Intermarriage between Indigenous and non- Indigenous Australians.

Heard, Genevieve ; Birrell, Bob ; Khoo, Siew-Ean 等

Intermarriage between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is increasing as cultural and socioeconomic divisions are broken down. For the first time at the 2006 census, a majority of both male and female Indigenous persons were partnered with non-Indigenous persons. This analysis shows that location is more important than education or income in determining rates of intermarriage. In metropolitan areas the overwhelming majority of partnered Indigenous people live with, or are married to, non-Indigenous people; in non-metropolitan areas this is true only of those who are highly educated and/or on high incomes.

INTRODUCTION

To what extent do Indigenous Australians mix with non-Indigenous persons when forming partnerships? Intermarriage in this context may be viewed as a development that is positive (part of the mixing of backgrounds and cultures that contributes towards a diverse and tolerant society) or negative (signifying the dilution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander blood and cultures). Either way, it is important to examine the extent of its occurrence, since intermarriage both reflects and affects the number of people identifying as Indigenous and thus alters the parameters of Indigenous affairs policy.

Using data from the 2006 census, this paper assesses the extent of intermarriage (defined here as including both formal and de facto marriage) by Indigenous status in Australian society. Where possible, trend data are used to assess the direction of change. (1) The paper is part of a larger study of intermarriage in Australia that also examines intermarriage by birthplace, ancestry and religion. (2)

CULTURAL FACTORS

Just as inter-ethnic marriage reflects the erosion of boundaries between Australians of different cultural backgrounds (see article by Khoo et al. in this issue), the extent to which Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians are forming partnerships with each other is an important indicator of whether past social or cultural divisions between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities have dissipated.

As late as the 1960s, only a small minority of non-Indigenous Australians were prepared to say that they would accept a full-blood or part-Aboriginal person as a relative by marriage into their family. (3) To the extent that such prejudice still exists, it constitutes a formidable barrier to intermarriage, since marriage is the most intimate of social relationships.

In some societies, longstanding racial divisions and accompanying negative stereotypes have led to negligible intermarriage. As an extreme example, less than ten per cent of African Americans partner with persons of a different race, (4) despite a 'remarkable' increase in interracial marriages in the United States. (5) As the findings below will show, rates of intermarriage between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians suggest a more permeable divide. A better comparison may be with the native Americans of the United States. Studies of intermarriage within this community indicate that exogamy is relatively high (59 per cent of married native Americans were married to non-Indigenous partners by 1990). The rate of exogamy was especially high amongst those who had moved to metropolitan areas where they constituted only a small proportion of residents. (6)

In Australia, the analysis of intermarriage between Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons raises some unique measurement issues. For official purposes, an Indigenous person is one who is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives. The census question is aimed at the first and second parts of this definition, (7) and census respondents are simply asked whether they or other members of their household are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin.

Australian residents have shown an increased propensity to identify as Indigenous. The number identifying as such in recent censuses rose from 250,738 in 1986 to 414,390 in 1996, (8) and 455,028 in 2006, which in 2006 represented 2.4 per cent of Australia's population. (9) Over and above natural increase among Indigenous Australians, more people have come to think of themselves as Indigenous and/or are inclined to declare themselves as such on the census returns over the past couple of decades.

It is likely that the growing propensity to identify as Indigenous has implications for intermarriage; however, it is not immediately clear what these implications might be. On the one hand, confidence in one's Indigenous identity may be accompanied by greater engagement with non-Indigenous Australians. If so this might increase opportunities to partner outside of the Indigenous community. Alternatively, the growth of 'identity politics' (10) or the 'politics of recognition' (11) may imply a greater propensity to take pride in Indigenous identity, and a greater interest in its preservation through partnering within the Indigenous community.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS

The level of intermarriage on the part of Indigenous Australians is inevitably linked to the issue of socio-economic mobility. Indeed, intermarriage can be interpreted as a significant measure of this mobility. Socio-economic factors are fundamental in shaping partnering decisions, since people tend to look for partners with similar educational and class backgrounds to themselves. (12)

It follows that circumstances that limit social mobility are likely to perpetuate barriers to intermarriage. Where minority groups are socially or economically disadvantaged relative to the rest of society, exogamy is less likely, since prospective marriage partners are unlikely to bridge this gulf. Recent public discussion about Indigenous issues has concentrated on the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in terms of health indicators, life expectancy and educational attainment. The pronounced socio-economic differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in Australia might be expected to minimise intermarriage.

