Western University Scholarship@Western
Aboriginal Policy Research Consortium International (APRCi)
8-2011 Postcolonial Transformation of the Australian Indigenous Population John Taylor
Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/aprci Part of the Other Geography Commons
Citation of this paper: Taylor, John, "Postcolonial Transformation of the Australian Indigenous Population" (2011). Aboriginal Policy Research Consortium International (APRCi). 351. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/aprci/351 Postcolonial Transformation of the Australian
Indigenous Populationgeor_698 286..300
JOHN TAYLOR Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200. Email: [email protected]
Received 21 December 2010; Revised 17 March 2011; Accepted 28 March 2011
Abstract The 1967 constitutional referendum paved the way for the application of a single national methodology for the construction of a self-identified Indigenous popu- lation via census, survey, and administrative data collection and these sources have provided for statistically meaningful official estimates of Indigenous popu- lation growth and spatial redistribution as well as for some understanding of the dynamics underpinning change. The primary purpose of this paper is to outline the course of this change and to reflect on matters arising that are of concern and interest to public debate on population growth and its implications. To do this meaningfully it is necessary first to gain an appreciation of what is referred to as ‘postcolonial demography’. This term encapsulates the post-referendum acquisi- tion of official population data involving the construction of Indigenous popula- tion as simply the minority half of a statistical binary. While these data provide for an analysis of growth and change in an aggregate Indigenous population, and while the product continues to play a key role in Indigenous-state relations, we remain pressed to articulate the geography of Indigenous peoples’ sociality amidst growing demands to do so.
KEY WORDS postcolonial demography; Indigenous population; population geography
Introduction According to the Australian Bureau of Statis- The precise size, composition, and distribution of tics (ABS, 2009a), the current (2011) Indigenous the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander popula- population is estimated to be 576 000, approxi- tions of Australia are unknown, and probably mately 10% of whom would claim Torres Strait unknowable. This is because compiling a statis- Islander origins. This population is forecast to tical profile is not straightforward. Far from reach 1 million by 2040 (Biddle and Taylor, being a set of observable ‘facts’it derives from an 2009). While projecting this far out is speculative interplay between changing political, administra- due to data quality issues, there is no doubt that a tive, and cultural processes: in particular, the population of this order is inevitable soon. Signifi- manner in which governments attempt to enu- cantly, this would constitute a population level merate Indigenous peoples and the choices made in the region of those best estimated for 1788 by respondents to such overtures (Rowse, 2006). (Mulvaney, 2002). Thus, while the size of the What we can say, however, is that the population population may soon return to the pre-colonial revealed by these processes at any one time is level as far as this can be known, there is less doubt almost certainly a minimal estimate of the about the fact that in the meantime its distribution descendants of the first Australians. and composition has been greatly transformed.
286 Geographical Research • August 2011 • 49(3):286–300 doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2011.00698.x J. Taylor: Postcolonial Transformation of the Australian Indigenous Population 287
Outlining the course of these long-term trans- match Indigenous people’s actual sociality and formations is no easy task and it is not attempted spatiality. In effect, both the assumed scale of in any detail here. The main problems are a lack collective identity and its composition can be of consistency in defining the population over found wanting. This set of assumptions produces time and the lack of a consistent methodology a demographic window onto the Indigenous for enumeration. Smith (1980) has documented world that exists solely to service constitutional in some detail the efforts made by colonial and legislative requirements. Scant regard is paid authorities and later the federation to count to the nature of Indigenous social and economic Indigenous people and he makes an admirable relations which, almost by definition, isolate the job of piecing together a coherent demographic population in the first place. Thus, while we can history. Aside from those who were missed alto- observe growth and change in an aggregate gether, the overwhelming observation to emerge Indigenous population, and while undoubtedly from the historic record concerns the unknown this plays a key role in Indigenous-state relations but large number of Indigenous people who were (Rowse, 2009), we remain far more pressed to absorbed, statistically, into the general popula- articulate a geography of Indigenous peoples that tion as a consequence of racial politics that clas- reflects Indigenous world views and practice, a sified people according to ‘blood quantum’ point that is increasingly recognised in Australia (Smith, 1980; Rowse, 2006; Smith et al., and other settler states (Kukutai, 2004; Morphy, forthcoming). 2007a; 2010a; Taylor, 2008; Pereira et al., 2009; My focus, then, is on the contemporary period Prout, 2009; Walling et al., 2009). We return to which, from a demographic perspective, com- this issue by way of conclusion, but first, more on menced after the 1967 constitutional referen- the subject of political demography. dum. This paved the way for the application of a single national methodology for the construc- Postcolonial demography tion of a self-identified Indigenous population A sub-disciplinary endeavour has emerged in via census, survey, and administrative data col- postcolonial Australia that, for want of a better lection. Despite well-documented subsequent term, has become referred to as ‘Indigenous problems of census closure and variable cover- demography’, mostly as a form of applied age (Gray, 1997; Cunningham, 1998; Passel, demography and population geography. This 1996; Ross, 1999; Kinfu and Taylor, 2005; Hill arises as part of the state project of distributive or et al. 2007), these sources have increasingly pro- remedial social justice that seeks to make legible vided for statistically meaningful official esti- the needs of particular groups, in this instance mates of Indigenous population growth and Indigenous Australians. Demography is central to spatial redistribution as well as for some under- this project with its focus on quantum and the standing of the dynamics underpinning change. calibration of change, but the underpinning is The primary purpose of this paper is to outline political and arises out of a view of Indigenous the course of this change and to reflect on matters particularity as oppositional to the dominant arising that are of concern and interest to public society. Articulation of this view is motivated debate on population growth and its implications. by the population binary – Indigenous/non- However, in order to do this meaningfully it is Indigenous – that is, generated by the administra- necessary first to gain an appreciation of what I tive mechanisms alluded to above. In Australia, call ‘postcolonial demography’. This term encap- this binary has only reliably been available in sulates the post-referendum acquisition of popu- recent times but it stems from the beginnings of lation data as an integral part of attempts by the colonial relations and long-standing policies of state at reparation for the past and present social state management and control of Indigenous exclusion of Indigenous peoples, but in ways that peoples, including over their identity (Dodson, remain centralist and ‘top–down’ with Indig- 1994). enous people viewed and treated as having little If we go back somewhat, we see that one of the or no agency of their own (Buckmaster and tasks assigned to the about-to-be first Governor Thomas, 2009). of New South Wales in 1787 was ‘. . . to procure Some attention is afforded this matter. It pro- an account of the numbers inhabiting the neigh- duces a construction of Indigenous population as bourhood of the intended settlement and report simply the minority half of a statistical binary your opinion to one of our Secretaries of State in which presumes a degree of homogeneity and what manner our intercourse with these people sense of collective identity that simply does not may be turned to the advantage of this country’
