Looking for:

What is the most common ethnic group/ancestry in australia & new zealand
Click here to ENTER

The response ‘Celtic’ does not contain sufficient information to be coded group/ancetry to a cultural or ethnic group or narrow group, but it can be coded to broad /18873.txt ‘2 North-West European’ as all Celtic cultural and ethnic groups originated узнать больше здесь developed in Zealanx Europe. Archived from the original on 19 February Data collection models should be developed to capture multiple responses to enhance usefulness of the output. Other Christian 3. Narrow groups to form broad groups on the basis of geographic proximity and a degree of similarity of cultural and social characteristics. Gordon, M. This is a продолжить representative survey of women aged years.

Australia – ethnic groups | Statista.- Census of Population and Housing: Reflecting Australia – Stories from the Census,

Outcome The outcome of the review was that one new cultural and ethnic group was added to the classification. A second edition was published in and revisions to the second edition were published in , and High rates of intermarriage and institutional pressures to assimilate mean they comprise persons with diverse lifestyles, socio-economic circumstances and identities. In non-tribal contexts involving national scholarships, and political or sporting representation, eligibility tends to be on the basis of ancestry and self-identification. Population pyramid of Australia in Clearly there is a high degree of overlap between the various parameters.


Demographics of Australia – Wikipedia


Ancestry data, should be combined with data on Birthplace , Language Spoken at Home and Religion for a more complete picture of Australia’s ethnic characteristics.

Please note that the “Australian Aboriginal” and “Torres Strait Islander” categories in this topic are not directly comparable from to previous years, due to a change in the wording of the question. In , these options were marked boxes on the question rather than write-in options. The “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Origin” question is still considered a more reliable count for this group, and can be found on the Population summary page.

Please note: Due to changes in ABS rules around perturbation and additivity of data to protect the confidentiality of individuals, counts of ancestry groups and totals derived from them may differ slightly from those published by the ABS. For more information see notes on data confidentiality. Analysis of the ancestry responses of the population in Australia in shows that the top five ancestries nominated were:.

In combination these five ancestries account for 21,, responses in total, or The major differences between the ancestries of the population in Australia and Greater Capital Cities were:. The largest changes in the reported ancestries of the population in this area between and were:. Please view our Privacy Policy , Terms of use and Legal notices.

The copyright in the way. Australia Community profile. How old are we? Service age groups Five year age groups Age-sex pyramid Who are we? Ethnicity Ancestry Birthplace Overseas arrivals Proficiency in English Language spoken at home Religion Education Qualifications Highest level of schooling Education institution attending Health Need for assistance Long term health conditions What do we do?

Employment Employment status Industries Occupations Method of travel to work Disengagement by age Unpaid work Volunteering Domestic work Care Childcare Income Individual income Individual income quartiles Household income Household income quartiles Equivalised household income How do we live? Ancestry Birthplace Overseas arrivals Proficiency in English Language spoken at home Religion Export Word PDF. Area: Australia.

Benchmark area: Greater Capital Cities. Comparison year: Q: Derived from the Census question: ‘What is the person’s ancestry? Refers to: Total population. Excludes ancestries with fewer than 10 responses multi-response. Compiled and presented by. Compiled and presented in profile. Dominant groups Analysis of the ancestry responses of the population in Australia in shows that the top five ancestries nominated were: English 8,, people or Emerging groups The largest changes in the reported ancestries of the population in this area between and were:.

To continue building your demographic story go to An argument often leveled in support of efforts to remove targeted policies is the imprecision of racial and ethnic data. There are at least three sources of imprecision.

One is inter-marriage because it blurs the boundaries of groups treated as mutually exclusive for policy and political purposes. It also confers options for people to choose their identity, and thus introduces uncertainty and flux. A second source of imprecision is the instrument employed to collect the data, and the inconsistencies and imperfections in the methods and concepts used Hirschman A third is the shift in thinking about race.

Once viewed as a permanent trait rooted in biology, race is now more commonly understood by academics at least as a social category that is produced and sustained through a variety of mechanisms Smelser et al.

In keeping with this shift, many developed countries now allow for multiple-race and ethnic responses in official data collections. At the heart of the problem of defining ethnic group membership is the lack of definitive criteria.

Clearly any criteria invoked are not objective, but are products of the motivations and cultural assumptions of those doing the classifying. However, given its importance for policy, the task of formulating a definition is both worthwhile and necessary.

Biological attempts to identify indigenous peoples are not new. New Zealand census indicated the rate of absorption into the mainstream population — an outcome often viewed as inevitable and desirable. The use of blood samples was one way of estimating the extent of intermixing Morton et al. More often, the notion of blood quantum was used. It also served as a way by which to limit eligibility for benefits.

