Intermarriage between Indigenous and non- Indigenous Australians.
Article Type: Report
Subject: Interracial marriage (Forecasts and trends)
Authors: Heard, Genevieve
Birrell, Bob
Khoo, Siew-Ean
Pub Date: 04/01/2009
Publication: Name: People and Place Publisher: Monash University, Centre for Population and Urban Research Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Sociology and social work Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2009 Monash University, Centre for Population and Urban Research ISSN: 1039-4788
Issue: Date: April, 2009 Source Volume: 17 Source Issue: 1
Topic: Event Code: 010 Forecasts, trends, outlooks Computer Subject: Market trend/market analysis
Geographic: Geographic Scope: Australia Geographic Code: 8AUST Australia
Accession Number: 198941686
Full Text: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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
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.


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.


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.


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
Gale Copyright: Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.