Current Issues Brief 18 1997-98

Identifiable Commonwealth Expenditure on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs

Dr John Gardiner-Garden
Social Policy Group

Contents

Introduction

The proposition that the definition of Aboriginality is too loose

The proposition that indigenous Australians are receiving more
than their fair share of Commonwealth money

Introduction

This paper offers an overview of identifiable Commonwealth expenditure in the area of indigenous affairs from 1967-68 to 1998-99 and presents arguments for and against three propositions which are often put in debates over this expenditure.

Expenditure from 1967-68 to 1998-99

Identifiable Commonwealth expenditure in the area of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) Affairs began with the establishment of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs soon after the landmark referendum in 1967. It was relatively low in the first few years (indeed, the figure for the financial year 1967-68 of $13 000 is too small to include in the table) but increased significantly with the creation of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) soon after the Whitlam Government came to office in December 1972. It increased again in 1985 when the relevant expenditure by other Commonwealth departments started to be separately identified. In 1990 the DAA was replaced by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and at about that same time several other specialist Indigenous agencies started to have their expenditure separately identified. By 1992-93 total identifiable Commonwealth expenditure in the area exceeded $1.4 billion.

In 1993-94 ATSIC expenditure continued to increase but overall Government expenditure in the area fell slightly as a result of lower identifiable expenditure by other Departments. In 1996-97 overall Government expenditure fell slightly, this time primarily as a result of a reduction in ATSIC's budget. Since then, total identifiable Commonwealth expenditure has risen much more than has ATSIC expenditure-the reason being that ATSIC has lost responsibility for several areas which have been attracting increased Commonwealth support. Responsibility for health shifted from ATSIC to the mainstream department in 1995-96. Responsibility for land acquisition and management shifted to the Indigenous Land Corporation between 1995-96 and 1996-97. Responsibility for the Torres Strait shifted to the Torres Strait Regional Authority in 1994-95.

The table and graph overleaf are based on data presented in various DAA and ATSIC Annual reports, and the ministerial statement of 12 May 1998 entitled Addressing Priorities in Indigenous Affairs. It is important to note the following:

• the main agency figures include loans and grants to organisations, payments to State and Territory governments, and running /administration costs
• as the names of departments, agencies and programs have varied over the years only general descriptors of these areas and portfolios are used, and
• some Indigenous specific agencies which appear on the graph in the 1990s had predecessors in the 1980s (expenditure included under 'Other main agency expenditure').

Identifiable Commonwealth Expenditure on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs,
1968-69 to 1998-99

($ millions)
		1968-69		1969-70	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-75	1975-76	1976-77	1977-78
Main ATSI agency (a) --
	Employment			1.4	0.4	0.6	4.1	4.8	14.6	5.7	5.3	6.8
	Health	0.5		0.8	1.2	2.0	3.0	9.4	11.9	15.9	14.4	16.3
	Legal aid						0.7	1.2	2.7	3.7	3.7	3.9
	Housing	2.3		2.8	6.1	6.5	14.3	25.0	43.0	43.2	39.9	34.3
	Community infrastructure			0.3	7.5	8.2	10.5	15.7	16.4	27.5	25.2	26.1
	Education	0.8		0.9	2.9	3.0	3.1	4.8	6.0	9.0	8.5	9.2
	Native Title and Land Rights(f)
	Other	6.4		2.7	2.0	3.6	8.6	17.3	30.1	33.9	23.9	27.7
	Total	10.1		8.9	20.0	24.0	44.3	78.3	124.8	138.9	121.0	124.3
Other specific ATSI agencies --
	ATSICDC
	Aboriginal Hostels
	Aboriginal Benefit Reserve(h)
	AIATSIS
	TSRA(i)
	ILC(j)
	Total
Other portfolios --
	Employment, Education and Training
	Housing
	Social Security(k)
	Health
	Other
	Total
TOTAL -- ALL		10.1		8.9	20.0	24.0	44.3	78.3	124.8	138.9	121.0	124.3
Total -- All (1997 prices)		75.1		63.0	133.4	149.9	258.7	401.1	526.2	503.8	393.7	374.2

