Key points
We agree that true productivity growth is in the
Labour productivity growth in 2012-13 was the
interests of workers, as it provides the basis for
strongest in a decade.
sustainable increases in average material living
Australian workers generate an average of $US53
standards. By ‘true’ productivity growth, we mean
per hour they work, much higher than the OECD
growth
average of $US46 per hour.
innovation and an improved and expanded capital
In 2012 and over the past five years, Australian
stock, not through an increase in working hours
labour productivity has grown faster than
(measured or unmeasured), which is not productivity
productivity in any G7 country, including the
growth at all. We have also consistently argued that
United States. Australia’s growth has been more
industrial relations legislation is not a primary driver
than twice the OECD average.
of productivity – instead, investment in skills and
Multifactor productivity has been stagnant,
infrastructure, as well as management quality and
though this has been the case for around a
innovation, are the key factors.
that
comes
about
through
technical
decade.
Other commodity-exporting OECD countries have
Productivity growth reached a low point during Work
also experienced falls in multifactor productivity,
Choices and has recovered since. We don’t claim that
suggesting that the increase in the capital stock
the poor productivity performance of the mid-2000s
driven by the resources boom is the culprit.
was caused by IR changes, nor that the subsequent
After a few years of hysterical headlines, productivity
improvement is due to the repeal of Work Choices.
seems to have fallen off the front pages. That may be
Rather, we say there are far bigger economic forces
because Australia’s productivity performance of late
at work affecting the rate of productivity growth, like
has been quite strong. This edition of the ACTU
the mining boom, the investment in electricity
Economic Bulletin takes a look at Australia’s
generation capacity, and droughts. On this point, our
productivity growth in recent years, including a
view is shared by many economists.
comparison of Australia with other advanced economies. Most of the Bulletin focuses on labour
Those business groups and media outlets making the
productivity, which is GDP per hour worked, but
case that changes in IR laws explain changes in
some consideration is also given to other measures.
productivity growth have never accounted for the fact that the timing is all wrong. The rate of growth in
Before taking a look at the data, it’s worth recapping
both labour and multi-factor productivity slowed
the ACTU’s position regarding productivity growth.
around the turn of the century. Work Choices didn’t
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 1
appear to help – the worst MFP growth was in 2008-
growth. Instead, these labels are included to refute
09, when those laws were in place, and that period
the proposition, less often put in recent months, that
also saw the lowest two-year labour productivity
productivity has grown especially slowly during the
growth in a decade. Fair Work hasn’t hurt, with all
Fair Work Act’s operation. 2010-11 saw a fall in
measures of productivity growth improving in recent
labour productivity, largely due to the natural
years. Of course, it’s theoretically possible that
disasters in Australia and our trading partners (Japan
growth would have been even weaker in the absence
and New Zealand) in early 2011 that temporarily
of Work Choices, and would have been even stronger
reduced economic output. Other than that, growth
without Fair Work. But that case has not been made.
has been strong for the past few years. Figure 1: Labour productivity growth
Instead, weak productivity results have been advanced as prima facie evidence that legislative change is required. We’ve consistently argued that
Per cent 5%
Work Choices
4%
Fair Work Act
the ‘productivity debate’ has been a shallow sideshow, a (temporarily) convenient rationale for the campaign against the Fair Work laws. This has
3% 2%
served as an unfortunate distraction from the real productivity agenda, relating particularly to skills and
1% 0%
infrastructure.
We’ve also argued that although productivity growth is a necessary part of any agenda to improve the living standards of low- and middle-income workers, it is not sufficient. Distribution, both between labour and capital as well as between workers and households, makes a difference and should not be ignored.
-1% 1993
1998
2003
2008
2013
Source: ABS 5204
Much the same story is apparent in the ‘market sector’. This measure excludes industries with heavy public sector involvement, where productivity is more difficult to measure. Labour productivity in the market sector rose by 2% in 2012-13, up from an average over the previous decade of 1.5% per year.
