|Page tools: Print Page Print All RSS Search this Product|
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
GSP PER CAPITA
For analytical purposes it is important to allow for the impact of population growth on movements in GSP. South Australia (SA), WA and New South Wales (NSW) had positive growth in GSP per capita due to GSP growth rates exceeding their state population growth rates.
All other states showed a decline in GSP per capita, compared with the Australian increase of 0.3%. Northern Territory (NT) (down 0.9%) and Australian Capital Territory (ACT) (down 0.9%) 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 2009-10. The stand-out negative results are for Queensland and NT, which are driven by falls in commodity export prices. WA has also been impacted, however underlying strength in GSP was enough for it to remain positive growth. Less resource intensive states of Victoria, SA and Tasmania were the only other states to record positive growth.
GROSS VALUE ADDED (GVA)
Volume growth in GVA was positive in all states in 2009-10. The strongest growth was in WA (up 4.2%), followed by Victoria (up 2.4%), NSW (up 2.3%) and ACT (up 1.9%). Growth in WA was driven by Mining (up 9.3%), Administrative and support services (up 7.9%) and Other services (up 7.4%). Victoria experienced strong growth in Health care and social assistance (up 4.6%), Professional, scientific and technical services (up 5.8%) and Wholesale trade (up 4%). NSW experienced strong growth in Wholesale trade (up 5.1%) and Professional, scientific and technical services (up 4.4%).
At a national level, the main industries contributing to the 2009-10 gross value added growth of 2.3% were Mining (up 6.2%), and Professional, scientific and technical services (up 3.8%).
From a state perspective, there are differing industry impacts in gross value added growth. In 2009-10, the largest contributors to growth in each state were:
Wholesale trade stood out as a common increase across all states apart from Queensland, with a 3.3% increase at the national level. However, the largest increase at the national level was Mining with 6.2%.
STATE FINAL DEMAND (SFD)
Volume growth in SFD in 2009-10 was positive for 5 out of the 8 states and territories. The strongest growth was in WA (up 3.5%), followed by NSW (up 3.4%), Victoria (up 3.2%), SA (up 2.8%) and ACT (up 1.5%). Growth in all these states was driven by strong public gross fixed capital formation. Decreases were recorded for the NT (down 5%), Tasmania (down 1.1%) and Queensland (down 0.8%) which were driven by declines in private gross fixed capital formation for these states.
Percentage changes in SFD for ACT, QLD, Tasmania and NT were all below the national domestic final demand growth of 2.2%.
All states aside from Queensland, NT and Tasmania had positive contributors to Australia's domestic final demand growth in 2009-10. NSW contributed 1.0 percentage points, Victoria contributed 0.8 percentage points and WA contributed 0.4 percentage points.
GOVERNMENT FINAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (GFCE)
GFCE in volume terms rose in all states in 2009-10, except ACT where GFCE dropped by 3.1%. WA showed the strongest growth in volume terms with an increase of 3.7%. The lowest growth was recorded in ACT, followed by Tasmania (up 0.1%). The major contributors to Australia's growth in GFCE of 1.8% were Victoria (0.7 percentage points) and NSW (0.6 percentage points).
HOUSEHOLD FINAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (HFCE)
Household final consumption expenditure volume growth was strongest in ACT (up 4.3%), WA (up 3.8%) and NSW (up 2.4%). Weakest growth was experienced in NT (up 0.7%). The major contributor to Australia's growth in household final consumption expenditure of 2.1% was NSW (0.8 percentage points).
PRIVATE GROSS FIXED CAPITAL FORMATION
In 2009-10, ACT had the strongest growth in private gross fixed capital formation (up 8.1%) due to strength in Dwellings (up 33.5%). Victoria also experienced growth (up 2.8%), along with NSW (up 2%). All other states and territories declined, the largest movement being NT (down 29.1%), followed by Tasmania (down 17.1%) and Queensland (down 11.7%). The major contributor to Australia's decline in private gross fixed capital formation of 2.5% was Queensland (-2.6 percentage points).
PUBLIC GROSS FIXED CAPITAL FORMATION
All states and territories showed significant increases for public gross fixed capital formation in 2009-10. NT (up 55.7%), SA (up 41.9%), and WA (up 36.9%) showed the strongest growth, followed by Tasmania (up 27.9%), NSW (up 23.2%) and Victoria (up 21.9%). Queensland grew by 20.1% while ACT had the lowest growth rate, although still substantial, at 17%.The major contributor to Australia's growth in public gross fixed capital formation was NSW (6.8 percentage points).
TOTAL FACTOR INCOME
Factor incomes grew in all states apart from Queensland (down 2.8%) and the NT (down 1.6%). The ACT (up 6.8%) showed the strongest growth, followed by Victoria (up 4.6%), SA (up 4.4%) and Tasmania (up 4.2%).
There was moderate overall growth in compensation of employees, which grew by 2.1% in Australia between 2008-09 and 2009-10. The ACT (up 6.4%), NT (up 5.1%), and WA (up 4.4%) showed the strongest growth while NSW (up 1.3%) and Queensland (up 1.0%) showed the weakest growth.
There was also moderate overall growth in gross operating surplus (GOS) plus gross mixed income (GMI), which grew 2.2% for Australia. All states experienced growth in GOS plus GMI apart from Queensland (- 6.4%) and NT (- 6.6%). The growth was strongest in Victoria (up 7.5%), SA (up 7.4%) and ACT (up 7.6%).
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 2009-10 was highest in ACT and lowest in Queensland. 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 ACT 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.