As discussed above, the 2002 NATSISS survey contains questions on the use of child care in the previous four weeks by respondents who had the main responsibility for children in the household aged 12 years or under. There is relatively little data available on use of child care by the Indigenous population and how it compares to that of the non-Indigenous population. ^[5] Thus the 2002 NATSISS survey is a valuable new source of information on use of child care by the Indigenous population.

The use of child care by Indigenous people with primary responsibility for children (described as primary carers) by employment status and region of residence (remote compared to non-remote) is outlined in Table 9.1. Some comparisons with the use of child care by the total Australian population (i.e. predominantly non-Indigenous) are made. Comparable estimates for the total Australian population in non-remote areas of Australia were constructed using the HILDA Survey. ^[6] Although the HILDA estimates are for non-remote areas, given that only a small proportion of Australian children live in these areas, there would be relatively little difference between the non-remote and the total Australian estimates.

Of the Indigenous primary carers, child care was used by a lower proportion who lived in remote rather than non-remote areas (56.7% versus 69.9%). It is interesting to note that Indigenous use of child care in non-remote areas is greater than non-Indigenous use, with 55.6 per cent of the non-Indigenous population using child care.

While similar proportions of the Indigenous population in remote and non-remote areas used informal care (39.7% and 40.9% respectively), those in remote areas were less likely than their counterparts in non-remote areas to have used formal services (15.9% versus 28.9%).

Differences are apparent between the non-remote Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations in their patterns of use of informal care. While for both these populations, the rate of use of formal care was around 28.8 per cent, the non-remote Indigenous population was more likely than the non-Indigenous population to have used informal care exclusively (40.9% versus 26.7%).

The lower use of child care by Indigenous primary carers in remote than non-remote areas applied to both those who were employed and those who were not employed. However, the difference was particularly marked for those who were employed: 63.1 per cent of employed Indigenous primary carers in remote areas and 80.8 per cent of their counterparts in non-remote areas used child care. This is probably a consequence of the higher rates of part-time CDEP employment in remote areas (Altman, Gray & Levitus 2005). Amongst the total Australian population in non-remote areas, 70.2 per cent of employed primary carers used child care. The pattern of use of formal and informal care differed, with the Indigenous carers being substantially more likely to use informal care compared with the non-Indigenous carers.

There was a large difference in the use of child care by non-employed Indigenous and non-Indigenous primary carers. For example, in non-remote areas, 64.2 per cent of non-employed Indigenous carers used child care compared with just 37.9 per cent of the non-employed non-Indigenous carers. This difference is largely due to a higher rate of use of informal care by Indigenous than non-Indigenous populations (39.9% versus 16.9%). This is a reflection of the extensive kin-based networks that many Indigenous people have.

a. For the Indigenous population, the estimates include persons with primary responsibility for children aged 12 years or under who did not state the kind of child care used. The figures for formal care may include persons who also used informal child care. The total proportions who used child care were derived by subtracting the proportions who did not use child care from 100. For remote areas, the latter estimates differ from those derived by summing the proportions who used either formal or informal care.

Source: ABS (2004c: Table 17) and HILDA Wave 2 (details of data release version)

Lack of access to formal child care is often discussed as an issue for remote areas of Australia. It is interesting that, according to the NATSISS 2002, the majority of people in remote areas who had primary responsibility for children indicated that they had access to child care if needed (69.4%). In other words, just under one-third (29.6%) reported that they did not have access (ABS 2004c).

Estimates based on the NATSIS 1994 and NATSISS 2002 data sets of the proportion of the Indigenous population who had been taken away their family are very similar. Both surveys suggested that 8 per cent of the population aged 15 or more years (at the time of each survey) had been removed. Furthermore, the 1994 survey suggested that 10 per cent aged 25 years or more had been removed. This proportion is the same as that derived in the 2002 survey for those aged 35 years or more (who would have represented roughly the same cohort). ^[7]

To measure the number of Indigenous people potentially affected by the removal of children from their families, the 2002 NATSISS asked Indigenous people aged 15 years or over whether they or any of their relatives had been removed from their natural families. As noted above, about 8 per cent of Indigenous people reported that they themselves had been removed (see Table 9.2).

Perhaps the most significant point to be taken from these figures is that, even though a relatively small proportion of the Indigenous population were themselves removed from their natural family, about one-third of the Indigenous population had a relative removed. Indeed, 38 per cent indicated that they and/or at least one of their relatives had been taken from their family (ABS 2004c: 6).

When interpreting the data from the question on removal of relatives from natural family it is important to note that the question had a high rate of ‘not known’ and ‘not stated’ responses (20%) (ABS 2004c: 58). This high rate of non-response is not surprising given the sensitivity of this issue to some families. It is probable that the respondents not wanting to discuss this issue disproportionately had relatives removed and so the estimates may be under-estimates.

Source: ABS (2004c: Table 12)