Labour productivity growth in 2012-13 In 2012-13, labour productivity rose by 2.2%. This
The figures can be a little volatile, as is apparent in
was the fastest growth since 2001-02, and compares
Figure 1. Figure 2 looks at the market sector growth
to average annual growth over the decade to 2011-
rate over two-year periods, which smooths out this
12 of 1% per annum.
volatility. Labour productivity in the market sector rose by 5.5% in the past two financial years, the
Figure 1, and some other charts in this Bulletin, label
fastest in a decade. While labour productivity growth
the periods in which the Work Choices and Fair Work
hasn’t reached the highs of the mid-to-late 1990s, it
legislation were in operation. Again, this doesn’t
has clearly picked up from the lows of the mid-2000s.
amount to a claim that these pieces of legislation caused the changes in the rate of productivity ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 2
Figure 2: Labour productivity growth in the market sector in rolling 2-year periods Per cent 9% 8%
Work Choices
7%
Fair Work Act
starting to reverse. In the utilities industry, investment in power generation capacity and projects such as desalination plants uses up economic inputs without generating a commensurate rise in output, at least for a little while. Both industries
6%
experienced strong productivity growth in 2012-13.
5% 4% 3%
Note that part of the fall in productivity in mining is a
2%
temporary effect, as discussed. But part of it is longer
1%
lasting. While commodity prices are high, firms have
0% 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
an incentive to mine deeper, lower quality, and/or
Source: Calculations based on ABS 5204.
One of the reasons for the pick-up in growth appears to be improved labour productivity in the mining and
harder to extract resources, which require a greater amount of labour and capital per unit extracted. This tends to lower productivity in the industry relative to its level in periods with lower commodity prices. This
utilities industries. Figure 3: Labour productivity growth in selected industries CAGR 8% 6.5% 6%
effect, combined with the temporary fall while projects are being constructed, accounts for a large portion of the decline in productivity growth in the 2000s.1
3.2%
4%
2.1% 1.2%
2%
The fastest productivity growth in the year was in the financial and insurance services industry, followed by
0% -2% -4%
Electricity, gas, water and waste services -3.7%
Mining
grew in 11 industries, shrank in 8, and was unchanged in arts and recreation services.
-6% -6.2%
administrative and support services. Productivity
All industries
-8% Past 10 years
Past year
Source: ABS 5204. ‘All industries’ refers to gross value added in all industries. ‘Past 10 years’ is the compound annual growth rate between 2002-03 and 2012-13.
Over the past 10 years, productivity in mining has fallen substantially, with output per hour worked in mining barely half of what it was in 2003. Part of this is due to a temporary effect of the boom – higher commodity prices leads to the construction of new resource projects. These projects use a lot of labour
1
Views differ about the extent of the contribution of these factors to the 2000s slowdown, but there appears to be agreement that they are important. See, for example, years before they start generating output. With ACTU 2011; Eslake 2011; Dolman 2009; PC 2010; D’Arcy projects coming on-stream, this effect may be and Gustafsson 2012; Richardson and Denniss 2011. ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 3
while they’re under construction, but take a few
Figure 4: Labour productivity growth in 2012-13 by industry Information media and… Other services Accommodation and food… Agriculture, forestry and… Education and training Wholesale trade Professional, scientific and… Manufacturing Arts and recreation services Construction Transport, postal and… All industries Retail trade Mining Public administration and… Health care and social… Rental, hiring and real… Electricity, gas, water and… Administrative and support… Financial and insurance…
-4.4% -3.5% -2.2% -1.3% -0.9% -0.5% -0.1% -0.1%
-5%
0.0% 0.8% 1.2% 2.1% 2.2% 3.2% 4.2% 5.2% 5.7% 6.5% 7.0% 7.6% 0% 5% Per cent
10%
Source: ABS 5204.
Figure 5: Labour productivity levels in 2012 in OECD countries Norway Luxembourg Ireland Belgium United States Netherlands Denmark France Germany Switzerland Sweden G7 countries Austria Australia Euro area Canada Spain Finland United Kingdom Italy OECD Total Iceland Japan Slovenia New Zealand Slovak Republic Greece Portugal Israel Czech Republic Turkey Korea Hungary Poland Estonia Chile Russian Federation Mexico
$53
$46
$0
International comparisons
$20 $40 $60 $80 GDP per hour worked in USD at PPP
Source: OECD Stat. Expressed in US dollars converted at 2012 PPP ratios.
As
a
smaller
economy,
much
of
Australia’s
productivity growth depends on the application of
Figure 6: Australian labour productivity relative to other advanced economies
imported ideas and technology, like personal
160%
computers. Viewing our growth rate in isolation can
150%
therefore be somewhat deceptive – if productivity
140%
growth slows down across the developed world, it
130%
may also slow here for reasons unrelated to the
120%
domestic economy.
