Australian Unity Wellbeing Index

Report 33.2
June 2016

Wellbeing in Australian Federal Electorates

Australian Unity Wellbeing Research Team:

Dr Edmund Silins,1,2 Dr Delyse Hutchinson,1, 2 Dr Ben Richardson,1 Mr Philip Clare,2 Ms
Tanja Capic,1 A/Prof Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz,1 Dr Linda Hartley-Clark,1 Prof Robert
Cummins,1 Prof Craig Olsson1
1
2

School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia

National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Australia, Sydney, Australia

Australian Centre on Quality of Life

Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway
Melbourne, Victoria 3125, Australia
http://www.acqol.com.au/reports/auwbi.php

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 3
1

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4

1.1

Theory ................................................................................................................... 4

1.2

Report 33.2 ............................................................................................................ 5

1.3

Methodology ......................................................................................................... 5

Results .................................................................................................................. 6

2.1

Demographic characteristics of sample ................................................................ 6

2.2

Federal Electoral Divisions with Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) significantly

different to the normative mean ............................................................................ 8

2.3

Personal Wellbeing Index of 150 Federal Electoral Divisions ........................... 10

APPENDIX........................................................................................................................ 12

INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of sample ................................................................................ 7
Table 2: Federal Electoral Divisions with Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) significantly
higher than the normative mean ............................................................................................. 9
Table 3: Federal Electoral Divisions with Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) significantly
lower than the normative mean............................................................................................... 9
Table 4: Personal Wellbeing Index of 150 Federal Electoral Divisions ...................................... 10
Table 5: Personal Wellbeing Index of 150 Federal Electoral Divisions (detailed results)....... 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index measures quality of life as experienced by the average
Australian. This Report provides a 10-year average of how people feel about their life quality in 150
Federal Electoral Divisions using information from 24,022 people surveyed between 2006-2016.
Peoples feelings about their own wellbeing were measured by the Personal Wellbeing Index. This
comprises 7 questions that ask how satisfied people are with their: (1) standard of living; (2) health;
(3) relationships; (4) what they are achieving in life; (5) safety; (6) community connection; and, (7)
future security. Each item is rated on a 0 to 10 scale and the average of the 7 items is the measure of
personal wellbeing. Average scores are then adjusted to lie between 0 and 100 points. The wellbeing
of each electorate was compared to the average wellbeing for the population. Electorates were also
ranked in terms of their wellbeing from highest to lowest.
Twenty-eight electorates had wellbeing that was significantly higher than average. Most were in
Victoria (36%) and New South Wales (25%) with the remainder in South Australia (14%),
Queensland (7%), Tasmania (7%), Western Australia (7%), and the Australian Capital Territory (4%).
Thirteen electorates had wellbeing that was significantly lower than average. Half were in New South
Wales (47%) with the remainder in Victoria (23%), Queensland (15%) and Western Australia (15%).
Of the 150 electorates, Mayo (SA) had the highest wellbeing and Blaxland (NSW) had the lowest.

1 Introduction
The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index monitors the subjective wellbeing of the Australian population.
Unlike most official indicators of quality of life and wellbeing, it is subjective it measures how
Australians feel about life, and incorporates both personal and national perspectives. This report
concerns personal wellbeing and represents a measure of life quality as experienced by the average
Australian.
The first survey was conducted in April 2001 and the 33rd survey was undertaken in April 2016.
Each survey involves a telephone interview with a new sample of Australians, selected to represent
the national population geographic distribution. Every survey comprises the Personal Wellbeing Index
(PWI), which measures peoples satisfaction with their life. This Index comprises seven questions of
satisfaction with broad areas of peoples lives (domains). In this report the domains have been
summed to yield an overall measure of subjective wellbeing.

1.1 Theory
A considerable body of research has demonstrated that most people are satisfied with their own life.
On a population basis the scores that are derived from the PWI are remarkably stable. We hypothesize
that personal wellbeing is not simply free to vary over the theoretical 0-100 range. Rather, it is held
fairly constant for each individual in a manner analogous to blood pressure or body temperature. This
implies an active management system for personal wellbeing that has the task of maintaining
wellbeing, on average, at about 75 points. We call this process Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis
(Cummins et al., 2002).
The proper functioning of this homeostatic system is essential to life. At normal levels of wellbeing,
which for group average scores lies in the range of 70-80 points, people feel good about themselves,
are well motivated to conduct their lives, and have a strong sense of optimism. When this homeostatic
system fails, these essential qualities are severely compromised, and people are at risk of depression.
This can come about through such circumstances as exposure to chronic stress, chronic pain, failed
personal relationships, etc.
Fortunately, the homeostatic system is remarkably robust. Many people live in difficult personal
circumstances which may involve low income or medical problems, and yet manage to maintain
normal levels of wellbeing. This is why the Index is so stable when averaged across the population.
But as with any human attribute, some homeostatic systems are more robust than others. Or, put
another way, some people have fragile systems which are prone to failure.
Homeostatic fragility, in these terms, can be caused by two different influences. The first of these is
genetic. Some people have a constitutional weakness in their ability to maintain wellbeing within the
normal range. The second influence is the experience of life. Here, as has been mentioned, some
experiences such as chronic stress can challenge homeostasis. Other influences, such as intimate
personal relationships, can strengthen homeostasis.
In summary, personal wellbeing is under active management and most people are able to maintain
normal levels of wellbeing even when challenged by negative life experiences. However, a minority

