The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Indigenous population growth: have we had it wrong all this time? > Comments

Indigenous population growth: have we had it wrong all this time? : Comments

By Joe Lane, published 19/1/2016

Have there always been more Aboriginal Australians than earlier censuses counted?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Indigenous people have been counted in every Commonwealth Census, since the first one in 1911 recorded 19,939 of them. They were not counted for the purposes of allocating seats in the House of Representatives, but that was not the census. Paradoxically, this section of the Constitution prevented states like Queensland, in which Aborigines did not have the vote, from getting more seats and states like Victoria, in which they did have the vote, from getting fewer.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 9:00:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The observations made in this article are close to the mark, though there are some additional explanations that are pertinent.

In my view there are serious defects in the way the ABS collects Indigenous population statistics.

Firstly the Indigenous census question is incomplete.

The question on the Census form only asks whether each person is of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin. It does not ask whether the person IDENTIFIES as indigenous, which is a key issue for persons of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous origin. Consequently, the question will tend to enumerate all persons of Indigenous origin irrespective of their actual identity despite the fact that we officially have an official definition of Indigenous, that requires such persons to be of Indigenous origin, Identify as indigenous and be recognised as such by the community.

The actual Census question changed twice before 1986. This had some effect on the Census counts.

There is also a big issue related to inter-marriage because the majority of the Indigenous population have non-Indigenous partners with the vast majority of their children identifying as Indigenous. See http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03029475#page-1
Posted by Bren, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 9:10:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In my day admitting to having some aboriginal blood was considered shameful, and those mixed race kids were often ostracised. My father's mother had white hair and handsome features including high cheekbones; spent lots of time looking in the mirror and applying lots of white and pink powder. Moreover I never saw her go out without gloves.

She emphasised her scottish heritage with almost fanatical zeal. She played an accordion and new all the scottish tunes. My curly dark haired father learned to play the pipes and wear a kilt, a sporon and a glengarry in the traditional manner. Och aye the noo.

On my mother's side only Aunty Pat presented with any tell tale signs, such as fizzy hair, brown eyes and a nice tan. Her sister, Aunty Dot was a blue eyed blond with milky white skin. Uncle Dinny also had a nice tan. When I'm exposed to the sun parts, of me tan rapidly, first, and present as rather large freckles, while other parts burn.

I understand there's a confirming DNA test for aboriginality and or celtic heritage, and indeed all other races, given six degrees of difference throughout the entire human race!

And given the difficulty of recognizing aboriginality in mixed race folk, I would want their punery claims verified with a DNA test if they want to claim aboriginality or any associated claimed benefit.

In American indian culture, those with less than 25% indian blood are not recognised as indian, but rather as white or spanish or whatever. And given established precedent something we could should follow?

And yes, given the prevailing attitudes and often quite hostile discrimination on all sides, black and white! It would come as no surprise to have it confirmed, we got it so very wrong?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 9:13:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 'increase' is most likely due to the fact that anyone who 'idenifies' as aboriginal these days can be one. Dad, a white man with four different ethnic - backgrounds, all white, and Mum, is perhaps quarter aboriginal, and voila, we have another welfare-seeking 'aborigine'.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 9:16:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep!

These figures tell us when it became advantageous to be from a "disadvantaged" group, such as aboriginal.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 11:39:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttn: The 'increase' is most likely due to the fact that anyone who 'idenifies' as aboriginal these days can be one. Dad, a white man with four different ethnic - backgrounds, all white, and Mum, is perhaps quarter aboriginal, and voila, we have another welfare-seeking 'aborigine'.

Yes, one of my distant cousins did it. He divorced his wife of many years. A beautiful & very intelligent woman. He married the skinniest, drunkest ugly little Aboriginal woman you ever saw. An absolute sensation in the Townsville Mall. He then identified as an Aboriginal. He got one of these "Housing Loans at about 3% interest & a new car at Aboriginal Interest & never made any payments. They were paid by Aboriginal & Islander Affairs. All he had to do was keep up a supply of Goonies to his new relatives.