Conversely, intermarriage between groups can mean that these groups are becoming more similar with regard to other social and demographic characteristics. The sociological literature suggests that intermarriage will be relatively high where the members of a minority group achieve upward social mobility. Relatively high levels of education, in particular, are often found to facilitate intermarriage. (13)

GEOGRAPHIC FACTORS

In addition to social mobility, geographic mobility is important to the likelihood of intermarriage. At the most basic level, intermarriage relies upon opportunities for members of different groups to meet. (14) Historically, much of the Indigenous community in Australia has lived in relative geographical isolation from the non-Indigenous community. For most of the 20th century this isolation has been accompanied by low levels of educational and occupational mobility among Indigenous persons. Such circumstances might be expected to lead to marriage markets that are largely separate.

The Indigenous population remains less urbanised than the non-Indigenous population. However, there has been a longstanding shift in the distribution of Indigenous persons from the North and West of Australia to the East and the South and towards urban locations. (15) By 2006,34 per cent of Indigenous persons lived in major urban areas (compared with 67 per cent of non-Indigenous persons) and 42 per cent in other urban areas (compared with 21 per cent of non-Indigenous persons). (16)

EXTENT OF INTERMARRIAGE

For the first time at the 2006 census, a small majority of both male (52 per cent) and female (55 per cent) Indigenous persons who were partnered were married to non-Indigenous persons (see Table 1). Moreover, the trend is towards greater intermarriage. For both male and female partnered Indigenous persons there was an increase of three percentage points in the proportion who were married to non-Indigenous persons over the five years from 2001 to 2006.

Table 1: Indigenous intermarriage by area of enumeration, 2001 and 2006

 Indigenous males

 2001 2006

Area of Indigenous Partnered Exogamous Partnered Exogamous
enumeration proportion no. (a) no. (a)
 of 2001 percent percent
 population

Sydney SD 1.1 3,785 83 4,140 82

Rest of NSW 3.7 8,315 60 9,514 63

Melbourne 0.4 1,251 83 1,501 82
SD

Rest of 1.1 1,260 71 1,522 72
Victoria

Brisbane SD 1.8 2,718 78 3,068 79

Rest of QLD 4.9 8,725 41 10,118 44

Adelaide SD 1.1 865 73 1,017 71

Rest of SA 3.4 1,379 31 1,397 38

Perth SD 1.6 1,764 53 1,887 57

Rest of WA 8.6 4,264 21 4,078 23

Greater 3.0 629 84 709 82
Hobart SD

Rest of 1.2 1,449 80 1,504 79
Tasmania

Darwin SD 10.0 790 50 898 51

Rest of NT 50.8 5,530 5 5,175 4

ACT 1.2 433 78 467 81

Total (b) 2.4 43,196 49 47,019 52

 Indigenous females

 2001 2006

Area of Indigenous Partnered Exogamous Partnered Exogamous
enumeration proportion no. (a) no. (a)
 of 2001 percent percent
 population

Sydney SD 1.1 4,115 84 4,578 83

Rest of NSW 3.7 8,888 62 10,210 65

Melbourne 0.4 1,294 84 1,571 82
SD

Rest of 1.1 1,389 73 1,704 75
Victoria

Brisbane SD 1.8 2,949 80 3,525 81

Rest of QLD 4.9 9,964 47 11,425 49

Adelaide SD 1.1 1,000 76 1,138 74

Rest of SA 3.4 1,496 36 1,522 41

Perth SD 1.6 1,985 56 2,100 59

Rest of WA 8.6 4,626 25 4,402 27

Greater 3.0 683 85 718 82
Hobart SD

Rest of 1.2 1,566 81 1,719 81
Tasmania

Darwin SD 10.0 975 57 1,070 58

Rest of NT 50.8 5,734 8 5,416 8

ACT 1.2 382 75 419 79

Total (b) 2.4 47,085 52 51,541 55

Source: 2001 and 2006 census customised tables, ABS (2004)
Experimental Estimates and Projections, Indigenous Australians 1991-
001, cat. no. 3238.0

Notes: SD stands for Statistical Division, NSW is New South Wales, QLD
is Queensland, SA is South Australia, WA is West Australia, NT is
Northern Territory, ACT is Australian
Capital Territory

(a) Excludes those whose partner's indigenous status was not stated or
whose partner was temporarily absent on census night.

(b) Total includes other territories.

INDIGENOUS INTERMARRIAGE BY LOCATION

The most striking finding is the extent to which intermarriage between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians varies by location (Table 1). The vast majority of Indigenous men and women who are resident in Australia's capital cities are exogamous. In Sydney, 82 per cent of partnered Indigenous men and 83 per cent of partnered Indigenous women were married to non-Indigenous persons. Similar levels of exogamy were recorded in Melbourne, Brisbane and Hobart.

