A legal historian estimated in 1991 that at least 67 classifications, descriptions or definitions to determine who is an Aboriginal person had been used by governments since
white settlement in Australia.
1788 – 1980 The term "Aborigine" was coined by white settlers in Australia in the 1830s from
ab origine, a Latin phrase meaning "from the very beginning". Until the 1980s, the sole legal and administrative criterion for inclusion in this category was race, classified according to visible physical characteristics or known ancestors. This was similar to the legal doctrine of
partus sequitur ventrum in the
American South which had been present from 1662 onward during the
colonial era and mandated that a child's status was determined by that of their mothers: if born to Aboriginal mothers, children were considered Aboriginal, regardless of their paternity. In the era of colonial and post-colonial government, access to basic human rights depended upon your race. If you were a "full-blooded Aboriginal native ... [or] any person apparently having an admixture of Aboriginal blood", a half-caste being the "offspring of an Aboriginal mother and other than Aboriginal father" (but not of an Aboriginal father and other than Aboriginal mother), a "
quadroon", or had a "strain" of Aboriginal blood you were forced to live on Reserves or Missions, work for rations, given minimal education, and needed governmental approval to marry, visit relatives or use electrical appliances. The
Constitution of Australia, in its original form as of 1901, referred to Aboriginal people twice, but without definition.
Section 51(xxvi) gave the Commonwealth parliament a power to legislate with respect to "the people of any race" throughout the Commonwealth, except for people of "the aboriginal race". The purpose of this provision was to give the Commonwealth power to regulate non-white immigrant workers, who would follow work opportunities interstate. The only other reference,
Section 127, provided that "aboriginal natives shall not be counted" in reckoning the size of the population of the Commonwealth or any part of it. The purpose of Section 127 was to prevent the inclusion of Aboriginal people in
Section 24 determinations of the distribution of
House of Representatives seats amongst the
states and territories. The
New Deal for Aborigines, announced by the federal government in 1938, divided Aboriginal people into four categories –
myalls ("aboriginals in their native state"), semi-detribalised, fully detribalised, and
half-caste (mixed race). Explicit references to Aboriginal people in the constitution were removed by the
1967 referendum. (These amendments altered
Section 51(xxvi), and
Section 127, having the immediate effect of including Aboriginal people in determinations of population, and also empowering the
Federal Parliament to legislate specifically for this racial group.) Since that time, there have been a number of proposals to amend the constitution to specifically mention Indigenous Australians.
1980s: Commonwealth Definition, rise and respect on display in
Parliament House, Canberra Between 1981 and 1986, a rise of 42% of people identifying as Aboriginal occurred across Australian census areas (see also separate section below). The rise roughly amount to "68,000 new claims of Aboriginal identity". In 1988, as part of
bicentennial celebrations, Prime Minister
Bob Hawke was presented with a statement of Aboriginal political objectives by
Galarrwuy Yunupingu and
Wenten Rubuntja, in what became known as
The Barunga Statement. Among many requests, the Statement called for the Australian government to facilitate "respect for and promotion of our Aboriginal identity, including the cultural, linguistic, religious and historical aspects, and including the right to be educated in our own languages and in our own culture and history".
Legal and administrative definitions since 1980 In 1978, the
Cabinet of the
Australian Government offered a three-part definition, based on descent, self-identification, and community acceptance. (For the purposes of the
Australian Census, the last factor is excluded as impractical.) A definition was proposed by the
Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the
Report on a Review of the Administration of the Working Definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Canberra, 1981): "An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he (she) lives". The 1981 Report added impetus to the definition, and it was soon adopted by all Government departments for determining eligibility to certain services and benefits. The definition was also adopted by the
states, for example in the
New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. This definition has become known as the "Commonwealth Definition". While Deane's three-part definition reaches beyond the biological criterion to an individual's self-identification, it has been criticised as continuing to accept the biological criterion as primary. A new definition was proposed in the Constitutional Section of the
Department of Aboriginal Affairs'
Report on a Review of the Administration of the Working Definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Canberra, 1981): Justice
Gerard Brennan in his 1992 leading judgment in
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) stated that Aboriginality of a person depends on a tripartite test:
1990s: Legal challenges The Commonwealth Definition continued to be used administratively and legislatively, notably in the
Mabo case, which in 1992 recognised
native title in Australia for the first time. However, debate about the definition became heated, particularly in
Tasmania, over whether the emphasis should be on identification by self and/or community or by descent. The
Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC) emphasised evidence of descent, and started refusing services to people who had previously been identified as Aboriginal. A report commissioned by the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) found that people seeking to identify as Aboriginal should satisfy all three criteria, and should provide documentary evidence to show a direct line of ancestry through a family name linking them to traditional Aboriginal society at the time of
colonisation of Tasmania. Debate over the issue was also included in three Federal Court judgements, with varying interpretations. After 1999 ATSIC election, questions were raised about the Aboriginality of many of the 824 voters and some of those who were elected. Debate continued until November 2002, with the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which referred the question to the Federal Court. The AAT found that TAC complained that now more than a third of the 30 candidates standing in the election were "white", and called for a
boycott. ==Other definitions==