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers 288 Geographical Research • August 2011 • 49(3):286–300
(Phillip, 1787). Since that time, ‘these people’ Responsibility for the task of gathering statis- (the Indigenous peoples of Australia) have tics on Indigenous and non-Indigenous Austra- formed a variously defined single population cat- lians thus fell from the outset to the ABS. egory (actually now a double category – Aborigi- Methodological developments instigated by nal and Torres Strait Islander – but for most that agency to elicit population coverage began demographic and broad policy analysis these in 1971 and by the 1990s had resulted in tend to be combined). ministerial-level agreements between federal and In terms of tracking contemporary Indigenous state governments for the adoption of a standard population change and projecting future growth, self-reported Indigenous status question in all the key event was the constitutional referendum official statistical collections (including in all of 1967 because this enabled the enumeration of official household surveys) as well as in a much- a self-identified population binary on a consistent expanded Indigenous-specific survey and census basis nationally for the first time, although that programme (ABS, 2007). From the state’s per- was not the real intention. Basically, the referen- spective, it is these activities that now provide dum resulted in amendment of s. 51 of the Con- for reporting of progress in Indigenous affairs stitution and removal of s. 127. The first of these against a ‘Closing the Gaps’ strategy in which the actions enabled the federal government to make calibration of Indigenous socioeconomic change laws specifically in relation to Indigenous people relative to non-Indigenous outcomes plays a for the first time under the so-called ‘race power’ central accounting role (SCRGSP, 2009; Taylor, in s. 51 (xxvi); the second, removed the phrase, 2008). ‘in reckoning the numbers of the people of the This, then, is the essence of postcolonial Commonwealth, or of a State, or other part of the demography. It stems from a view of Indigenous Commonwealth, Aboriginal natives shall not be particularity as oppositional to the dominant counted’. In fact, ‘Aboriginal natives’ had been society (Kowal, 2010, 189–192). Postcolonial counted, but for the purposes of then statistically logic requires that the representation of Indig- excluding them, so what the referendum really enous sociality be relational because the aim is enabled was for Indigenous Australians to be not to give expression and substance to Indig- counted for the first time without a need to spe- enous difference per se but rather to compare it cifically identify them (Rowse, 2006, 2). (Dodson, 1994). The focus then is on information However, and this is part of the postcolonial that defines the ‘other’ based on a legal/analytical turn, because of the amendment to s. 51 the state definition of Indigenous peoples as opposed to was now in a position to discriminate in favour of self-definitions that are more practical/strategic Indigenous people. Part of the case for policies (Niezen, 2003, 19). This produces frustration for and programmes to support such an approach Indigenous peoples because of their historical was a need to render Indigenous people ‘statisti- and social diversity and because the question of cally visible’ (Rowse, 2006, 5). Accordingly, the definition now pits analysis against identity Commonwealth Statistician soon declared that (Niezen, 2003, 19). Thus, while we may now the 1971 Census would include a self-identified chart Indigenous population growth, redistribu- race question, ‘for general interest, and in par- tion and change in composition over several ticular to meet the statistical requirements of decades, and do this rather well because of a Commonwealth and State authorities responsible burgeoning official statistical archive (Rowse, for Aboriginal Affairs’ (Commonwealth Bureau 2006), this should be understood for what it is of Census and Statistics, 1973, xiii). In that and what it is not. census, respondents could self-identify their ‘racial origins’ as simply Aboriginal or Torres Population growth 1971–2006 Strait Islander and, with subsequent variation In order to meet its new requirement for Indig- (dropping the term ‘racial’), this form of question enous inclusion in official statistics, the ABS has provided a consistent basis for the construc- introduced special enumeration procedures for tion of the state-derived population binary ever the 1971 Census in the Northern Territory and since. While these remain two distinct census- Western Australia with interviewer-based count- derived social groupings (despite overlap in iden- ing and enhanced field operations. Over time, tity), for most demographic and broad policy this system has been gradually modified and geo- analysis they tend to be combined and referred to graphically extended and it now constitutes a as ‘Indigenous’ which creates the default com- multifaceted Indigenous Enumeration Strategy parator grouping ‘non-Indigenous’. as an integral part of the general census opera-
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers J. Taylor: Postcolonial Transformation of the Australian Indigenous Population 289 tion. In urban areas, the strategy addresses issues and fluctuating counts to a variable propensity arising from distrust of officials, population of Indigenous people to self-identify in census mobility and large households; in remote areas counts (Ross, 1999). A counter-view is that it it is designed to take into account geographic simply reflects variable census coverage (Gray, isolation, high mobility, traditional culture, com- 1997; 2002). The first of these is suggestive of munication problems due to language, and unfa- behavioural change while the latter alludes more miliarity with form-filling. While these methods to administrative factors. Either way, explanation are now well tested and fine tuned, basic pro- has been confounded by a lack of appropriate blems in the administration of field procedures data, although one set of observations does seem and data processing still remain (Morphy, 2007b) to undermine the proposition that behavioural leading to striking regional patterns of under- factors associated with identity are prominent. counting (mostly in remote areas) and overcount- This stems from a comparison of single year ing (mostly in regional and metropolitan areas) age-specific growth in Indigenous population from one census