Australia/NZ
Australia/UK
110% 100%
In 2012, Australian workers produced goods and services worth $US53 per hour they worked, on average.2 Australia’s level of labour productivity exceeds the OECD average of $US45.80 worth of
90%
Australia/G7 Australia/ USA
80% 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: Calculations based on OECD Stat. Productivity levels are expressed in US dollars converted at constant 2005 PPP levels.
output per hour worked. Our labour productivity is also higher than that of Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Japan, and the Euro area.
Our productivity level in 2012 was the thirteenth highest in the OECD. In the past couple of years, our labour productivity has also grown faster than that of many comparable nations. Figure 6 shows Australia’s level of labour productivity as a proportion of the
2
level in the UK, US, New Zealand, and the G7
These OECD figures convert national GDP to US dollars countries. Since 2010, Australia’s labour productivity using a 2012 Purchasing Power Parity ratio. ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 4
has risen relative to the level in each of those
have been only three periods since 1970 in which
comparators.
Australia’s average annual productivity growth rate has outpaced the G7: 1995 to 2000, and the period
In 2012, the OECD’s statistics show that Australia
since 2007, as shown in Figure 8.
recorded 2.4% labour productivity growth, the equal eighth highest in the OECD. This is higher than the
A few things stand out in Figure 8 in addition to
growth rate recorded in any G7 country, including the
Australia’s relatively strong performance over the
United States, which grew by 0.5%. The OECD
past five years. First, the increase in labour
average in 2012 was 0.4% growth.
productivity growth seen in the mid-to-late 1990s was also experienced in the US and other G7
Australia’s strong labour productivity growth in 2012
countries. Second, a slowdown from that peak in the
was not an aberration. Between 2007, the last pre-
early-to-mid 2000s was also experienced elsewhere.
crisis year, and 2012, Australia’s labour productivity
Third, the slowdown in 2001-07 was larger in
grew by a total of 6.8%, again higher than the growth
Australia than in the G7 countries or the US (in large
in any G7 country (including the US) and more than
part because of the mining related factors discussed
double the OECD average of 3.2%.
earlier).
Figure 7: Total labour productivity growth: 2007 to 2012 Ireland Korea Poland Chile Spain Russian Federation Slovak Republic Portugal Estonia Australia United States Japan G7 Iceland Austria OECD-Total Hungary New Zealand Euro area Czech Republic Sweden Canada Germany France Denmark Turkey Mexico Slovenia Switzerland Netherlands Italy United Kingdom Norway Belgium Israel Finland Greece Luxembourg -20%
Figure 8: Average annual labour productivity growth in Australia, the G7, & the US 1970-1980 1980-1985
6.8%
1985-1990 1990-1995
3.2%
1995-2000 2001-2007 Australia
2007-2009
G7 2009-2012
United States 0
1 2 Compound annual growth rate (per cent)
Source: OECD Stat.
It should be clear from the evidence above that Australia has not experienced a crisis of labour productivity in recent years. Growth has picked up -10% 0% 10% 20% Labour productivity growth 2007-2012
from the lows of the mid-2000s, with growth in 2012-
Source: Calculations based on OECD Stat.
13 the fastest in a decade. Over the past five years
It is somewhat uncommon for Australia’s labour
our labour productivity growth has outpaced the G7
productivity growth to outpace that of the G7
countries individually and collectively, and has grown
industrialised countries, as shown in Figure 6. There
at more than double the OECD average.
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 5
3
Multifactor productivity
after a rise of 0.8% the previous year. During the
Labour productivity is measured as the quantity of
period in which the Fair Work Act has been in
output per hour worked. This can rise either because
operation, MFP has shrunk by an average of 0.1% per
workers have more capital equipment to use in
year. During the Work Choices period, it fell by an
production, or because firms and workers become
average of 0.8% per year.
together. The first effect – the increase in capital per
Figure 10: Three measures of productivity in the market sector (Index: 1995=100) Index 160
worker - is called ‘capital deepening’ and the second
150
is ‘multifactor productivity’ (MFP).3
140
more efficient in the use of labour and capital
Labour productivity
130
Australia’s labour productivity growth over the past decade has come about due to capital deepening. MFP has fallen a little. You can see in Figure 9 how rapidly Australia’s capital stock has grown during the mining boom period relative to GDP.
110 100
Capital productivity
90 80 70
Figure 9: Capital ratios (Index: 1979-80=100)
60 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Index 220
Source: Calculations based on ABS 5204.
