6537.0 - Government Benefits, Taxes and Household Income, Australia, 2015-16 Quality Declaration 
Latest ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 20/06/2018   
   Page tools: Print Print Page Print all pages in this productPrint All RSS Feed RSS Bookmark and Share Search this Product


The allocation of government benefits and taxes varied across states and territories.

Estimates of social transfers in kind by state and territories may not be entirely accurate, since for some components the allocation did not take into account the varying expenditure by state and territory governments, or some differences related to the survey scope exclusions (e.g. very remote areas). In addition, there may be some inconsistencies in the classification of government expenditure by state governments in the source data, which could impact on comparability.

In this study, households in the Northern Territory received the highest average total benefits and paid the highest total taxes. Taxes paid were equivalent to benefits received; however the allocation of benefits and taxes is limited due the exclusion of very remote areas from the survey collection scope (these areas include about 22% of the NT population).

By comparison, households in Tasmania paid the lowest total taxes, in part reflecting the state’s older demographic. Benefits received exceeded taxes paid by $360 per week.

Average income also varied between states and territories. Average private income was highest in the NT (excluding very remote areas). Average equivalised private income in the NT was 27% higher than the average for Australia, while equivalised final income was 24% higher than the national average. In Tasmania, which had the lowest average income, equivalised private income was 31% below the Australian average. After benefits and taxes, Tasmanian equivalised final income was 15% below the national average.

The average equivalised final income of NSW, NT and ACT households were higher than the national average, while Victoria, Queensland, SA and Tasmania were lower than the national average. Western Australia’s equivalised final income was similar to the national average.


Equivalised Income Levels, States and Territories

(a) Households in areas defined as very remote were excluded, accounting for about 22% of the population in the NT.