This is significant because of the substantial and growing minority of Indigenous persons living in metropolitan centres (17)--by 2006 some 29 per cent of all partnered Indigenous males and females were living in Australia's metropolitan areas. Since net migration movements of Indigenous persons from non-metropolitan to metropolitan areas have been small in recent decades, the growth in the metropolitan Indigenous populations seems largely to reflect better enumeration and a greater propensity to self-identify as Indigenous. (18)

The level of exogamy is lower amongst the generally much larger populations of Indigenous persons living outside the respective state capitals. In the case of Queensland, outside of Brisbane, 44 per cent of married Indigenous women had non-Indigenous partners as did 49 per cent of married Indigenous men. This rate was also fairly low in Western Australia, outside of Perth, where just 23 per cent of partnered Indigenous males were married to non-Indigenous females and 27 per cent of partnered Indigenous females were married to non-Indigenous males. In the Northern Territory, outside of Darwin, exogamy is rare: only four per cent of partnered Indigenous men and eight per cent of partnered Indigenous women were exogamous.

The relatively high level of intermarriage in capital cities is consistent with an explanation focusing on opportunity: the greater the opportunities for social interaction between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, the greater the extent of intermarriage. Less than one per cent of the population in most mainland capital cities is Indigenous (Table 1). In these cities, Indigenous people have many opportunities to meet non-Indigenous partners, and the great majority are exogamous. By contrast, in non-metropolitan areas such as the Northern Territory (outside Darwin), where the proportion of Indigenous persons is relatively high (51 per cent), the percentage of Indigenous persons in exogamous marriages is low (just eight per cent for partnered Indigenous females and four per cent for partnered Indigenous males).

There may be other factors contributing to these differences in exogamy rates by location, including educational and income differentials between the Indigenous populations in the cities and in regional and remote Australia. These issues are explored in the next sections.

EDUCATION AND INCOME DIFFERENTIALS

Indigenous persons with relatively high levels of education are most likely to have mixed with their non-Indigenous counterparts in educational institutions and in employment. In doing so they have, in effect, bridged the socio-economic divide that has affected relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in the past. Even more fundamentally, where Indigenous persons achieve educational credentials that are valued within the wider community, this should assist in the erosion of prejudice. Therefore, Indigenous educational attainment would be expected to diminish the social distance between members of the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. If these hypotheses are correct, higher rates of intermarriage should be evident among the more educated of the Indigenous population.

Table 2 confirms that exogamy on the part of Indigenous persons is associated with higher educational attainment. In 2006, 82 per cent of all married Indigenous males and 79 per cent of all married Indigenous females with degrees had non-Indigenous partners. By contrast, among those who had completed Year 10 or fewer years of school, these figures were 44 per cent and 49 per cent respectively.

Table 2: Indigenous intermarriage by educational attainment, 2006

 Males Females

Level of Partnered Exogamous (a) Partnered Exogamous(a)
education no. percent no. percent

 Sydney

Degree or higher 316 90 529 90

Other post-school 1,308 88 835 84
qualification

Year 11-12 545 83 808 89

Up to year 10 1,485 80 1,864 83

ID/NS/No 482 63 547 69
attainment

Total (b) 4,136 82 4,583 83

 Melbourne

Degree or higher 160 88 176 87

Other post-school 449 86 317 90
qualification

Year 11-12 276 81 403 84

Up to year 10 423 82 457 82

ID/NS/No 191 63 222 64
attainment

Total (b) 1,499 82 1,575 82

 Brisbane

Degree or higher 235 83 392 82

Other post-school 925 85 656 83
qualification

Year 11-12 557 80 842 85

Up to year 10 1,055 75 1,295 78

ID/NS/No 296 68 341 79
attainment

Total (b) 3,068 79 3,526 81

 Adelaide

Degree or higher 81 -- (c) 98 -- (c)

Other post-school 291 80 216 80
qualification

Year 11-12 230 76 329 79

Up to year 10 306 63 348 65

ID/NS/No 108 53 145 60
attainment

Total (b) 1,016 71 1,136 73

 Perth

Degree or higher 133 76 196 76

Other post-school 458 73 311 73
qualification

Year 11-12 311 63 477 68

Up to year 10 707 47 803 50

ID/NS/No 279 39 312 45
attainment

Total (b) 1,888 57 2,099 59

 Greater Hobart

Degree or higher 38 -- (c) 54 -- (c)