to another (Taylor and Biddle, counts for successive censuses from 1991 to 2001 2010). However, despite ongoing difficulties, a showing intercensal movements in the distribu- coherent picture of change in the self-identified tion of growth that are consistent across the entire Indigenous population does emerge. age distribution in a way that is simply not com- Since 1971, the number of individuals identi- patible with socio-demographic processes (Kinfu fying in the census as Aboriginal or Torres Strait and Taylor, 2005). In line with Gray (1997; 2002), Islander has increased by almost 300%. At an what this suggests is variable capture by census annual growth rate of 4% (assuming interna- enumeration, but a variable capture of whole tional migration to be negligible), this is way households rather than of random individuals. beyond the bounds of natural increase. The clue More certain is the fact that the census fails to to this improbable growth lies in the erratic account for all Indigenous people, far more so nature of counts from one census to another than occurs for the rest of the population. Up (Table 1). Thus, between 1971 and 1976, the to the 2006 Census a partial estimate of Indig- Indigenous count increased by 39%. Over the enous net census undercount was available via next intercensal period, the count actually the post-enumeration survey. This was partial declined slightly, then excessive growth returned because the survey sample excluded remote between 1981 and 1986 and again between 1991 Indigenous communities. What it showed was a and 1996. The last two intercensal periods show fairly steady undercount of around 7% of the more reasonable change not dissimilar to under- Indigenous population. However, in 2006 the lying rates of natural increase. Given this record, post-enumeration survey was based for the first quite what the future holds is one uncertainty that time on a truly national sample and this revealed hangs over Indigenous population projections. a net Indigenous undercount closer to 12% with The tendency in official statistical reporting even higher rates (around 16%) in jurisdictions in Australia has been to attribute these excessive with high proportions of Indigenous population
Table 1 Indigenous census counts, 1971–2006.
Census year Census count Change From Previous Census
Number % Annualised %
1971 115 953 1976 160 915 44 962 38.8 6.8 1981 159 897 –1 018 –0.6 –0.1 1986 227 645 67 748 42.4 7.3 1991 265 459 37 814 16.6 3.1 1996 352 970 87 511 33.0 5.9 2001 410 003 57 033 16.2 3.0 2006 455 031 45 028 11.0 2.1 1971–2006 n/a 339 073 292.4 4.0
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics Census of Population and Housing, respective years.
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers 290 Geographical Research • August 2011 • 49(3):286–300
(notably in Western Australia and the Northern top–down nature of existing estimation method- Territory) and relatively low rates elsewhere ology which generates small area estimates from (ABS, 2008a). Such regional imbalance in large area parameters is effectively the opposite census accuracy is a problem when comparing of this ideal approach. population change between regions and over A second, and related, point is that standard time and, for this reason, the ABS has calculated errors for small area level population estimates post-census (‘experimental’) estimates of the are not provided and so we have no measure of Indigenous population since 1996. their reliability. In short, because of the nature of the methodology applied, small area Indigenous Population estimates – fit for purpose? estimates appear ill-suited for local/regional Indigenous estimates adjust for census under- needs assessment. Even applying state-level count and for non-response to the census ques- standard errors, they emerge as crude ball-park tion on Indigenous status (for a detailed figures that are difficult to interpret over time. methodology see ABS, 2009b, 53–56). To this Ultimately, the main route to better Indigenous extent they seek to standardise for geographic population estimates for local planning purposes variation in census error. This is important is via improved enumeration and this requires a because these estimates are then used as the gold radical rethink of census field methodology standard for important fiscal purposes, most (Morphy, 2007b). notably by the Commonwealth Grants Commis- sion in determining disability factors between the Spatial redistribution states and territories. This idea of generating Notwithstanding the imprecision inherent in population statistics that are ‘fit for purpose’ is census counts and estimates, of all the changes in considered a central role of the ABS (The Aus- Indigenous population over the past 200 years or tralian Statistician, National Press Club Address, so, none has been more certain nor visible as 9 March 2005). Clearly, then, in releasing Indig- a measure of colonial impact than the geographic enous population estimates there is an implicit shift in distribution. From an original widespread understanding on the part of the ABS that they occupance of the continent with numbers dis- are ‘fit for purpose’. But are they? tributed on clan estates at varying densities – The answer to this question is contingent – if generally higher along the coast and riverine the aim is to establish relativities by comparing areas and lower inland (Peterson and Long, jurisdictional populations across Australia then 1986; Keen, 2004) – we now see far more clus- the ABS method of estimation is not only appro- tered residential arrangements that are less deter- priate, it is essential in the sense that such com- mined by connection to traditional clan estates parison requires the application of a consistent and focused mostly on the suburbs of major cities methodology where the estimated parts sum to and regional towns. Over the long term, this the whole. To that extent, the overall exercise of reflects the impacts of colonisation leading either fiscal equalisation is probably vindicated. If, to rural–urban migration or to populations in situ however, the aim is to determine local levels of being engulfed by expanding urban areas. As we need, for example, in terms of service delivery or have seen, since 1971, it has also reflected a workforce planning and for local government growing tendency for Indigenous people who grants distribution, then current methods are were already urban-based to be identified in questionable. Significantly, this is often the level census counts. at which Indigenous sociality is constructed The proportion of the Indigenous population (Morphy, 2010a). resident in urban areas rose from 44% in 1971 to For one thing, the calculation of small area 76% in 2006. Almost one-third of Indigenous (Statistical Local Area) level Indigenous esti- Australians are now resident in major cities mates using a top–down pro rata distribution of (Figure 1) and while this remains substantially undercount parameters that are derived for much less than for the total Australian population higher-level geographies does not necessarily (67%), it nonetheless represents a marked provide good estimates at every reduction in increase from the figure of 15% recorded for scale. Ideally, population modelling should be 1971. As this process of ever-greater population conducted at the level it is intended to be used counts in urban areas has unfolded, the rural (e.g. at shire level). Also, ideally, this should share of the population has continued to decline – involve the application of local data and intelli- down from 56% in 1971 to less than one-quarter gence on components of population change. The in 2001.
