Indigenous births make up around five per cent of all births in Australia each year, at around thirteen thousand. Indigenous children make up around five percent of all school-children in Australia. Yet Indigenous people make up barely three per cent of all Australians over twenty. The decline at about eighteen is quite stark.

There has indeed been a marked increase in the number of Indigenous births since about 1980. But this is only a small part of the answer to the puzzle. A much larger component may reflect the impact of migration and the welcoming of refugees. Around two hundred thousand migrants shift to Australia each year primarily for work opportunities. Not too many of them would be young children: most would be at least twenty years old. Australia is probably where most migrants start to have their own children who are, by definition, Australian children. The proportion of children amongst refugees may be higher, but of the current twelve or fifteen thousand refugees coming to Australia each year, the numbers of children would be very low.

In a sense, migrants and refugees are effectively ‘born’ in Australia at the age of twenty or more. So over the last twenty years, while some 240,000 Indigenous children have been born, perhaps four million migrants and refugees have arrived here, but not too many of them would have been under twenty: most of them would have been young adults. In that sense, the Australian population gets a boost across the years of young adult numbers.

The obverse, in relation to the Indigenous population, is that, from twenty or so, their numbers make up a declining share of the total Australian population as it ages – from five percent amongst, say, 15-19-year-olds, to four percent amongst twenty-to-twenty-five-year-olds, three percent amongst older age groups up to about forty and less than two percent in older groups.

In total, although Indigenous children make up five percent of all Australian children, the Indigenous population forms around 2.5 % of the whole population, as it has done for more than forty years

Hi Joe,

You do not mention life expectancy, which for indigenous people is at least 10 years less than the Australian average. Health standards for Aboriginal people are very low, with half the male population, and a third of the female population dying before reaching the age of 45. Over 70% die before reaching the normal retirement age of 65.
Shocking statistics that should not be seen in any first world country, in fact anywhere for that matter!

Hi Paul,

[Second time around, rotten computer. Copy as you go]

Yes indeed, high and avoidable mortality is a very distressing factor. Most of the Aboriginal people who I've ever known have gone, usually far too early, in their twenties and thirties and even younger. Lovely people, full of fun and life, who didn't even reach middle age.

So yes, that's another factor in reducing the proportion of Indigenous people in the Australian population. But although I've known a few Indigenous university graduates who have passed away too early, the great majority of early deaths have occurred in the welfare-oriented population - car crashes, suicides, drownings, ODs, early deaths from diabetes and strokes. My son's best friend burnt to death in a car crash. My wife's best friend hanged herself. Welfare may be necessary but it can be a killer.

Because of those two factors - migration and early mortality - the Indigenous population will tend to stay around 2.5 % of the Australian total, even if Indigenous births continue to make up around 5 % of all births. Alarmingly, it appears that the Indigenous birth-rate is actually falling. We'll be able to observe current trends when this year's Census figures become available, hopefully next year.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

What it is, often people from low socio-economic backgrounds, black and white both, suffer more from lifestyle related illnesses associated with diet, smoking, alcohol drugs etc. their lack of basic understanding of health issues. I suspect, but don't know, poor white people in our society could also have, say a 5% pf births, but also be only 2.5% of the adult population for the very same reasons.

My partner has said to me, there are no old people back home in my tribe anymore. When we go back I can see why, what they eat, saturated fats, alcohol, sugar, salt, smoking (very high) and the rest. Funny though when she was young there were many more old people in the rural NZ Maori population, although the infant mortality rate was higher than today. "T" puts it down to a much healthier diet then with a good part of a natural bush and vegetable component, which has now been replaced with less healthier processed European foods containing more fats, sugars and salt.

Hi Paul,

Yes, poor diet and no exercise associated with lifelong welfare, as well as a sort of casual attitude to risky behaviour, would account for much of the premature mortality.

But immigration kicks up the number in the population who are already well and truly born and who tend to come to Australia aged post-20. Check out the numbers of non-Indigenous Australians at the 2011 Census, and note the rise AFTER 20 years of age:

0 - 4 years 1,282,738
5 - 9 years 1,222,112
10 - 14 years 1,241,793
15 - 19 years 1,282,019
20 - 24 years 1,333,621
25 - 29 years 1,387,922
30 - 34 years 1,345,762
35 - 39 years 1,414,171
40 - 44 years 1,438,346
45 - 49 years 1,407,494
50 - 54 years 1,357,678
55 - 59 years 1,220,530
60 - 64 years 1,138,394

Of course, a small number of children accompany immigrants and refugees, adding to the younger age-group numbers. But on the whole, migrants and refugees arrive as adults, contributing for decades without costing the Australian taxpayer much for their education etc.