Other post-school 233 84 152 88
qualification

Year 11-12 77 -- (c) 125 81

Up to year 10 293 79 319 81

ID/NS/No 69 -- (c) 72 -- (c)
attainment

Total (b) 710 82 722 82

 Darwin

Degree or higher 56 -- (c) 73 -- (c)

Other post-school 224 62 213 70
qualification

Year 11-12 194 58 294 60

Up to year 10 299 42 347 50

ID/NS/No 124 33 143 45
attainment

Total (b) 897 51 1,070 58

 Australian Capital Territory

Degree or higher 107 92 97 -- (c)

Other post-school 123 79 91 -- (c)
qualification

Year 11-12 100 81 90 -- (c)

Up to year 10 97 -- (c) 121 77

ID/NS/No 38 -- (c) 21 -- (c)
attainment

Total (b) 465 81 420 79

 Males Females

Level of Partnered Exogamous (a) Partnered Exogamous (a)
education no. percent no. percent

 Remaining NSW

Degree or higher 374 82 621 78

Other post-school 2,501 75 1,799 74
qualification

Year 11-12 968 69 1,423 70

Up to year 10 4,403 58 4,979 62

ID/NS/No 1,267 47 1,389 54
attainment

Total (b) 9,513 63 10,211 65

 Remaining Victoria

Degree or higher 69 86 117 90

Other post-school 432 83 307 82
qualification

Year 11-12 214 84 357 82

Up to year 10 573 66 671 71

ID/NS/No 234 57 249 60
attainment

Total (b) 1,522 73 1,701 75

 Remaining QLD

Degree or higher 278 72 553 67

Other post-school 2,382 59 1,714 59
qualification

Year 11-12 1,755 47 2,854 50

Up to year 10 4,341 39 4,926 46

ID/NS/No 1,359 28 1,376 38
attainment

Total (b) 10,115 44 11,423 49

 Remaining SA

Degree or higher 24 -- (c) 58 -- (c)

Other post-school 261 58 198 63
qualification

Year 11-12 231 57 338 51

Up to year 10 634 28 670 33

ID/NS/No 249 20 257 28
attainment

Total (b) 1,399 38 1,521 41

 Remaining WA

Degree or higher 61 62 147 59

Other post-school 666 43 443 46
qualification

Year 11-12 615 24 965 30

Up to year 10 1,978 19 2,131 23

ID/NS/No 758 13 715 19
attainment

Total (b) 4,078 23 4,401 27

 Remaining Tasmania

Degree or higher 46 -- (c) 87 -- (c)

Other post-school 426 85 325 88
qualification

Year 11-12 164 76 270 79

Up to year 10 724 77 873 80

ID/NS/No 151 66 163 66
attainment

Total (b) 1,511 79 1,718 81

 Remaining NT

Degree or higher 34 -- (c) 82 -- (c)

Other post-school 443 17 380 22
qualification

Year 11-12 527 8 688 14

Up to year 10 3,125 2 3,283 5

ID/NS/No 1,048 2 983 5
attainment

Total (b) 5,177 4 5,416 8

 Australia

Degree or higher 2,012 82 3,280 79

Other post-school 11,129 71 7,961 70
qualification

Year 11-12 6,767 57 10,263 60

Up to year 10 20,451 44 23,101 49

ID/NS/No 6,658 34 6,940 42
attainment

Total (b) 47,017 52 51,545 55

Source: 2006 census customised table

Notes: (a) Excludes those whose partner's indigenous status was not
stated or whose partner was temporarily absent on census night.

(b) Total includes those whose educational level was inadequately
described (ID), not stated (NS), or none.

(c) Rate not calculated for those groups numbering less than 100.

However, Table 2 also shows that when the analysis is confined to metropolitan areas, high rates of exogamy are evident regardless of the education level of Indigenous residents. For example, of the partnered Indigenous population living in Sydney in 2006,90 per cent of both males and females with degree level or higher qualifications were exogamous. This proportion is only slightly lower among those with less education. In the case of Indigenous males living in Sydney, 88 per cent of those with a post school educational qualification other than a degree, 83 per cent of those with year 11 or 12 high school education and 80 per cent of those with less than year 10 education were exogamous. The same pattern is evident across all the capital cities. Exogamy is highest amongst persons with degree level or above qualifications. But it is also high for the relatively large numbers of Indigenous persons who have much less education, including those with 10 years or less of primary and secondary schooling.

