.svg)
The Unhealthiest Places to Live in Australia
Does where you live impact your health?
Where you call home can play a bigger role in your health than you might realise. From access to healthcare to quality housing to climate, the place you live can influence everything from life expectancy to the prevalence of chronic illness. But where in Australia can be named the healthiest place to live? And where should Aussies avoid if they want to prioritise their health?
The health comparison experts at iSelect analysed SA4 regions (large geographic areas within a state or territory) across Australia, looking at 21 factors across housing conditions, climate and environment, population health, and access to healthcare. By ranking each region across these measures, we’ve revealed the healthiest and unhealthiest places to live in the country. Let’s take a closer look at the results.
The unhealthiest places to live
Australia’s unhealthiest regions tend to be remote and regional areas where several risk factors overlap. These communities often have older or sicker populations, poorer-quality housing, and more extreme climate conditions. When these factors combine, they can contribute to higher rates of chronic disease, preventable illness and lower life expectancy.
Latrobe–Gippsland in Victoria ranks as Australia’s unhealthiest region with an overall ‘unhealthiness’ score of 62.02 out of 100. Poor population health outcomes and weaker housing conditions heavily impact the region. People who live there show very high levels of chronic illness (48.3%), lower life expectancy (80.6 years), and high rates of premature (246 per 100,000) and avoidable deaths (127 per 100,000). On top of this, its cold and damp climate, including 117 cold days and 94 cold nights each year, can place additional strain on respiratory and cardiovascular health.
Second on the list is Darling Downs–Maranoa in Queensland, with an ‘unhealthiness’ score of 59.96. Population health is the key driver here, with the region ranking among the bottom 10 nationally for life expectancy (80.7 years), and top ten for premature deaths (260.1 per 100,000) and avoidable deaths (146 per 100,000). Extreme heat also plays a major role, with around 46 very hot days and 63 hot nights each year. This is made more challenging by comparatively weaker access to healthcare services, contributing to the region’s higher overall risk score.
Coming in third is West and North West Tasmania, scoring 58.88 out of 100. The region has a high population health and outcomes score of 90.73, alongside a cold, wet and humid environment. Residents experience around 96 high-humidity days, 182 cold days and 90 cold nights per year. These conditions can worsen respiratory issues, increase mould risks, and impact overall liveability, worsened by housing conditions slightly below average.
The healthiest places to live
Australia’s healthiest places to live tend to be inner-city and coastal regions where good health outcomes, easier access to healthcare and more favourable living conditions all work together. These areas generally benefit from higher life expectancy, lower rates of chronic illness, and better access to medical services, which helps reduce overall health risks for residents.
Inner Perth in Western Australia ranks as the healthiest region in the country, with an ‘unhealthiness’ score of just 9.92 out of 100. The area stands out for its excellent population health, including a life expectancy of 85 years and well-below-average rates of premature (147.6 per 100,000) and avoidable deaths (75.1 per 100,000). It also has outstanding access to healthcare, with the highest density of medical practitioners, nurses and public hospital beds per capita. Combined with only moderate climate and housing pressures, these factors make it the top-performing region in the index.
Close behind is South West Perth, which ranks second with an index score of 17.94. The region performs strongly across health outcomes, with an overall population health score of 19.83. It also enjoys a favourable climate, with a low climate burden score of 13.21, and the best housing indicators in the country. While it has fewer hospitals per capita than some other top-ranking areas, its overall health environment remains highly positive.
Brisbane Inner City rounds out the top three healthiest regions, with an index score of 24.31. Its strong performance is driven by high life expectancy (84.2 years), lower-than-average rates of premature (170.3 per 100,000) and avoidable deaths (86.4 per 100,000), and excellent access to healthcare. The area ranks second nationally for healthcare access, supported by very high densities of doctors, nurses and hospital beds. Despite the typical humidity and heavy rainfall that come with a subtropical climate, the region’s overall health profile remains one of the strongest in Australia.
The unhealthiest places to live, broken down by factor
The unhealthiest and healthiest places to live based on housing conditions
When it comes to housing, the unhealthiest regions in Australia are almost entirely in New South Wales and Victoria. This is because these states have the poorest state-wide housing conditions. Within each state, the main factor that differentiates regions is overcrowded housing.
Parramatta in Sydney has the highest housing risk score nationally, at 73.68 out of 100. This reflects a combination of state-level structural issues present across all state housing, along with very high local overcrowding at 10%. The result is intense housing pressure and one of the most challenging living environments in the country.
