If we’re honest with ourselves, we know if a relationship isn’t working, if it is abusive or hurtful, or if it has run it’s course. We can ask trusted family and friends for their opinion if we’re confused or unsure.

Across Australian Demographics in Today’s Climate: A Review of Current Statistics and Research | webbtherapy.org | 2025–2026

Introduction

Australia is navigating one of the most psychologically challenging periods in its modern history. Converging social, economic, and political forces — including a cost-of-living crisis, housing unaffordability, the lingering aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, and growing climate anxiety — are placing significant strain on the mental health of people across all age groups and demographics.

According to the National Mental Health Commission’s National Report Card 2024, approximately 3.8 million Australians aged 16 and over — nearly one in five — experienced a mental disorder in the past year, with anxiety and depression the most prevalent conditions (NMHC, 2025). This document draws on the most current Australian research and data to provide a demographic overview of the psychological and emotional issues affecting Australians today.

1. Children & Adolescents (Ages 12–17)

Young Australians are experiencing rising rates of psychological distress at a level that represents a genuine public health emergency. Multiple intersecting pressures — financial insecurity in the home, climate anxiety, social media use, and disruptions to schooling and socialisation — are placing extraordinary demands on developing minds.

Key Statistics

Psychological distress: A 2025 headspace survey of over 3,000 young Australians found that nearly half (49%) were experiencing high or very high levels of psychological distress. Among 12–14 year-olds, the rate was 31%, rising to 65% among 18–25 year-olds (headspace, 2025).

Financial stress: The Mission Australia Youth Survey 2025 found that 64% of young people aged 14–19 identified cost of living as Australia’s most pressing national issue — the highest level since the question was first asked in 2010, and up from 56% in 2024 and 31% in 2023 (Mission Australia, 2025).

Mental health concerns: Two in five young people (39%) reported stress related to their own mental health and wellbeing, and nearly one in five (19%) reported experiencing high psychological distress in the weeks prior to being surveyed (Mission Australia, 2025).

Gender differences: The ABS National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing (2020–22) found that 34.2% of females aged 16–24 reported high or very high psychological distress, compared with 18% of males in the same age group (ABS, 2023).

At-risk subgroups: Distress rates are especially elevated among LGBTIQA+ young people (77%) and First Nations young people (59%) (headspace, 2025).

Contributing Factors

The National Mental Health Commission (2025) identifies multiple drivers of deteriorating youth mental health, including increased financial insecurity, concerns about climate change, shifting social connection patterns — particularly the move to digital interaction over in-person connection — changes in sleep, screen time, and nutrition, and the disproportionate socioeconomic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on young people’s lives.

2. Young Adults (Ages 18–35)

Young adults are among the most psychologically vulnerable groups in Australia at present. They face a unique confluence of pressures: the transition to independent adulthood, entry into an unaffordable housing market, tertiary education debt, precarious employment, and an uncertain political and economic landscape.

Key Statistics

Prevalence: Young adults aged 18–34 report the highest rates of mental health symptoms of any adult age group, with approximately 45% experiencing symptoms in 2025, up from 40% in 2023 (NMHC/AIHW, 2025).

Cost-of-living and mental health: A 2025 Compare the Market survey found that 72% of Gen Z respondents said cost-of-living pressures had worsened or triggered anxiety and depression, impacting their health, sleep and relationships — the highest rate of any age cohort (SBS Insight, 2025).

Housing stress: Australia’s Rental Affordability Index labels all major cities and regional areas as ‘critically unaffordable’ for people on lower incomes. A 2025 longitudinal study tracking more than 10,000 Australian renters found mental health declines sharply once housing costs exceed 30% of income (The Conversation, 2025).

Loneliness: Recent data suggests that 1 in 4 Australian men aged 15–34 report feeling lonely most days (Psychology NSW, 2025).

Emerging Concerns

Social comparison via social media, economic precarity*, and the perceived impossibility of home-ownership are contributing to a pervasive sense of hopelessness and deferred life milestones. Many young adults report anxiety about the future as a core psychological preoccupation.

*Precarity definition: the condition of existence without predictability or security, characterised by instability in employment, income, and social safety nets.

