There are shortcomings in the 2002 NATSISS’s capacity to generate useful data on the customary sector. These are explored here with a focus on the data pertaining to fishing and hunting.
We identify three key shortcomings in the 2002 NATSISS’s coverage of economic activities with customary links. Firstly, and most importantly, it is unclear why ‘fishing or hunting in a group’ was not included as an option under the involvement in social activities question in NCAs, especially when a similar question on ‘hunting, fishing and gathering bush foods’ was included in all areas in the 1994 NATSIS (Hunter 1996; Smith & Roach 1996). Subsequent research shows that the customary sector is of economic importance to non-remote Indigenous people, especially in inner and outer regional areas. For example, Gray, Altman and Halasz (2005) estimated that the value of wild resources harvested by members of the Indigenous community of the Wallis Lake catchment in coastal NSW was between $468 and $1200 per annum, accounting for between 3 and 8 per cent of the gross incomes of Indigenous adults. The 2002 NATSISS clearly ignores customary activity known to occur in these areas by not allowing respondents in NCAs to indicate their participation in fishing or hunting activities.
Secondly, it is unclear why ‘gathering bush food’ was not either included in the above question as it was in the 1994 NATSIS, or asked as a separate option. As women are the predominant gatherers, there is a clear possibility of gender bias here. Third, a very significant aspect of the customary sector—the role of Indigenous people in land and sea management and biodiversity conservation—is ignored in both the 1994 NATSIS and the 2002 NATSISS (Altman 2005b; Smith & Roach 1996).
The inclusion of hunting, fishing and gathering activities in the category ‘Employment and income’ in the 1994 NATSIS was positive. However, its inclusion under the sub-category of ‘voluntary work’ was not (Smith & Roach 1996), especially as it was included in a list of other voluntary work activities that could not be considered economic activities with customary links.[4] The 2002 NATSISS potentially ignores the economic significance of such activities by addressing them only as cultural activities. Similarly, while recognising that monetary benefit may be gained from activities such as the production of art and crafts, the 2002 NATSISS categorises such activities exclusively as cultural rather than economic.
As shown in the recommendations section below, with reference to the Canadian Aboriginal Peoples Survey 2001, such activity can be recorded under more than one category.
It is unclear why 2002 NATSISS focused on fishing and hunting as a group activity to the exclusion of individual activity, especially as the question was not asked in this way in the 1994 NATSIS. Indicative fieldwork undertaken by Altman (2003a) in January 2003 indicates that 20 of 40 harvesting events recorded at Mumeka outstation were by individual hunters or fishers who were also, coincidentally, the most productive. While we are not suggesting that these individuals would not have participated in a group harvesting activity within a three-month period, it is unclear why this distinction is made in circumstances where people clearly hunt and fish alone. The question appears to be primarily concerned with Indigenous people’s involvement in group activities at the possible risk of excluding accurate information on the labour individuals had invested in these activities. [5]
It was an improvement in the 2002 NATSISS CAs interview to specify a set time period of three months in terms of fishing or hunting activities, compared to the unspecified time period in the 1994 NATSIS question. However, it is still inadequate. The primary reason for this is the influence seasonal variability may have on hunting, fishing and gathering activities and the consequent potential for seasonal bias in recording for a period under 12 months or a full seasonal cycle (Altman & Allen 1992: 145; Altman, Gray & Halasz 2005: 15). [6]
A significant shortcoming of the 2002 NATSISS is the inability to confidently compare data about customary activity with the earlier 1994 NATSIS data. Biddle and Hunter (in this volume) have alluded to this shortcoming.
A major problem with the standard output from the 2002 NATSISS is the inability to differentiate remote areas from very remote areas. Furthermore, the publicly available unit record data confuses the concept of remote and non-remote with CAs and NCAs. Especially with regard to the social activities question, the ABS must allow users to identify those who were and those who were not given ‘fishing or hunting in a group’ as a response option.