Inner South West and South West Sydney also rank in the top three. While the structural issues mirror the rest of NSW, there is a slightly lower overcrowding rate of 9.1% in Inner South West and 8.2% in South West Sydney.
In contrast to the unhealthiest regions, Western Australia dominates the list of areas with the strongest housing conditions. This is because WA has the best state-wide housing profile in the country. Mandurah stands out with one of the lowest housing risk scores nationally, at 11.40 out of 100. The city benefits from WA’s relatively low rates of structural housing issues, alongside very low overcrowding at 1.2%.
The unhealthiest places to live based on climate and environment
Darwin in the Northern Territory experiences one of the most intense tropical climates in the country, with almost constant heat and humidity. On average, the city sees 18.88 high-humidity days, 14.11 heavy-rain days, 107.26 hot days (≥35°C) and 265.83 hot nights (≥20°C) per year. With virtually no cold days or nights, the climate burden is driven almost entirely by sustained heat, humidity and heavy rain, increasing risks of heat stress, poor sleep, and other climate-related health issues.
Outback Queensland and Outback Northern Territory rank second and third, respectively, facing extreme heat as well. Outback Queensland has an average of 116.57 hot days and 170.06 hot nights per year. Cold periods are rare, with just 0.92 cold days and 13.52 cold nights. Meanwhile, Outback Northern Territory records 144.16 hot days and 182.11 hot nights each year.
On the other end of the spectrum, South West Perth in Western Australia benefits from relatively mild and balanced weather, with 12.89 high-humidity days, 1.5 heavy-rain days, 18.53 hot days and 36.18 hot nights per year. Cold extremes are limited, with just 3.12 cold days and 2.29 cold nights, giving residents a noticeably lower climate burden than many inland or tropical regions.
The unhealthiest and healthiest places to live based on population health
Across Australia, regional and remote areas are heavily overrepresented among the worst-performing regions for population health. These areas tend to have lower life expectancy, higher rates of premature and potentially avoidable deaths, and a greater share of people living with long-term health conditions.
Far West and Orana in New South Wales have the poorest health profile in the country, with a population ‘unhealthiness’ score of 96.55 out of 100. Residents have the second-lowest life expectancy nationally at 78.3 years and face very high rates of premature deaths (327.5 per 100,000) and potentially avoidable deaths (175.9 per 100,000). Almost half of the population (49%) reports living with a long-term health condition, placing this region in the bottom five for all major health measures.
Wide Bay in Queensland also ranks among the worst-performing areas in second, with a population ‘unhealthiness’ score of 92.49. Life expectancy here is relatively low at 80.6 years, while rates of premature deaths (253.9 per 100,000) and potentially avoidable deaths (137.4 per 100,000) remain high. The region also has the country’s highest prevalence of chronic illness, with 51.6% of residents reporting at least one long-term condition, compared with the national SA4 average of 41.3%.
In comparison, the healthiest regions are all located within major metropolitan areas. Ryde in Sydney performs the best for population health, with a life expectancy of 86 years, low premature deaths (122.7 per 100,000), few potentially avoidable deaths (54.9 per 100,000), and just 30.8% of residents reporting a long-term health condition, the lowest share of chronic illness in the country.
The unhealthiest healthiest places to live based on access to health care
North West Melbourne has the lowest access to healthcare in the country, with an ‘unhealthiness’ score of 95.66 out of 100. Residents face limited coverage, with just 1.4 medical practitioners and 5.2 nurses and midwives per 1,000 people. The region also ranks among the lowest 10 nationally for public hospital beds per 1,000 population and hospitals per 100,000, reflecting relatively poor access to care in this outer-metro area.
South Moreton Bay and West Brisbane also struggle with healthcare availability, rounding out the top three, scoring 95.31 and 94.78, respectively. Despite rapid population growth in Moreton Bay – South, the area has only 1.8 medical practitioners and 5.1 nurses and midwives per 1,000 residents, both ranking in the bottom five nationally. Brisbane – West also faces limited access. The region has low numbers of medical practitioners (2.3) and nurses and midwives (5.5) per 1,000 population, no public hospital beds within the region, and just 1 hospital per 100,000 people, indicating a stretched healthcare workforce and infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Inner Perth ranks as the best-served region in the country. It has the highest density of medical practitioners (23.1) and nurses and midwives (65.6) per 1,000 population, alongside 9.7 public hospital beds per 1,000 people, making it one of the most accessible areas for healthcare in Australia.