3. Men (All Ages)

Men represent a persistently underserved demographic in mental health. Cultural norms around masculinity continue to suppress help-seeking, while suicide rates among men remain disproportionately high across all age groups. In 2024, men accounted for 76.5% of all suicide deaths in Australia — a ratio that has remained largely unchanged for decades (ABS, 2025; AMHF, 2025).

Key Statistics

Suicide: 3,307 Australians died by suicide in 2024, of whom 2,529 (76.5%) were male. The age-standardised suicide rate for men was 18.7 per 100,000, compared with 5.5 per 100,000 for women. Men aged 40–44 accounted for the largest proportion of male suicide deaths (10.5%) (ABS, 2025; Life in Mind, 2025).

Working-age men: The number of suicides in men of working age (25–64) reached a record high in 2024 (AMHF, 2025), with males aged 60–64 experiencing an 18% increase in age-specific suicide rates from 2023 to 2024 (ABS, 2025).

Help-seeking gap: While men are 3.5 times more likely to die by suicide than women, they make up less than 40% of people seeking mental health support. Research indicates that 1 in 8 Australian men experience depression or anxiety, but fewer than half receive treatment (Psychology NSW, 2025).

High-risk occupations: Suicide rates among male construction workers are approximately double those of other male workers, with an age-standardised rate of 26.6 per 100,000 compared to 13.2 for other male workers (Lancet Regional Health, 2024).

Somatic presentation: Men are more likely to present with physical symptoms of depression and anxiety — chronic headaches, fatigue, back pain — rather than emotional ones, often delaying diagnosis and intervention (Psychology NSW, 2025).

4. Women (All Ages)

Women consistently report higher rates of psychological distress, anxiety, and depression than men. Additional psychological burdens arise from gendered experiences including domestic labour, caregiving, family violence, reproductive health, and workplace inequity.

Key Statistics

Distress rates: In the 2022 National Health Survey, women aged 18 and over were more likely to report high or very high psychological distress than men. Among young women aged 18–25, the rate was 34.2% — the highest of any adult demographic (ABS, 2023; Dharmayani & Mihrshahi, 2025).

Financial stress: 56.6% of millennial women surveyed in 2025 reported that cost-of-living pressures had worsened or triggered anxiety and depression (SBS Insight, 2025). Single mothers and women in casual employment are particularly vulnerable to financial-related mental health impacts.

Suicide: Women aged 25–29 had the highest age-specific female suicide rate (9.8 per 100,000) and accounted for the largest proportion of female suicide deaths (12.3%) in 2024 (Life in Mind, 2025).

Income and distress: Research from Dharmayani and Mihrshahi (2025), using Australian National Health Survey data, found that psychological distress increased as personal weekly income decreased, confirming income insecurity as a significant driver of poor mental health among women.

5. Older Adults (Ages 65+)

Older Australians face a distinct set of psychological challenges shaped by major life transitions — retirement, bereavement, declining health, loss of independence, and changing living arrangements. These experiences, when compounded by social isolation, can have profound effects on mental health.

Key Statistics

Loneliness and social isolation: According to the AIHW (2024), approximately 16% of Australians aged over 65 experience loneliness, and 11% are socially isolated. Research suggests loneliness may increase the risk of premature death to a degree comparable to smoking or obesity (Ausmed, 2026).

Depression in aged care: Approximately 52% of older adults in residential aged care experience depressive symptoms, while 8.2% of community-dwelling older adults experience depression (ScienceDirect, 2021).

Men aged 85+: Older men are at particularly elevated suicide risk. In 2024, males aged over 85 had the highest age-specific suicide rate of any group at 31.2 per 100,000 (Life in Mind, 2025).

Digital exclusion: Australians aged 65 and over remain the least digitally included age group, with an Australian Digital Inclusion Index score of 49.7 compared to the national average of 63.0 (NMHC, 2022). This digital exclusion compounds social isolation, particularly post-pandemic.

