Aboriginal Australian identity, sometimes known as Aboriginality, is the perception of oneself as Aboriginal Australian, or the recognition by others of that identity. Aboriginal Australians are one of two Indigenous Australian groups of peoples, the other being Torres Strait Islanders. There has also been discussion about the use of "Indigenous" vs "Aboriginal", or more specific group names (which are many and based on varied criteria), such as Murri or Noongar (demonyms), Kaurna or Yolngu (and subgroups), based on language, or a clan name. Usually preference of the person(s) in question is used, if known.
The term "Aboriginal" was coined by white settlers in Australia in the 1830s, after they began to adopt the term "Australian" to define themselves. No real attempt to define the term legally was made until the 1980s, despite use of the term twice in the 1901 Constitution of Australia, before these were removed following the 1967 referendum. Various legal and administrative definitions have been used over the years. A leading judgment by Justice Brennan in the 1992 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) case (which relates to Indigenous of the Torres Strait exclusively) stated that an Indigenous identity of a person depends on a three-part test: biological descent from the Indigenous people; recognition of the person's membership by that person; and recognition by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people. This is still in use today.
Various factors affect Aboriginal people's self-identification as Aboriginal, including a growing pride in culture, solidarity in a shared history of dispossession (including the Stolen Generations), and, among those are fair-skinned, an increased willingness to acknowledge their ancestors, once considered shameful. Aboriginal identity can be politically controversial in contemporary discourse, among both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Successive censuses have shown those identifying as Indigenous (Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander) at a rate far exceeding the growth of the whole Australian population.
History
A legal historian estimated in 1991 that at least 67 classifications, descriptions or definitions to determine who is an Aboriginal person had been used by governments since white settlement in Australia. Originally published May 2003, see .
1788 – 1980
The term "Aborigine" was coined by white settlers in Australia in the 1830s from ab origine, a Latin phrase meaning "from the very beginning".
Until the 1980s, the sole legal and administrative criterion for inclusion in this category was race, classified according to visible physical characteristics or known ancestors. This was similar to the legal doctrine of partus sequitur ventrum in the American South which had been present from 1662 onward during the colonial era and mandated that a child's status was determined by that of their mothers: if born to Aboriginal mothers, children were considered Aboriginal, regardless of their paternity.
In the era of colonial and post-colonial government, access to basic human rights depended upon your race. If you were a "full-blooded Aboriginal native ... [or] any person apparently having an admixture of Aboriginal blood", a half-caste being the "offspring of an Aboriginal mother and other than Aboriginal father" (but not of an Aboriginal father and other than Aboriginal mother), a "quadroon", or had a "strain" of Aboriginal blood you were forced to live on Reserves or Missions, work for rations, given minimal education, and needed governmental approval to marry, visit relatives or use electrical appliances. (2003) 3(1) Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal 105 accessed 21 November 2016.
The Constitution of Australia, in its original form as of 1901, referred to Aboriginal people twice, but without definition. Section 51(xxvi) gave the Commonwealth parliament a power to legislate with respect to "the people of any race" throughout the Commonwealth, except for people of "the aboriginal race". The purpose of this provision was to give the Commonwealth power to regulate non-white immigrant workers, who would follow work opportunities interstate. The only other reference, Section 127, provided that "aboriginal natives shall not be counted" in reckoning the size of the population of the Commonwealth or any part of it. The purpose of Section 127 was to prevent the inclusion of Aboriginal people in Section 24 determinations of the distribution of House of Representatives seats amongst the states and territories.
The New Deal for Aborigines, announced by the federal government in 1938, divided Aboriginal people into four categories – myalls ("aboriginals in their native state"), semi-detribalised, fully detribalised, and half-caste (mixed race).
Explicit references to Aboriginal people in the constitution were removed by the 1967 referendum. (These amendments altered Section 51(xxvi), and Section 127, having the immediate effect of including Aboriginal people in determinations of population, and also empowering the Federal Parliament to legislate specifically for this racial group.) Since that time, there have been a number of proposals to amend the constitution to specifically mention Indigenous Australians.
1980s: Commonwealth Definition, rise and respect
Between 1981 and 1986, a rise of 42% of people identifying as Aboriginal occurred across Australian census areas (see also separate section below). The rise roughly amount to "68,000 new claims of Aboriginal identity".