We worked in the Railways together & he often used to joke about it. Working a loop hole? Fair enough.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 1:14:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article Joe. Several years ago, I forget how many, I made a calculation based on the increase in Aboriginals from one census to the next. Assuming a geometric progression, it turned out that by the end of this century, every one in Australia would be an Aboriginal.

Your comment "Those of us who have been expecting continued rapid Indigenous population growth may be badly disappointed." is somewhat puzzling.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 2:20:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whether or not there are wider benefits to identifying as Aboriginal, there is no benefit whatsoever from identifying oneself as Aboriginal in the census. So the increase in self-identification is much more likely to be due to diminishing racism and embracing of Aboriginal identity; a trend to be welcomed.

Joe raises some interesting and relevant points, though, about the policy challenges posed if the Aboriginal population growth figures do not actually reflect additional people. As I recall there are also serious concerns about the quality of data on aboriginal death rates, too, which could also affect the accuracy of Joe’s method.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 2:32:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Yes, one of my distant cousins did it.... He married the skinniest, drunkest ugly little Aboriginal woman you ever saw. An absolute sensation in the Townsville Mall. He then identified as an Aboriginal.//

Really? Marrying somebody confers their ethnicity on you? Awesome... I'm off to find a Scotswoman to marry. But before I leave, could you explain how ethnicity is contagious rather than hereditary? Because I always though ethnicity was something you got from your parents rather than your spouse.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 3:11:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JB: He then identified as an Aboriginal.//

TL: could you explain how ethnicity is contagious rather than hereditary?

Apparently you only have to identify with Aboriginal people & their culture & you can claim it is so. Don't ask me why. I don't know, but apparently it's true. You just have to get someone to vouch for you.

It worked for him. He is also a cousin of Shady Lane too. (ex Qld Poli) ;-)
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 3:48:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Jayb,

I've never been called 'Shady lane'; an PE teacher at Wagga called me Melody, and at Darwin High I was called Strawberry; I didn't understand why for a year or so, but then I lived a sheltered life.

And yes, I've come across non-Indigenous people married to Indigenous people who, in good faith, assumed it meant that they had become Indigenous. There's nowt so queer as folk.

Hi David,

In answer to your puzzlement, how to explain the non-rapid growth in numbers: if you check out the second Table, not the First, it makes sense. I certainly, and rather smugly, assumed rapid population growth into the distant future, when everybody would have Indigenous ancestry, so this re-assessment of the figures is very shattering really. As well as the composition of that 'underlying population'.

Hi Rhian,

Yes, I'm sceptical about the mortality figures: 2300-2,500 per year seems a bit low to me. When we lived up on one community on the Murray, I roughly calculated from funerals that about a quarter of the population would be gone by forty. Forty, Christ, there's nobody left now who was my age. Entire families gone. Half a dozen people who were little kids then are gone now, my son's best mate included, I haven't told him yet.

Anyway, we'll see at the next Census.

As for identity, there was (maybe still is) an intellectual (ha ha) movement ten or twenty years ago, in which some whites, immersed deep in the 'culture', considered they were actually more Indigenous than Indigenous people. Seriously. I hope that some of them even got subincised.

Thanks to all comments: I was hoping for more viciously hostile ones, but you take what you can get.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 4:16:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indigenous population growth.
My best man used to say he was big and dark skinned as his great grandfather was Spanish.Curious because he was from the Mallee.
A man in Darwin was a life long friend who suddenly brought a big home.I asked if he had won the lottery.No he had obtained a low interest loan as he was Aboriginal.He used to hang out with the white kids at school.
Both these stories represent a time in Australia's history when Aboriginals became European because of the lightness of their skin.
It is pleasing to see people of Aboriginality being proud of their ancestry.
The problem today is that there are recent arrivals from India who are claiming benefits as indigenous Australians and therefore distorting the indigenous population.
Posted by BROCK, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 6:59:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I really don't see any benefit at all in 'identifying' as Aboriginal, unless you really do have close Aboriginal blood relatives and are rightly proud of that.

