Geography vs Race: Exploring Indigenous Disadvantage in Australia
In a speech delivered at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians and a No campaigner for the Voice to Parliament referendum, argued that geography plays a more significant role than race in the Indigenous disadvantage gap. To investigate the validity of this claim, RMIT ABC Fact Check has examined various indicators and conducted interviews with experts.
While Senator Nampijinpa Price’s statement suggests that location is the primary contributor to the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, the reality is more complex. The Productivity Commission’s Closing the Gap data reveals that Indigenous outcomes tend to worsen as remoteness increases. However, the same trend does not consistently apply to non-Indigenous Australians, as their outcomes often remain similar regardless of whether they reside in major cities or remote areas.
Some indicators even contradict the notion that geography is the main factor. For instance, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) reports higher rates of Indigenous children in out-of-home care in major cities compared to remote areas. Additionally, when analyzing the indicators by remoteness, the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people persists in major cities, where 41% of Indigenous Australians reside.
Experts consulted by Fact Check argue that the disparities in outcomes between these two populations cannot be solely attributed to geography. Rather, factors such as racial discrimination and other influences intertwine with location to contribute to the observed gaps. Francis Markham from the Australian National University‘s Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research emphasized that trying to disentangle place and race as separate factors is a mistake.
Moreover, the official Closing the Gap targets, which encompass a comprehensive set of measures, focus less on Indigenous and non-Indigenous comparisons. Instead, they emphasize raising the standard of living overall and addressing societal problems.
While it is undeniable that there is a relationship between geography and Indigenous disadvantage, it is not uniformly applicable to all indicators. Geography often affects non-Indigenous Australians differently, and a gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people persists even in major cities where Indigenous individuals tend to have better socioeconomic outcomes.
In conclusion, the claim made by Senator Nampijinpa Price oversimplifies the complex dynamics at play in Indigenous disadvantage. Geography certainly plays a role, particularly in relation to Indigenous outcomes, but it is not the sole or primary determinant. Other factors such as racial discrimination and socioeconomic influences intertwine with geography to contribute to the observed gaps.