In 1988, as part of bicentennial celebrations, Prime Minister Bob Hawke was presented with a statement of Aboriginal political objectives by Galarrwuy Yunupingu and Wenten Rubuntja, in what became known as The Barunga Statement. Among many requests, the Statement called for the Australian government to facilitate "respect for and promotion of our Aboriginal identity, including the cultural, linguistic, religious and historical aspects, and including the right to be educated in our own languages and in our own culture and history".
Legal and administrative definitions since 1980
In 1978, the Cabinet of the Australian Government offered a three-part definition, based on descent, self-identification, and community acceptance. (For the purposes of the Australian Census, the last factor is excluded as impractical.) A definition was proposed by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the Report on a Review of the Administration of the Working Definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Canberra, 1981): "An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 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". The 1981 Report added impetus to the definition, and it was soon adopted by all Government departments for determining eligibility to certain services and benefits. The definition was also adopted by the states, for example in the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. This definition has become known as the "Commonwealth Definition".
The change to Section 51(xxvi) following the 1967 Referendum enabled the Commonwealth parliament to enact laws specifically with respect to Aboriginal peoples as a "race". In the Tasmanian Dam Case of 1983, the High Court of Australia was asked to determine whether Commonwealth legislation, whose application could relate to Aboriginal peopleparts of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) as well as related legislationwas supported by Section 51(xxvi) in its new form. The case concerned an application of legislation that would preserve the cultural heritage of Aboriginal Tasmanians. It was held that Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders, together or separately, and any part of either, could be regarded as a "race" for this purpose. As to the criteria for identifying a person as a member of such a "race", the definition by Justice Deane has become accepted as current law. Deane said:
...By "Australian Aboriginal" I mean, in accordance with what I understand to be the conventional meaning of that term, a person of Aboriginal descent, albeit mixed, who identifies himself as such and who is recognised by the Aboriginal community as an Aboriginal.Justice William Deane in .
While Deane's three-part definition reaches beyond the biological criterion to an individual's self-identification, it has been criticised as continuing to accept the biological criterion as primary. It has been found difficult to apply, both in each of its parts and as to the relations among the parts; biological "descent" has been a fall-back criterion. Full court 43 (1990) 25 FCR 125; (1990) 94 ALR 515 Federal Court of Australia accessed 16 January 2016. The outcome was to fix the Queensland government with responsibility for an "Aboriginal" death in custody, when the deceased was of Aboriginal descent but who had denied being of Aboriginal identity.
A new definition was proposed in the Constitutional Section of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs' Report on a Review of the Administration of the Working Definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Canberra, 1981):
Justice Gerard Brennan in his 1992 leading judgment in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) stated that Aboriginality of a person depends on a tripartite test:
1990s: Legal challenges
The Commonwealth Definition continued to be used administratively and legislatively, notably in the Mabo case, which in 1992 recognised native title in Australia for the first time. However, debate about the definition became heated, particularly in Tasmania, over whether the emphasis should be on identification by self and/or community or by descent. The Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC) emphasised evidence of descent, and started refusing services to people who had previously been identified as Aboriginal. A report commissioned by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) found that people seeking to identify as Aboriginal should satisfy all three criteria, and should provide documentary evidence to show a direct line of ancestry through a family name linking them to traditional Aboriginal society at the time of colonisation of Tasmania. Debate over the issue was also included in three Federal Court judgements, with varying interpretations.
After 1999 ATSIC election, questions were raised about the Aboriginality of many of the 824 voters and some of those who were elected. Debate continued until November 2002, with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which referred the question to the Federal Court. The AAT found that TAC complained that now more than a third of the 30 candidates standing in the election were "white", and called for a boycott.
Other definitions From Aboriginal Australians Eve Fesl, a Gabi-Gabi woman, wrote in the Aboriginal Law Bulletin in 1986: "The word aborigine' refers to an indigenous person of any country. If it is to be used to refer to us as a specific group of people, it should be spelt with a capital 'A', i.e., 'Aborigine'". (1986) 1(20) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 10 Accessed 19 August 2011 Lowitja O'Donoghue, commenting on the prospect of possible amendments to Australia's constitution, said: "I really can't tell you of a time when indigenous became current, but I personally have an objection to it, and so do many other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. ... This has just really crept up on us ... like thieves in the night. ... We are very happy with our involvement with indigenous people around the world, on the international forum ... because they're our brothers and sisters. But we do object to it being used here in Australia." O'Donoghue said that the term Indigenous robbed the traditional owners of Australia of an identity because some non-Aboriginal people now wanted to refer to themselves as Indigenous because they were born there.