of people have weaker homeostatic systems as a result of either constitutional or experiential

influences. These people are vulnerable to their environment and may evidence homeostatic failure
and thus lower personal wellbeing.

1.2 Report 33.2

This Report provides the average level of wellbeing for people living in Australias 150 Federal
Electoral Divisions. The analyses use cumulative data from May 2006 (Survey 15) to May 2016
(Survey 33) from 24,022 respondents. The report extends previous analyses (Report 23.2) by: (1)
geocoding respondents addresses directly to 2016 electoral boundaries; and, (2) providing estimates
of electorate wellbeing using more recent data (this Report used 2006-2016 survey data whereas
Report 23.2 used 2001-2010 data).

1.3 Methodology
At the time of each survey, respondents were asked if they would like to take part in future surveys.
Those who agreed to re-contact (approximately 75% of people surveyed) provided their address. The
current analyses were based on cumulative data from 24,022 respondents surveyed between May
2006 (Survey 15) and May 2016 (Survey 33) who provided full addresses. Electoral division was
determined for these respondents by:
(1) recording their addresses onto a Graphic Information Server (GIS) with latitude and longitude;
(2) the ABS meshblock (at the street level) was assigned to each record
(http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/1270.0.55.001Main%20Features1July%202
011); and,
(3) electoral boundaries for 2016 obtained from the Australian Electoral Commission
(http://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/gis/index.htm) were loaded onto a GIS and meshblocks assigned
to each electorate. Where a meshblock crossed an electorate, it was assigned to the electorate in which
most of it resides. For example, if a particular street crossed an electorate that street was assigned to
the electorate which contained most of it. The process of parsing out respondents address, recording
onto a GIS, and appending to electorate was completed by Sample Pages.
Subjective wellbeing was measured by the PWI. This comprises seven questions that asked how
satisfied people are with their:
(1) standard of living;
(2) health;
(3) relationships;
(4) what they are achieving in life;
(5) safety;
(6) community connection; and,
(7) future security.
The numerical rating scale offers 11 choices from zero (completely dissatisfied) to 10 (completely
satisfied). The PWI is the average rating across the seven items (domains). All data have been
standardised to a 0-100 range. Thus, the magnitude of group differences can be referred to in terms of
percentage points.

The PWI of each electorate has been reported and compared to the normative mean PWI (see below)
using an independent two-sample t-test (p<0.05). Thus, electorates with a PWI that are significantly
different from the norm are identified. The normative mean PWI has been calculated for PWI using
the whole data-set (surveys 1-33) by computing the mean PWI for each survey and then determining
the average PWI across all surveys (see Report 33). The normative mean PWI used in this report is
75.37 (SD 0.77).
Electorates were also divided into five equal sized groups (or quintiles), where each group of
electorates represented one fifth (20%) of PWI scores. So the first group represents the electorates
with the highest fifth (81%-100%) of wellbeing scores, the next group represents the electorates with
the second highest fifth (61%-80%) of wellbeing scores, and so on down to the last group which
represents the lowest fifth (20%) of wellbeing scores.
Statistical analyses were competed using STATA version 14 and Excel 2010.

2 Results
2.1

Demographic characteristics of sample

The demographic characteristics of the overall sample (N=24,022) are reported in table 1.
The majority of respondents were from New South Wales (33.9%), Victoria (24.3%), and Queensland
(19.8%) with the remainder (22.0%) from the other States and Territories (ACT, 1.8%; NT, 1.6%; SA,
7.3%; TAS, 2.4%; WA, 9.0%).
The age of respondents ranged from 18 years to 76 years and over, with those aged 46-55 years
(20.7%) and 56-65 years (21.5%) making up a substantial proportion of the overall sample.
Females (49.5%) and males (50.5%) were equally represented.
In terms of yearly gross household income, about one quarter (23.9%) of respondents earned between
$31,000-$60,000 and a similar proportion (23.1%) earned between $61,000-$100,000.
Half of respondents worked full-time (49.4%) and about one third (31.8%) were retired.
The majority of respondents were married (58.8%) and 8.0% were in a defacto relationship. About
fourteen (13.7%) percent had never married.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of sample

