Under ‘Culture’, the 2002 NATSISS asked those in the CA sample, ‘in the last three months, have you done anything else with other people?’ There were eleven possible responses, of which one was ‘going fishing or hunting in a group’. While a similar question was asked in the NCA sample in terms of involvement in social activities, ‘going fishing or hunting in a group’ was not a listed response.

The two components of the 2002 NATSISS sample selection and survey design—CAs and NCAs—have been described and discussed in detail by Biddle and Hunter (in this volume). In terms of sample size and geographic coverage, the 2002 NATSISS survey methodology has meant that information on fishing or hunting in a group was only gathered from the 2120 CA respondents (i.e. individuals residing in discrete communities and outstations in parts of Queensland, SA, WA, and the NT). No information was gathered on such activities from the vast majority of respondents to the 2002 NATSISS—a total of 7362 individuals in non-community remote areas (1997) and in regional areas and cities (5242). As a result, any discussion of Indigenous involvement in fishing or hunting activities based on 2002 NATSISS data is limited to the CA sample, the majority of whom were from very remote, as opposed to remote, Australia (see Biddle & Hunter in this volume).

According to the 2002 NATSISS, 82.4 per cent of the CA sample aged 15 years and over answered that they fished or hunted in a group in the past three months. This represented 39 400 Indigenous Australians. A slightly higher, though not significantly different, proportion of males reported that they fished or hunted in a group than females (84.0% compared to 80.8% respectively). There was no difference between those aged 15 and 34 years (84.2%) and those aged 35 to 54 (84.9%). There was, however, a significant difference between the proportion of those aged 55 years and older who said they participated (66.7%) compared to the rest of the population.

a. The relevant population numbers are provided in parentheses.

Source: Customised cross-tabulations from the 2002 NATSISS CURF

The data from 2002 NATSISS suggests that recognising and living on one’s homeland may influence a person’s participation in the customary sector. However, the sample sizes are too small to make any definitive statements (see Table 12.1). Of the 3 200 individuals who did not recognise their homelands, 74.2 per cent said that they fished or hunted in a group. Of those who did recognise their homeland, those who lived there (22 300 individuals) participated most in fishing or hunting in a group (84.7%). Those who recognised, but did not live on, their homeland (22 300 individuals) had a lower participation rate (81.1%). None of these differences were significant at the 5 per cent level of significance. Given the small sample sizes, this is not surprising. So, although the figures suggest a positive economic benefit from land rights and native title (and customary harvesting rights under s.211 of the Native Title Act 1993), that is ignored in current public discourse on land rights and development, the survey methodology makes it difficult to properly examine such an important issue.

A person’s participation in paid work may be associated with their participation in fishing or hunting. On the one hand, employment that is not directly related to fishing or hunting may take time away from such activities. On the other hand, employment may give people economic resources that facilitate such activities, or alternatively some people’s employment may be directly related to fishing and/or hunting. Of those who were employed (24 800), 86.8 per cent reported that they participated in fishing or hunting in a group. Of those who were not employed (1600 unemployed, 21 400 not in the labour force), 77.8 per cent said that they did so. This difference was statistically significant.

Source: Customised cross-tabulations from the 2002 NATSISS CURF

Of those who were employed, there were inconclusive differences by sector of employment and the hours worked. Table 12.2 shows that those employed full-time are slightly less likely to participate in fishing or hunting than those who were employed part-time. However, this difference was not significant. The type of work also made a difference. Of those in non-CDEP employment, those employed in the public sector were more likely to participate than those who were employed in the private sector, with those employed in CDEP somewhere in between. None of these differences were significant

The role that CDEP employment plays in facilitating such activities as compared to not being employed is a consistent finding between the 1994 NATSIS and the 2002 NATSISS (despite different survey questions). Hunter (1996: 60–61) showed that those on CDEP were most likely to engage in hunting, fishing and gathering bush food in 1994. However, given the smaller sample size and change in survey methodology in the 2002 NATSISS, much less can be said about differences between employment sectors and geographical categories than was possible from the 1994 NATSIS.

