Happy little vegemites

Kevin Rudd, it seems, is not unique.

Richard Farmer

Crikey political commentator

Happy little vegemites. Kevin Rudd, it seems, is not unique. Just as the Foreign Minister this week proclaimed himself to be a happy little vegemite, so too do 78% of Australians aged 18 years and over claim to be satisfied with their lives. The Australian Bureau of Statistics brings the happy news in the summary findings of its General Social Survey report released this morning.

The Bureau's Overall Life Satisfaction measure provides an indication of how people regard their life as a whole, reflecting their experience in the 12 months preceding the survey interview and their expectations for the future. In 2010, 43% of people aged 18 years or over were pleased or delighted with their life and a further three in ten people (34%) were mostly satisfied and together, very similar to the 76% of Australians as reported in the 2001 ABS National Health Survey. Overall life satisfaction varied somewhat with age. People aged 65-74 years old were the most likely to be at least satisfied with their lives (83%) while those aged 45-54 years old were the least likely to be at least satisfied with their lives (73%).

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

3 thoughts on “Happy little vegemites

  1. ianjohnno1

    Aha! That’s why Danish butter is being promoted in supermarkets in Oz.

  2. OPti

    On alcohol and health. There are big problems with the position of the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research, who makes it their aim to ‘savage’ alcohol information that doesn’t suit their agenda.

    1. There is a glaring conflict of interest – enough in itself to render their critique as unreliable. The International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research is a ‘joint undertaking’ of ‘Alcohol in Moderation’ in the UK and the ‘Institute on Lifestyle & Health’ of Boston University School of Medicine in the US. Both are in part funded by ‘companies in the alcoholic beverage industry.’ The Boston Uni institute is also funded by ‘associations of grape growers and wine growers and wineries.’ So, not only is promoting alcohol-in-moderation their agenda, but the two players behind the forum must presumably do so to receive continued sources of funding from alcohol-producing companies.

    2. ‘Moderate drinkers’ as a group tend to contain settled, stable, affluent-enough individuals, whose health statistics are likely to be comparatively good anyway. It is difficult to separate out alcohol consumption from the mix.

    3. Alcohol (ethanol) is essentially a toxin, apart from anything else. On basic principles, it is difficult to see how daily alcohol consumption could be beneficial over no alcohol consumption, which is what the forum is promoting. Logically, it would mean that in their view, alcohol could be considered an essential daily nutrient. No one else goes along with that idea.

  3. sparky

    @OPTI, I was doing a bit of digging on the group but didn’t come up with much, so thanks. They do smell like a front organisation if only by the virtue of the over the top name.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details