Demographic characteristic

State or Territory
(N=24,016)

Age
(N=23,926)

Sex
(N=24,022)

Gross household
income
(N=21196)

Employment status
(N=19,177)

Relationship status
(N=22,600)

Australian Capital Territory

New South Wales
Northern Territory
Queensland
South Australia
Tasmania
Victoria
Western Australia
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
66-75
76+
Female
Male
<$15 000
$15 000 - $30 000
$31 000 - $60 000
$61 000 - $100 000
$101 000 - $150 000
$151 000 - $250 000
$251 000 - $500 000
>$500 000
Full-time employed
Full-time retired
Full-time volunteer
Full-time home duties
Full-time study
Unemployed
Married
De facto
Never married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed

n
426
8140
392
4758
1741
567
5830
2162
1742
2356
4045
4963
5144
3644
2032
11897
12125
1401
3721
5063
4890
3871
1758
401
91
9478
6100
151
1507
907
1034
13288
1809
3100
751
1934
1718

%
1.77%
33.89%
1.63%
19.81%
7.25%
2.36%
24.28%
9.00%
7.28%
9.85%
16.91%
20.74%
21.50%
15.23%
8.49%
49.53%
50.47%
6.61%
17.56%
23.89%
23.07%
18.26%
8.29%
1.89%
0.43%
49.42%
31.81%
0.79%
7.86%
4.73%
5.39%
58.80%
8.00%
13.72%
3.32%
8.56%
7.60%

2.2 Federal Electoral Divisions with Personal Wellbeing Index

(PWI) significantly different to the normative mean
The Federal Electoral Divisions with Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) significantly different (p<0.05)
to the normative mean are reported in Table 2 (significantly higher than the norm) and Table 3
(significantly lower than the norm). The normative mean PWI was calculated for PWI using the
whole data-set (surveys 1-33) by computing the mean PWI for each survey and then determining the
average PWI across all surveys (see Report 33). The normative mean PWI used in this report was
75.37 (SD 0.77). Results are summarised here and reported in full in the Appendix.

2.2.1 Electorates with wellbeing higher than the normative mean

Twenty-eight electorates had a PWI score that was higher than the normative mean and a difference
that was statistically significant (p<0.05), Table 2. Of these electorates, most were in Victoria (10/28;
36%) and New South Wales (7/28; 25%) with the remainder in South Australia (4/28; 14%),
Queensland (2/28; 7%), Tasmania (2/28; 7%), Western Australia (2/28; 7%), and the Australian
Capital Territory (1/28; 4%).
The ten electorates with the highest PWI scores were Mayo (SA), which had the highest score,
followed by Murray (VIC), Mallee (VIC), Gilmore (NSW), Maranoa (QLD), Franklin (TAS),
Mitchell (NSW), Kennedy (QLD), OConnor (WA) and Berowra (NSW). Of the top ten electorates,
three were in New South Wales, two each in Queensland and Victoria, and one each in South
Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia.

2.2.2 Electorates with wellbeing lower than the normative mean

Thirteen electorates had a PWI score that was lower than the normative mean and a difference that
was statistically significant (p<0.05), Table 3. Of these electorates, half were in New South Wales
(6/13; 47%) with the remainder in Victoria (3/13; 23%), Queensland (2/13; 15%) and Western
Australia (2/13; 15%).
The ten electorates with the lowest PWI scores were Blaxland (NSW), which had the lowest score,
followed by Holt (VIC), Cowan (WA), Chifley (NSW), McMahon (NSW), Werriwa (NSW),
Moncrieff (QLD), Calwell (VIC), Hinkler (QLD) and Scullin (VIC). Of the bottom ten electorates,
four were in New South Wales, three were in Victoria, two were in Queensland, and one was in
Western Australia.

