Tonight marks the next Australian Census night. The Australian Census is a data collection exercise conducted every five years by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)—Australia’s national statistical agency. The census form asks, amongst other things, about each respondent’s ancestry. The ABS indicates that it uses the Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) 2025 as its basis for the ancestry response options.
The ASCCEG states, “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples are recognised with appropriate categories in the Narrow group ‘Australian Peoples’ and since European settlement, a distinct Australian cultural identity has emerged prompting the inclusion of ‘Australian’ in that Narrow group.” When completing the census form myself, I noted that the ancestry options included ‘Aboriginal,’ ‘Torres Strait Islander,’ and ‘Australian.’ While these may all fall into the narrow group of ‘Australian Peoples’ as set out by the ASCCEG, this was not readily apparent in the expression of the census form itself. As with other surveys I have seen, the reader could quite easily interpret the document to make an implicit distinction between ‘Aboriginal (and Torres Strait Islander)’ and ‘Australian.’ As in previous times, I found myself wondering whether Aboriginal (and Torres Strait Islander) respondents might feel as if they were being unfairly discriminated against … after all, they are well recognised as being the first Australian peoples, even if the land might not have been called Australia then.
In any case, I provided feedback to the ABS, suggesting there could be technical and ideological problems with the ancestry options as provided.
From a technical point of view, bearing in mind that the census will be completed by millions of people across Australia from numerous cultural backgrounds, how exactly is one to interpret the cultural identity of ‘Australian’? To my understanding, and from my own experience of several decades in Australia, it seems clear that the ‘Australian’ cultural identity is actually a British-origin cultural identity, primarily English and Irish if I were to be more specific, and (granted) somewhat changed over time since the 1700s. At what point does a lineage from a British cultural background become ‘Australian’? One generation? Two generations? A certain number of years? If a family migrates from England to Australia today, and the line continues down through the years, will that lineage become Australian in a generation? Two generations? One hundred years? Or will they remain ‘British’ until the world’s end? Who is to say?
The point here is that there is (as far as I am aware) no clear or objective definition as to when a line of British ancestry ‘becomes Australian.’ (And that thinking assumes that one accepts the argument that a migrant line can become Australian—in other words, that ‘Australian’ should not be reserved solely for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.)
From an ideological point of view, on what basis does an originally British cultural identity (or any other, for that matter) lay claim to the name of ‘Australian’? Is it chronological precedence? If so, then only the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can rightfully wear the mantle of ‘Australian.’ Is it numerical population dominance? If so, then in 100 years, if numerical population dominance is taken by people from Chinese cultural backgrounds (as just one possibility), would Chinese peoples then become ‘Australian’ and people from British cultural backgrounds be relegated to ‘British-aligned’?
I am consciously being provocative here; the aim is simply this—to encourage people to think.
Over the years, I have run into many, many people who see themselves as Australian and have quite a blinkered view of cultural identity and norms. They are very much of the view that how they see things is ‘normal’ and everything else is ‘foreign’ (to put it gently). I expect we would run into this kind of perception with any established group of people. Visit China, and I am confident most people there will see Chinese culture and behaviours as normal, and probably with a similarly blinkered view towards anything else. But it is true that Australia is one of the more multicultural nations in the world today, and that a respectful appreciation of other cultures is an important part of societal harmony.
That respect needs to start with names and naming conventions. What would I have done with the census form? Assuming we agree on the ASCCEG as the basis, then for a start I would have renamed the response options mentioned earlier: they would be ‘Australian – Aboriginal,’ ‘Australian – Torres Strait Islander,’ and ‘Australian – British colonial’ (or similar), and not just ‘Aboriginal,’ “Torres Strait Islander,’ and ‘Australian.’ More cumbersome in a way, but also clearer and—possibly—more respectful.