Dr John Gardiner-Garden
Social Policy Group
Contents
Introduction
Expenditure from 1967-68 to
1998-99
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
The proposition that Commonwealth
expenditure would be more
effective if most indigenous services were mainstreamed
Conclusion Endnotes
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:
In 1935 a fair-skinned Australian of
part-indigenous descent was ejected from a hotel for being an
Aboriginal. He returned to his home on the mission station to find
himself refused entry because he was not an Aboriginal. He tried to
remove his children but was told he could not because they were
Aboriginal. He walked to the next town where he was arrested for
being an Aboriginal vagrant and placed on the local reserve. During
the Second World War he tried to enlist but was told he could not
because he was Aboriginal. He went interstate and joined up as a
non-Aboriginal. After the war he could not acquire a passport
without permission because he was Aboriginal. He received exemption
from the Aborigines Protection Act - and was told that he could no
longer visit his relations on the reserve because he was not an
Aboriginal. He was denied permission to enter the Returned
Servicemen's Club because he was.(4)
- 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:
Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are
those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and
pre-colonial societies..., consider themselves distinct from other
sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories....
They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are
determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations
their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the
basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with
their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal
systems.(6)
- 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)
The proposition that indigenous
Australians are receiving more than their fair share of
Commonwealth money
Arguments for the proposition include(8):
- With only 2.1 per cent of the total Australian population
identifying as indigenous, per capita Commonwealth expenditure on
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is high and
contributing to the spread of welfare dependency among indigenous
people.
- Some Indigenous specific entitlements appear to have more
generous conditions than do their mainstream equivalents (eg. the
parental means test for Abstudy's living allowance and the
eligibility criteria for Abstudy's school/hostel directed boarding
allowance).
Arguments against the above proposition
include(9):
- By any socio-economic indicator Indigenous Australians are far
worse off than non-indigenous Australians. Numerous reports
identify massive unmet need, especially in the area of housing and
infrastructure for remote Aboriginal communities, and, as high as
present expenditure is, it is following decades of neglect and
legal discrimination.
- Less than 10 per cent of Commonwealth's assistance to
Indigenous people is in the form of payments to individuals-most
funding goes to organisations addressing chronic needs.
- Nearly a third of Commonwealth wide indigenous specific
expenditure substitutes to a large measure for expenditure on
mainstream assistance programs (eg. Abstudy for Austudy, Community
Employment for Newstart, Community Housing for housing under the
Commonwealth-State Housing agreement, Aboriginal Legal Aid for
general legal aid, Aboriginal Medical Services for Medicare
supported services).
- An estimated 10 per cent of identifiable Commonwealth
expenditure on Indigenous Affairs is for services which are
arguably the responsibility of other levels of government. Indeed,
the latter often appear content to leave the provision of
Indigenous services to the Commonwealth, in particular ATSIC, even
when well positioned to deliver them.
- The aged, the disabled, the young, people in the arts,
veterans, farmers and many other groups within Australian society
are entitled to special government assistance-with, for example,
the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme costing as much as all of ATSIC's
activities.(10)
- Indigenous Australians utilise mainstream services and benefits
such as Pharmaceutical Benefits and Aged Care at a lower rate than
other Australians. In fact, in 1993-94 the sum of mainstream and
specific health expenditure on Indigenous people (then 1.6 per cent
of the population) was only 1.26 per cent of total Commonwealth
health expenditure.(11)
- Most Aboriginal-specific programs are not generous in their
entitlements (e.g. the Community Development Employment Projects,
nearly one third of ATSIC's budget, offer working participants no
more than a Newstart allowance, without (prior to the 1998 Budget)
associated Social Security concessions and supplements.
The proposition
that Commonwealth expenditure would be more effective if most
indigenous services were mainstreamed
Arguments in favour of the proposition
include:
- ATSIC's role as a representative political body could be
separated from its role as a service provider.
- The delivery of Government service on grounds of Aboriginality
not only generates resentment in the community (which does not
assist the people the services are meant to benefit), and may add
to welfare dependency.(12)
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specific programs (other
than those concerned specifically with land and culture) could be
run either as such by mainstream specialist agencies (just as the
Department of Education has administered Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander student assistance since 1988 and the Department of
Health has had responsibility for Aboriginal Medical Services since
1995) or, when they substitute for easily accessible mainstream
programs, could be abandoned in favour of the latter.
- In some cases an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specific
program (e.g. Community Development Employment Projects) could
become a program open to all Australians.
Arguments against the above proposition
include:
- Mainstream agencies lack the cultural sensitivity to deliver
services successfully to indigenous Australians.
- Indigenous control of these services is essential for the
advancement of Aboriginal self-determination and
reconciliation.