Contributing Factors

As identified by Engel and Mihalopoulos (2024) in the Medical Journal of Australia, the ‘loneliness epidemic’ represents a major public health concern in older age. Life transitions including retiring from work, loss of friends and partners, declining physical health, and the move to residential aged care all increase vulnerability to loneliness, depression, and anxiety.

6. Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Peoples

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experience significantly higher rates of psychological distress and suicide compared to non-Indigenous Australians. These outcomes must be understood within a broader cultural, historical, and social context that includes the ongoing impacts of colonisation, systemic racism, intergenerational trauma, and ongoing barriers to accessing culturally safe services. Mental health in this context is better understood through the framework of social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB), which encompasses connection to Country, family, kinship, community, and culture.

Key Statistics

Psychological distress: In 2022–23, approximately 30% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults experienced high or very high levels of psychological distress in the four weeks prior to interview (ABS, 2024; NMHC, 2025). This is more than double the general population rate of 14% (ABS, 2022).

The role of discrimination: Analysis of the Mayi Kuwayu study (2018–2021) found that 42% of First Nations people experienced high or very high psychological distress; among those experiencing everyday racial discrimination, the rate was 49%, compared with 32% for those who did not report such discrimination (ABS, 2024).

Suicide: In 2024, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had an age-standardised suicide rate of 33.9 per 100,000 — more than triple the non-Indigenous rate. This rate was 6.5% higher than in 2023. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, the rate was 55.1 per 100,000 (Life in Mind, 2025).

Anxiety: Anxiety was the most common mental or behavioural condition reported in the 2022–23 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey, affecting 21% of respondents aged two and over; it was 1.5 times more common among females (25%) than males (17%) (ABS, 2024).

Access to services: Around one in four First Nations people aged 15 and over (26%) would have liked to access mental health support but did not in the 12 months prior to survey, with access barriers particularly pronounced in remote areas (ABS, 2024).

7. LGBTIQA+ People

LGBTIQA+ Australians continue to experience disproportionately poor mental health outcomes compared to their heterosexual and cisgender peers. These outcomes are directly linked to experiences of stigma, prejudice, discrimination, and social exclusion — often described through the lens of minority stress theory. Progress in legal rights does not automatically translate to psychological safety or equitable mental healthcare.

Key Statistics

Mental disorders: People with a diverse sexual identity are three times more likely to be diagnosed with a mental disorder compared to heterosexual people (ABS, 2023).

Self-harm: Trans and gender-diverse Australians are twice as likely to engage in self-harm throughout their lifetime compared to cisgender Australians (ABS, 2023).

Psychological distress in youth: Among young people, LGBTIQA+ respondents reported a distress rate of 77% — significantly above the general youth population rate of 49% — in the Headspace 2025 survey.

Suicidality: Members of the LGBTQIA+ community report suicide attempts at rates up to 10 times higher than the general population (Lifeline, 2025).

Healthcare barriers: In the Private Lives 3 national survey, 57% of LGBTIQ respondents reported being treated unfairly in the past 12 months based on their sexual orientation, and 77.5% of trans and gender-diverse respondents reported being treated unfairly based on their gender identity. Only 43.4% of LGBTIQ respondents felt accepted when accessing health services (AMA, 2024).

Rural/regional compounding: Research published in 2025 found LGBTQ+ people in rural and regional communities experienced compounded psychological harm due to conservative social environments, limited peer connection, and inadequate access to inclusive services (Tandfonline, 2025).

8. Financial Stress as a Cross-Cutting Issue

Economic pressures represent one of the most significant cross-cutting determinants of psychological distress across all Australian demographics. The confluence of rising housing costs, elevated mortgage rates, rental stress, and a persistent cost-of-living gap is affecting people’s mental health in tangible and measurable ways.

Key Statistics

Financial stress prevalence: Close to 7 in 10 Australian households (69%) are dealing with significant financial stress, with 57% struggling to afford household essentials including groceries, utilities, and healthcare (Real Insurance, 2024).

Mental health impact: A 2025 Compare the Market survey found that nearly half of Australians (48.7%) said cost-of-living pressures had worsened or triggered anxiety and depression, affecting their health, sleep, and relationships (SBS Insight, 2025).

