QUEENSLAND tourism and business chiefs have slammed a controversial international survey by the prestigious Economist magazine which ranks Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth as more liveable cities than Brisbane on the world map.

The Global Liveability survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit of 140 worldwide cities names Melbourne as the most liveable city on the planet, followed by Vienna in Austria, and Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary in Canada.

Reader comment: Got to tell you, we can't think of anywhere else on God's earth where tumble-down timber cottages with tin roofs and bad plumbing are worth upwards of a million dollars. Brisbane strikes us as overblown, overpriced, devoid of polite service and a cultural desert. Just saying'. - George of Massachusetts, USA

Adelaide ranks as the fifth most liveable city in the world, followed by Sydney (7th) and Perth (9th). Auckland, New Zealand ranks 10th while Brisbane is way back in the field, listed as No.20.

Well-known Brisbane company director and tourism entrepreneur Jim Kennedy describes the survey as "simply rubbish".

"After all, if you want to live in a cemetery, live in Adelaide. I travelled there often while I was a board member of Santos and I couldn't wait to get out of the place. It simply doesn't compare with Brisbane."

Mr Kennedy, who has chaired several tourism bodies and run numerous tropical islands in Queensland, said the state offered much including the Outback, Sunshine and Gold coasts and Port Douglas.

"We have much better weather. This survey also depends on the age group of people doing it and the criteria set. How could you compare Vienna or Toronto with Brisbane?" he said.

"You can play golf here 52 weeks in the year and swim most days. We have beaches and sunshine and many people are moving here. Anyone who comes up with a survey suggesting that Adelaide is more liveable than Brisbane has been living in a cave."

The state's wealthiest person Clive Palmer also laughed at suggestions Adelaide was more liveable than Brisbane.

"I find that very hard to believe," he said before jumping on his new jet last night.

RBS Morgans chief economist Michael Knox, who has lived in both Adelaide and Brisbane, didn't think Adelaide was more liveable than Brisbane. "Brisbane has more performing arts and infrastructure than Adelaide and I do not think it is more liveable," he said.

However, he pointed out that Melbourne and Adelaide were carefully planned cities in the late 19th century while Brisbane was not. "I think the people that designed Melbourne were the more far-sighted of the city fathers. And then Melbourne was the second largest city after London in the British Empire at the end of the 19th century."

The global liveability report surveys locations around the world to assess the best or the worst living conditions.

Cities are scored on political and social stability, crime rates and access to quality health care. It also measures the diversity and standard of cultural events and the natural environment; education; and the standard of infrastructure, including public transport.

"Australian cities continue to thrive in terms of liveability - not only do they benefit from the natural advantages of low population density, but they have continued to improve with some high-profile infrastructure investments," Economist Intelligence Unit survey editor Jon Copestake said.

Originally published as Brisbane is not liveable at all: readers