Figure 11: Market sector MFP growth
200 Per cent 4%
180 Capital/ labour ratio
160
Work Choices
Fair Work Act
3%
140
2%
120
Capital/ output ratio
100 80 1978
Multifactor productivity
120
1% 0%
1983
1988
1993
1998
2003
2008
2013
Source: Calculations based on ABS 5204. Capital stock excludes livestock and orchards, dwellings, and ownership transfer costs.
-1%
This rise in the capital/output ratio means that capital
-2% 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
productivity has fallen sharply – it’s now around three-quarters of its level in the mid-1990s, while labour productivity is nearly 50% higher than it was in 1995. Multifactor productivity growth started falling in the early 2000s, turned negative in 2004-05, and has remained sluggish. It shrank by 0.5% in 2012-13,
Source: Calculations based on ABS 5204.
Again, this is not evidence that the Work Choices legislation was responsible for poor productivity performance – it merely demonstrates that the poor MFP performance started long before the Fair Work Act’s creation and reached a nadir under Work Choices. Anyone recommending a return to Work
3
We do not engage here, with the academic debates Choices-style industrial regulation as a solution for concerning the theory of capital and their implications for productivity measurement. ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 6
sluggish MFP must account for the fact that growth
Figure 13: Rise in terms of trade and MFP: 2000 to 2012 MFP growth 2000 to 2012 30%
was worse in the mid-2000s than in recent years.
Australia’s MFP has fallen because we’ve seen a large
20%
rise in our capital stock that hasn’t generated a commensurate increase in output. This is, we
10%
suggest, largely a consequence of the resources boom. In fact, the fall in Australia’s MFP since 2000 is of almost exactly the same magnitude as the fall in
0% Chile Australia
Canada NZ
-10%
Norway
Canada, New Zealand, and Chile – three other OECD commodity
exporters.
Another
major
OECD
commodity exporter, Norway, has seen its MFP decline by around twice as much. Figure 12 shows the change in MFP in these countries, as well as the United States, since 2000. The timing and magnitude of the MFP decline is reasonably common across the commodity exporting countries.
-20% -30%
-10%
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
Change in terms of trade: 2000 to 2012 Source: Calculations based on The Conference Board, Total Economy Database and OECD National Accounts.
The fact that a decline in MFP was common to other commodity-exporting advanced economies lends weight to our suggestion that capital accumulation driven by the mining boom, not industrial relations
Figure 12: MFP in OECD commodity exporters & the US (Index: 2000=100) Index United 105 States
change, has caused the stagnation in MFP over the past decade.
The ABS hasn’t yet released its estimates of MFP
100 Canada
growth by industry for 2012-13. Its latest figures
New Zealand
Chile
show that 10 of the 16 market sector industries
95
experienced
faster
MFP
growth
during
the
(incomplete) productivity growth cycle from 2007-08 90 Norway
Australia
to 2011-12 than they did in the mid-2000s. The largest MFP fall was experienced in mining, followed
85 2000
by utilities, for reasons outlined earlier. 2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Source: The Conference Board, Total Economy Database.
In fact, over the period 2000 to 2012, no OECD
The data don’t support claims that Australia’s labour
country saw a rise in its terms of trade of 15% or
productivity growth has been poor in recent years, or
more and also experienced MFP growth. The rise in
that MFP growth has been worse under the Fair Work
the terms of trade serves as a rough proxy for the
Act than under Work Choices.
extent of the commodity price shock experienced by
Please send any comments, corrections, criticisms or
each country. Figure 13 plots this relationship.
compliments
to
mcowgill@actu.org.au. ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 7
Matt
Cowgill
at
Employment and unemployment The tables and charts below summarise the latest available data about the Australian labour market.
Figure 15: Change in employment in the year to October Thousands 200 148.7
150
Table 1: Summary of labour force figures Level
Monthly change
Yearended change
Employed persons
11639200
1100
89200
- Full time employment
8094700
-27900
-59500
- Part time employment
3544500
28900
148700
89.2 65.1
86.7
100
61.9 50
24.1 3.2
0 -50 -59.5
-62.7 -100
Working age population
Full time Males
19059000
29500
338100
Employment-topopulation ratio
61.1%
-0.1
-0.6
Unemployment rate
5.7%
0
0.3
Unemployed persons
709300
9100
53500
6.0
7.80
0.4
0.7
5.5
64.8%
0
-0.4
Part time Females Persons
Total
Source: ACTU calculations based on ABS 6202, seasonally adjusted.
Figure 16: Unemployment rate
Underemployment rate (quarterly) Participation rate
5.0 4.5
Source: ABS 6202, seasonally adjusted.