Until the s the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service used blood quantum to decide eligibility for benefits and privileges. As Snipp notes, it is remarkable that such documents were considered definitive given the high likelihood of error. Nevertheless, the modern BIA continued to issue a Certificate of Indian Blood to applicants who sought verification of their Indian ancestry. In Hawaii blood quantum is used to determine eligibility for a homestead lease from the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

A recent innovation in the biological approach to defining ethnic and racial groups involves gene mapping to trace paternal ancestry from father to son via the Y chromosome , and maternal lineage from mother to daughter or son via mitochondrial DNA. Elsewhere, it has been used for more pernicious purposes. Although it failed, the expectation was that the results of such testing would be conclusive proof of Native American ancestry.

However, given its association with the dubious pseudo-scientific racism of the past, there has been reluctance on the part of governments to endorse its validity. Within academia there has been both methodological and substantive criticism of the role of genetics in determining membership in cultural groups.

A key criticism is that the presence of a genetic marker may have little bearing on the lived reality of being part of a minority cultural or social group Rotimi The alternative approach to biology is socio-cultural and typically focuses on measures of cultural identity or ethnic group attachment. A simpler approach has been to distinguish between single-ethnic and multi-ethnic peoples.

The latter are of interest because of the concern that out-marriage dilutes ethnic identity, which in turn weakens group solidarity and concomitant claims based on cultural uniqueness Birrell The underlying assumption is that those who identify with multiple ethnicities have a weaker sense of cultural identity or group attachment, than their single-ethnic counterparts do.

Thus, it seems more likely to be accepted by policy makers as a way of dealing with heterogeneity, and is deserving of closer attention. Cultural identity is the underlying operational definition of ethnic group as it is used in official statistics. Thus, ancestry is often treated as an objective basis for identity and serves a gatekeeping function, albeit that the process of recalling ancestry has subjective elements Waters Source: Census: Iwi, Highlights Fig.

The reason for this is not stated. Comparable figures for and were not available. At the request of tribes, a prompt for tribal affiliation was also incorporated.

These are shown in Table 1. Clearly there is a high degree of overlap between the various parameters. The results in Table 1 suggest not. Interestingly, half of those went on to give a valid iwi response, perhaps because they did not see the descent question as delivering useful information on its own.

They are, however, a small proportion of the overall MEG. The important point to be derived from Table 1 is that ethnicity is almost always co-terminous with ancestry. Many tribes now have their own member rolls, and in order to be registered, applicants are usually required to provide details of the hapu, iwi and marae affiliations of their parent s and grandparent s.

Typically only those who are registered members qualify for benefits such as marae-based housing or tertiary scholarships.

In the core numbered ,, about two-thirds of the broadest parameter based on ancestry alone. Unlike traditional tribes, affiliation to an urban authority is contingent on self-identification rather than genealogical ties. Where then does this leave us in terms of a definition? Policy makers generally agree that ethnic definitions should accord with the conceptions of those whom they seek to classify. One of the major challenges facing policy makers is how to address disparities between ethnic groups in a way that is efficient and equitable.

Broad-brush policies that use ethnicity as a proxy for disadvantage draw criticism because they include well-off minorities, while ignoring disadvantaged persons from the dominant group or some other minority.

On the other hand, a needs-based model that omits ethnicity overlooks the sorting mechanisms or processes by which particular ethnic groups come to be disproportionately concentrated in those strata that are the most needy. An effective strategy, it seems, ought to take account of both ethnicity and need.

Callister , Chapple The study however was unable to control for other factors that may have been important. The latter is salient as studies have shown that persons who have features typically associated with a particular racial or ethnic group, tend to be perceived and treated as a group member, irrespective of how they self-identify Hughes and Hertel , Rocquemore and Brunsma , Waters The context in which the question is asked, and how it is administered also matters Harris and Sim , Petersen , Rocquemore and Brunsma Finally, there are those for whom identity is less of a choice than a lived identity that remains stable across the life course Nagel The literature suggests two sorts of costs that might be incurred as a result of having a strong attachment to a minority ethnic group.

The first comprises obligations, expectations and conformity to group norms. Although this kind of cost involves giving up something, such as time and resources, it does not preclude benefits. This is because obligations based on reciprocity often help to sustain group relationships, and can engender a sense of belonging and psychological wellbeing Williams and Robinson The second kind of cost negatively impacts on life-chances.

Examples include labour market discrimination and isolation from mainstream, resource-rich networks Reitz and Sklar Typically, it is this kind of cost that policy makers are interested in.

To test whether strength of identity is associated with poorer outcomes and higher costs, I use data from the New Zealand Women: Family, Employment and Education survey for a technical description see Marsault et al. This is a nationally representative survey of women aged years. Samoan are excluded here because of their small number. Notes: 1. It is mainly European women who differ systematically. As cross-tabulations do not control for the confounding effects of interactions, it is necessary to undertake some form of multivariate analysis.

Typically the outcome variable is some measure of immediate position, for example, log hourly earnings, or occupational prestige.

A continuous measure of income is not possible here since respondents in the NZWFEE did not report actual earnings, instead responding to a pre-determined earnings category. To deal with this, multinomial logistic regression is undertaken using aggregate personal annual earnings as the dependent variable. The results are interpreted as odds of outcome Yi or Yj in relation to a reference category Yk.

