4733.0 - Information Paper: Review of the Indigenous Status Standard, 2014  
ARCHIVED ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 08/10/2014  First Issue
   Page tools: Print Print Page Print all pages in this productPrint All


The ABS Review of the Indigenous Status Standard was part of the rolling examination of all ABS standards. There has been no comprehensive review of the Indigenous Status Standard since the introduction of the SIQ in 1996. The Review examined all elements of the Indigenous Status Standard, including concepts, classification and coding information, collection methods and measurement issues.

This was an opportunity to ensure application of best practice in ABS Standards and Classifications, and to potentially enhance the useability and utility of the Standard, based on stakeholder feedback. As part of the Review, the ABS considered the impact on time series as well as other impacts associated with any potential change to the Standard.

The Review actively sought the views of organisations representing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies, research organisations, ABS and other Advisory Groups, and individuals. Thirty eight organisations, groups and individuals provided submissions or other input to the Review.

The Review invited consideration of the following, although comment was not restricted to these questions:

1. Is the Standard Indigenous Question 'fit for purpose' as the means by which respondents identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or non-Indigenous in a range of ABS and non-ABS data collections? If not, what amendments should be made to it in your view?

2. Is there value in adding one or more supplementary questions to the Standard Question? If so, what additional information could be sought, and why? If supplementary questions were added should they be part of the standard question module or should they be included in a supplementary question module?

3. Do you have views on the classification criteria and coding procedures provided in the Standard? Should the Standard include more information about underlying concepts and data quality matters? Do the terminology guidelines provide appropriate advice?

4. Are there gaps in the current Standard? What other information could be included?

5. Is the current Standard presented in a usable form? That is, does it provide enough information and guidance to enable its readers to understand why they should use the Standard? And does it provide this information in a way that both expert and non-expert readers would understand?