But it is surely telling that in the Census, post-20 NON-Indigenous Australian age-groups INCREASE in numbers well into middle-age: there more non-Indigenous Australians aged in their fifties (2,578,208) than those under ten (2,504,850), thanks, I respectfully suggest, to immigration.

By stark contrast, in the 2011 Census, Indigenous people in their fifties numbered only 42,965, compared with 132,349 under ten.

So one could predict that, if Indigenous welfare-oriented people continue with their current diet-exercise-violence regime, and immigration numbers are maintained, then the proportion of Indigenous people in the total population will never rise above its current 2.5-2.6 %. And if the Indigenous birth-rate falters, that proportion will decline. Those are the hard realities.

Is that 'blaming the victim' ? Probably, and for the above reasons.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

With immigration we also have the 'family reunion' program which produces many instant old people. Immigration definitely has an impact on an aging population, as does a falling birth rate, and Australia has a falling birth rate. We had a 2 child per woman rate for a number of years then it dropped to 1.8 in 2014, as raw numbers that is a 10,000 less births in 2014 compared to 2013.
As a believer in SUSTAINABILITY I see a zero population growth, on a world scale, as desirable, if not imperative, for the well being of mankind, a very lofty ideal indeed. It does ruffle me somewhat to hear polititions like Turnbull and Shorten banging on about economic growth, economic growth, a couple of demented parrots. Like a dog chasing its tail, if the population is growing at 3% p/a, you need to achieve 3% economic growth just to break even, oh! the shock horror if its only 2.9$ when you needed 3%, then it a real dummy spit, is it not? How long can we keep raising the bar and still hope to jump over it. I know there are problems associated with a very low birth rate, China found that out with its one child policy, an aging population, not enough young'n to do the work, but I think those problems are lesser than the problems of overpopulation.

The web site below frightens me. When I posted this it the big number was 7,431,519,422, What is it when you read it?

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Joe, just to add, the ideal immigrants are Mum Dad with two Kids. Where Mum is exceptionally well trained in her chosen field of science which the nation is crying out for skilled people in. Dad is an entrepreneur investor with 10 billion bucks in his pocket ready for new science businesses which will employ thousands. The Kids are a couple of Rhodes Scholars, with PHD's in everything and ready to go at it!

You said "Is that 'blaming the victim'?" No more than blaming the smoker who dies an early death from lung cancer. How I read it, you are only stating the obvious. From a positive aspect what should be done to improve heath, specifically Aboriginal health, and in general everybody's health.

Hi Paul,

I'm all for immigration, and an increased refugee intake. My point is that sometimes one's preferred policy has unintended social effects in other areas.

Yes, of course, many migrants bring their families with them, including young children and babies. But on the whole, they tend to be mature adults. As you point out, they also are able to bring their more elderly relations to Australia, as of course they should be able to. After all, migrants are not just 'guest workers', to be used and then told to go back: they become Australians like you and me.

Migrants make up the shortfall in our population growth. Without them, Australia's population would level off and then decline. But they don't appear out of thin air: their emigration from their home countries reduces population back there. Our gain, their loss.

Although it's getting a bit off-topic: world population is not growing as much as you think, and certainly not evenly everywhere: in many developed countries, it may be static or declining - and certainly would be declining if it weren't for immigration. In Africa, populations are growing but not as fast as a few decades ago.

To circuitously get back to topic: Indigenous graduates tend to be women. They tend to have fewer children than non-graduates, and to inter-marry. As elsewhere, the more education women have, the later they marry, the freer are their marriage choices, the fewer children they have and the more they will invest in their children's education.

So yes, much higher mortality devastates the Indigenous welfare-oriented population, while higher education for women reduces the birth-rate. These factors (and others) are associated with continuing lower Indigenous population growth.

Cheers,

Joe

The pain is real as when I saw a middle-aged man banging his head on concrete when his wife argued with him for lying down drunk. Sadly when "elders" are seen in the media they are likely to be women, completely against culture for land-custodians. Young men seem to have a brief burst of crime to assert identity then it's downhill with no pathway out.

