Let’s talk about counting our mob.

The identification of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in official statistics.

Disclaimer: I have used original terminology and grammar when describing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is done so within a historical context for the purposes of highlighting colonial descriptions. Please note that this may be distressing for some readers.

We need to talk about data. More specifically, we, as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, need to talk about our data.

When population level data is collected for the purposes of official statistics reporting, the identification of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people requires discussion. For clarity, population-level data in official statistics includes data compiled for state/territory and national reporting. I am talking about the data collected through the census, through registrations of birth and deaths, administration and services and through population-level surveys.

We are in the data era. Data is collected regularly through online activities and routinely when we access the services around us. There are a complex array of data types and data collections and a range of ways that we can assess and use these data. Often when we discuss data, it is seen as an empirical or technical exercise. However, there are many considerations that require our attention when we discuss data within Australia’s colonial history. Importantly this includes how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are defined and by whom, as well as the quality and the accuracy of the data collected. Yet, the historical and contemporary contexts in which this was and is done is sometimes overlooked.

Since the first census in 1901, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were documented in official reporting for the single purpose of exclusion from the national population counts. It was Section 127 in the original Australian Constitution which noted that “aboriginal natives” were not to be included in any Commonwealth state or other population counts [1]. The 1967 referendum resulted in our inclusion as part of the Australian population. This didn’t happen is a silo. We claimed, alongside allies, our right to be counted. It was a monumental achievement, with 90.77% of people voting “Yes for Aborigines” [1]. The 1967 referendum is still Australia’s most successful referendum to date.

But why does this matter? Well, there are a couple of important reasons.

The first is recognition. The journey towards our right to citizenship and to be counted in this nation has reports of petitions back to as early as 1911 [1]. We have guided and led our right to determine our identity to be recognised within official data collections as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Many definitions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been used over the years, no less than 67 classifications have been used in Australian legislations up until 1997 [2]. However, it was the three-part definition of descent, self-identification and community acceptance arising from the 1981 Report on a Review of the Administration of the Working Definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders that was adopted by all federal departments [3]. Constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be included in the population counts, as well as the operationalisation of the three-part definition has enabled the collection and utilisation of data about us.

The second is the accuracy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander official statistics reporting. Typically, this is dependent upon our willingness and opportunity to self-identify or to have others identify for us in the data. Fundamentally, if we aren’t identified in the data, then we do not exist in the reporting. Furthermore, the quality and completeness of the data used about us may be compromised. Every population data set has variable quality and variable completeness. For example, there are reports from Queensland and Western Australia describing that 17% and 18% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander births are under-registered [4, 5]. Additionally, an assessment of the completeness of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identification in hospital admissions data in 2010 showed variations between 48% and 97% completeness within the states and territories [6]. Because official statistics reporting is used primarily for the purposes of service and program provision as well as funding allocation, the under-identification and under-reporting of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the data requires our full attention. While there are ways to enhance the completeness of the data reported, there has been limited work on understanding the extent of the impact that under-reporting has on the social, health and economic outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia.

In Australia, official population statistics on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are reported only because of the moral imperative of non-Indigenous Australians voting for our right to be counted through constitutional change. Something worth reflecting on. Data collections are inherently intertwined with colonisation. Our identity, who we are and where we are from, is unwavering and can be identified by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. However, the process of recognition of our identity within data collections occurs within Western forms of governance and reporting processes. We have been granted the right to be counted, which could be argued that the identification of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the data is coloniser-sanction form of recognition. The ongoing legacies of colonisation raises tensions in the use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data through official reporting bodies.

So, what can we do about it?

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership and research excellence is required in driving negotiations for the governance regarding the use and reporting of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data. We need to be asking the questions, including “who are the we in this discussion”? Who should be making decisions for whom? How do we ensure the governance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data use incorporates mechanisms for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices? We are slowly building the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data science and big data experienced workforce. The aim is to develop formal mechanisms that can support the collective needs and self-determination aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, communities and organisations in the way data is collected and used for the health and well reporting in the nation [7].