Figure 14: Change in employment between Sept and Oct 2013 Thousands 40
4.0 3.5
28.9
27.5
30
Per cent 6.5
3.0 Oct 03
20
Seasonally adjusted Oct 05
Oct 07
Trend
Oct 09
Oct 11
Oct 13
Source: ABS 6202.
10
1.5
0.8 0.2 1.1
0 -10
-1.2
Figure 17: Unemployment rates by State/Territory 7.0 Tas 8.2 5.6
SA
6.6
-20
6.1 5.9
Qld -30
-26.6
-27.9
5.5 5.8
Vic
-40 Full time Males
Part time Females Persons
Total
5.1
NSW
5.8
Source: ACTU calculations based on ABS 6202, seasonally adjusted.
4.0
NT
5.3
WA
4.2 4.5
ACT
4.1 4.4 0
2
4 6 Per cent Oct 2012 Oct 2013
Source: ABS 6202, trend.
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 8
8
10
Figure 18: Employment to population ratio
Figure 21: Employment growth in the year to August 2013
Per cent 64
Public Administration and Safety
63 62 61 60 59
10.6%
Construction
5.0%
Other Services
4.3%
Transport, Postal and Warehousing
3.9%
Accommodation and Food Services
2.4%
Health Care and Social Assistance
2.0%
Wholesale Trade
1.7%
Retail Trade
1.7%
Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste…
0.6%
Financial and Insurance Services
0.4%
Professional, Scientific and…
58 Oct 03
Seasonally adjusted Oct 05
Oct 07
Trend
Oct 09
Oct 11
Oct 13
Source: ABS 6202.
-0.4%
Education and Training
-0.4%
Administrative and Support Services
-1.8%
Mining
-2.0%
Manufacturing
-4.4%
Figure 19: Participation rate 15+ (%) 66.0
15-64 (%) 77.0
0.1%
Arts and Recreation Services
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate…
76.5
65.5
76.0
65.0
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Information Media and…
75.5
64.5
75.0
64.0
74.5
63.5
74.0 Oct 03
15-64 (LHS) Oct 05
Oct 07
15+ (RHS) Oct 09
Oct 11
Source: ACTU calculations based on ABS 6202, trend.
63.0 Oct 13
12 10 Underemployment 8 6 4 Unemployment
Aug 09
Aug 10
Aug 11
Aug 12
-12.2% 2%
7% 12%
Yearly change in employment (%)
Figure 20: Underemployment and unemployment rates Per cent 14
0 Aug 08
-7.6%
-18% -13% -8% -3%
Source: ABS 6202.
2
-5.3%
Aug 13
Source: ABS 6202, trend.
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 9
Output and productivity growth
Source: ABS 5206 and ACTU calculations. Non-farm.
Table 2: Summary of June quarter National Accounts
Level
Quarterly change
Yearended change
Real gross domestic product (GDP)
376799
0.6%
2.6%
Real GDP per capita
16118
Figure 24: Annual growth in labour productivity (GDP per hour) Year-ended growth 5% 4%
0.1%
Fair Work Act
Work Choices
0.9% 3%
Labour productivity (total economy)
-
Labour productivity in the market sector
-
Terms of trade
-
0.3%
1.8% 2%
0.3%
2.2% 1%
0.2%
-4.8% 0%
Wages share of income
53.9%
Profits share of income
27.0%
0.1
-0.1 -1%
-0.1
Seasonally adjusted
-0.2 -2% Jun 03
Source: ABS 5206.
Jun 05
Jun 07
Trend
Jun 09
Jun 11
Jun 13
Source: ABS 5206.
Figure 22: Growth in real GDP per year
Figure 25: Growth in output (gross value added) – year to June 2013
6%
Mining
5% 20-year average, 3.4%
4%
8.1%
Financial and insurance…
3% 2%
7.7%
Health care and social…
5.5%
Public administration and…
5.0%
Administrative and support…
4.5%
Arts and recreation services
3.1%
Education and training
2.4%
Retail trade
2.3%
Rental, hiring and real estate…
1% Seasonally adjusted 0% Jun 03
Jun 05
Jun 07
Jun 11
Jun 13
Source: ABS 5206 and ACTU calculations.
Figure 23: Annual growth in nominal unit labour costs 6%
4%
1.4%
Construction
0.6%
Manufacturing
0.6%
Trend
Jun 09
Information media and…
0.6%
Accommodation and food…
0.3%
Professional, scientific and…
0.1%
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
20-year average, 2.5%
-0.7%
Electricity, gas, water and…
-3.2%
0%
Seasonally adjusted Jun 01
-4.9%
-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% Annual GVA growth Source: ABS 5206.