($ millions)
		1979-80	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84	1984-85	1985-86	1986-87	1987-88	1988-89	1989-90
Main ATSI agency (a) --
	Employment	7.0	10.1	10.4	10.4	18.4	27.0	29.9	40.2	65.5	99.0	133.2
	Health	18.5	19.9	21.6	23.8	28.5	36.5	37.9	38.1	41.1	43.5	43.7
	Legal aid	5.0	5.0	6.5	8.0	10.9	12.1	12.9	13.2	14.7	17.0	19.6
	Housing	45.7	48.6	42.3	50.2	57.9	68.9	78.5	81.8	90.4	96.7	60.7
	Community infrastructure	18.4	13.3	21.7	24.8	32.1	35.2	34.8	49.1	45.5	69.3	78.0
	Education	8.8	9.9	11.0	12.2	14.0	15.4	15.7	16.0	12.4	(b)
	Native Title and Land Rights(f)
	Other	37.3	52.6	55.2	68.6	81.0	86.1	85.4	93.6	107.8	124.5	172.9
	Total	140.8	159.4	168.8	198.0	242.8	281.2	295.1	332.1	377.4	450.0	508.2
Other specific ATSI agencies --
	ATSICDC
	Aboriginal Hostels
	Aboriginal Benefit Reserve(h)
	AIATSIS
	TSRA(i)
	ILC(j)
	Total
Other portfolios --
	Employment, Education and Training							148.6	167.3	180.6	190.9	210.6
	Housing							59.4	60.0	83.0	111.7	132.5
	Social Security(k)
	Health
	Other							4.4	24.8	15.1	24.9	22.9
	Total							212.5	252.2	278.8	327.6	366.0
TOTAL -- ALL		140.8	159.4	168.8	198.0	242.8	281.2	507.6	584.3	656.2	777.6	874.1
Total -- All (1997 prices)		359.9	368.7	350.2	370.0	424.5	464.6	784.2	841.5	885.0	967.2	1020.9

($ millions)
			1990-91	1991-92	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95	1995-96	1996-97	1997-98	1998-99
Main ATSI agency (a) --
	Employment		194.1	204.5	240.8	251.9	278.3	336.3	336.0	360.1	380.1
	Health		48.6	48.2	61.1	70.6	84.8	(b)
	Legal aid		18.6	21.8	29.8	31.6	33.4	34.6	39.6	(c)54.8	(c)63.4
	Housing		74.5	75.4	(d)37.2	106.0	123.1	143.2	(d)40.8	(d)43.5	(d)38.2
	Community infrastructure		98.3	99.0	(e) 165.6	122.3	94.4	131.7	(e) 204.3	(e) 236.8	(e) 217.2
	Education
	Native Title and Land Rights(f)					12.7	19.4	26.6	43.1	50.2	51.1
	Other		170.2	160.9	262.4	293.0	308.1	296.1	230.3	228.2	210.3
	Total		604.4	609.8	796.8	888.1	941.5	968.5	894.1	973.6	960.3
Other specific ATSI agencies --
	ATSICDC		10.0	10.0	10.0	10.0	(g)
	Aboriginal Hostels		22.6	23.6	29.6	35.8	29.1	28.9	27.9	28.4	28.6
	Aboriginal Benefit Reserve(h)			37.3	31.1	27.0	29.1	31.3	34.9	27.1	33.1
	AIATSIS			5.8	5.8	5.6	5.5	5.7	5.6	5.7	6.0
	TSRA(i)						21.9	36.3	31.7	34.8	40.3
	ILC(j)							24.5	25.4	48.3	49.7
	Total		32.6	76.7	76.5	78.4	85.7	126.7	125.5	144.3	157.7
Other portfolios --
	Employment, Education and Training		305.9	389.5	351.7	279.4	291.9	335.1	355.9	416.3	384.9
	Housing		139.6	143.5	161.7	93.7	91.0	(b)
	Social Security(k)							102.2	102.5	102.7	107.8
	Health							136.6	144.1	161.2	194.8
	Other		35.3	37.8	51.1	22.3	63.1	46.0	48.4	54.2	72.5
	Total		480.9	570.8	564.5	395.4	446.0	619.9	650.9	734.4	760.0
TOTAL -- ALL			1117.9	1257.3	1437.8	1361.8	1473.2	1715.1	1670.5	1852.3	1878.0
Total -- All (1997 prices)			1250.7	1381.5	1557.8	1461.9	1565.7	1772.8	1684.9	1825.7	1796.5
(a) Office of Aboriginal Affairs - 1967 to 1971; Department of Aboriginal Affairs - 1972 to March 1990; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission - March 1990 onwards.
(b) Function absorbed by other agency(ies) from this year. (c) Includes Human Rights. (d) Excludes Community Housing.
(e) Includes Community Housing. (f) Does not include ABTA/Aboriginal Benefit Reserve expenditure. (g) Became self-funding from 1994-95.
(h) Aboriginal Benefit Trust Account until 1996-97. Includes $0.2m. provided annually under the Ranger Agreement. (i) Torres Strait Regional Authority.
(j) Indigenous Land Corporation.(k) Includes $91.0m. for each year for the Aboriginal Rental Housing Programme previously funded under the Housing portfolio.
NOTE. Figures for 1997-98 and 1998-99 are estimates only.
Source: Annual Report of the main ATSI agency, various years; Addressing Priorities in Indigenous Affairs, Statement by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, 12 May 1998.

