Young, female and living in the city: the face of Australia in 2024
As planners consider the future of our cities and regional centres, clear patterns are emerging of where people of all ages and sexes choose to live
As planners consider the future of our cities and regional centres, clear patterns are emerging of where people of all ages and sexes choose to live
Our cities are home to more women than men and there are more younger people choosing the capitals over regional areas, new data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics has shown.
The Regional Population by Age and Sex Report revealed Darwin was the capital with the lowest median age at 34.6 years, as well as being the only capital with a higher proportion of males to females.
Once known as the city of churches, Adelaide had the oldest population by median age at 39.2 years. The breakdown by town or suburb is even more revealing, with Acton and Duntroon in the ACT recording the lowest median age at 20.8 years and 21.8 years respectively. One area is popular with university students while the other is home to a high number of military personnel.

At the other end of the scale, the retirement hotspots of Tea Gardens-Hawks Nest in NSW (66.2 years), Bribie Island (63.6 years) and Cooloola (62.4 years) in Queensland and Point Lonsdale-Queenscliff (62.2 years) in Victoria had the highest median ages in the country.
Higher median ages were also reflected in the male to female ratios, with women’s higher life expectancy resulting in more women relative to men in some areas. In the Sydney suburb of Woollahra, there were 80.9 males to every 100 females and in Mornington West in Melbourne, there were 82.4 males to every 100 females.
Areas with extremely high proportions of males to females were either mining communities (274.2 males per 100 females in East Pilbara), male correctional facilities (278.1 males per 100 females in Wacol near Brisbane) or military training centres (227.0 males per 100 females at Duntroon in the ACT).
As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.
Limited to 630 units, Lamborghini’s latest Urus Capsule pushes personalisation further than ever, blending hybrid performance with over 70 bespoke design combinations.
As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.
For decades, Australia has leaned into its reputation as the lucky country. But luck, as it turns out, is not an economic strategy.
What once looked like resilience now appears increasingly fragile. Beneath the surface of rising property values and steady headline growth, the Australian economy is showing signs of strain that can no longer be ignored.
Recent data paints a sobering picture. Australia has recorded one of the largest declines in real household disposable income per capita among advanced economies.
Wages have failed to keep pace with inflation, meaning many Australians are working harder for less. On a per capita basis, income growth has stalled and, at times, reversed.
And yet, on paper, things still look relatively solid. GDP is growing. Unemployment remains low. But that growth is increasingly being driven by population expansion rather than productivity.
More people are contributing to output, but not necessarily improving living standards.
That distinction matters.
For years, Australia’s economic success rested on a powerful combination: a once-in-a-generation mining boom, a credit-fuelled housing market, strong migration and a property sector that rarely faltered. Between 1991 and 2020, the country avoided recession entirely, building enormous wealth in the process.
But much of that wealth is tied to property. Around two-thirds of household wealth sits in real estate, inflated by leverage and sustained by demand. It has worked, until now.
The problem is the supply side of the economy has not kept up.
Housing supply is falling behind population growth. Rental vacancies are near record lows.
Construction firms are collapsing at an elevated rate. At the same time, massive infrastructure pipelines are competing with residential projects for labour and materials, pushing costs higher and delaying delivery.
The result is a system under pressure from all angles.
Despite near full employment, productivity growth has stagnated for years. In simple terms, Australians are putting in more hours without generating more output per hour. The economy is running faster, butgoing nowhere.
Meanwhile, government spending continues to expand. Public debt is approaching $1 trillion, with spending now accounting for a record share of GDP.
The gap between spending and revenue has been filled by borrowing for decades, adding further pressure to an already stretched system.
This is where the uncomfortable question emerges.
Has Australia become too reliant on a model driven by rising property values, expanding credit and population growth?
As asset prices rise, households feel wealthier and borrow more. Banks lend more. Governments collect more revenue. Migration fuels demand. The cycle reinforces itself.
But when productivity stalls and debt outpaces real income, the system begins to depend on constant expansion just to stay stable.
It is not a collapse scenario. But it is not particularly stable either.
Nowhere is this more evident than in housing.
The National Housing Accord targets 1.2 million new homes over five years, yet current completion rates are well below that pace. With approvals falling and construction costs rising, the gap between supply and demand is widening, not narrowing.
Housing is also one of the largest contributors to inflation, with costs rising sharply across rents, construction and utilities. Yet the private sector, from small investors to major developers, is struggling to make projects stack up in the current environment.
This brings the policy debate into sharper focus.
Tax settings such as negative gearing and capital gains concessions have undoubtedly boosted demand over the past two decades. But they have also supported supply. Removing them may ease prices briefly, but risks deepening the supply shortage over time.
That is the paradox.
Policies designed to make housing more affordable can, in practice, make the shortage worse if they discourage development. The optics may appeal, but the economics are far less forgiving.
It is also worth remembering that most property investors are not institutional players. The majority own just one investment property. They are, in many cases, ordinary Australians using real estate as their primary wealth-building tool.
Undermining that system without replacing it with a viable alternative risks unintended consequences, from reduced supply to higher rents and increased inflation.
So where does that leave Australia?
At a crossroads.
The country can continue to rely on population growth and rising asset prices to drive economic activity. Or it can shift towards a model built on productivity, innovation and sustainable growth.
The latter is harder. It requires structural reform, long-term thinking and political discipline.
But it is also the only path that leads to genuine, lasting prosperity.
The question is no longer whether Australia has been lucky.
It is whether it can evolve before that luck runs out.
Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.
Parts for iPhones to cost more owing to surging demand from AI companies.
A long-standing cultural cruise and a new expedition-style offering will soon operate side by side in French Polynesia.