Housing stress: In 2024–25, an estimated 1.26 million low-income households were in financial housing stress, spending more than 30% of their disposable income on housing (AIHW, 2025). Almost half (44.5%) of households with a mortgage spent above this threshold (AIHW, 2025).

Skipping healthcare: Almost two-thirds of financially stressed Australians (65%) have skipped essential medical appointments — including mental health appointments — due to cost (Real Insurance, 2024).

Beyond Blue’s Clinical Spokesperson Dr Luke Martin has noted the bidirectional relationship between financial stress and mental health: financial hardship affects mood, cognition, sleep, and relationships, while poor mental health in turn impairs a person’s capacity to manage money and seek help — creating a cycle that is often difficult to escape without external support (HIA, 2026).

9. Summary of Key Themes by Demographic

• Children & Adolescents (12–17): Rising psychological distress (49% high/very high); financial stress at home; social media pressures; climate anxiety; loneliness; academic disruption. Elevated risk for LGBTIQA+ youth (77%) and First Nations youth (59%).
• Young Adults (18–35): Cost-of-living and housing affordability crisis driving anxiety and depression; loneliness; identity and purpose challenges; deferred life milestones; highest mental disorder rates of any adult cohort.
• Men (All Ages): Persistent help-seeking barriers; disproportionately high suicide rates (76.5% of deaths); somatic symptom presentation; high-risk occupations (construction); financial and work-related stress.
• Women (All Ages): Higher distress and anxiety rates; financial vulnerability; caregiving burden; family violence; cost-of-living impacts; elevated suicide risk in young women aged 25–29.
• Older Adults (65+): Loneliness and social isolation; depression; bereavement; loss of independence; digital exclusion; very high suicide risk in men aged 85+.
• Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Peoples: Intergenerational trauma; systemic racism; high distress and suicide rates (33.9 per 100,000); cultural disconnection; access barriers to culturally safe care.
• LGBTIQA+ People: Minority stress; discrimination in healthcare; three-fold increase in mental disorder diagnoses; elevated self-harm and suicidality; rural/regional compounding factors.

Disclaimer

This document has been prepared for informational and professional development purposes. All statistics and research references were current as at April 2026. Data from some primary sources have been collected in prior years; readers are encouraged to consult primary sources for the most current figures. This document does not constitute clinical advice.

Dr Rangan Chatterjee chats with Dr Gabor Maté about his radical findings based on decades of work with patients. We’re currently living in a culture that doesn’t meet our human needs. Maté and Chatterjee delve into how our emotional stress can translate into physical chronic illnesses, and how loneliness and a lack of meaningful connection are on the rise, as are the rates of autoimmune disease and addiction.

Purpose

This report summarises how clinical psychology and psychiatry generally understand people who believe that killing others is justified, necessary or required because of a religious or ideological cause. It uses plain language where possible and distinguishes extreme beliefs from mental illness.

Believe it or not – Key finding

A belief that killing people is justified by religion does not, by itself, mean that a person is mentally ill.

This is an important distinction. Contemporary psychiatric literature indicates that members of terrorist or extremist groups do not generally have higher rates of mental illness than the general population. Mental illness appears to be more common among some lone-actor extremists, but it still cannot be assumed to be the explanation for their behaviour.

In other words, someone can be psychologically capable of understanding what they are doing, planning it deliberately and believing that it is morally right, while not suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

1. Extreme religious belief is not necessarily psychosis

Psychosis involves a significant loss of contact with reality, such as hallucinations or fixed false beliefs that are not reasonably explained by the person’s cultural or religious background.

For example:

• Extreme ideology: “My religion teaches that these people are enemies of God, so killing them is justified.”
• Possible psychosis: “God is personally speaking to me through my television and has instructed me to kill my neighbour because he is secretly a demon.”

The first statement may represent an extreme ideological or religious belief. The second could indicate a psychiatric disorder, particularly if it occurs alongside other symptoms of psychosis.

A psychiatrist would therefore ask much more than “Does this person have strange beliefs?” They would examine whether the person has lost the ability to distinguish their beliefs from reality and whether there are other symptoms of mental illness. Distinguishing extremist beliefs from symptoms of mental disorder is recognised as an important difficulty in psychiatric assessment.