- The accountability requirements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander organisations are strict compared with those imposed on
the States and Territories for their use of Commonwealth money
intended for indigenous advancement.
- Many problems may be solved by changing, not ATSIC, but the
Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976, so that
inappropriate corporate structures are not forced onto small bodies
which are supplying essential services.
Conclusion
The above study will hopefully put identifiable
Commonwealth expenditure in the area of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Affairs in a useful historical and public policy
context. The question for policy makers is not so much whether
money should be directed to address indigenous needs (the potential
cost of the social problems arising out of not addressing these
needs could be higher than the cost of addressing them), but rather
how to find a way forward on the service delivery front given the
above arguments for and against mainstreaming and given indigenous
peoples' wider aspirations in the not unrelated areas of human
rights, land rights, constitutional reform and recognition of
customary law. It may be that at many points the best way forward
lies somewhere between the opposing positions characterised above.
It may also be that there are entirely different ways forward.
An alternative to either tightening or loosening
the administrative definition of Aboriginality may be to have no
definition. Certainly, as Justice Merkel noted in his recent
decision on the validity of the 1996 ATSIC Regional Council
election in Tasmania, 'some criterion is necessary to define the
beneficiary group' of some of the laws which are 'seeking to
redress some of the wrongs of the past'. Given, however, as the
Justice also observed, that 'Aboriginality as such is not capable
of any single or satisfactory definition' and that the number of
those identifying as Aboriginal can increase by 33 per cent between
two censes and is likely to continue to increase well in excess of
natural increase, should Governments be using Aboriginality as a
criterion for program eligilibility? Could different terms or
criteria be used in different situations? Eligibility for election
to a political body which is meant to represent and lobby on behalf
of people who identify as indigenous and are identified by the
community as such would have to be in those terms. Eligibility for
a benefit or program could, however, be in terms of descent from a
traditional owner, recognition as custodian, health, employment or
educational need, language used etc., depending on the particular
purpose of the benefit or program. Community housing and
infrastructure assistance could depend on infrastructure need (an
indisputable need in most communities identifying as
Aboriginal).
An alternative to both the ATSIC and mainstream
model of service delivery, may be regional bloc funding. Such
funding might be an extension of administrative agreements between
interested parties, might involve establishing new statutory
regional authorities (along the lines of the Torres Strait Regional
Authority) or might involve setting up new regional governments (as
happened in the Norfolk Island Act 1979). Such authorities
or governments could be based on regions (or communities) and not
Aboriginality (as is the self-governing, predominantly Inuit region
of Nunavut in Canada).
Endnotes
- Hanks, Peter: 'A National Aboriginal Policy?', UNSW Law
Journal, Vol. 16(1), 1993, pp. 48-49.
- e.g. Aboriginal and Torres Strait (Queensland
Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975, Aboriginal Land Rights
(Northern Territory) Act 1976, Aboriginals and Torres
Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities
Self-Management) Act 1978, Aboriginal Development
Commission Act 1980, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Aboriginal
Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986.
- e.g. Bowles, G., The Peoples of Asia, Scrivner, New
York, 1977, pp. 2-3.
- From an as yet unpublished paper presented at the Aboriginal
Citizenship conference at the Australian National University in
February 1996.
- Report by Brian Sweeney and Associates for the Aboriginal
Reconciliation Branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet, A New Beginning: Community Attitudes towards
Aboriginal Reconciliation, January 1995, p. i.
- Cunneen, Chris and Libesman, Terry, Indigenous People and
the Law in Australia, Butterworths' Legal Studies Series,
Sydney, 1995, p. 238.
- Gardiner-Garden, J., 'Aboriginality and Aboriginal rights in
Australia', Mabo Papers, Department of the Parliamentary
Library, Parliamentary Research Service Subject Collection No.1,
The Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra,1994, p.
43.
- For the many harder-to-substantiate but widely held beliefs
which help give the above proposition community acceptance, see the
report produced by Brian Sweeney and Associates, A New
Beginning: Community Attitudes towards Aboriginal
Reconciliation, Aboriginal Reconciliation Branch, The
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Study No.9413, January
1996.
- For more on the issues of substitution and utilisation see
Commonwealth Government paper Social Justice for Indigenous
Australians 1994-95, especially pages 39-41, the 1994
ATSIC commissioned study entitled 'The Substitution Factor in
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Programs' and the
Parliamentary Library's Research Note No.16, 16 October
1995.
- As a matter of fact: answering the myths and misconceptions
about Indigenous Australians, ATSIC, Canberra, 1998.
- Dodson, Michael, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social
Justice Commissioner, Second Report 1994, Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission, Canberra, 1995, p. 128.
- eg Pollard, David, 'Ending Aboriginal Poverty', Policy
Autumn 1991, p. 9.