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers J. Taylor: Postcolonial Transformation of the Australian Indigenous Population 291
80 50
45 70 40 60 Indigenous per cent of total 35 50 30
40 25
20 30 15
Per cent of population group 20 10 10 5
0 0 Major Cities Inner Regional Outer Regional Remote Very Remote
Non-Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous share
Figure 1 Indigenous and non-Indigenous population distribution by remoteness classification, 2006 (Source: ABS, 2008a, 18).
Despite this shift, the more salient point is that leading to an enhanced Indigenous presence at Indigenous people remain far more likely than broad regional scales across much of non- other Australians to reside away from cities with metropolitan Australia. Most notable here is the a much greater tendency to be located in outer Murray-Darling Basin where Indigenous people regional and remote areas. Partly because of their form a sizeable and growing component of the initial widespread and dispersed spatial distribu- population and where demands for Indigenous tion, Indigenous Australians encounter the 21st engagement in sustainable futures will increase century of global cities and suburban sprawl, of (Taylor and Biddle, 2004). old and new economies and regional adjustment, The term ‘remote’Australia draws attention to and of boom and bust resource provinces with a the vast bulk of the continent where economic very different spatial history, one in which usur- development and access to goods and services pation by the settler state has been the dominant are severely impeded by small numbers and theme and strategic social actions of Indigenous long distances. It is also that part of Australia people have enabled a persistence of customary where much of the Indigenous estate is spatial forms amidst pressures for change (Taylor re-established under some form of Aboriginal or and Bell, 2004). Torres Strait Islander land title and where new In a number of important service towns across post-productivist mixed economies are emerging regional Australia, especially those that straddle (Holmes, 2009). Almost one-third of Indigenous the boundary between remote and regional Aus- Australians are resident in remote and very tralia (e.g. Kalgoorlie, Port Augusta, Broken remote areas compared with a very small pro- Hill), Indigenous population growth is outstrip- portion of the rest of the population. In very ping non-Indigenous growth. As a consequence, remote areas (which cover 73% of the conti- the Indigenous share of population in these nent), Indigenous peoples constitute almost half centres is rising. The long-run prospect for such of the resident population, although away from places is towards an increasingly prominent the thinly scattered mining and service towns, Indigenous profile given differential population they are very much the majority. These latter dynamics in favour of Indigenous growth – due areas have been referred to as an ‘Indigenous to positive rather than negative net migration domain’ to reflect spaces where social closure and youthful rather than old age structure (see acts as a form of resistance to state dominance McGuirk and Argent, 2011). These dynamics (Trigger, 1986) and where Indigenous peoples have major implications for the nature of services and their institutions predominate (von Sturmer, delivered in many regional centres, as well as for 1984, 219). Here the prevailing settlement the role that Indigenous residents might or pattern is one of growing Indigenous towns sur- should play in terms of their governance and rounded by small satellite homeland communi- economy. These same demographic trends are ties on Indigenous-owned lands that in aggregate
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers 292 Geographical Research • August 2011 • 49(3):286–300 amount to 1.7 million km2, or 22% of the con- being a city jurisdiction, Indigenous and non- tinental landmass (see Figure 2; also Altman Indigenous rates are both high, and Tasmania et al., 2007). This gives Indigenous people an which has the lowest rates of urbanisation overall. importance in natural resource management and future land and water use that is way beyond Vulnerable places their mere numbers a fact that is often The idea that such workings of political economy overlooked in mainstream debates (Thom and might serve to impact negatively on particular McKenzie 2011). population subgroups or sets of locations is The effect of this continuity of rural settlement emphasised in recent work in spatial analysis that is shown in the varying degrees of Indigenous has attempted to ‘place’ vulnerability by investi- urbanisation between Australian jurisdictions gating the spatial contexts and ways in which (Figure 3). In New South Wales and Victoria, social relations produce ‘vulnerable spatialities’ where the impact of colonisation has been longest (Findlay, 2005; Philo, 2005). The contention here and most comprehensively felt, Indigenous is that Indigenous populations and the spaces urbanisation rates are well above 80% and close they occupy are (almost by definition) vulnerable to non-Indigenous rates. Elsewhere, non- because, as we have seen, the very notion of Indigenous urbanisation remains high but Indig- indigeneity is relational and socially constructed enous rates fall away first in Queensland and being dependent on the colonisation of original South Australia and then more noticeably in spaces by invasive, dominant majority popula- Western Australia and especially the Northern tions and cultures. In the past, this worked to Territory where most Indigenous people remain in enable or deny urban residence, while today the rural areas. The two exceptions are the Australian notion of ‘remoteness’ confers a marginal status Capital Territory where, for obvious reasons on populations who see their personal, cultural,
Figure 2 Discrete1 Indigenous communities and the Indigenous estate (Source: After Altman, 2011).