Table 2: Federal Electoral Divisions with

Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) significantly
higher than the normative mean

Electorate
Mayo
Murray
Mallee
Gilmore
Maranoa
Franklin
Mitchell
Kennedy
OConnor
Berowra
Goldstein
Wannon
Curtin
Gippsland
North Sydney
Lyons
Canberra
Hunter
Flinders
Bradfield
Adelaide
Bendigo
Boothby
Jagajaga
Sturt
Corangamite
Chisholm
Hughes

State/
Territory
SA
VIC
VIC
NSW
QLD
TAS
NSW
QLD
WA
NSW
VIC
VIC
WA
VIC
NSW
TAS
ACT
NSW
VIC
NSW
SA
VIC
SA
VIC
SA
VIC
VIC
NSW

PWI
79.49
79.16
79.06
78.92
78.82
78.78
78.53
78.41
78.33
78.31
78.18
78.17
78.17
78.15
78.13
78.07
77.90
77.83
77.77
77.68
77.53
77.50
77.39
77.39
77.36
77.33
77.28
77.07

Table 3: Federal Electoral Divisions with

Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) significantly
lower than the normative mean

Electorate
Parramatta
Lindsay
Swan
Scullin
Hinkler
Calwell
Moncrieff
Werriwa
McMahon
Chifley
Cowan
Holt
Blaxland

State/
Territory
NSW
NSW
WA
VIC
QLD
VIC
QLD
NSW
NSW
NSW
WA
VIC
NSW

PWI
73.84
72.93
72.92
72.90
72.67
72.63
72.03
72.00
71.87
71.57
71.48
71.38
71.23

2.3 Personal Wellbeing Index of 150 Federal Electoral Divisions

The PWI of all 150 Federal Electoral Divisions is reported in Table 4. The electorates are ranked from
highest wellbeing (Mayo, SA) to lowest wellbeing (Blaxland, NSW). Electorates were also divided
into five equal sized groups (or quintiles), where each group of electorates represented one fifth (20%)
of PWI scores. So the first group represents the electorates with the highest fifth (81%-100%) of
wellbeing scores (shaded darkest), the next group represents the electorates with the second highest
fifth (61%-80%) of wellbeing scores (shaded slightly lighter), and so on down to the last group which
represents the lowest fifth (20%) of wellbeing scores (unshaded). The cut-points used were: 74.53,
75.18, 76.07, and 77.08. Results are summarised here and reported in full in the Appendix.

Table 4: Personal Wellbeing Index of 150 Federal Electoral Divisions

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

Electorate
Mayo
Murray
Mallee
Gilmore
Maranoa
Franklin
Mitchell
Kennedy
O'Connor
Berowra
Goldstein
Wannon
Curtin
Gippsland
North Sydney
Lyons
Canberra
Hunter
Flinders
Bradfield
Forrest
Adelaide
Bendigo
Boothby
Jagajaga
Sturt
Corangamite
Chisholm
Fremantle
Indi
Hughes
Braddon

State/
Territory
SA
VIC
VIC
NSW
QLD
TAS
NSW
QLD
WA
NSW
VIC
VIC
WA
VIC
NSW
TAS
ACT
NSW
VIC
NSW
WA
SA
VIC
SA
VIC
SA
VIC
VIC
WA
VIC
NSW
TAS

PWI

Rank

79.49
79.16
79.06
78.92
78.82
78.78
78.53
78.41
78.33
78.31
78.18
78.17
78.17
78.15
78.13
78.07
77.90
77.83
77.77
77.68
77.57
77.53
77.50
77.39
77.39
77.36
77.33
77.28
77.23
77.08
77.07
76.95

33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64

Electorate
Ballarat
Hume
Corio
Calare
New England
Eden-Monaro
Bowman
Riverina
Aston
Cunningham
Lyne
Mackellar
McMillan
Flynn
McEwen
Page
Ryan
Newcastle
Lingiari
Wide Bay
Gellibrand
Farrer
Fairfax
Canning
Fisher
Parkes
Whitlam
Cook
Groom
Bonner
Durack
Leichhardt

State/
Territory
VIC
NSW
VIC
NSW
NSW
NSW
QLD
NSW
VIC
NSW
NSW
NSW
VIC
QLD
VIC
NSW
QLD
NSW
NT
QLD
VIC
NSW
QLD
WA
QLD
NSW
NSW
NSW
QLD
QLD
WA
QLD

PWI
76.79
76.76
76.72
76.71
76.67
76.66
76.66
76.65
76.65
76.65
76.64
76.62
76.58
76.55
76.53
76.53
76.49
76.48
76.33
76.32
76.31
76.31
76.27
76.21
76.19
76.19
76.13
76.07
76.03
76.01
76.00
76.00

10

Rank

Electorate

65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108

Higgins
Batman
Hindmarsh
Capricornia
Denison
Fenner
Moreton
Warringah
Paterson
Kooyong
Tangney
McPherson
Casey
Cowper
Menzies
Barker
Melbourne
Pearce
Dawson
Bass
Hotham
Maribyrnong
Moore
Wakefield
Melbourne Ports
Dunkley
Oxley
La Trobe
Shortland
Brand
Grayndler
Forde
Hasluck
Port Adelaide
Kingston
Deakin
Dobell
Perth
Richmond
Bennelong
Fadden
Lalor
Banks
Griffith

