Is it really "racist" to ask

who will be able to be a member of the "Voice to Parliament" if the referendum is successful?

I would have thought this was a very obvious question to be asking. Apparently I am wrong and even to suggest it should be asked is apparently "racist". 

Why? Is the question as easy to answer as "are you eighteen years of age, do you have a birth certificate to prove it, and does society accept you as being that age because of those things?" Those are surely the "working criteria" to decide whether someone has the right to vote.  The "working criteria" for deciding whether someone is aboriginal are,

• being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent
• identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person
• being accepted as such by the community in which you live, or formerly lived.

All of these things must apply.

If it is just as easy to answer the question "are you aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?" then perhaps we don't have a problem. But I think we do have a problem. My friend M..., who clearly is aboriginal, thinks we have a problem too. Nobody would suggest he is not aboriginal. His ancestry is actually particularly well documented. I have seen photographs of his great-grandparents. They must have been rather extraordinary people because they made the most of the opportunities offered to them. They got an education. They had jobs. They appear on old electoral rolls and insisted their children and grandchildren did the same. M.... is, rightly, very proud of them. "We have some problems but our family has done pretty well," he will tell you.

But he has issues with people who claim to be aboriginal with just one great-grandparent or even just one great-great-grandparent who can be shown to be aboriginal. Yes, they have some aboriginal ancestry. Yes,they can be proud of it. No, he says, they can't claim to be "aboriginal". They can walk down the street and nobody has any idea what their background is. They do not, for all they claim otherwise, face negative discrimination but, all too often, they seek positive discrimination. If there is some advantage to be had then they will claim it as their right, indeed others will encourage them to claim it. Almost every form we fill out now asks the question, "Do you identify as..." or something similar. 

It is easy to answer "yes" to that question. Nobody is going to check. It is rare to get your ancestry checked. There are too many reasons given as to why that can't be done - lack of birth certificates and lack of information about those birth certificates does genuinely make it difficult in many cases. And if you tell people you are aboriginal? Won't they just accept it so that you can pass the third part of the test as well? 

This is how some very dubious claims have been made. Even when it has been shown there is no evidence to support a claim of being "aboriginal" some people will continue to claim they are and others will go on accepting it. People like Bruce Pascoe have everything to lose - and so does the institution which employs him.  

What really worries me is that the lack of a much more rigorous application of identity is actually doing harm to the people who need help the most. There are too many "urban aboriginal activists" who have no understanding of the real issues of those who live in remote communities.  Many have never visited a remote community. They should not be in a position of being able to claim they can speak for people whose life experience is so different. M... has lived all his life in this capital city and says he can't speak for them either. 

Don't we need to rethink this?