Flawed official narrative on indigenous population growth

A fleeting acknowledgement of this issue did get raised in a 2001 ABS Working Paper, which noted that "this (standard) question measures the descent concept, although some respondents will interpret the question to mean both descent and identification. It does not take account of the third part of the definition, community acceptance."

So what are the practical implications of the Census question not explicitly addressing identification? I can think of quite a few.

On a personal level it puts those, who can trace some Indigenous ancestry but may not identify as Indigenous, in a quandary as to how they should answer the Census Indigenous question. If they interpret the question in its literal sense they ought to tick an Indigenous origin box. They may, however, be reluctant to do so knowing that this will result in them being included in the Indigenous count.

To the extent that such persons do tick an Indigenous origin box, official estimates of the Indigenous population will be an over-count, though it is difficult to quantify its exact extent. The over-count is probably substantial and likely to disproportionately affect counts for non-remote areas. It needs to be emphasised that the issue stems from respondents not being asked to nominate their self-assessed identity rather than any problem with Census responses per se.

If the Indigenous component of our population is not accurately identified, it follows that all the Indigenous data based on such identification will be contaminated by the data for persons incorrectly classified as Indigenous. In general, this will lead to measures of Indigenous economic and social well-being that are too high, thus misleading policy-makers.

There are also broader issues rarely broached in the official narrative.

The idea that persons of mixed ethnic origins have a single "main" identity is debatable. There may be a clear "main" identity for some persons of Indigenous descent, especially if they have experienced discrimination because of Aboriginal appearance or have stronger cultural or kinship ties to their Indigenous heritage. Others may have difficulty having to choose one ethnic identity in preference to another, and for such reasons censuses in the US, Canada and New Zealand allow respondents to nominate more than one racial/ethnic origin.

Countries also differ in the detail of their definition of "Indigenous". New Zealand regards anyone of Maori descent (however distant) as Indigenous and does not have a formal requirement for either Maori identification or community acceptance. The Canadian Census, on the other hand, uses four alternative questions to identify Aboriginal peoples (Ethnic origin (including Aboriginal ancestries); Aboriginal Identity; Registered or Treaty Indian; and Member of an Indian Band or First Nation) resulting in substantially different population counts. In the US the Census Reference Book directs that to be "American Indian or Alaska Native"aperson must (1) have origins in the original peoples of North and South America and (2) maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment.

The bottom line is that the measured size of a country's Indigenous population is very sensitive to both how "Indigenous" is defined and measured. The issue with Australia's approach to quantifying its Indigenous population is not so much that the methodology is not right. The main issue is that the Census question is not consistent with our officially set definition. Secondly, the official explanation for high measured Indigenous population growth is incomplete and misleading.