In non-metropolitan areas, the level of education of Indigenous persons appears to have a greater impact on rates of exogamy. In Queensland (outside of Brisbane), which has the largest population of Indigenous persons of all the localities listed, 67 per cent of partnered Indigenous females with a degree were exogamous in 2006, compared with 50 per cent of those with schooling to year 11 or 12 and 46 per cent of those with education up to year 10. A similar pattern applied in other states outside the capitals. In every case, partnered Indigenous persons with degrees were much more likely to be in exogamous relationships than were those with less education.

Analysis of exogamy rates by income produces similar results. In the metropolitan areas the great majority of partnered Indigenous persons are in exogamous relationships, regardless of male or female income. This generalisation applies across all the income categories listed for Indigenous persons in Table 3.

Table 3: Indigenous intermarriage by income, 2006

 Males Females

 Partnered Exogamous (a) Partnered Exogamous (a)
 no. percent no. percent

 Sydney

$399 or 1,098 76 2,085 82
less

$400-$799 1,150 82 1,298 86

$800-$1,299 1,065 89 666 89

$1,300 or 606 89 291 88
more

Total (b) 4,140 82 4,578 83

 Melbourne

$399 or 342 74 734 82
less

$400-$799 448 87 454 86

$800-$1,299 397 89 220 86

$1,300 or 217 85 67 83
more

Total (b) 1,501 82 1,571 82

 Brisbane

$399 or 742 67 1,693 79
less

$400-$799 987 81 1,072 84

$800-$ 871 87 479 85
1,299

$1,300 or 323 86 118 80
more

Total (b) 3,068 79 3,525 81

 Adelaide

$399 or 321 61 558 72
less

$400-$799 316 75 297 76

$800-$1,299 220 84 168 83

$1,300 or 100 84 49 -- (c)
more

Total (b) 1,017 71 1,138 74

 Perth

$399 or 573 36 1,086 57
less

$400-$799 486 68 545 64

$800-$1,299 435 71 245 71

$1,300 or 239 79 75 -- (c)
more

Total (b) 1,887 57 2,100 59

 Greater Hobart

$399 or 228 72 381 79
less

$400-$799 250 87 196 85

$800-$1,299 157 89 101 89

$1,300 or 49 -- (c) 14 -- (c)
more

Total (b) 709 82 718 82

 Darwin

$399 or 256 26 443 51
less

$400-$799 215 57 290 61

$800-$ 255 65 234 70
1,299

$1,300 or 123 76 46 -- (c)
more

Total (b) 898 51 1,070 58

 Australian Capital Territory

$399 or 76 -- (c) 122 78
less

$400-$799 80 -- (c) 93 -- (c)

$800-$1,299 176 83 127 79

$1,300 or 120 84 66 -- (c)
more

Total (b) 467 81 419 79

 Males Females

 Partnered Exogamous (a) Partnered Exogamous (a)
 no. percent no. percent

 Remaining NSW

$399 or 3,976 53 5,987 63
less

$400-$799 2,805 70 2,548 70

$800-$1,299 1,491 79 798 74

$1,300 or 638 82 255 73
more

Total (b) 9,514 63 10,210 65

 Remaining Victoria

$399 or 566 64 963 74
less

$400-$799 469 77 441 78

$800-$1,299 278 89 148 84

$1,300 or 97 -- (c) 34 -- (c)
more

Total (b) 1,522 72 1,704 75

 Remaining QLD

$399 or 3,875 27 6,512 47
less

$400-$799 3,145 50 3,155 52

$800-$ 1,688 68 927 61
1,299

$1,300 or 769 69 205 60
more

Total (b) 10,118 44 11,425 49

 Remaining SA

$399 or 740 21 984 36
less

$400-$799 334 61 320 51

$800-$1,299 163 65 97 -- (c)

$1,300 or 60 -- (c) 27 -- (c)
more

Total (b) 1,397 38 1,522 41

 Remaining WA

$399 or 2,166 10 2,758 23
less

$400-$799 718 36 984 35

$800-$1,299 485 47 271 51

$1,300 or 383 58 74 -- (c)
more

Total (b) 4,078 23 4,402 27

 Remaining Tasmania

$399 or 547 76 1,077 80
less

$400-$799 505 80 430 86

$800-$1,299 317 81 126 79

$1,300 or 79 -- (c) 24 -- (c)
more

Total (b) 1,504 79 1,719 81

 Remaining NT

$399 or 4,257 1 4,326 4
less

$400-$799 431 15 616 21

$800-$ 175 33 205 45
1,299

$1,300 or 89 -- (c) 43 -- (c)
more

Total (b) 5,175 4 5,416 8

 Australia

$399 or 19,776 33 29,729 50
less

$400-$799 12,346 64 12,739 64

$800-$1,299 8,177 76 4,816 73

$1,300 or 3,892 78 1,388 74
more

Total (b) 47,019 52 51,541 55

Source: 2006 census customised table

Notes: (a) Excludes those whose partner's indigenous status was not
stated or whose partner was temporarily absent on census night.