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers J. Taylor: Postcolonial Transformation of the Australian Indigenous Population 293
100
90
80
70
60
50
Per cent of population in urban areas 40
30 NSW Vic Qld SA WA NT ACT Tas
Non-Indigenous Indigenous
Figure 3 Indigenous and non-Indigenous urbanisation rates by jurisdiction, 2006 (Source: ABS Census of Population and Housing 2006). and community development inextricably en- base, nor have they subsequently established one meshed in situ in connections to country. From short of a hybrid arrangement characterised by a this alternate perspective it is urban areas that are chronically under-resourced state sector made up remote! Thus, key causes of spatial vulnerability mostly of programme funding and transfer pay- are inevitably sought in relations of dependency ments (Taylor and Stanley, 2005), and limited to a regional or national core (Philo, 2005). For market and customary sectors (Altman, 2010). Indigenous Australians, this invariably reflects This leaves them highly vulnerable to shifts in relations with state and federal governments. government policy and brings into sharp relief a To date, Australian geographers have gener- range of policy tensions around the nature and ally mapped vulnerable regions and communities meaning of Indigenous people’s development in by identifying low or negative employment contemporary Australia (Vanstone, 2005; Altman growth, above average unemployment rates, low et al., 2007; Altman, 2010). labour force participation rates, high housing stress and high concentrations of disadvantaged Limits to spatial diversity households (O’Connor et al., 2001; Stimson Implicit in current policy settings aimed at closing et al., 2001; Baum et al., 1999; 2005). When the gaps in socioeconomic status is a notion of applied to remote areas, they have identified corresponding spatial convergence. This ‘places’ mixed but generally favourable outcomes in urban locations on one side of the policy discourse recent times based on mining, tourism, and as desirable locations and implies a shift to the left service industries. However, as Baum et al. in the Indigenous population shares shown in (2008) point out, scale issues involved here can Figure 1 if such policies are effective. The fact is, mislead by crowding out more nuanced out- such a shift has been underway for some time comes – in remote areas what we tend to see partly because inter-regional net migration as is the performance of predominantly non- indicated in Figure 4, although it has to be said Indigenous towns as employment sites rather that natural increase is the main contributor to than the plight of particular subgroups. However, urban growth and this is enhanced by high rates of more recent work on functional economic partnering between Indigenous men and non- regions does identify remote Indigenous commu- Indigenous women in metropolitan areas and nities as a significant cluster (Baum et al., 2008) large regional towns. In the early part of the and this is not surprising. The 1300 or so discrete contemporary period, governments supported Indigenous communities that dot remote Austra- remote settlement and spatial diversity (Com- lia were established without a modern economic monwealth of Australia, 1987) now this is less
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers 294 Geographical Research • August 2011 • 49(3):286–300
5810 Large regional City areas 6391 towns 1.69% net migration 3.59% net migration
5186 5250 3781 2000
Small regional towns 1179 Remote areas and rural areas 1765 −4.36% net migration −1.41% net migration
Figure 4 Size and direction of Indigenous inter-regional migration flows, 2001–2006 (Source: Adapted from Biddle 2009, 11). certain. Why should this be so? The answer is One consequence of this is a gradual loss of found in recent analysis of competing principles belief on the part of policy practitioners and plan- in Indigenous affairs. ners that their approach to Indigenous affairs is Sanders (2008; 2009) identifies a paradigm actually working. Indeed, with time and lack of shift in recent years involving a movement away progress, a discourse of failure begins to accu- from notions of choice and diversity and back mulate such that the old ways become to be seen towards earlier-held ideas of guardianship based as part of the problem. Over the past few years, on a conviction that governments can, and should we have seen one such period of self-doubt (in order to achieve equality goals), intervene to leading to considerable upheaval in fundamental shape and enhance Indigenous participation policy settings and a direct line to the vulnerable and life circumstances. Accompanying this shift position that many remote outstation residents to what Sanders (2009) calls the ‘directive right’ now find themselves in. of politics, there has also been a resurgence of In line with this shift, the signal now from neo-liberal thinking in which government government to Indigenous Australians, and espe- support for remote Indigenous settlement is seen cially to those in remote areas, is to eschew the as contributing to a social pathology that only politics and possibilities of difference in order to unhindered market engagement involving labour embrace the institutions of mainstream Austra- mobility can resolve. Not surprisingly, this dis- lian life with migration-inducing implications. course has generated discussion regarding the Transmission of this signal is via the policy viability of remote Indigenous settlements and process with emphasis placed on pursuing the appropriate spatial options for Indigenous market engagement through programmes to people if government goals are to be realised enhance labour mobility, welfare to work reform, (Vanstone, 2005; Johns, 2009). and more individualised, as opposed to commu- According to Sanders (2009), such ideas stem nal, articulation with government services. Of from the (inevitably) cross-cultural nature of particular note is the lifting of remote area Indigenous affairs policy-making and associated exemptions for the unemployed combined with ideas of policy failure that have become a dismantlement of the Community Development keynote feature in recent years. Because Indig- Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme that has enous life practices and aspirations can be very long provided an economic underpinning for different from those of the mainstream, govern- remote settlement. Also significant is a freeze on ment programmes seldom, if ever, work as expenditure at outstations and a concentration of intended. What eventuates on the ground is investment in 29 growth towns or hubs (COAG, heavily mediated by Indigenous agency and the 2009). In terms of regional planning, this is results of government intervention are often a classic growth pole strategy based on implied long way from programme design (Sanders, cumulative causation. Put simply, there is an 2009). assessment by the state that life chances will be