The unhealthiest places to live by state
New South Wales
The Far West and Orana region has the poorest health profiles in the country, which significantly contributes to making the area the most unhealthy region to live in New South Wales. The area also scores poorly for climate and environment, experiencing the highest number of hot days and nights in the state, which adds to the overall health burden.
The Hunter Valley ranks second in terms of unhealthiness. While the region faces high risks from both population health and climate, it is particularly disadvantaged when it comes to access to healthcare. Hunter Valley ranks third in NSW for poor healthcare access, with just 2.3 medical practitioners per 1,000 people and one of the lowest numbers of hospital beds per capita (1.7), reflecting stretched local services.
At the other end of the spectrum, Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs is named the healthiest place to live in the state. Residents enjoy excellent access to healthcare and strong population health outcomes. North Sydney and Hornsby rank as the second healthiest, while Ryde comes in third, highlighting the benefits of living in inner metropolitan areas with abundant healthcare resources and favourable health conditions.
Victoria
Latrobe and Gippsland is named the unhealthiest place to live in both Victoria and Australia. Following this region are Ballarat and North West Victoria. Ballarat ranks fourth for unhealthiness in climate and environmental factors, with one of the highest numbers of cold days (128.03) and cold nights (99.88) in the state. North West Victoria, on the other hand, tops the list for population health and outcomes, recording the lowest life expectancy in Victoria at 80.4 years, along with the highest rates of premature deaths (261.3 per 100,000) and potentially avoidable deaths (133.7 per 100,000).
On the other hand, Inner Melbourne is named the healthiest place to live in Victoria. Residents benefit from the best access to healthcare in the state, alongside low unhealthiness scores for climate and environment and population health outcomes, making it an ideal location for overall well-being.
Queensland
Darling Downs ranks as the second unhealthiest place to live in Australia and the unhealthiest in Queensland. The region faces significant challenges across multiple factors, including population health, climate, and access to healthcare, contributing to its high overall unhealthiness score.
Logan – Beaudesert is the second unhealthiest region in the state. It experiences one of the highest levels of overcrowding in housing and has poor access to healthcare, with hospitals per 100,000 population among the lowest in Queensland at just 1.2.
Meanwhile, Brisbane Inner City is named the healthiest place to live in Queensland. The area benefits from the second-lowest population unhealthiness score, with a life expectancy of 84.2 years and only 34.3% of residents living with a long-term health condition. Residents also enjoy excellent access to healthcare, with the highest numbers of medical practitioners (14.4 per 1,000), nurses and midwives (41.3 per 1,000), and hospital beds (6.5 per 1,000) in the state.
South Australia
Outback South Australia is named the unhealthiest place to live in the state, primarily due to poor population health. Residents have the lowest life expectancy in South Australia at 80.3 years, alongside the highest rates of premature deaths (287.6 per 100,000) and potentially avoidable deaths (149.3 per 100,000).
In contrast, the Central and Hills region of Adelaide is the healthiest area in South Australia. Residents enjoy the lowest rates of long-term health conditions and the highest life expectancy in the state at 84.8 years. Excellent access to healthcare contributes to these outcomes, with the region having the highest number of medical practitioners at 10.5 per 1,000 people, more than double that of the second-best region in South Australia.
Western Australia
The Southern Outback of Western Australia ranks as the unhealthiest place to live in the state, followed by the Northern Outback. Both regions face harsh environmental conditions, with a high number of hot days and nights that increase residents’ risk of heat-related illness. The Southern Outback also records one of the highest population health ‘unhealthiness’ scores in the country, with 43.7% of residents living with long-term health conditions, premature deaths at 288.3 per 100,000, and potentially avoidable deaths at 167.3 per 100,000.
On the flip side, Inner Perth is named the healthiest place to live in WA. The area benefits from the state’s best access to healthcare, with 65.6 nurses and midwives and 23.1 medical practitioners per 1,000 people, far higher than anywhere else in the state. This strong healthcare access is reflected in population health outcomes, with residents enjoying a high life expectancy of 85 years and a relatively low proportion of long-term health conditions at 34.9%.