(d) Totals include those whose incomes were not stated.

(c) Rate not calculated for those groups numbering less than 100.

Nevertheless, those reporting incomes in the lowest category are the least likely to be in exogamous relationships. For example, in Brisbane, 67 per cent of partnered Indigenous men reporting a weekly income in the range of $399 or less were in exogamous marriages compared with 81 per cent of those in the $400 to $799 category and 86 to 87 per cent in the top two income brackets.

Outside of the capital cities there is a much stronger association between income of Indigenous persons and exogamous relationships, particularly for men. The higher the income, the more likely the partnered Indigenous person is to be living in an exogamous relationship. The proportion of men reporting $399 per week or less who were partnered with non-Indigenous persons is particularly low. (19)

These findings suggest that social divisions based on Indigenous status have relatively little impact on partner choice in metropolitan areas. Due to their relatively small numbers in the cities, Indigenous people mix with non-Indigenous people a great deal. Regardless of educational attainment or income, the majority choose non-Indigenous partners. Urban living therefore seems to be the main factor contributing to the high rate of Indigenous exogamy in the capital cities.

Opportunities for social mixing are much fewer in many non-metropolitan communities. Up to a quarter of Indigenous persons live in remote or very remote areas where Indigenous residents make up a substantial proportion of the local population. (20) However, those who have pursued higher education and those with relatively high incomes are perhaps more likely to have mixed with non-Indigenous persons in educational institutions and workplaces. This may explain the stronger effect of education and income in these areas.

ENDOGAMY AND DISADVANTAGE

A significant proportion of partnered Indigenous persons living in non-metropolitan locations have low incomes. Almost all of these persons are living in endogamous relationships. For example, Table 3 shows that 53 per cent of male Indigenous persons who were partnered and living in Western Australia (outside of Perth) reported incomes of $399 or less. Of these males, only 10 per cent were living in exogamous relationships. Thus endogamy in the Indigenous community is closely associated with non-metropolitan residential location and low income.

Table 4 develops this point. It shows the income of the male partner in Indigenous, mixed, and non-Indigenous couples by location. In the metropolitan locations, there are relatively few couples where both partners are Indigenous. Nevertheless, the income levels of men in mixed couples are above those for the minority where both partners are Indigenous. For example, in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, a third or more of Indigenous male partners married to Indigenous females reported incomes of $399 or less per week. By contrast only around 20 to 25 per cent of Indigenous males married to non-Indigenous partners and non-Indigenous males married to Indigenous females reported such low incomes in these capital cities.

Table 4: Income of male partners by Indigenous status of couples by
area, 2006

 Weekly income of male partner (per cent)

