new data show how Australians feel about their lives
- Written by Kate Lycett, Senior Research Fellow, School of Psychology, Deakin University
This week, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released its refreshed General Social Survey[1]. It tells a story economic indicators can’t capture.
On almost every measure of how Australians experience their lives – trust, connection, cultural openness, financial security, even how healthy we feel – things have gotten worse since the last survey in 2020, which was conducted during COVID.
What the data reveal
The survey results, collected in May and June 2025, show that many aspects of Australian life are shifting.
Compared to the previous General Social Survey in 2020, the new data[2] reveal:
● Cultural tolerance is high, but dropping: 75% of people think it’s good for society to include different cultures, down from 85%.
● Trust in people and systems is falling: 50% agree others can be trusted (down from 61%), and 61% trust the healthcare system (down from 76%).
● Financial stress is rising: one in four households (25%) have at least one cash flow problem in the past year, up from one in five (21%). For single parents with dependents, it’s closer to one in two (48%).
● Fewer people feel healthy: 49% report their health as excellent or very good, down from 54%.
Almost one in ten Australians (9%) report very high mental distress. This is more common in women than men (10% vs 7%), especially in those aged 15–24 (17% of women vs 6% of men).
Although collected differently, mental distress rates are higher than previous ABS survey data[3] from 2020–22, where only 6% reported very high levels.
How satisfied with life are we?
Overall life satisfaction, one of the most widely used[4] measures of subjective wellbeing globally, sits at 7.1 out of 10 – similar to 2020 levels.
The annual Australian Unity Wellbeing Index[5] data collected at the same time in 2025 was similar (6.9), but showed a small rise from its 2024 recording of 6.7.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, when we compare people with low life satisfaction to those with very high life satisfaction, big differences emerge. People with low life satisfaction are far more likely to:
● have very high mental distress (40% vs 1%)
● feel very lonely (47% vs 5%)
● have low trust in others (43% vs 19%)
● feel rushed for time (50% vs 20%)
● and feel they can’t have a say about important issues within their community (62% vs 24%).
Turning data into policy
Politicians talk about delivering a “good life” for more Australians. We now have ABS data on some important markers of a good life that go beyond traditional economic measures like GDP and productivity, or administrative measures like hospitalisations.
But the question remains: how will we use these data to deliver better lives for more Australians?
The Australian government formally acknowledged the limits of economic measurement[6] by introducing its Measuring What Matters Framework[7] in 2023.
The framework tracks 50 indicators of wellbeing across five themes: healthy, secure, sustainable, cohesive and prosperous.
The federal treasury has invested[8] $14.8 million over five years to make the General Social Survey annual from this year onwards. This provides important regular data to help meet the goals of Measuring What Matters.
However, measurement alone changes nothing. A 2024 Australian National Audit Office report[9] found treasury had no arrangements to monitor whether Measuring What Matters was actually being used in government decision-making.
Treasury accepted the recommendation to fix this – but until wellbeing measures are tied to budgets[10] and championed by those in power, they remain a dashboard, not a lever. After all, budgets determine where resources flow, and resources drive outcomes.
States are already doing it
Several state and territory governments have moved beyond just measuring wellbeing and built it into how they make budget decisions.
The Australian Capital Territory government[11] requires a “Wellbeing Impact Assessment” for all new budget proposals.
This involves identifying which areas of community wellbeing the funding will affect and how these impacts will be measured. It also specifically considers the effects on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, women and future generations.
Victoria’s Early Intervention Investment Framework[12] takes a different approach. Through evidence-based budgeting, it invests early in social programs to improve outcomes and reduce long-term government costs, such as avoidable hospitalisations.
Sitting within the state’s treasury department, it also increases cross-collaboration across government departments and portfolios, enhancing coordinated efforts.
Without tools like these, budget processes will default to familiar patterns. Money flows towards addressing problems after they occur, rather than towards longer-term investments that prevent problems from happening in the first place.
Funding what we value
Internationally, many countries[13] have redesigned budgeting systems to serve people and the planet, rather than economic growth. Where this has worked best, citizens have helped shape the journey[14].
Wales is a standout example where large-scale national conversations about the country’s future shaped the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act[15], whose seven goals are now embedded in government decision-making.
Community consultation was somewhat light[16] for Measuring What Matters. Many Australians have no idea what it is. A national conversation[17] would help everyday Australians shape the long-term direction of our country.
But we don’t have to wait for a national conversation to begin changing budget systems. Measuring What Matters and the General Social Survey are major steps in the right direction and provide the foundations to be embedded into budgetary decisions and adapted over time.
The five themes could become goals. If a policy proposal cannot demonstrate how it benefits these goals, it shouldn’t be funded. This would mean building wellbeing into how we allocate resources instead of just reporting on it.
What a nation measures signals what it values. What it funds builds on these values to shape better lives.
References
- ^ General Social Survey (www.abs.gov.au)
- ^ the new data (www.abs.gov.au)
- ^ previous ABS survey data (www.abs.gov.au)
- ^ one of the most widely used (www.oecd.org)
- ^ Australian Unity Wellbeing Index (auwi.deakin.edu.au)
- ^ limits of economic measurement (cpd.org.au)
- ^ Measuring What Matters Framework (treasury.gov.au)
- ^ invested (ministers.treasury.gov.au)
- ^ 2024 Australian National Audit Office report (www.anao.gov.au)
- ^ wellbeing measures are tied to budgets (cpd.org.au)
- ^ Australian Capital Territory government (www.treasury.act.gov.au)
- ^ Early Intervention Investment Framework (www.dtf.vic.gov.au)
- ^ many countries (weall.org)
- ^ citizens have helped shape the journey (cpd.org.au)
- ^ Wellbeing of Future Generations Act (www.gov.wales)
- ^ was somewhat light (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
- ^ A national conversation (www.thenationalconvo.org)
Authors: Kate Lycett, Senior Research Fellow, School of Psychology, Deakin University