The proposition that the definition of Aboriginality is too loose

Since identifiable expenditure on Aboriginal-specific programs started to increase rapidly a decade ago, there have been many suggestions that the Federal Government's administrative definition of Aboriginality was too loose. Arguments in favour of this proposition include:

• The increase in identifiable expenditure followed, albeit by five years, the introduction in 1980 of the following administrative definition: 'An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he (she) lives.' This three-part definition soon started to enter legislation (e.g. Aboriginal Land Claims Act 1983, s. 2) and was accepted by the High Court (Mr Justice Deane in Commonwealth v. Tasmania 1983) as giving meaning to the expression 'Aboriginal race' within s. 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution.
• The proportion of the population which can identify as Aboriginal has been continuing to increase well in excess of natural increase (in the 1996 Census 352 970 people identified as indigenous, 33 per cent more than in the 1991 Census) and this will always be the case (given a present level of preparedness to identify as indigenous and present rate of intermarriage) so long as a child only needs to have one parent who identifies as indigenous in order for them to identify also as indigenous.
• There are alternatives. For more than sixty years the Commonwealth used a narrow definition of Aboriginal. As early as 29 August 1901 Attorney-General Alfred Deakin advised that 'half-castes' are not 'aboriginal natives' within the meaning of s. 127 of the Constitution. The opinion was endorsed by Attorney-General Isaac Isaacs in October 1905 and repeated in each Census Report form 1911 to 1966(1).
• The Federal Government's three-part administrative definition of Aboriginality is out of step with the genealogical definition used in many pieces of Federal legislation: 'Aboriginal' means a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia.'(2)
• The Federal Court has been flexible in its interpretation of the Government definition of Aboriginality. In Attorney-General (Cth) v. State of Queensland (July 1990) the full Court found that Aboriginal descent was sufficient grounds for the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody to inquire into the death of Darren Wouters, even though the community did not identify him as Aboriginal nor did he identify himself as Aboriginal. Conversely, in Edwina Shaw & Anor v Charles Wolf & Ors (1998) Justice Merkel found that descent did not need to be proved 'according to any strict legal standard' and that 'descent is a technical rather than a real criterion for identity, which after all in this day and age, is accepted as a social, rather than a genetic, construct.'

Arguments against the above proposition include:

• There is no blood test or physical examination which can establish Aboriginality. Scientists long ago recognised 'race' to be a social construct with no biological basis, that genetic and morphological variation within the human species is far too small to sub-divide the species, and that it is much more useful to conceive of the species in terms of 'populations' suggested by region, culture, caste, religion, kinship and frequency, not exclusiveness, of genetic traits.(3)
• The definitions based on degrees of Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal blood which were used for decades in State legislation produced capricious and inconsistent results based, in practice, on nothing more than an observation of skin colour. Drawing on documented sources, the historian Peter Read has offered the following conflation:

• The three-part definition helps protect individuals from the prejudice of contemporary society. One of the main findings of a recent study was that 'mainstream Australians' are very ready to use labels such as 'half-caste' and '1/16th black', to consider 'real' indigenous people as living somewhere else and to see the 'white' indigenous person as manipulating the system.(5)
• In countries such as Canada where the Federal Government was involved in indigenous affairs from an early date, 19th and early 20th century categorisations of indigenous people have become entrenched and present enormous problems for individuals and families.
• The inclusion in the present definition of self-identification fits well with such definitions as that considered by the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations in 1986:

• The three-part nature of the present administrative definition produces a tighter definition than that which would result from one based only on descent and indeed, when the Government introduced its ATSIC Bill in 1988, it was criticised by the Coalition and the Democrat spokespeople on Aboriginal Affairs for using the broader, and arguably circular, definition of an Aboriginal person as 'a person of the Aboriginal race of Australia'.(7)