State/
Territory
VIC
VIC
SA
QLD
TAS
ACT
QLD
NSW
NSW
VIC
WA
QLD
VIC
NSW
VIC
SA
VIC
WA
QLD
TAS
VIC
VIC
WA
SA
VIC
VIC
QLD
VIC
NSW
WA
NSW
QLD
WA
SA
SA
VIC
NSW
WA
NSW
NSW
QLD
VIC
NSW
QLD

PWI

Rank

Electorate

75.99
75.96
75.92
75.88
75.85
75.84
75.81
75.78
75.78
75.75
75.72
75.71
75.68
75.67
75.66
75.53
75.39
75.37
75.33
75.26
75.26
75.22
75.21
75.21
75.18
75.18
75.17
75.16
75.16
75.10
75.09
75.08
75.07
75.05
75.03
75.03
75.02
74.98
74.97
74.88
74.88
74.86
74.77
74.77

109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150

Macquarie
Bruce
Robertson
Makin
Sydney
Gorton
Petrie
Grey
Isaacs
Blair
Brisbane
Greenway
Wright
Watson
Herbert
Dickson
Barton
Kingsford Smith
Wentworth
Lilley
Macarthur
Parramatta
Longman
Stirling
Solomon
Reid
Rankin
Burt
Wills
Fowler
Lindsay
Swan
Scullin
Hinkler
Calwell
Moncrieff
Werriwa
McMahon
Chifley
Cowan
Holt
Blaxland

State/
Territory
NSW
VIC
NSW
SA
NSW
VIC
QLD
SA
VIC
QLD
QLD
NSW
QLD
NSW
QLD
QLD
NSW
NSW
NSW
QLD
NSW
NSW
QLD
WA
NT
NSW
QLD
WA
VIC
NSW
NSW
WA
VIC
QLD
VIC
QLD
NSW
NSW
NSW
WA
VIC
NSW

PWI
74.74
74.73
74.69
74.68
74.68
74.66
74.62
74.58
74.57
74.56
74.55
74.53
74.47
74.42
74.35
74.35
74.31
74.27
74.11
74.09
74.08
73.84
73.82
73.64
73.63
73.61
73.55
73.38
73.20
72.98
72.93
72.92
72.90
72.67
72.63
72.03
72.00
71.87
71.57
71.48
71.38
71.23

11

APPENDIX
Table 5 on the following pages reports detailed results for the analyses of wellbeing in Australian
electorates.
Electorates have been ranked from from highest wellbeing (Mayo, SA) to lowest wellbeing
(Blaxland, NSW) and divided into five equal sized groups (or quintiles), where each group of
electorates represented one fifth (20%) of PWI scores. So the first group represents the electorates
with the highest fifth (81%-100%) of wellbeing scores (shaded darkest), the next group represents the
electorates with the second highest fifth (61%-80%) of wellbeing scores (shaded slightly lighter), and
so on down to the last group which represents the lowest fifth (20%) of wellbeing scores (unshaded).
The cut-points used were: 74.53, 75.18, 76.07, and 77.08.
For each electorate, the table reports the mean PWI score and the corresponding standard deviation
(SD), standard error (SE), 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI upperbound and lowerbound), and
sample size.
The PWI of each electorate was compared to the normative mean PWI using an independent twosample t-test. A p-value of <0.05 was used to identify electorates with a PWI that were significantly
different from the normative PWI (marked with an asterisk). The normative mean PWI was calculated
for PWI using the whole data-set (surveys 1-33) by computing the mean PWI for each survey and
then determining the average PWI across all surveys (see Report 33). The normative mean PWI used
in this report is 75.37 (SD 0.77).

12

Table 5: Personal Wellbeing Index of 150 Federal Electoral Divisions (detailed results)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

Electorate
Mayo*
Murray*
Mallee*
Gilmore*
Maranoa*
Franklin*
Mitchell*
Kennedy*
Oconnor*
Berowra*
Goldstein*
Wannon*
Curtin*
Gippsland*
North Sydney*
Lyons*
Canberra*
Hunter*
Flinders*
Bradfield*
Forrest
Adelaide*
Bendigo*
Boothby*
Jagajaga*
Sturt*
Corangamite*
Chisholm*
Fremantle
Indi
Hughes*
Braddon
Ballarat
Hume
Corio
Calare
New England
Eden-Monaro
Bowman
Riverina
Aston
Cunningham
Lyne

State/
Territory
SA
VIC
VIC
NSW
QLD
TAS
NSW
QLD
WA
NSW
VIC
VIC
WA
VIC
NSW
TAS
ACT
NSW
VIC
NSW
WA
SA
VIC
SA
VIC
SA
VIC
VIC
WA
VIC
NSW
TAS
VIC
NSW
VIC
NSW
NSW
NSW
QLD
NSW
VIC
NSW
NSW

