1367.2 - State and Regional Indicators, Victoria, Dec 2009  
ARCHIVED ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 19/02/2010   
   Page tools: Print Print Page Print all pages in this productPrint All

This document was added or updated on 23/02/2010.

12/03/2010 Two spreadsheets not included in the original release have been released as additional information. The spreadsheets are:

  • Employed persons, By Occupation and Major Statistical Region - November quarter 2009
  • Balance of international merchandise trade

The 21 spreadsheets in the original release are unchanged. The two new spreadsheets are listed on the Downloads page after the spreadsheets in the original release.

12/03/2010 The Employed persons by Occupation page in the Work and Income chapter has been replaced to amend one incorrectly rounded figure in the commentary. The proportion of people employed as Managers in the Melbourne MSR was incorrectly shown as 13.4%. The actual figure rounded to two decimal places was 13.32%, so the correct figure rounded to one decimal place should have been 13.3%.

No other figures in the commentary were affected.

23/02/2010 Four spreadsheets in the original release incorrectly contained the table of another spreadsheet in the release. These spreadsheets have been re-released and now contain the correct tables. The affected spreadsheets were:
  • International merchandise trade, By Commodity - Victoria
  • International merchandise trade, By Major trading partner - Victoria
  • Air quality, By Region
  • Water storage levels, By River Basin

The other 17 spreadsheets in the original release were not affected.

Two other spreadsheets were not included in the original release, and these will be released as additional information at a later date:
  • Employed persons, By Occupation and Major Statistical Region - November quarter 2009
  • Balance of international merchandise trade

23/02/2010 Graph 4a in the Feature Article has been replaced. While the data and labelling for the series as included in the original graph 4a were correct, the graph should have referred to four series of data for males only, in a similar way to graph 4b for females. The incorrect graph did not affect the related commentary in the article, and no other graphs have been affected.