Hi Bazz,

On the one hand, people can call themselves whatever the hell they like. On the other hand (1), as Toni points out, there is a very loose definition involving self-definition, but also community acceptance (very often corrupted by organisations seeking numbers for funding). A Family Tree would sort much of that out.

And on the other hand (2), as you allude to, who would be eligible to vote in supposedly an all-Indigenous plebiscite or referendum or whatever ? Again, having to submit a Family Tree before being registered would sort much of that out: it would be necessary for an applicant to prove to the satisfaction of genealogical staff before he/she was added to a Register.

And on the other hand (3), if someone was seeking financial or other benefits on the basis of being Indigenous, then again, a Family Tree would identify who were the BS-artists and who was genuine. But in all of these cases, rigorous checks of genealogies would have to be done by (somehow) disinterested/unbiased staff.

All of this would be a pretty difficult and fraught process, but most Indigenous groups would be able to put together Family Trees, and weed out the phonies. My late wife, for example, could have traced her Indigenous ancestry through half a dozen families back to ancestors born around 1850 without any trouble. She was always quite happy and proud to do that, and to work out who she was related to - it would have been nearly impossible for a phony to get past her. And she knew plenty of those bastards, Whitefellas taking Indigenous positions and sometimes working their way high up career pathways, especially in government organisations. And quite a few are still there.

Joe

Thanks for the comment Joe.
Even where most of the tree seems solid there are sometimes surprises
as I found when researching my family tree. Some relatives that
everyone thought were cousins turned out not to be due to a 60 year
shacking up together. They married in 1912 only a few years before
the wife died.

Remember we are talking here about whether legislation is changeable.
Without DNA testing it would generate a lawyer's picnic.

Joe,
Whoops Changeable should be challengeable.

Loudmouth, Bazz, I am heartened to hear you speak of ancestry and family trees. Loudmouth, I love your wife she sounds like one smart person seeing through the 'bastards' and wannabee 'white fellas'. To hear the views of you and your wife goes a long way for the original inhabitants of this country becoming accepted as an honest and true blue Aussie. Albeit with some indigenous blood somewhere in the past. It is this kind of honesty, courage and humbling that will see the indigenous people begin to be accepted and not vilified. It would be the first true and very difficult step to self regulation.