Look around and tell me if the vast majority of Indigenous people are living a fabulous life on these supposed perks of being Aboriginal or not?
They mustn't be doing that well as far as I can see...
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 8:10:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline,

You seem to have stock replies for everything. So far in 'de Nile' that you would have a permanent hyacinth garland. That saves thinking and looking for evidence.

See here,

http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/news/2006/aust20mar06.html
<Business of blood lines
There is pride in discovering an Aboriginal family background, but some people lie about it to gain undeserved benefits, reports Tony Koch....>

Tony Koch
http://www.tony-koch.com/
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 9:56:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it the Indigenous people's fault if some Caucasian people pass themselves off as Aboriginal in order to secure a low interest home loan?
The stupid people in these cases are the Government who allow this to happen without more rigorous testing.

Again I say, I really can't see many Indigenous people living the high life because of these so-called benefits that no one else gets?
In fact, it seems they have the worst standards of living, the worst health outcomes, and the earliest deaths of all Australians.
Oh yes please, can I get those 'benefits' too then...
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 20 January 2016 1:18:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So I guess step one is to identify what indigenous actually stands for. We know its for full bloods but is it then considered on the mix of 1/8th, 1/16th 1/32nd or 1/64th.
If one parent is indigenous and the other not, what are the kids?
Say one parent is a 1/32nd indigenous, does that make the kids indigenous.
The indigenous card is often pulled to secure tax payer funding, the likes of abstudy being an example.
Who knows!
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 20 January 2016 6:10:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SOL: I really can't see many Indigenous people living the high life because of these so-called benefits that no one else gets?

You are right there Suze. No it's the educated ones who run the agencies who take advantage of all the loop holes for a tremendous advantage. They do dole out the entitlements to their constituents occasionally to keep them in line & to keep their job. Like, if an indigenous person goes on a bender & doesn't pay the rent for a month the Aboriginal & Islander Affairs will pick up the Tab. The Aboriginal children get taken to school by Taxi twice a day. But that's mostly used to pick up a carton or a Goony & deliver it to the house. A&IA picks up the Tab, also if they have to go the Hospital etc.

A lot of people close their eyes when they see this happening. They say they can't do anything about it. They would be declared a racist if they complained.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 20 January 2016 7:57:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the more remote areas, there is very little inter-marriage between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, but in the cities, the inter-marriage rate is above 90 %. As each generation grows up and marries, that is bound to have massive impacts on the sense of solidarity of Indigenous people.

In the 'South', especially in the cities, anything remotely like traditional culture is 100-150 years in the past. The last old bloke who knew the 140 clan names of the Ngarrindjeri, and therefore their countries, died 75 years ago. The last initiations there took place, in a very abbreviated - overnight - form, rather than the series of three six-months' stints between every hair being pulled out, [in the abbreviated form, the hairs were burnt off, not pulled out], occurred in about 1882.

Possibly people down that way are completely unaware that there used to be eight dialects of their language, (and that the language had more than 100 words in it), and seem to be unaware of the original boundaries of the 'nation': a friend asked what was the Ngarrindjeri name for Murray Bridge; I said that it might have been just outside of Ngarrindjeri country, and was actually in Ngangaruku country. He was furious. Another friend lost.

'Culture' is a sort of surrogate for 'ancestry', 'genealogy', 'relations', 'group', even 'race'. During the Hindmarsh Island scam, efforts were made to think up ceremonies, something that looked traditional: one little dance was accompanied by the traditional chant "Ngarrindjeri ! Ngarrindjeri ! Oy ! Oy ! Oy !" Quite stirring.

Culture is what people do, how they relate to each other, not what they have in some book somewhere. How does one live ? Now ? That's culture. And it's been that way for many, many generations now. What gets passed down is what people think is relevant and useful. If they don't think so, then they won't. It's not rocket science.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 20 January 2016 9:27:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's funny,

Last person that raised this subject got convicted of hate speech under 18c.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 20 January 2016 10:26:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse,

As you say, "Is it the Indigenous people's fault if some Caucasian people pass themselves off as Aboriginal in order to secure a low interest home loan?"