 Couples < $400- $800- $1300+ not Total
 $399 $799 $1299 stated
 Sydney

Both 733 35 27 16 9 14 100
indigenous

Female 3,637 21 29 29 17 4 100
indigenous

Male 3,284 25 28 28 16 3 100
indigenous

Neither 811,467 22 22 24 28 3 100
indigenous

Total 868,488 22 22 23 27 6 100

 Melbourne

Both 266 33 22 16 12 17 100
indigenous

Female 1,234 22 29 29 16 4 100
indigenous

Male 1,185 21 31 29 16 3 100
indigenous

Neither 724,525 23 24 26 24 3 100
indigenous

Total 768,988 23 23 25 23 6 100

 Brisbane

Both 635 38 29 17 7 9 100
indigenous

Female 2,706 21 32 30 13 4 100
indigenous

Male 2,355 20 33 31 12 4 100
indigenous

Neither 351,002 20 25 29 24 2 100
indigenous

Total 378,859 19 25 28 23 6 100

 Adelaide

Both 283 43 27 12 5 12 100
indigenous

Female 788 26 32 26 11 4 100
indigenous

Male 699 27 33 26 11 3 100
indigenous

Neither 224,390 26 27 27 18 2 100
indigenous

Total 239,786 25 26 26 18 5 100

 Perth

Both 799 44 19 15 6 15 100
indigenous

Female 1,I56 20 28 29 18 5 100
indigenous

Male 1,043 19 31 29 18 3 100
indigenous

Neither 287,009 20 22 28 28 2 100
indigenous

Total 314,689 19 21 26 26 8 100

 Greater Hobart

Both 124 49 26 15 5 6 100
indigenous

Female 563 28 35 26 7 4 100
indigenous

Male 565 28 37 25 7 3 100
indigenous

Neither 38,568 25 29 27 17 2 100
indigenous

Total 42,295 24 28 26 16 5 100

 Darwin

Both 420 42 21 21 7 9 100
indigenous

Female 580 16 26 35 20 2 100
indigenous

Male 441 15 27 36 20 3 100
indigenous

Neither 17,097 12 23 35 27 2 100
indigenous

Total 20,617 12 21 33 25 9 100

 Australian Capital Territory

Both 84 27 13 33 23 4 100
indigenous

Female 312 13 26 33 27 2 100
indigenous

Male 366 14 18 38 27 3 100
indigenous

Neither 64,436 12 19 29 39 1 100
indigenous

Total 69,738 12 18 28 37 5 100

 Weekly income of male partner (per cent)

 Couples < $400- $800- $1300+ not Total
 $399 $799 $1299 stated $799

Both 3,401 53 24 9 3 10 100
indigenous

Female 6,316 34 32 20 10 5 100
indigenous

Male 5,867 35 33 20 9 4 100
indigenous

Neither 485,406 31 28 22 16 3 100
indigenous

Total 532,661 30 27 21 16 6 100

 Remaining Victoria

Both 406 48 26 7 5 14 100
indigenous

Female 1,198 32 34 22 7 5 100
indigenous

Male 1,066 32 33 23 7 5 100
indigenous

Neither 276,412 28 31 24 14 3 100
indigenous

Total 295,852 28 30 24 13 6 100

 Remaining QLD

Both 5,493 50 28 10 4 8 100
indigenous

Female 5,275 26 33 23 13 4 100
indigenous

Male 4,389 24 35 26 12 4 100
indigenous

Neither 417,068 26 29 25 17 3 100
indigenous

Total 467,435 25 28 24 16 8 100

 Remaining SA

Both 852 68 15 6 2 9 100
indigenous

Female 592 37 35 16 8 4 100
indigenous

Male 520 30 38 20 8 4 100
indigenous

Neither 86,106 31 31 24 12 2 100
indigenous

Total 94,030 31 30 22 11 6 100

 Remaining WA

Both 3,059 63 15 8 5 9 100
indigenous

Female 1,136 24 27 21 22 5 100
indigenous

Male 939 22 27 24 23 4 100
indigenous

Neither 95,829 23 25 25 24 3 100
indigenous

Total 110,502 23 23 23 22 8 100

 Remaining Tasmania

Both 311 41 32 18 3 5 100
indigenous

Female 1,317 32 37 21 7 3 100
indigenous

Male 1,153 35 34 22 6 3 100
indigenous

Neither 56,119 32 31 23 10 3 100
indigenous

Total 62,703 32 30 22 10 6 100

 Remaining NT

Both 4,957 85 7 2 1 4 100
indigenous

Female 402 25 27 29 15 4 100
indigenous

Male 196 18 32 29 18 4 100
indigenous

Neither 7,006 10 22 33 32 3 100
indigenous

Total 13,443 38 16 20 19 7 100

 Australia

Both 21,847 59 20 9 4 8 100
indigenous

Female 27,212 27 31 25 13 4 100
indigenous

Male 24,068 27 32 25 12 4 100
indigenous

Neither 3,942,872 24 26 25 22 3 100
indigenous

Total 4,280,581 24 25 24 21 6 100

Source: 2006 census customised table.

Notes: (a) Totals include couples in which one or both partners did not
state their indigenous status

Outside the metropolitan areas, this pattern is much stronger, and the share of marriages that are exogamous (as shown earlier) is much lower. Outside the capitals of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, half or more of the Indigenous males in endogamous relationships indicated an income of $399 or less. By contrast around a quarter to a third of men in mixed couples reported an income of this level.

Consistent with this pattern, a larger share of male partners in exogamous relationships earn $800 or more per week than do male partners in endogamous Indigenous partnerships. This is the case both within and outside of Australia's capitals.

CONCLUSION

The great majority of partnered Indigenous persons living in Australia's capitals are in exogamous married or de facto relationships. In relative terms, the rate of exogamy for these Indigenous persons is generally well above the level of most migrant groups in Australia (see article by Khoo et al. in this issue). These findings indicate that Australia's history of socioeconomic and cultural division between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities does not inhibit intermarriage in settings where there is plenty of opportunity for interaction between the two. In Australia's capital cities, endogamy within the Indigenous population is largely nonexistent.