"Sadly when "elders" are seen in the media they are likely to be women, completely against culture for land-custodians"

Accepting that indigenous women do get a lion's share of the media limelight and I am not so sure is the case, you nonetheless have raised an important issue for discussion, that there is an apparent division, a separating way ways, between indigenous women and men.

After thinking about it, I believe you may be right. I am not so sure you are being frank about the whats and whys though. Indigenous women sure have reasons to want change. Not that the prevailing power structure in indigenous politics will allow that.

Being frank is in my blood as much as nick . In fact I've never been franker and I'm sure the same applies. Why not be frank ! wank, frank, thanks. but women as tribal spokesmen does great violence to their dis-empowered men , a silent form of abuse which may not be noticed in the general anguish of pain frankly.

No, Nick, non violent action NEVER EVER does violence, and the claim that it does is usually just an excuse by the violent to justify their evil actions.

As for why it's the women who are more prominent now, it's partly a reaction to events. More damage has been inflicted on the men than the women in many Aboriginal tribes, both by violence by settlers in the 19th century and by alcohol more recently.

Aidan, "More damage has been inflicted on the men than the women in many Aboriginal tribes, both by violence by settlers in the 19th century and by alcohol more recently"

Patronising indigenous does more harm. Choosing self-defeating behaviours is up to the individual.

However women, especially young mothers and children, are limited in their choices and cannot easily evade the ongoing abuses they suffer in the here and now.

Aidan
King Abbott the Captain knows about coups and ABC agrees:
Gillard ousts Rudd in bloodless coup - ABC News ...
Julia Gillard., seizing power in a bloodless Parliament House coup ..
----
There can be violence verbally and by false pretences , just as there is violence done to the meaning of my post by you . This is a cyber bully threat from me to you and non-violence will prevail.

Hi Nicknick,

No, I don't agree with you: in Australia, women's rights, including Indigenous women's rights, are supposed to be equal to those of men. Get used to it.

I've just been re-indexing the journals of the Rev. Taplin, at Point MacLeay from 1859-1879 (on my website: www.fitrstsources.info) and I have to say that I wasn't impressed by the number of traditional women traditionally beaten, sometimes to death, by traditional men in their idyllic traditional surroundings. Plus ca change, .....

The number of Indigenous annual births, from the 1996 Census to the 2011 Census, rose only 9.3 %, adjusted, or barely 0.6 % p.a. This is above ZPG but below the world average. o.6 % p.a. is perhaps not enough to offset the effects of high and unnecessary mortality in adult years. So the Indigenous population is not only NOT booming but is in danger of stagnating in this next generation, and even falling in a couple of generations.

Then there is the identification factor: from the 1971 Census to 2011, this added perhaps two-thirds of the total Indigenous population, as people chose to identify. But identity can be a fairly fluid choice: what can be done, can be undone. If people find no real benefit from identifying, then they may well de-identify. I suppose we'll see, in the next couple of Censuses.

By the way, the 2015 higher education statistics are due out in a week or two - more successes :)

Joe

Hi Nicknick,

Here's something to think about, from a Canadian Native American:

Aboriginals’ unhealthy focus on the federal government has further developed a deeply ingrained “culture expectancy.” In short, this is an expectation that all means for ordinary existence (social assistance, housing, education, medical and dental care, community infrastructure finance, and finance for operation of community governments, etc.) will be provided externally, with no expectation that effort must be expended or such items earned.

Our Aboriginal ancestors of antiquity would find such an expectation utterly astonishing. How could they have built the beautiful, sophisticated societies that endured for so long with such an expectation? The question that my grandmother and grandfather might ask is, “What moral right does anyone have to something which they have done nothing for?”

As a youth, if I were to suggest to my father, a hardworking commercial fisherman, that I deserved a fishing trip crew share when I had not done any of the work to earn it, I would quickly have been introduced to the business end of his gumboot. (p. 116)

While the creation of sustainable forms of wealth is part of the solution, education, obtainable with or without wealth is the key to long-term self-reliance.

In the end, our grandparents would tell all of us that the way to feel better about ourselves is to engage in old-fashioned hard work. Their counsel suggests that we are not only social animals but social animals who have been hardwired to work in order to maintain our social balance and dignity as people. (p. 126)

Calvin Helin (2006), from Dances with Dependency: Out of poverty through self-reliance.

Cheers,

Joe