Whatev, Minotaur.

You're right though: re-identification has been a far, far bigger contribution to population growth than the usual means, i.e. births - deaths = population rise.

In Tasmania, the Indigenous population rose by 3945 from 2011 to 2016. Indigenous births during that time totaled 460. Mortality over that period may have reached 1,000, so 'other means of increasing population' besides births may have been as high as 4,500, or more than 20 % rise on the 2011 figures.

The point is that re-identification (and identification) make it impossible to make accurate estimates of actual growth through births, and any other demographic calculation. Yet I'm sure we will get some idiot, perhaps permanent on a very good salary, prattling about a 18 % growth in population - or even that the figures were some sort of under-estimate of actual numbers.

No: births contributed about 6 % to that five-year population growth (i.e. barely 1 % p.a.), and identification about 11 %. Without that identification factor, the Indigenous population would be making up less and less of the total Australian population.

Joe

Dr Nicolas Biddle, of the Centre for Aboriginal Policy Research (CAEPR) has contributed this article on the 2016 Census:

https://cass.anu.edu.au/news/news/20170629/census-2016-what%E2%80%99s-changed-indigenous-australians

He hasn't noticed yet that birth numbers are relatively declining, and what this may mean in the near future. That's okay, he's busy earning his living, give him time.

Hi Joe, thanks for the link and it makes for some interesting reading. You have found a very pertinent point with the increased number of people 'identifying' masking the lower birth rate. In that regard, the increase in Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander people is not actually a 'population' increase and I think that is a very worthy point of discussion.

As one who been intricately involved in Aboriginal issues for some time now I believe there are a number of reasons as to why many are identifying 'now' but financial gain is not high on the list. There are not any great benefits to any individual in identifying as Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander. In fact, those who do identify and haven't done so before are often treated with scorn and disdain. And will often be unable to access any services unless they really do some in-depth and verifiable research that establishes their bona fides.

In my experience, most people identify as there is now a feeling of pride to have ancestral links to some of the most ancient cultures on the planet. It is almost a reflection of how people once denied they had convict ancestors but now embrace them.

However, if someone merely ticks a box does that really make them Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? The census does not ask if people are embracing cultural practices, finding out about Aboriginal history beyond ancestral links or at least trying to. In that respect the census question is a shallow one full of ambiguity.

On a final note for now...regarding the increase in Tasmania of people identifying as Aboriginal it is entirely possible that some of that can be attributed to those who are not Tasmanian but moved to the state in the previous 4 years. It is interesting that in my field of Aboriginal tertiary education a significant number of those accessing the program were from interstate. That indicates it would be folly to simply put down the increase in numbers (in Tasmania) to simply more people 'identifying'.

Hi Minotaur,

Yes, I agree with you, there's not much mileage in claiming Indigenous status. My poor kids are finding that out the hard way: as mainstream graduates who are Indigenous they get parked in the 'Indigenous' category of jobs, like it or not, with all the pitfalls of having to negotiate carefully with often incompetent managers.

What you say about people moving to Tasmania probably applies to the entire eastern coast from Cairns down to Melbourne and around to Adelaide, maybe down to Perth too. Victoria seems to have special attractions for uni students. I suppose the point is that people are choosing to move to urban areas and to pursue mainstream careers when they can, and good on them.

And hey, I apologize for my intemperate remarks before, sometimes I'm an idiot :) Best wishes.

Cheers,

Joe

No worries Joe. I also agree with you about the mobility of Indigenous people being applicable pretty much across the board. I believe that will increase and in particular kids from remote communities will increase their presence in metropolitan universities and other institutions. Hopefully the cycle of disdain for education is abating and many more Indigenous graduates will gain their degrees, get some experience and then put back into their communities and show that it can be done!

Have a good one Joe.

Hi Minotaur,

Yes, just had a knee op. Bloody painful. Yeah, there are only three ways for the population to actually increase: migration, births and identification. Of course, because people are living longer, that effectively 'adds' to the population too. Migration is negligible, although it might be surprising to know how many Australian Indigenous people are living overseas.

So births and identification are really the only two ways to boost population. I would say that, in the past five years, according to the 2016 Census, mortality may have taken 30-40,000 people, so the rise of 101,000 was a gross gain of around 140,000. But births made up, say, 74,000 of those. So identification - 66,000 give or take - made up almost half of the population gain.

If so, then the net 'natural gain', the births, kicked up the 'natural growth' by only about 35,000, over the 548,000 of the 2011 Census, about 1.2 % p.a. That would be lower than the net growth rate in the Australian population, although probably higher if overseas immigration is taken out of the equation.

Still working on it. By the way, that 'identification' factor has probably contributed much more than half of all Indigenous population growth since 1971. Working on that too :)

Regards,

Joe