Australian Bureau of Statistics
5220.0 - Australian National Accounts: State Accounts, 2008-09 (Reissue)
Previous ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 22/12/2009 Reissue
|Page tools: Print Page Print All RSS Search this Product|
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
GSP PER CAPITA
For some analytical purposes it is important to allow for the impact of population growth on movements in GSP. The Northern Territory, South Australia and Tasmania had positive growth in GSP per capita due to a GSP growth rate being marginally higher than the state population growth.
All other states showed a decline in GSP per capita, of which, four states showed decreases in GSP per capita that were larger than the Australian decline of -0.8%. Western Australia (down 2.3%) and Queensland (down 2.1%) showed the largest falls in GSP per capita.
REAL GROSS STATE INCOME
Volume estimates of GSP measure the volume of goods and services produced in each state. If the terms of trade for a state change significantly (i.e. the prices for a state's exports and imports change at different rates) then GSP will not accurately reflect the change in real purchasing power of the income generated within a state. For this reason, real gross state income (RGSI) includes an adjustment for the terms of trade. (For details on the calculation method see the Explanatory Notes, paragraphs 26 - 28).
The following graph shows annual percentage changes in RGSI per capita in 2008-09. Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory experienced growth in RGSI per capita above the Australian Real gross domestic income per capita growth rate of 0.5% in 2008-09. This is consistent with the growth in the terms of trade over the past year, led by increasing prices for mineral resources. Consequently, the impact of the terms of trade adjustment can be expected to have a lesser effect on states with relatively smaller mining industries.
GROSS VALUE ADDED (GVA)
Volume growth in gross value added was positive in all states in 2008-09, except Tasmania where GVA growth showed a small decline. The strongest growth was in Western Australia (up 1.5%), followed by Australian Capital Territory (up 1.2%), Queensland (up 1.1%) and the Northern Territory (up 0.8%). Growth in Western Australia was driven by Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing (up 23.8%), Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services (up 7.0%) and Mining (up 2.9%). The ACT's growth was due to Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (up 5.1%) and Public Administration and Safety (up 3.0%). Queensland also experienced strong growth in Public Administration and Safety (up 5.6%) and Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing (up 10.4%). All states showed large decreases in GVA for Manufacturing, reflective of the national movement.
At the Australia level, the main industries contributing to the 2008-09 gross value added growth of 0.7% were Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, and Public Administration and Safety.
From a state perspective, there are differing industry impacts in gross value added growth. In 2008-09, the major contributors to growth in each state were:
Manufacturing contributed a decrease to GVA in all states.
STATE FINAL DEMAND (SFD)
Volume growth in State final demand in 2008-09 was positive in all states. The strongest growth was in Northern Territory (up 7.9%), Western Australia (up 3.3%) and South Australia (up 2.5%). Growth in all three states was driven by strong private gross fixed capital formation.
All other states experienced growth in State final demand at or below that of national Domestic final demand growth of 2.1%.
All states were positive contributors to Australia's Domestic final demand growth in 2008-09. Victoria contributed 0.5 percentage points while Queensland and Western Australia both contributed 0.4 percentage points.
GOVERNMENT FINAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE
Government final consumption expenditure rose in all states in 2008-09, except the Australian Capital Territory where GFCE remained stable. Queensland showed the strongest growth in volume terms of 4.5%. The lowest growth was recorded in the Australian Capital Territory (flat), followed by Tasmania (up 1.6%). The major contributors to Australia's growth in Government final consumption expenditure of 3.0% were New South Wales (0.9 percentage points) and Queensland (0.8 percentage points).
HOUSEHOLD FINAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE
Household final consumption expenditure volume growth was strongest in the Australian Capital Territory (up 1.7%), Western Australia and Tasmania (both up 1.2%). Weakest growth was experienced in New South Wales (down 1.5%), the only state to show a decline in growth. The major contributor to Australia's growth in household final consumption expenditure of 0.8% was Victoria (0.3 percentage points), and the largest detractor was New South Wales (-0.5 percentage points).
PRIVATE GROSS FIXED CAPITAL FORMATION
In 2008-09, The Northern Territory had the strongest growth in Private gross fixed capital formation (up 21.8%) due mainly to strong Non-dwelling construction. Tasmania (up 5.3%), Western Australia (up 5.2%), South Australia (up 4.6%), the Australian Capital Territory (up 3.8%) and Victoria (up 3.3%) also experienced strong growth. Queensland (up 2.0%) and New South Wales (up 0.5%) had weaker growth than the Australian growth of 3.3%. The major contributors to Australia's growth were Western Australia (1.0 percentage points), Victoria (0.8 percentage points) and Queensland (0.5 percentage points).
PUBLIC GROSS FIXED CAPITAL FORMATION
The pattern of volume growth for Public gross fixed capital formation varied considerably across the states in 2008-09. The Northern Territory (up 19.2%), South Australia (up 15.6%) and New South Wales (up 14.8%) showed the strongest growth whilst the Australian Capital Territory (down -2.9%) and Tasmania (up 2.9%) and Victoria (up 3.3%) were below the Australia level of 8.7%. The major contributor to Australia's growth in public gross fixed capital formation was New South Wales (14.8 percentage points).
TOTAL FACTOR INCOME
Factor incomes grew in all states with the Northern Territory showing the strongest growth (up 9.8%), followed by Queensland (up 9.0%), Western Australia (up 8.7%) and the Australian Capital Territory (up 6.3%). The other states showed growth rates of between 3.8% and 5.9%, all below the Australian factor income growth of 6.2%.
There was strong overall growth in compensation of employees, which grew by 5.6% in Australia between 2007-08 and 2008-09. Western Australia (up 13.6%), Tasmania (up 8.9%), the Northern Territory (up 8.7%) and the Australian Capital Territory (up 8.3%) showed the strongest growth while New South Wales (up 3.8%) and Victoria (up 4.4%) showed weakest growth.
There was also strong overall growth in gross operating surplus (GOS) and gross mixed income (GMI), growing in Australia by 7.0%. All states experienced growth with GOS and GMI growth strongest in Queensland (up 13.7%) and the Northern Territory (up 10.6%), and New South Wales (up 7.4%). All other states were below the national growth rate, the weakest being the Australian Capital Territory (up 2.0%) and Victoria (up 3.1%).
GROSS HOUSEHOLD DISPOSABLE INCOME PER CAPITA
The above analysis of GSP per capita concentrates on the level of economic production and its growth. It does not provide a measure of incomes received by residents of a particular state, because a proportion of income generated in the production process may be transferred to other states or overseas (and conversely income may be received from other states or overseas). A measure that takes these flows into account is gross household disposable income per capita.
Gross household disposable income per capita in 2008-09 was highest in the Australian Capital Territory and lowest in Tasmania. Please refer to Table 43 for more details. Differences between the states reflect differences in the impact of a range of factors including the average level of compensation of employees received per employee, the proportion of the population in employment, the age distribution of the population and differences in the level of dwelling rent (including that imputed to owner occupiers). For example a significant reason for the high level of gross household disposable income per capita in the Australian Capital Territory compared with other states is that the labour force participation rate is much higher there than in the rest of Australia.
These documents will be presented in a new window.
This page last updated 18 November 2010