No, of course not. Such benefits should be restricted to anybody in need, including Indigenous people IF they are in such need.

Thirty-odd years ago, I did an income study of a community where we had lived in the decade before. I found, to my horror, that the median household income there was equal to the Australian average. Don't confuse image with reality, Suse.

Hi SM,

I don't have the slightest problem with blue-eyed blonds identifying as Indigenous, IF they are genuine, IF they know their own families, IF most of the relations who they are aware of are Indigenous, IF they have kept in contact with them. Not necessarily with an entire community (nobody does that), but at least with their own relations.

My understanding is that some of the people involved in the situation you refer to would have had trouble doing that.

One surprise in those adjusted stats is that, even though the birth-rate is very low, and declining, the young-adult age-groups look like remaining very numerous for perhaps another twenty years. So, if anything, the rate of growth in university commencements will rise, rather than fall, from the current 7 % p.a., and flow onto graduations at around 46-50 % of commencements. So even a hundred thousand Indigenous graduates by 2030 is possible.

On the other hand, I have a feeling that many young people with some Indigenous ancestry, but little or no contact with their relations, will forgo ticking the box 'Indigenous' on the next Census forms. Perhaps it's already happening, which is why the birth-rate in the 2011 Census seems so low. Ask a proper demographer :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 20 January 2016 10:52:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth (Joe), "When we lived up on one community on the Murray, I roughly calculated from funerals that about a quarter of the population would be gone by forty"

From recent reunions at two primary and secondary schools I attended, those numbers are representative of populations in some country areas and not just indigenous, although the indigenous death rate could be somewhat higher.

There are all sorts of contributing factors.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 20 January 2016 11:25:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

So you are happy with eventually 50% of the population having as little as 1% aboriginal blood having priority access to university, welfare and health care?

Sounds like a caste system to me.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 21 January 2016 9:18:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi SM,

No, of course not, and I don't think it will happen like that. It's possible that much of that extra 'underlying population' are working people, or are the children or grandchildren of working people, keeping out of the way of government agencies, and therefore relatively unknown to them - seizing opportunities and getting on with life.

If anything, what might happen is that those grandchildren and great-grandchildren will tend to see themselves as 'of Indigenous descent', along with all their other 'descents', and not tick the Indigenous box at all. We may see that happening at this next Census, in August.

What worries me is that two distinct populations are crystallising:

- one mainly in the 'North' and centre, welfare-dependent, poorly educated, with no likelihood of employment, flush with money but with too many opportunities to blow it: grog, fast food, ice, etc.;

- and another population in the cities, about as educated as Anglo working class people if not better, usually work-oriented, not too badly off, and getting paler and less attached to 'community' or 'identity' with every new generation.

We'll see.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 21 January 2016 10:10:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Looking at those adjusted figures, what struck me first was the likelihood that there were many more Indigenous people in Australia, back in 1971 - maybe three times as many as the official figures.

I was suspicious of these figures, since my main idea is that it's been in the cities that the 'underlying population' - the 'hidden population' - was living below the radar.

So I had another look at the populations back in 1971 of New South Wales (as the most urbanised) and the Northern Territory (the most 'traditional-oriented' as we would say politely these days). In1971, the populations in those places was about the same: 23,873 to 23,381. Even then, surprisingly, there were officially more Indigenous people in NSW than in the NT, by the way.

By 2011, the official figures stood at:

NSW - 172,624; a rise of an average of more than 5 % p.a.;

NT - 56,776; an average rise of 2.5 % p.a.

But once those figures have been ceude3ly adjusted, working back from 2011, the figures for 1971 are very different:

NSW - 87,000.

NT - 45,850.

So, according to these figures, the figures for NSW doubled between 1971 and 2011, while the figures for the NT rose by barely a quarter - in forty years. Part of the difference may be explained by a couple of factors:

* inter-state migration - Indigenous people moving to NSW, especially from southern Queensland and Victoria;

* extremely high levels of inter-marriage which, if the birth-rate is maintained, boosts population rapidly. But I suspect that the birth-rate of inter-marrying couples has not been anywhere near as high as it could have been.

