There is a question we need to address

but it is one nobody appears to be willing to address at the level where it actually might make a difference. That question is the difficult and definitely "racist" question of just who is "aboriginal".

It has come up in the news again because the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has found that there have been instances of people claiming to be aboriginal who are not. There are benefits to being aboriginal in some circumstances. You might get preferential treatment in many ways and, in some settings, you must be aboriginal in order to get any benefit at all. 

This can be the case in relation to some areas of business and the awarding of contracts. Some contracts actually require "aboriginality" - this may be at the level of participation or at both participation and ownership. It is more likely a contract will be awarded if someone says they are aboriginal or they are employing aboriginals.

Given the very high levels of unemployment among aboriginal people this may seem like a good thing. The problem is that "identifying as aboriginal" is something you can do on a personal basis. Form after form now asks for that information. "Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander" goes the question and you can tick the box. It doesn't matter if you are blue eyed and fair haired you have said you are "aboriginal" and preferential treatment will kick in. It doesn't matter if you do have an aboriginal ancestor but it is just the one great-great-great-grandparent and everyone else is Afghan, Chinese and Irish. And acquaintance of mine identifies as aboriginal even though his ancestry is just that. He has, to the best of my knowledge, not actually used it to his advantage but he admitted it is "tempting at times". 

They deal with the situation differently in other parts of the world. It can be a simple matter of one parent being born in another country or a more complex one of at least two great-grandparents being born somewhere else. There are people with no recognised "nationality" at all and that makes it particularly hard for them. 

My BIL's parents were Cypriot migrants. Middle Cat and my BIL went to Cyprus on their "grand tour" of Europe. (In order to afford it all they camped and often slept in their hire care.) Before they went my BIL had to get a special exemption so as not to be liable for military service there. He was liable because, even though he had not been born there, his parents had been. His nationality extended that far but it does not apply to his children. 

I know many other people in similar situations and people with "dual citizenship". There are people I know who will not visit the country of their birth because of rules that apply to them even though they were babies when they came here. They don't speak the language there or have any ties to the country at all.

It's a complex situation but does "aboriginal" mean something different? Why are we allowing, even encouraging, that sometimes very remote connection to give others privileges denied to the rest of us? Why can't we ask for proof of one grandparent at the very least?  Would it stop some of the corrupt behaviour of those who see it simply as an opportunity to gain a benefit to which they are not entitled? Or would it might actually benefit those who need it most?