2. How can an otherwise ordinary person come to accept killing?

Psychology provides several explanations that do not require mental illness.

One is moral disengagement. This is where a person changes the way they think about an action so that something normally considered wrong becomes acceptable.

An ordinary example would be a soldier being trained to think of an enemy as a threat rather than as an individual person with a family and a life.

In extremist thinking, this can become much more extreme:

“They are not innocent people. They are enemies of God.”

Once someone has been placed into an “enemy” category, killing them can become psychologically easier to justify.

3. The importance of an “us versus them” mentality

Extremist movements often create a very strong distinction between “us” and “them”.

The person may increasingly see:

• their own group as good, pure or righteous;
• outsiders as corrupt, dangerous or evil;
• disagreement as evidence of hostility; and
• violence as self-defence or moral duty.

This is something ordinary people can recognise in less extreme forms.

For example, football rivalry can involve “us versus them”, but most people retain the understanding that the opposing team’s supporters are still ordinary human beings.

Extremism can take the same psychological distinction to an entirely different level, where the opposing group is no longer regarded as deserving the same moral consideration.

4. Religion can provide a powerful justification

Religious belief can become particularly powerful when something is regarded as a sacred or absolute value.

If a person believes:

“This is God’s command”,

then ordinary moral reasoning can change.

Instead of asking:

“Is killing this person morally acceptable?”

the person may ask:

“How could I disobey God?”

This can produce a situation where the individual genuinely believes they are doing something morally good, despite the fact that an outside observer sees the behaviour as horrific.

That does not make the behaviour acceptable, nor does it make the belief reasonable. It helps explain how the person can psychologically reconcile their actions with their own sense of morality.

5. Believing something and acting on it are different

Clinical assessment is particularly interested in the difference between extreme beliefs and a pathway towards violence.

A person might say:

“I believe people who oppose my religion are evil.”

That is concerning, but it is different from:

“I have decided to kill someone.”

And that is different again from:

“I have chosen a target, obtained the means to do it and have started preparing.”

Psychiatric risk assessment therefore looks for behavioural evidence of movement towards violence, rather than simply diagnosing someone based on their political or religious beliefs. Contemporary forensic psychiatry specifically emphasises identifying warning behaviours and distinguishing extremist beliefs from an actual pathway towards violence.

6. Mental illness can nevertheless be involved

Some people who commit extremist violence do have mental disorders.

For example, a person could have:

• schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder;
• severe depression;
• a personality disorder;
• substance-use problems;
• significant paranoia;
• or another condition affecting their judgement or behaviour.

However, clinicians should not automatically assume that the mental illness caused the extremism.

The relationship may instead look something like:

Personal grievance + extremist ideology + social reinforcement + psychological vulnerabilities + opportunity + willingness to use violence

rather than simply:

mental illness → terrorism.

Research specifically cautions against looking for a single cause or single psychological profile for radicalisation.

7. The most important clinical distinction

From a clinical perspective, there is a major difference between:

“This person believes something that I consider bizarre, frightening or morally repugnant.”

and

“This person has a psychiatric disorder that is causing them to lose contact with reality.”

Those are not the same thing.

A person can be completely sincere, highly intelligent, psychologically organised and fully aware of their actions, while holding an extraordinarily dangerous ideology.

That is one reason psychiatry does not regard terrorism or religious extremism as a diagnosis in itself.

Conclusion

Clinical psychology and psychiatry would generally view religiously motivated killing as a complex interaction between ideology, psychology, social influences and individual circumstances, rather than automatically as evidence of insanity.

The crucial question is not simply:

“Are their beliefs extreme?”

It is:

“What is driving those beliefs, how firmly are they held, is the person able to distinguish belief from reality, and have they moved from believing violence is justified to actually intending, preparing or attempting to carry it out?”

That distinction is important because a mentally ill person is not necessarily dangerous, and a person who is not mentally ill can nevertheless become extremely dangerous. Contemporary psychiatric literature explicitly warns against confusing mental disorder with extremist ideology and instead emphasises assessing the person’s actual pathway towards violence.