Another aspect of the hybrid economy, which the 2002 NATSISS gives us some information on, is participation in, and payment for, cultural activities. Unlike fishing or hunting in a group, this question was asked in CAs and NCAs, making it possible to differentiate between remote Australia (incorporating remote and very remote Australia) and non-remote Australia (incorporating outer and inner regional Australia and major cities). However, it is not possible to differentiate between remote and very remote areas using the standard output from 2002 NATSISS.

Under ‘Culture’, the 2002 NATSISS asked respondents—with only a minor difference in wording between the CA and NCA questionnaires—whether, ‘including activities done as part of your job, in the last 12 months did you: make any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander arts or crafts; perform any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander music, dance or theatre; and/or write or tell any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander stories?’ Those who answered ‘yes’ to one or more of the above were then asked, ‘Were you paid, or will you be paid, for your involvement in this activity/any of these activities?’ and if so, for ‘Which activities?’, with more than one response being allowed.

Table 12.3 shows the three types of cultural activities that are grouped in the 2002 NATSISS and the participation rates for remote and non-remote populations. Of those who did participate, the proportion paid for doing so is also presented.

a. The remote/very remote estimates that are significantly different from the non-remote estimates at the 5% level of significance.

Source: Customised cross-tabulations from the 2002 NATSISS CURF

Table 12.3 shows that the type of cultural activity that people participated in is somewhat different by region. Those in remote or very remote regions were more likely to participate in ‘arts and crafts’ as well as ‘music, dance or theatre’ compared to those in the non-remote population. The proportion that participated in writing or telling stories was not significantly different. Within those who participated, over half of the population in remote or very remote areas were paid for the activity. This was much higher than the proportion for the non-remote population and significantly higher than the proportion that was paid for the other two activities.

The final variable examined is the ability to meet cultural responsibilities while in employment. Under ‘Employment’, 2002 NATSISS asked all employed respondents (including those employed in CDEP), ‘Because you work, is it possible to meet all your cultural responsibilities?’. As with participation in, and payment for, cultural activities, this question was asked in both CAs and NCAs, thus allowing for differentiation between remote and non-remote Australia. In NCAs, at least, cultural responsibilities were described to respondents as including ‘such things as telling traditional stories, being involved in ceremonies and attending events such as funerals or festivals’.

Table 12.4 gives the number of people (who were employed) who: did not have cultural responsibilities; had cultural responsibilities and were able to meet them; and had cultural responsibilities but were unable to meet them.

Source: Customised cross-tabulations from the 2002 NATSISS CURF

Table 12.4 shows that, for the total surveyed population who had cultural responsibilities while in employment, 69.2 per cent were able to meet them. There were significant differences by remoteness with 60.0 per cent of the non-remote population able to meet their responsibilities, compared to 86.2 per cent in the remote population.

Source: Customised cross-tabulations from the 2002 NATSISS CURF

As Table 12.5 shows, industry sector can influence these differences.

CDEP employment appears to be the most conducive form of employment to allow Indigenous people to meet their cultural responsibilities, followed by employment in the public sector. Apart from the difference between public sector and private sector employees in non-remote Australia, all these differences were significant at the 5 per cent level of significance.

a. The percentages in this column represent those who reported that they participated in arts/crafts.

N/A Refers to those States or Territories without a remote or very remote population in the sample.

Source: Customised cross-tabulations from the 2002 NATSISS CURF

In Table 12.6 we provide some slightly different summary data by State/Territory on fishing or hunting, participation in arts and craft, and in being paid for arts and crafts. Bearing in mind that the question on fishing or hunting was limited to CAs, it is instructive that such activities are prominent in jurisdictions with land rights and sea access. It is also interesting that those States that have most land rights and that have benefited most from arts marketing support also have the greatest proportion paid for arts and crafts participation. The Northern Territory stands out in both.

It is most disappointing, in terms of the data on fishing or hunting, that a more comprehensive and detailed geographical analysis of such activity is not possible under the 2002 NATSISS, especially when compared to what is possible using data from the 1994 NATSIS (Smith & Roach 1996: Fig. 6.1).