The conduct of the 2001 census in Aurukun could, from some perspectives, be seen to have been exemplary in terms of its combination of flexibility in a highly challenging environment, systematicity in its collection methodology, and rigour in cross-checking and validating the data collected. Consequently, it is no surprise that the preliminary 2001 census count for Aurukun, at a total Indigenous population of 921, is significantly higher than that from previous census counts; the number of Indigenous residents recorded in the 1996 census was 792. The result would appear to be more commensurate with earlier detailed ethnographic counts (Martin & Taylor 1996).

At the same time, it is clear that the time and human resources committed to the Aurukun census, if repeated elsewhere, would have major implications for the ABS. Were such extended counts to be widespread for the highly mobile Indigenous populations common in remote areas at least, there would be a significant risk of double counting some people, while still missing others. On the other hand, it could be argued that such overcounting would only compensate for the range of other factors which lead to undercounting (Martin & Taylor 1996).

Finally, ethnographic observation of the Aurukun census count, like that in the other case studies in this volume, raises important questions about the rigour and comparability of much of the data recorded on the census forms. It also raises questions about the validity of using census data to derive remote Indigenous population characteristics by means of methodological assumptions appropriate for the general Australian population but not for remote Indigenous people. The ABS have made laudable advances in their Indigenous remote area census methodology, but there is arguably still progress to be made in maximising the capacity of census questions to provide data relevant to central policy issues in Indigenous affairs.