The upshot is that Indigenous population growth in the NT is extremely low; population growth in NSW is higher but still has barely averaged 2 % p.a. in forty years.

Altogether,

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 24 January 2016 10:08:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[continued]

Altogether, the total Indigenous population may not have risen, on average, more than about 1.5 % p.a., and maybe by only 1.33% p.a., for the past forty years. And growth is slowing down.

Any assumptions of huge population rises in the next few decades may be just pipe-dreams. The reality, as in so many other aspects of Indigenous activity, is that no great bounty is going to drop out of the sky.

Joe
www.firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 24 January 2016 10:11:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe, the bounty has been dropping out of the sky for 50 years, but the dumb ones haven't taken advantage of it.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 25 January 2016 8:14:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The upshot is that Indigenous population growth in the NT is extremely low"
If the silly drunk buggers stopped killing one another, it might rise a bit. We don't hear about that down south.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 25 January 2016 8:18:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David,

I don't know what you mean by 'the dumb ones' - working people don't need - and have never needed - to 'take advantage of' welfare benefits', but the welfare population certainly has, and have done right from the beginning with gusto.

In fact, I would suggest that there has always been, since settlement, those two Indigenous approaches to the new situations presented by settlement - either sit down and live off the rations etc. provided, OR look around for work and make your way in the new circumstances.

And of course, within a generation or so, whether in NSW or in SA, the new 'economies' had taken the place of hunter-gathering to a very large extent. Within two generations of such fundamental change, much of the traditional culture and economic activity had been forgotten and replaced by a more-or-less 'European' economy, way of living, 'culture' for both workers AND welfare recipients.

So maybe there have always been two populations. The working population just got on with business, worked, accumulated, looked after their kids, and provided the foundations for following generations of working Indigenous people.

And those descendants were more likely to be the people who seized opportunities after the War to work in the numerous infrastructure projects, move into towns, to provide their kids with decent education, and put them on their feet for the future. The great bulk of the forty thousand graduates can trace their ancestry back to those workers, I'm sure.

The welfare population has always been a bit casual about all that. They have bequeathed their 'culture' of skiving and boozing and brawling and putting their hands out unto later generations. And they have been the Indigenous people that policy has focussed on for the last sixty years. The working people haven't need such policy.

The upshot is that that working populations has always been there, getting on with life. But the squeaky wheel etc., has been the focus of policy since the beginning. Two populations.

Joe
www.firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 25 January 2016 8:51:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that sums it up pretty well Joe.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 25 January 2016 9:59:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David,

I was just looking at the NT Census figures going back to 1971, and trying to adjust them, taking into account realistic figures for mortality. Assuming low or moderate levels of mortality, the NT Indigenous population may have risen by a quarter, in 40 years. But I was a bit horrified to calculate that, assuming high levels of mortality, it's possible that the Indigenous population has not risen at all.

There's something wrong too with the 2011 figures for the 0 - 4 yr-old age-group, somehow those numbers dropped by 10 % from 2006, from 6601 down to 6118.

Meanwhile, Mick Gooda has written today about the Government's Healthy Welfare Card: "Many of our people are being forced to revisit the past trauma of income management and stolen wages."

Memo to Gooda: welfare payments are not wages; they are benefits for people in need.

People on this scheme will have 80 % of their benefits put on a credit card. Doe anybody NOT use credit cards these days ? Actually, if I was a pensioner on a remote settlement, I would plead with the agencies to have ALL my benefits put on a credit card, so that some sponger couldn't stand over me and demand all of the 20 % available in cash.

But Gooda goes into battle for his client group, the spongers: some of them, he says, will he left with as little as $60 per week of their benefits. Oh, as well as the other $240 for essentials, like very cheap rent. And of course, royalty payments, mineral and from conservation parks, are exempt, by the way. So there is still plenty of cash sloshing around the settlements.