PWI
79.49
79.16
79.06
78.92
78.82
78.78
78.53
78.41
78.33
78.31
78.18
78.17
78.17
78.15
78.13
78.07
77.90
77.83
77.77
77.68
77.57
77.53
77.50
77.39
77.39
77.36
77.33
77.28
77.23
77.08
77.07
76.95
76.79
76.76
76.72
76.71
76.67
76.66
76.66
76.65
76.65
76.65
76.64

SD
11.408
10.589
12.580
12.449
10.969
10.371
9.846
11.861
13.050
10.610
9.919
12.481
9.506
12.212
10.441
13.001
10.440
12.524
13.251
9.244
13.118
9.628
11.696
12.336
11.549
9.685
10.516
10.797
10.789
12.573
11.146
12.431
12.021
12.613
14.250
13.190
10.639
14.187
11.475
13.086
11.755
11.414
11.700

SE
0.919
0.827
0.979
0.949
0.839
0.980
0.786
0.975
1.029
0.750
0.789
0.972
0.815
0.990
0.861
1.154
0.740
1.009
1.035
0.717
1.164
0.848
0.616
0.868
0.861
0.734
0.821
0.826
0.954
1.033
0.817
1.207
1.002
0.976
1.317
0.928
0.774
0.736
0.988
0.992
0.970
0.900
0.895

95%CI
lb
77.688
77.534
77.137
77.060
77.178
76.855
76.986
76.496
76.316
76.837
76.636
76.269
76.575
76.207
76.446
75.804
76.446
75.851
75.742
76.270
75.289
75.869
76.296
75.689
75.702
75.925
75.725
75.658
75.363
75.059
75.472
74.588
74.822
74.845
74.133
74.892
75.150
75.221
74.720
74.706
74.747
74.883
74.888

95%CI
ub
81.292
80.776
80.976
80.781
80.466
80.696
80.066
80.318
80.348
79.778
79.729
80.078
79.770
80.090
79.822
80.326
79.347
79.807
79.798
79.083
79.852
79.192
78.710
79.092
79.076
78.804
78.944
78.895
79.101
79.111
78.676
79.321
78.749
78.671
79.298
78.530
78.183
78.105
78.592
78.595
78.548
78.409
78.395

Sample
size
154
164
165
172
171
112
157
148
161
200
158
165
136
152
147
127
199
154
164
166
127
129
361
202
180
174
164
171
128
148
186
106
144
167
117
202
189
372
135
174
147
161
171

p value
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0002
0.0000
0.0005
0.0001
0.0018
0.0040
0.0001
0.0004
0.0039
0.0006
0.0050
0.0013
0.0195
0.0006
0.0148
0.0204
0.0013
0.0587
0.0108
0.0005
0.0199
0.0190
0.0066
0.0168
0.0209
0.0509
0.0970
0.0371
0.1895
0.1576
0.1551
0.3071
0.1483
0.0938
0.0788
0.1929
0.1969
0.1877
0.1561
0.1553

13

Rank
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87

Electorate
Mackellar
McMillan
Flynn
McEwen
Page
Ryan
Newcastle
Lingiari
WideBay
Gellibrand
Farrer
Fairfax
Canning
Fisher
Parkes
Whitlam
Cook
Groom
Bonner
Durack
Leichhardt
Higgins
Batman
Hindmarsh
Capricornia
Denison
Fenner
Moreton
Warringah
Paterson
Kooyong
Tangney
McPherson
Casey
Cowper
Menzies
Barker
Melbourne
Pearce
Dawson
Bass
Hotham
Maribyrnong
Moore

State/
Territory
NSW
VIC
QLD
VIC
NSW
QLD
NSW
NT
QLD
VIC
NSW
QLD
WA
QLD
NSW
NSW
NSW
QLD
QLD
WA
QLD
VIC
VIC
SA
QLD
TAS
ACT
QLD
NSW
NSW
VIC
WA
QLD
VIC
NSW
VIC
SA
VIC
WA
QLD
TAS
VIC
VIC
WA

PWI
76.62
76.58
76.55
76.53
76.53
76.49
76.48
76.33
76.32
76.31
76.31
76.27
76.21
76.19
76.19
76.13
76.07
76.03
76.01
76.00
76.00
75.99
75.96
75.92
75.88
75.85
75.84
75.81
75.78
75.78
75.75
75.72
75.71
75.68
75.67
75.66
75.53
75.39
75.37
75.33
75.26
75.26
75.22
75.21

SD
11.250
13.333
11.023
12.339
12.616
11.015
12.973
13.315
11.278
12.413
12.619
13.441
13.273
12.936
12.473
12.422
10.948
14.307
11.779
13.809
13.714
11.475
12.196
12.752
13.848
12.346
10.839
10.686
12.509
11.748
13.441
10.730
13.747
11.786
13.260
12.513
13.779
11.638
11.003
13.492
11.699
11.227
12.326
11.060

SE
0.808
1.057
0.922
0.660
0.903
0.858
1.001
0.782
0.927
1.115
0.918
1.197
1.271
1.157
0.893
1.046
0.975
1.209
0.965
1.032
1.077
0.963
0.952
0.970
0.738
1.067
0.801
0.945
0.968
0.989
1.040
0.816
1.299
0.959
0.988
0.957
1.121
0.984
1.026
1.026
1.240
1.004
1.181
0.883

95%CI
lb
75.037
74.504
74.747
75.238
74.757
74.813
74.518
74.797
74.505
74.128
74.512
73.923
73.720
73.926
74.440
74.079
74.154
73.661
74.120
73.979
73.885
74.098
74.092
74.020
74.430
73.762
74.269
73.963
73.885
73.836
73.710
74.124
73.168
73.796
73.737
73.780
73.327
73.460
73.355
73.316
72.834
73.289
72.902
73.484

95%CI
ub
78.203
78.649
78.360
77.823
78.298
78.174
78.441
77.863
78.140
78.498
78.111
78.617
78.704
78.462
77.941
78.180
77.977
78.401
77.903
78.025
78.108
77.873
77.825
77.821
77.323
77.943
77.410
77.666
77.680
77.714
77.787
77.322
78.260
77.556
77.612
77.531
77.723
77.316
77.378
77.337
77.695
77.225
77.530
76.944

Sample
size
194
159
143
350
195
165
168
290
148
124
189
126
109
125
195
141
126
140
149
179
162
142
164
173
352
134
183
128
167
141
167
173
112
151
180
171
151
140
115
173
89
125
109
157

p value
0.1217
0.2537
0.1992
0.0785
0.2002
0.1902
0.2676
0.2195
0.3043
0.3974
0.3051
0.4524
0.5076
0.4762
0.3583
0.4677
0.4756
0.5849
0.5062
0.5406
0.5610
0.5224
0.5368
0.5700
0.4925
0.6507
0.5582
0.6378
0.6698
0.6822
0.7159
0.6656
0.7910
0.7494
0.7579
0.7652
0.8900
0.9856
0.9972
0.9659
0.9324
0.9105
0.8964
0.8596

14

Rank
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131

Electorate
Wakefield
Melbourne Ports
Dunkley
Oxley
La Trobe
Shortland
Brand
Grayndler
Forde
Hasluck
Port Adelaide
Kingston
Deakin
Dobell
Perth
Richmond
Bennelong
Fadden
Lalor
Banks
Griffith
Macquarie
Bruce
Robertson
Makin
Sydney
Gorton
Petrie
Grey
Isaacs
Blair
Brisbane
Greenway
Wright
Watson
Herbert
Dickson
Barton
Kingsford Smith
Wentworth
Lilley
Macarthur
Parramatta*
Longman

State/
Territory
SA
VIC
VIC
QLD
VIC
NSW
WA
NSW
QLD
WA
SA
SA
VIC
NSW
WA
NSW
NSW
QLD
VIC
NSW
QLD
NSW
VIC
NSW
SA
NSW
VIC
QLD
SA
VIC
QLD
QLD
NSW
QLD
NSW
QLD
QLD
NSW
NSW
NSW
QLD
NSW
NSW
QLD

PWI
75.21
75.18
75.18
75.17
75.16
75.16
75.10
75.09
75.08
75.07
75.05
75.03
75.03
75.02
74.98
74.97
74.88
74.88
74.86
74.77
74.77
74.74
74.73
74.69
74.68
74.68
74.66
74.62
74.58
74.57
74.56
74.55
74.53
74.47
74.42
74.35
74.35
74.31
74.27
74.11
74.09
74.08
73.84
73.82

SD
14.886
10.984
11.966
12.693
11.650
13.029
12.881
11.348
13.870
12.782
13.248
10.809
11.551
12.572
12.017
13.003
11.828
11.918
12.205
12.138
13.307
13.237
12.067
13.735
12.915
12.117
13.371
15.029
13.290
11.616
12.778
12.718
12.011
14.764
12.171
13.037
11.583
12.515
12.175
12.037
13.898
12.558
12.688
14.385

SE
1.220
0.960
0.866
1.269
0.907
0.979
1.171
0.881
1.311
1.023
1.112
0.898
0.842
0.617
1.102
1.095
0.907
1.158
1.066
0.984
1.121
0.839
1.054
0.867
1.051
0.989
1.344
0.852
1.035
0.996
1.013
1.064
1.015
1.164
1.262
1.054
0.907
0.717
1.085
1.085
0.723
1.085
0.718
1.137

95%CI
lb
72.816
73.299
73.479
72.684
73.382
73.238
72.805
73.368
72.508
73.067
72.871
73.275
73.379
73.806
72.823
72.828
73.104
72.610
72.773
72.845
72.575
73.095
72.666
72.991
72.623
72.737
72.027
72.951
72.552
72.617
72.569
72.461
72.541
72.191
71.950
72.285
72.569
72.909
72.148
71.984
72.676
71.957
72.434
71.592

95%CI
ub
77.596
77.061
76.873
77.659
76.938
77.077
77.396
76.821
77.645
77.079
77.229
76.794
76.682
76.225
77.141
77.121
76.660
77.148
76.954
76.704
76.969
76.383
76.799
76.389
76.743
76.615
77.295
76.291
76.608
76.522
76.541
76.630
76.520
76.753
76.898
76.417
76.125
75.718
76.400
76.239
75.509
76.210
75.250
76.050

Sample
size
149
131
191
100
165
177
121
166
112
156
142
145
188
415
119
141
170
106
131
152
141
249
131
251
151
150
99
311
165
136
159
143
140
161
93
153
163
305
126
123
370
134
312
160

p value
0.8931
0.8430
0.8225
0.8757
0.8170
0.8281
0.8179
0.7546
0.8228
0.7719
0.7737
0.7086
0.6869
0.5657
0.7247
0.7181
0.5909
0.6713
0.6349
0.5452
0.5936
0.4519
0.5456
0.4327
0.5134
0.4831
0.5977
0.3795
0.4452
0.4215
0.4214
0.4382
0.4083
0.4403
0.4535
0.3337
0.2596
0.1405
0.3124
0.2462
0.0771
0.2356
0.0334
0.1733

15

Rank
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150

Electorate
Stirling
Solomon
Reid
Rankin
Burt
Wills
Fowler
Lindsay*
Swan*
Scullin*
Hinkler*
Calwell*
Moncrieff*
Werriwa*
McMahon*
Chifley*
Cowan*
Holt*
Blaxland*

State/
Territory
WA
NT
NSW
QLD
WA
VIC
NSW
NSW
WA
VIC
QLD
VIC
QLD
NSW
NSW
NSW
WA
VIC
NSW

PWI
73.64
73.63
73.61
73.55
73.38
73.20
72.98
72.93
72.92
72.90
72.67
72.63
72.03
72.00
71.87
71.57
71.48
71.38
71.23

SD
10.979
13.409
13.545
12.537
12.408
13.633
13.725
13.362
13.328
12.375
14.119
13.077
13.767
15.171
15.355
15.352
12.615
14.664
13.802

SE
1.061
1.454
1.231
1.164
1.235
1.144
1.629
1.056
1.092
1.164
1.334
1.378
1.428
1.665
1.396
1.379
1.161
1.301
1.497

95%CI
lb
71.565
70.779
71.199
71.265
70.961
70.957
69.785
70.858
70.784
70.613
70.051
69.933
69.229
68.733
69.129
68.865
69.201
68.833
68.293

95%CI
ub
75.725
76.481
76.026
75.828
75.800
75.442
76.171
74.999
75.064
75.177
75.281
75.337
74.826
75.261
74.601
74.269
73.753
73.934
74.161

Sample
size
107
85
121
116
101
142
71
160
149
113
112
90
93
83
121
124
118
127
85

p value
0.1041
0.2317
0.1536
0.1173
0.1071
0.0578
0.1420
0.0208
0.0251
0.0335
0.0427
0.0472
0.0192
0.0428
0.0121
0.0058
0.0008
0.0022
0.0057

*p<0.05; PWI=Personal Wellbeing Index; SD=standard deviation; SE=standard error; 95%CI=95% Confidence Interval (lb=lower
bound, ub=upperbound); Electorates were divided into five equal sized groups (or quintiles), where each group of electorates
represented one fifth (20%) of PWI scores. So the first group represents the electorates with the highest fifth (81%-100%) of
wellbeing scores (shaded darkest), the next group represents the electorates with the second highest fifth (61%-80%) of wellbeing
scores (shaded slightly lighter), and so on down to the last group which represents the lowest fifth (20%) of wellbeing scores
(unshaded). The cut-points used were: 74.53, 75.18, 76.07, and 77.08.

16