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers J. Taylor: Postcolonial Transformation of the Australian Indigenous Population 295 improved by a redistribution of Indigenous lost in policy debate given the gradual, almost people into fewer larger locations that have more imperceptible, pace at which demographic pro- services and mainstream opportunities. One cesses unfold compared with the political factor that has stimulated this assessment is the imperative and immediacy of addressing com- weight of population momentum implied by munity needs. However, the point is not entirely Indigenous age distribution. lost. For some time now researchers have revealed a need for Indigenous economic partici- Population composition pation and productivity to keep pace with an The aspect of demography that almost defines expanding working-age population (Taylor and the Indigenous population is age structure. Hunter, 1998; Hunter and Taylor, 2004; Biddle Because of sustained high adult mortality, a et al., 2009), while (some) policy-makers recog- belated decline in Indigenous women’s fertility nise the potential for a decline in employment and an augmentation of Indigenous births due to outcomes that this relationship implies (Ah Kit, Indigenous male exogamy, the age profile of the 2004). Indigenous population is overwhelmingly youth- It is therefore noteworthy that the intergenera- ful and quite the inverse of the general situation tional reports produced to date have overlooked (Figure 5). As a consequence, an Indigenous the very different challenges that arise for Indig- inter-generational report would read quite differ- enous people as a consequence of demographic ently from those recently released by the Federal processes. In particular, it should be noted that Treasury (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002; ageing is also a feature of the Indigenous popu- 2004; 2009). In effect, while the nation as a lation – it is just temporally lagged in its effect whole is increasingly focused on the means to with consequently different policy implications. finance and service retirees and the aged, Indig- Almost universally across the country, Indig- enous people barely reach retirement age. Their enous populations are moving into a phase of concerns are more firmly fixed at the opposite demographic transition due to reduced fertility end of the social policy spectrum to do with child and increased survival that will see the popula- and family health, housing for new family for- tion in the prime workforce age groups peak, a mation, education, training, youth, criminal process that is prolonged by movement towards justice, employment, and the means to secure demographic convergence (Biddle and Taylor, asset accumulation and sustainable livelihoods. 2009). As a consequence, the ratio of age groups While demographic change is an inevitable dependent on those of working age (for income) cause and effect of social and economic transfor- will be minimised. Assuming this ageing process mation among Indigenous Australians, the will continue apace, the structural moment will interactions and consequences involved are often eventually pass, obviously at different times in
85+ 80–84 75–79 Non-Indigenous population 70–74 Indigenous population 65–69 60–64 55–59 50–54 45–49 40–44
Age (years) 35–39 30–34 25–29 20–24 15–19 10–14 5–9 0–4 10 5 0 5 10 15
Percentage of population
Figure 5 Age distribution of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, 2006. (Source: ABS, 2009c, 26–28).
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers 296 Geographical Research • August 2011 • 49(3):286–300 different places, but generally over the next few Future population decades (Biddle and Taylor, 2009). The first projections of Indigenous population While the general contours of this demo- were prepared for the Royal Commission into graphic transition are reasonably well established Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1990 (Gray and what is lacking is a clear sense of the practical Tesfaghiorghis, 1991) and subsequent efforts implications at varying scales. In one of the few have been summarised by Wilson (2009). Ini- examples at the national level, Jackson (2008, tially, official ABS projections were only avail- 225) has poignantly noted in regard to the non- able at national, state and territory level and only Indigenous population that it became educated for a 10 year period (ABS, 1998); however, these before it became ‘old’ and that the risk now for are now available for a 20 year period (2001 to Indigenous Australians is that they will become 2021) and for 37 Indigenous regions, although in ‘old’ before they are educated. The consequences the latter case not by age and sex (ABS, 2009a). of such a discrepancy are already felt in the rela- There have been other attempts to derive esti- tivities of economic participation and productiv- mates for more detailed geographies, such as the ity that stimulate so much of the national policy recent projections for regions of New South agenda towards ‘closing the gap’. The longer- Wales (Khalidi, 2008) and for customised term consequences are related to the so-called regions including the Australian desert (Brown ‘demographic dividend’ – that period in demo- et al., 2008) and Cape York Peninsula (Taylor graphic transition outlined above where the mini- and Bell, 2002), as well as for longer time frames mising of age-dependency ratios enables the out to 2031 (Biddle and Taylor, 2009) and 2051 maximising of income, savings and investments, (Productivity Commission, 2005). Policy-wise, at least potentially (Bloom and Williamson, projections have been successfully deployed in 1998). Given current levels of Indigenous educa- the development of Indigenous employment tion, workforce participation and productivity the policy (Taylor and Hunter, 1998), in regional danger is that the opportunity for Indigenous needs assessment for service delivery (Taylor, families and communities to ‘cash in’ on this 2004), and in driving home the fiscal transitory structural position may be foregone, or opportunity-cost message that business as usual at least less than optimised, for want of adequate in Indigenous affairs is not a rational option due human capital among key implicated cohorts. to the weight of population momentum (Hunter While this dynamic is easily grasped conceptu- and Taylor, 2002). ally, we have little appreciation in a practical As mentioned earlier, large variations in base sense of how it is unfolding on the ground in year census counts are one reason why there is individual communities and at scales that reflect serious doubt over the reliability of Indigenous the local impact of collective decisions regarding projections, more so than is normally the case. social change. Taylor (2010) provides one excep- This is even the case over the short term as tion by identifying diminishing rates of school Table 2 demonstrates. Early attempts at projec- attendance in one Aboriginal town (Wadeye) tion in the 1980s appear to have been thwarted by against a background of rapidly expanding the unanticipated rise in population counts in the working-age population. 1990s. Subsequent efforts by the ABS seem to be
Table 2 Forecast accuracy: ratios of national Indigenous population projections to observed census-based estimates: 1991–2006.
Projection series Census Year
1991 1996 2001 2006
Gray & Tesfaghiorghis (1986 based) 0.72 0.71 0.66 ABS low series (1996 based) 0.93 0.91 ABS high series (1996 based) 1.10 1.26 ABS low series (2001 based) 0.97 ABS high series (2001 based) 1.05
Source: Gray and Tesfaghiorghis (1991) and ABS various. ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics.