Gooda touches on addictions and suggests, thoughtfully, that 'serious addiction requires thoughtful treatment rather than punitive measures and silver bullets.'

Thoughtful treatment .... such as, Mick ?

It's fascinating how the elites reach over working people to cosy up to the welfare population. And never, come up with any 'thoughtful treatment' of their own. But that seems to be the mark of many Indigenous 'leaders'.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 25 January 2016 10:05:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gooda touches on addictions and suggests, thoughtfully, that 'serious addiction requires thoughtful treatment rather than punitive measures and silver bullets.'

Needs cleaning up. <thoughtfully, that 'serious addiction requires silver bullets.'>
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 25 January 2016 1:22:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HI Jayb,

Give Gooda time, he'll come up with something really substantial.

Nah, just kidding :)

There is an interesting article on PNAS today about population growth in the foraging economies of North America twelve thousand years ago, and in the first agricultural economies in the Middle East at about the same time - the researchers claim to have found that growth was roughly similar, at 0.04 % p.a., or doubling in 1800 years:

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/931.abstract.html?etoc

In the abstract, it isn't pointed out that North Americans had only just got to the continent from Asia, or at least the current-US part of it, before spreading further south down to the bottom of South America, across a total of twenty or thirty million square kilometres of human-empty country teeming with wild-life. In other words, colonising two entire continents.

So those agricultural societies were building up on already-existing populations; the foraging societies across the Americas were colonising that vast territory. And both types of societies were growing at about the same rate. Until American colonisation reached its 'saturation point' ?

Obviously the same process happened here in Australia. So one wonders, at what time did population across Australia reach a 'saturation point' ? And what effects would prolonged drought have on those numbers, regionally ? Was there a sort of 'steady state' range of population, from the best of times to the worst of times ? How long did population take to recover from long droughts, and to re-colonise devastated areas ?

Fascinating stuff !

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 27 January 2016 8:52:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the lead up to Federation the reasoning behind not counting was both simple and logical.

The proposed states had no idea how many A* lived within their states, even less idea if those who wandered within, and across, state borders, as well as across electorate boundaries, may have been double, triple, quadruple enrolled and counted..

States largely trusted each other, however this was to large an unknown.

Not knowing for sure how many transient A* listed on voting rolls, or how many times, created far to serious consequences in terms of House of Representative seats.

Simplest solution was not just not count them.

There were A* voters already on the rolls, however they were known, and not wandering around all over the place.

Exclusion was to prevent enrolments of A*'s wandering with no real interest in voting, to prevent inaccurate electorates, and vote rigging.

.
Posted by polpak, Sunday, 7 February 2016 8:03:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Polpak,

Before Federation, Aboriginal people in every State were counted if they got rations, or came to the notice in some way of the authorities. In SA, the annual Protector's Report contained a section on population, on missions, stations, and elsewhere.

Obviously, those people out of touch with colonial society, still living a traditional life, out beyond even the attractions of a ration system, couldn't be counted because their numbers weren't known. Voting in State elections was probably not high on their agenda.

States were often quite jealous of each other's aspirations, and suspicious of how other States might pad their Aboriginal numbers, especially WA and Queensland, and thereby be entitled to more seats in a Federal parliament. So they agreed simply not to count Aboriginal numbers in calculating entitlement to seats. So Aboriginal affairs remained a State responsibility, not a Federal responsibility, until the 1967 Referendum [actually, much of that responsibility had already been taken over by the Federal government or given over by some States, SA for example: pensions, child endowment, etc.].

It seems that until very late, around 1950, there was still an official assumption that there were tens of thousands of 'myalls', wild blackfellas, traditional people, out beyond the reaches of 'civilization' - but it is very likely that their numbers were barely in the thousands across the country even then. In the fifties and sixties, even in the most remote areas, along the WA-NT and WA-SA borders, when missions and settlements were set up, they gathered in barely a thousand people.

Then the 1967 Referendum; then the extension of the right to vote across the entire country, and in Federal elections, even in the most remote locations.

Joe.
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 7 February 2016 10:40:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy