regions.
Environment – Green and Blue Space
The environment score was calculated as a composite of green space coverage and two blue space sub-metrics for each region, using OpenStreetMap (OSM) data queried via the Overpass API.
Green space was defined as natural and managed vegetated areas — including nature reserves, parks, forests, meadows, scrubland, and grassland — and calculated as a percentage of total SA4 area. Built recreation facilities (golf courses, sports pitches), agricultural land, and ambiguous classifications such as wetlands were excluded.
Blue space was split into inland water coverage and coastal access. Inland coverage measured the percentage of each area covered by lakes, rivers, and reservoirs. Coastal access was measured as the average distance from population centres within each region to the nearest coastline, weighted by 2024 ABS population data at the SA2 level, so that areas with more people contributed more to the score. Regions closer to the coast scored higher on this component.
The three components were weighted as follows and combined to produce the environment score:
| Component | Measure | Weight | Direction |
| Green space coverage | Green space area as % of SA4 area | 50% | Positive |
| Inland blue space coverage | Inland water area as % of SA4 area | 20% | Positive |
| Coastal access | Population-weighted average SA2 centroid distance to coast (km) | 30% | Negative |
All three components were normalised to a 0–100 scale using min-max normalisation across the 88 SA4 regions before weighting. For coastal access, which is scored in the negative direction, the normalised value was inverted so that closer proximity to the coast received a higher score.
Social Connectedness – Volunteer Work
Social connectedness was measured as the percentage of residents who volunteered, sourced from the 2021 Census via the ABS TableBuilder. For each region, the count of persons reporting volunteer activity was divided by the total of volunteers and non-volunteers. Higher volunteering rates reflect stronger community ties and civic participation, which are associated with greater well-being.
Safety – Crime Rates
Crime data was compiled from each state and territory’s official crime statistics agency, covering offences against persons and offences against property. The specific sources were the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR), the Victoria Crime Statistics Agency, the Queensland Police Service, the South Australia Data Portal, the Western Australia Police Force, the Tasmania Police, the Northern Territory Police, and the ACT Policing.
Crime counts were reported at the local government area (LGA) level in most jurisdictions. To align these with SA4 boundaries, spatial overlaps between LGAs and SA4s were calculated, and crime counts were proportionally allocated based on the share of each LGA falling within each SA4. Crime counts from September 2021 to October 2025 were summed (except for Tasmania, where the only available range was February 2025 to February 2026), then divided by the average population across 2021–2024 and expressed as a rate per 100,000 persons. A lower crime rate indicates a greater sense of safety and is scored in the negative direction.
Due to limited data availability for Tasmania, a narrower date range was used and the specific crime types differed slightly (total offences, assault, home burglary offences, and serious crime were used in place of the standard offences against persons and property categories). Reporting practices may also vary slightly across jurisdictions.
Weighting and Final Index Scores
All ten indicators were weighted equally at 10% each to avoid overemphasising any single domain and to reflect the multidimensional nature of wellbeing. The table below summarises each metric, its weighting, and whether a higher raw value contributes positively or negatively to the index score.
| Metric | Measure | Weighting | Direction |
| Belonging | % living at the same address for 5 years | 10% | Positive |
| Employment | Unemployment rate | 10% | Negative |
| Housing Affordability | Median house price to income ratio | 10% | Negative |
| Health | Life expectancy at birth (all persons) | 10% | Positive |
| Mental Wellbeing | Long-term mental health condition prevalence (rate per 1,000) | 10% | Negative |
| Healthcare Access | GPs per 100,000 residents | 10% | Positive |
| Work–Life Balance | Composite score: median hours worked (25%), % working 50+ hours (25%), % working from home (25%), median distance to work (25%) | 10% | Mixed |
| Environment | Composite score: green space coverage (50%), inland blue space coverage (20%), coastal access via population-weighted SA2 centroid distance to coast (30%) | 10% | Mixed |
| Social Connectedness | % doing volunteer work | 10% | Positive |
| Safety | Crime rates per 100,000 (offences against persons and property) | 10% | Negative |
All metrics were normalised and combined using these weights to produce a final index score out of 100. Higher scores indicate that a region has stronger structural conditions associated with wellbeing across the measured domains.
Correlation and Regression Analysis
To understand whether regions with stronger wellbeing foundations also experience better health outcomes, the index was validated against seven independent health measures using correlation and regression analysis across all 88 SA4 regions. The health outcomes tested were all-cause hospitalisation rates (AIHW, 2022), Medicare mental health patient rates and mental health service rates (AIHW, 2023–24), age-standardised potentially avoidable death rates and premature death rates (AIHW MORT Books, 2019–2023), and antidepressant and all-prescription dispensing rates (AIHW PBS data, 2022).
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between each region’s composite index score and each health outcome to measure the strength and direction of association. A multiple linear regression was then conducted, with all seven health measures as predictors of the index score, to assess how much of the variation in the index score is explained by independent health data. The significance of each health measure as an individual predictor was assessed using p-values from the regression output. This step helps establish that the index reflects real-world differences in population health, rather than simply combining social and economic indicators without predictive validity.
Limitations and Interpretation
The index measures structural conditions associated with wellbeing rather than directly measuring subjective liveability. It should be interpreted as an indicator of objective factors that research consistently links to quality of life, rather than a direct measure of how happy residents feel.
- Income estimates are derived from 2021 Census data using grouped bins and interpolation rather than direct measurement.
- Housing affordability uses median transaction prices for established houses and does not capture all housing stock or listing prices.
- Crime data has been harmonised across states and territories, but reporting practices and available crime categories vary between jurisdictions, with Tasmania in particular requiring a different date range and crime type selection.
- Census-based measures, including mental health prevalence, volunteering rates, and commuting distance, reflect 2021 conditions and may not capture changes since.
- Green and blue space data relies on OpenStreetMap classification, which may be less comprehensive in remote areas. The ocean is not represented as a filled polygon in OSM; coastal proximity is captured through population-weighted SA2 centroid distances to the coastline rather than ocean area measurement. The 15-metre river buffer is a uniform approximation and may understate the area of major rivers such as the Murray or Darling.
- For the Western Australia Outback SA4s, combined data was used where separate regional figures were unavailable.
We'd love to know what you think of our website so we can improve it!
iSelect does not compare all health insurance providers or policies in the market. The availability of policies will change from time to time. Not all policies available from its providers are compared by iSelect and due to commercial arrangements, your stated needs and circumstances, not all policies compared by iSelect are available to all customers. Some policies and special offers are available only from iSelect’s contact centre or website. Click here to view iSelect’s range of providers