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers J. Taylor: Postcolonial Transformation of the Australian Indigenous Population 297 closer to the mark but there remains a substantial tant by-product of constitutional amendment. It gap between low and high series. The former provides, for the first time, a consistent basis models change based on demographic factors upon which to chart contemporary growth and alone and tends to underestimate, the latter change in a self-identified Indigenous popula- assumes additional non-demographic increase tion, albeit within the constraints imposed by and tends to overestimate. administrative process. It also provides the With this uncertainty in mind, current fore- means to establish parameters for estimating the casts indicate a steady rise in the Indigenous impact of these dynamics into the future. More population with average annual growth rates than two centuries on from initial colonisation, above the national average. The latest ABS pro- this shows that descendants of the first Austra- jections assume this average rate to be almost lians have arrived at a significant demographic twice that of the total population over the moment. Likely restored in original numbers, but medium term to 2021 (ABS, 2009a, 34). As a certainly far more youthful in profile, the 21st consequence, the Indigenous population will century population profile will be marked by continue to rise as a share of the Australian popu- continued population momentum and further lation with one projection pointing to an increase urbanisation. At the same time, connections to from 2.5% at present to 3.2% by 2031 (Biddle country that are increasingly enabled by various and Taylor, 2009). Indications are that Indig- forms of land rights determination will ensure enous people will remain a minority population that the population remains widely dispersed in major cities while elsewhere their relative relative to most Australians. presence will loom larger and larger with This particular construction of population increased distance from cities. By 2031, it is geography is simultaneously both instructive and likely that Indigenous people will be the majority misleading as an indicator of the contemporary in very remote areas. condition of Indigenous peoples. On the one However, in terms of absolute numbers the hand, it is well suited to the efficient provision of main growth of Indigenous population is fore- citizen rights (Rowse, 2009; Taylor, 2009) cast to be in major cities and in urban areas because it establishes a basis for benchmarking generally. This results from a combination of as the primary means of measuring the efficacy net migration gains in most cities (except of government policy in the area of Indigenous Sydney and Melbourne) and natural increase in affairs (SCRGSP, 2009). Presently, this is con- situ. The latter is augmented in cities more than ducted as a gap analysis that is informed by a elsewhere by births of Indigenous children to demography of disadvantage (Jones, 2004) in non-Indigenous mothers and Indigenous fathers. which indigeneity is considered a highly predic- Some idea of the impact of this increase in city tive spatial variable to the point where it used as numbers is provided by the fact that the com- such in indices of advantage and disadvantage bined Indigenous population of Brisbane and (ABS, 2008b). To this extent, both demographic Sydney will almost double from 93 000 in 2006 and spatial convergence are implied as logical to 170 000 by 2031 even without accounting for aims. On the other hand, it fails to provide for any net migration gain (Biddle and Taylor, Indigenous ‘peoples’ interests in inherent and 2009). As we have seen the Indigenous popula- proprietary rights that are manifest in the many tion of Australia is already highly urbanised forms of native title settlement and agreement- (76%) and is one of the most urbanised Indig- making that increasingly exist for incorporated enous populations in the world. While this is land-holding groups (Tehan et al., 2006). Nor set to increase, Indigenous people will remain does it reflect the widespread and associated con- more widely dispersed than the population as figurations of post-classical Indigenous social a whole ranging from inner metropolitan organisation that Sutton (2003, 209–211) refers suburbs to the remotest parts of the continent. to as ‘families of polity’. These he identifies as This produces an unusually diverse range of cognatic descent groups that ‘form major struc- residential circumstances and variable opportu- tural elements of public life in Aboriginal nities and constraints for social and economic society’ and that are of ‘enduring and central participation. importance to the conduct of Aboriginal busi- ness’ (Sutton 2003: 210). They enable larger Conclusion groupings into tribal units or language groups From the point of view of geographic analysis, and one current manifestation is evident in the Australian postcolonial demography is an impor- extent of application for native title determina-
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers 298 Geographical Research • August 2011 • 49(3):286–300 tion. As such, they provide the means by which REFERENCES Indigenous peoples express collective identities ABS, 1998: Experimental Projections of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population, 1996 to 2006, Cat. No. and seek to negotiate for their needs and aspira- 3231.0, ABS, Canberra. tions including fundamental issues of recogni- Ah Kit, J., 2004: Why do we always plan for the past? tion, inclusion and economic opportunity (Tehan Engaging Aboriginal people in regional development. et al., 2006, 3). Interestingly, the 2008 National Paper presented at the Sustainable Economic Growth for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Regional Australia (SEGRA) 8th National Conference, Alice Springs, 7th September, 2004. Survey indicated that fully 62% of the Indig- Altman, J.C., 2010: What future for remote Indigenous enous population identified with a clan or lan- Australia? Economic hybridity and the neoliberal turn. guage group, a figure that was markedly up from In Altman, J.C. and Hinkson, M. (eds) Culture Crisis: 53% in the equivalent 2002 survey. In effect, the Anthropology and Politics in Aboriginal Australia. UNSW Press, Sydney, 259–281. Indigenous cultural map is vastly different from Altman, J.C., 2011: Diritti fondiari indigeni e sviluppo’ that imposed by the ABS (Arthur and Morphy, [Indigenous land rights and development]. Dialoghi Inter- 2005) and formal statistical geographies are nazionali – Città nel mondo 14, 93–107. unlikely to provide a demography of Indigenous Altman, J.C., Buchanan, G. and Larsen, L., 2007: The envi- polities that have rights and interests in particular ronmental significance of the Indigenous estate: natural resource management as economic development in remote places. Australia. CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 286, Centre for While a role remains for postcolonial demog- Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian raphy (Rowse, 2009), the challenge for social National University, Canberra. science