By contrast, fewer Indigenous persons living outside the capital cities (a minority in most states and in the Northern Territory) are living in exogamous relationships. The relatively low levels of exogamy in non-metropolitan communities may be explained by the more limited opportunities for social mixing in these communities. In these areas, education and income differentials are more evident in partnering outcomes. Outside the capitals, exogamy is most likely to occur amongst male and female Indigenous partners with relatively high levels of education, and among male Indigenous partners with relatively high incomes. In other words, in these locations, exogamy is associated with upward mobility. Conversely, endogamy is concentrated among Indigenous couples where the male partner's income is low.

Just a few decades ago there was evidence of deep prejudice within the non-Indigenous community towards the Indigenous community. Yet by 2006 the great majority of partnered Indigenous persons living in Australia's capital cities were in exogamous relationships. This finding applies regardless of income or education. Though socio-economic differentials persist, the implication is that there are few impediments to marriages between Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons from similar socio-economic backgrounds. For Indigenous persons who live outside Australia's capital cities, levels of intermarriage are much lower. Even so, most Indigenous persons who have achieved relatively high levels of educational and income mobility are in exogamous relationships. This suggests that any remaining social divide between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is attributable to socio-economic divisions and to the relative isolation of many Indigenous communities.

Acknowledgment

Census data presented in this paper were provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) through its 2006 Australian Census Analytic Program. We thank the ABS staff for their assistance with the customised data tables.

References

(1) The data presented relate to partnered persons only. There were inevitably some partnered census respondents who did not state their Indigenous status. These are excluded from the calculations in the following analysis. However, couples are included in the calculations if one partner stated their marital status but the other did not.

(2) G. Heard, S.E. Khoo and B. Birrell, Intermarriage in Australia: Country of Birth, Ancestry, Religion and Indigenous Status, Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University, Melboume, (forthcoming)

(3) M. Goot and T. Rowse, Divided Nation, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 2007

(4) Z. Qian, 'Who intermarries? Education, nativity, region and interracial marriage, 1980 and 1990', Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol. 30, no. 4, 1999; D. R. Harris and H. Ono, 'How many interracial marriages would there be if all groups were of equal size in all places? A new look at national estimates of interracial marriage', Social Science Research, vol. 34, 2005

(5) K. Joyner and G. Kao, 'Interracial relationships and the transition to adulthood', American Sociological Review, vol. 70, no. 4, 2005, p. 563

(6) J. Nagel, 'American Indian ethnic renewal: politics and the resurgence of identity', American Sociological Review, vol. 60, December, 1995

(7) Experimental Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 30 June 1991 to 20 June 2009, Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), catalogue no. 3238.0, 2004

(8) Table 10. Indigenous Census Counts and Population Estimates, States and Territories, 1986, 1991, 1996 and 2001, Australian Historical Population Statistics, ABS, catalogue no. 3105.0.65.001, 2006

(9) 2006 Census Tables, ABS, catalogue no. 2068.0, 2007

(10) K. A. Appiah, 'The politics of identity', Daedalus, vol. 135, no. 4, 2006

(11) J, Connolly, M. Leach and L. Walsh, Recognition in Politics: Theory; Policy and Practice, Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 2007

(12) M. Kalmijn, 'Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns, trends', Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 24, 1998

(13) ibid.; D. E. Sherkat, 'Religious intermarriage in the United States: trends, patterns, and predictors', Social Science Research, vol. 33, no. 4, 2004

(14) M. Kalmijn and H. Flap, 'Assortative meeting and mating: unintended consequences of organised settings for partner choices', Social Forces, vol. 79, no, 4, 2001

(15) J. Taylor and M. Bell, Changing Places: Indigenous Population Movement in the 1990s, Discussion Paper, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, 1999, p. 19

(16) 2006 Census Basic Community Profile Datapack, ABS, catalogue no. 2069.0.30.001, 2007

(17) 'Social Circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples', Australian Social Trends 2005, ABS, catalogue no. 4102.0, 2005; Population Distribution, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006, ABS, 2007

(18) J. Taylor, indigenous Australians: The first transformation', in S.-E. Khoo and P. McDonald (Eds), The Transformation of Australia's Population 1970-2030, University of NSW Press, Sydney, 2003 pp. 28-29

(19) The relationship between income and intermarriage tends to be weaker for Indigenous women. This finding may be an artefact of patterns of labour force attachment among partnered women. Individual income is less useful as an indicator of the educational attribute or socio-economic status of partnered women. Once partnered, work patterns of women, more so than men, are influenced by parental status. (Mothers of young children are less likely to be in paid employment or, if working, to do so part time.) The socio-economic status of many women is thus primarily determined by the incomes of their male partners (not shown in Table 3).

(20) Taylor, 2003, op. cit., p. 31