“Where you live can have a major impact on your health and wellbeing. Our research shows that residents in regional and remote areas often face multiple challenges, from limited access to healthcare and hospital beds to higher rates of chronic illness and exposure to extreme climate conditions. These factors can make it harder to stay healthy and manage existing conditions effectively.
Even in areas with generally good living conditions, health risks can arise unexpectedly. That’s why having health insurance is so important. It ensures you can access the care you need, whether it’s routine check-ups like dental and optical, or being able to access hospital care when and where it suits you, as well as providing peace of mind that your health is protected no matter where you live.”
Andres Gutierrez
General Manager – Health at iSelect
About the data
To identify the healthiest and unhealthiest places to live across Australia, we analysed every region at the SA4 statistical level, across four key pillars that have a proven impact on long-term health:
- Housing conditions,
- Climate and environmental exposure,
- Population health outcomes, and
- Access to healthcare
Each pillar was constructed from multiple indicators sourced from the latest available government data, including the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), SILO, and Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) climate data, as well as national health workforce datasets.
Housing Conditions and Suitability captured the proportion of dwellings with major structural issues—such as cracks, foundation movement, plumbing failures, and overcrowding, which are linked to increased risks of mould, respiratory illness, injury and stress.
Climate and Environmental Conditions measured the average number of extreme weather days, including high humidity, heavy rainfall, heatwaves and cold spells, which are all associated with heat stress, respiratory disease, poor sleep and reduced liveability.
Population Health and Outcomes incorporated life expectancy, premature and potentially avoidable deaths, and chronic illness prevalence to reflect the underlying health of each community and the effectiveness of local health systems.
Access to Healthcare assessed how easily residents can obtain care by measuring the availability of medical practitioners, nurses and midwives, hospital beds and hospitals relative to the population.
To compare very different types of data on the same scale, each metric was normalised using either min–max scaling or a robust z-score method that softens the effect of extreme values. This allows every region to be assessed consistently while preventing outliers from skewing the results. Metrics within each pillar were weighted based on their relative importance to health, and pillar scores were combined into a final index ranging from 0 to 100.
To compare very different types of data on the same scale, each metric was normalised using either min–max scaling or a robust z-score method that softens the effect of extreme values. This allows every region to be assessed consistently while preventing outliers from skewing the results.
Notes on the data
Housing Conditions and Suitability
Statistics on housing conditions were sourced from ABS Housing Mobility and Conditions, Australia, 2019–20. Data relating to households in SA1s defined as very remote were excluded, accounting for about 21% of the population of NT. Values relating to housing suitability were accessed from the 2021 Census.
Population Health & Outcomes
Five year weighted means of age-standardised rates (ASR) per 100,000 population were used as measures for premature deaths and potentially avoidable deaths, sourced from AIHW’s Mortality Over Regions and Time dataset, 2023. Life expectancy at birth was sourced from the ABS’ Life Expectancy, 2022-2024 dataset, while the presence of long-term health conditions was sourced from the 2021 Census.
Climate and Environmental Conditions
All figures represent the five-year average (2020–2024), based on daily gridded data averaged across each SA4 region from the SILO database, which models daily temperature, rainfall and humidity across Australia using Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) observations.
We measured the average number of days per year in each region meeting extreme thresholds, taken directly from the BoM:
- Hot days: max temp ≥ 35 °C
- Hot nights: min temp ≥ 20 °C
- Cold days: max temp ≤ 15 °C
- Cold nights: min temp ≤ 5 °C
- High humidity: relative humidity ≥ 70%
- Heavy rain: rainfall ≥ 30 mm
Access to healthcare
Statistics on medical practitioners, nurses and midwives were acquired from the Australian government Health Workforce Database, and includes those employed in Australia working in their registered profession.
Hospital bed data was sourced from the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing Hospital Resources 2023-2024 dataset. Hospital bed data for the ACT for 2023-24 was not available at the time of reporting. To estimate these figures, we applied the national year-on-year percentage change in hospital beds (1.4%) to the ACT’s previous year’s data. This approach assumes that the ACT experienced similar growth patterns to the national average. While this method provides a reasonable estimate in the absence of jurisdiction-specific data, readers should note that actual ACT figures may vary from this estimate due to local policy decisions, infrastructure changes, or demographic factors specific to the territory.
The count of hospitals is based on the list of public and private hospitals officially declared by the Minister for Health and Aged Care under section 121–5(6) of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007.
Per capita figures are derived from yearly ABS regional population data relevant to each metric.
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.