and for public debate is to move beyond Arthur, W. and Morphy, F. (eds), 2005: Macquarie Atlas of Indigenous Australia: Culture and Society Through Space conventional classification and recognise more and Time. The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, Sydney. ethnographically informed geographies of Indig- Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2002: Housing and enous peoples that are reflective of the demand Infrastructure in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander for customised statistics now being expressed Communities, Australia, 2001, Cat No. 4710.0, ABS, by representative groups such as the Anindily- Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2007: ABS Directions akwa Land Council, Thamarrurr Incorporated, in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Statistics, Cat No. Fitzroy Futures Forum, Nyamba Buru Yawuru 4700.0, ABS, Canberra. Ltd, Mirriuwung-Gajerong Corporation, and Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2008a: Population the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Characteristics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aus- tralians 2006, Cat. No. 4713.0, ABS, Canberra. Nations, to name just a few. All of these entities Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2008b: Information are now institutional players who seek to estab- Paper: An Introduction to Socio-Economic Indexes for lish their own representations of sociality, includ- Areas (SEIFA), 2006. Cat. No. 2039.0, ABS, Canberra. ing that of diaspora, and they see opportunities Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2009a: Experimental and constraints in pursuit of goals that they are Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 1991 to 2021, Cat. No. 3238.0, ABS, beginning to define and that can be quite dif- Canberra. ferent from those determined by governments. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2009b: Population In the post-land rights development era, the Estimates: Concepts, Sources and Methods, Cat. No. problem for Indigenous leaders is not a failure to 3228.0.55.001, ABS, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2009c: Australian recognise predicament, it is a need for support in Demographic Statistics, June Quarter 2009, Cat. No. charting self-determined ways out of it. Consis- 3101.0, ABS, Canberra. tent with articles 18, 19, and 23 of the United Baum, S., Stimson, R., O’Connor, K., Mullins, P. and Davis, Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous R., 1999: Community Opportunity and Vulnerability Peoples (United Nations, 2008), and in line with in Australia’s Cities and Towns: Characteristics, Patters and Implications. University of Queensland Press, for emerging practice (Pereira et al., 2009; Walling the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, et al., 2009; Morphy, 2010b), this requires a Brisbane. decolonisation of information processes (Shaw Baum, S., O’Connor, K. and Stimson, R., 2005: Fault Lines et al., 2006). Exposed: Advantage and Disadvantage across Australia’s Settlement System. Monash University e-Press, Melbourne. Baum, S., Mitchell, W. and Han, J.H., 2008: Socio-economic NOTE performance across Australia’s non-metropolitan func- 1. Discrete Indigenous communities are defined by the Aus- tional economic regions. Australasian Journal of Regional tralian Bureau of Statistics as, ‘a geographic location, Studies 14, 215–249. bounded by physical or cadastral (legal) boundaries, and Biddle, N., 2009: The geography and demography of Indig- inhabited or intended to be inhabited predominantly by enous migration: insights for policy and planning. CAEPR Indigenous people, with housing or infrastructure that is Working Paper No. 58, Centre for Aboriginal Economic either owned or managed on a community basis’ (ABS, Policy Research, The Australian National University, 2002). Canberra.
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers J. Taylor: Postcolonial Transformation of the Australian Indigenous Population 299
Biddle, N. and Taylor, J., 2009: Indigenous population pro- protection and Indigenous values. Geographical Research jections, 2006–2031: planning for growth. CAEPR 48, 342–358. Working Paper No. 56, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Hunter, B.H. and Taylor, J., 2002: An overview of the costs of Policy Research, The Australian National University, indigenous unemployment. In Saunders, P. and Taylor, R. Canberra. (eds) The Price of Prosperity: The Economic and Social Biddle, N., Taylor, J. and Yap, M., 2009: Are the gaps Costs of Unemployment. UNSW Press, Sydney, 109–134. closing? Regional trends and forecasts of Indigenous Hunter, B.H. and Taylor, J., 2004: Indigenous employment employment. Australian Journal of Labour Economics 12, forecasts: Implications for reconciliation. Agenda 11, 179– 263–281. 192. Bloom, D.E. and Williamson, J.G., 1998: Demographic tran- Jackson, N., 2008: Educational attainment and the (growing) sitions and economic miracles in emerging Asia. World importance of age structure: Indigenous and non- Bank Economic Review 12, 419–465. Indigenous Australians. Journal of Population Research Brown, D., Taylor, J. and Bell, M., 2008: The demography of 25, 223–242. desert Australia. The Rangeland Journal 30, 29–43. Johns, G., 2009: No Job No House: An Economically Strate- Buckmaster, L. and Thomas, M., 2009: Social Inclusion and gic Approach to Remote Aboriginal Housing. The Menzies Social Citizenship: Towards a Truly Inclusive Society, Par- Research Centre, Canberra. liamentary Library Research Paper 23, October 2009, no. Jones, G., 2004: The demography of disadvantage. Journal of 8, 2009–10: 12. Retrieved: 14 January 2011 from
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers 300 Geographical Research • August 2011 • 49(3):286–300
Public Health. National Academy Press, Washington D.C, Taylor, J., 2004: Social Indicators for Aboriginal Gover- 79–103. nance: Insights from the Thamarrurr Region, Northern Pereira, N., de, O.M., Santos, R.V., Welch, J.R., Souza, L.G. Territory. ANU E Press, Canberra. and Coimbra, C.E.A. Jr., 2009: Demography, territory and Taylor, J., 2008: Indigenous peoples and indicators of well- identity of Indigenous peoples in Brazil: the Xavante being: Australian perspectives on United Nations global Indians and the 2000 Brazilian census. Human Organiza- frameworks. Social Indicators Research 87, 111–126. tion 68, 166–180. Taylor, J., 2009: Indigenous demography and public policy in Peterson, N. and Long, J., 1986: Australian Territorial Orga- Australia: population or peoples? Journal of Population nization: A Band Perspective. Oceania Monographs, Uni- Research 26, 115–130. versity of Sydney, Sydney. Taylor, J., 2010: Demography as destiny: schooling, work Phillip, A., 1787: Governor Phillip’s instructions 25 April and Aboriginal population change at Wadeye. CAEPR 1787. Resource document. National Archives of Australia. Working Paper No. 64, Centre for Aboriginal Economic (www document). Retrieved: 6 December 2010 from Policy Research, The Australian National University,
© 2011 The Author Geographical Research © 2011 Institute of Australian Geographers