Jun 97
-0.5%
Transport, postal and…
Other services
2%
-2% Jun 93
2.3%
Wholesale trade
Jun 05
Trend Jun 09
Jun 13
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 10
Prices and wages
Figure 27: Headline and underlying CPI inflation Per cent 5%
Table 3: Summary of prices and wages data Latest quarter
Level
Year-ended change
June
-
2.9%
Wage Price Index (WPI)
3%
Full-time average weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE)
May
$1,421
5.3%
Real full-time AWOTE
May
$1,421
2.9%
Total average weekly earnings (AWE)
May
$1,105
4.9%
2%
From 1 July
$622.20
2.6%
Average wage increase in collective agreements
March
-
4.5%
Headline CPI
September
-
2.2%
Trimmed mean (underlying CPI)
September
-
2.3%
Employees’ cost of living (LCI)
September
-
0.9%
May
17.5%
-0.1%
0% Sep 03
Underlying CPI Sep 05
Sep 07
Sep 09
Sep 11
Sep 13
Source: ABS 6401.
Figure 28: Wage Price Index growth 4.5%
4.0%
Gender pay gap
Source: ABS 6345, ABS 6302, FWC, DEEWR Trends in Federal Enterprise Bargaining, ABS 6401, ABS 6467, ACTU calculations.
Figure 26: Annual growth in the CPI and workers’ cost of living (Employee LCI)
6%
3.5%
Long-run average
3.0%
2.5%
2.0% Jun 98
5%
Trend
Seasonally adjusted
Jun 03
Jun 08
Jun 13
Source: ABS 6345.
4%
Figure 29: WPI growth in the public and private sectors
3%
5.0%
2%
4.5% Underlying CPI Employee LCI
4.0%
0% -1% Sep 03
RBA's target band
1%
Headline CPI
National Minimum Wage per 38 hour week
1%
4%
3.5% Sep 05
Sep 07
Source: ABS 6467, ABS 6401.
Sep 09
Sep 11
Sep 13 3.0% 2.5%
Private Public
2.0% Jun 03
Jun 05
Source: ABS 6345.
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 11
Jun 07
Jun 09
Jun 11
Jun 13
Figure 30: WPI growth in the year to June by industry 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% Electricity, gas, water and…
3.9%
Mining
3.5%
Health care and social…
Figure 32: WPI growth in the year to June by State 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% WA
3.4%
SA
3.3%
3.4%
Wholesale trade
NT
3.3%
Construction Rental, hiring and real…
3.2%
3.1%
Victoria
3.0%
3.1%
Tas
2.9%
ACT
2.9%
ACT
2.9%
Other services
3.0%
Australia
2.9%
Public administration and…
2.9%
Financial and insurance…
2.9%
NSW
2.8%
Information media and…
2.9%
Qld
2.8%
Arts and recreation services
2.9%
Source: ABS 6345.
Manufacturing
2.9%
Transport, postal and…
2.8%
Professional, scientific and…
2.8%
Retail trade
Figure 33: Average weekly ordinary time earnings for full-time adults $0 $1,000 $2,000
2.7%
Administrative and…
Mining
2.7%
Accommodation and food… Education and training
Professional, Scientific…
$1,706.60
2.6%
Information Media and…
$1,671.10
2.5%
Financial and Insurance…
$1,645.30
Source: ABS 6345.
Electricity, Gas, Water…
Figure 31: Range of WPI growth rates across industries 7%
Construction Transport, Postal and…
5% 4% 3% 2%
0% Jun 03
Education and Training Public Administration…
6%
1%
Health Care and Social…
$1,354.10
Arts and Recreation…
$1,315.50
Rental, Hiring and Real…
$1,303.80
Administrative and…
$1,276.50
Accommodation and… Jun 13
Source: ABS 6345 and ACTU calculations. Based on a 5-quarter centred moving average.
$1,425.10
$1,417.30
Other Services Jun 11
$1,436.00
Wholesale Trade
Australia Jun 09
$1,485.20
$1,420.90
Manufacturing
Jun 07
$1,622.90 $1,499.00
All Industries
Range of growth rates in all industries
Jun 05
$2,423.50
Retail Trade Source: ABS 6302.
ACTU Economic Bulletin - October 2013 – Page 12
$1,251.40 $1,104.70 $1,049.80 $1,022.00