The most interesting point of comparison here is the higher income category. When background factors are controlled for, orientation towards or away from the European ethnic group is still a significant factor in explaining differences in earnings. This is net of other explanatory factors, of which marital status and occupational status were by far the most important. These findings raise the question of why orientation towards the European mainstream confers benefits in terms of better outcomes.

This is an important question that is beyond the scope of this paper, and the in-depth empirical research to answer it is urgently needed. This paper has considered two critical questions that have application beyond New Zealand. The first is how to determine who is an ethnic group member and who is not. The second is, given a defined group, who ought to benefit from public policy interventions. Statutory definitions almost always rely on descent while official statistics use self-identified ethnic affiliation.

Moreover, in contexts where rewards are involved, descent also serves as a baseline to limit opportunism by those with no legitimate claim. The inclusion of a main ethnicity prompt in official data collections would help improve understanding of the dynamic underlying differences within the MEG.

Recognising this, Statistics New Zealand has identified main ethnicity as part of its future research agenda on ethnicity One of the criticisms of using ethnicity as a basis for classification is that it lacks objectivity. In tribal contexts and legal situations to do with tribal land rights and title, more compelling proof of identity is required, and to a large extent these are already well defined by tribes themselves.

Land claims, for instance, tend to require more particular criteria such as recognition as a descendant of a traditional owner. In non-tribal contexts involving national scholarships, and political or sporting representation, eligibility tends to be on the basis of ancestry and self-identification. However, because it implies a connection to a community, there is a reasonable argument to be made for community endorsement to apply. This already happens to some extent. Indeed, solutions to questions of authenticity are often difficult to implement.

They are rarely definitive, and can place heavy resource burdens on applicants and the organisations charged with overseeing the process. Some applicants only need go back one or two generations, but for others it involves reconstructing a family tree with roots to remotely remembered ancestors.

In New Zealand, as in North America and Australia, tribal identity has been revitalised through the channeling of government funds into tribal development via the settlement of historical claims and policy initiatives. Applications to be registered on tribal rolls are typically considered by local elders or a committee recognised as knowledgeable in local genealogy. This contrasts with American Indian tribes, which typically require applicants to prove a minimum tribal blood quantum Snipp In Australia, court cases have debated the relative weight of descent, identification and community recognition criteria.

For example, people who strongly identified as Aboriginal claimed the sources were not readily available to prove their Aboriginal descent.

In spite of best efforts, tests of criteria can become very messy, especially as they become more restrictive. A recurring theme in this paper is that how ethnic group boundaries are defined and delineated is an intensely political process that is tied to resources and who can access them. Implicit in this is the question of who gets to decide which criteria count. For a broader perspective, it is useful to locate the New Zealand discourse within the context of those unfolding in comparable countries with indigenous populations.

In many ways these peoples all share similar characteristics: high rates of intermix with the European-descent majority, integration into a capitalist economy, rapid urbanisation, differentiation in legal and policy contexts, pronounced population growth in recent decades, and over-representation in the lower socio-economic strata.

This is evident when contrasted with the complex situation in Canada. Those registered under the Indian Act are Registered or Status Indians, and are entitled to benefits that may not be available to other Indians. Programmes and services available to Status Indians include specific tax exemptions, non-insured health benefits, and dental and eye care.

However, knowing which programmes and policies apply is difficult, as social legislation varies across territories. There are also Treaty Indians, whose bands or nations have treaty rights with the Canadian government, as well as other rights protected in the constitution. Thus, Indians who live in the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are free to fish and hunt in all seasons throughout the territories Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Given the complexities of definition, verification and consistency, it is not surprising that governments are increasingly being challenged to justify the collection of ethnic and racial data and the policies they support.

There are problems, however, with ignoring ethnicity, and specifically indigineity. One is the matter of sovereign or treaty rights. Indigenous peoples have particular arrangements with the state that derive from historical relations e. Secondly, studies in New Zealand and abroad have shown that ethnicity and race are often associated with disadvantage.

Sometimes the effect is direct and causal. That is, when other factors are controlled for, ethnicity or race still has a significant effect on the outcome studied Risch et al. However, even when ethnicity is not a significant predictor of disadvantage, it is often significantly associated with the other factors e.

Ignoring ethnicity ignores the historical and contemporary processes by which particular ethnic groups came to be disproportionately concentrated among those most in need — the unemployed, the imprisoned, the sick, and the under-educated. Moreover, there are policy areas such as health where particular groups are high risk, either because of genetic or lifestyle factors, and need to be directly targeted on the basis of their ethnicity.

In those countries, there is a growing call for the abandonment of ethnic- and race-based policies. The challenge facing New Zealand policy makers will be to respond to these growing complexities and exogenous pressures with creative and open-minded responses based on robust research.


Face the facts: Cultural Diversity | Australian Human Rights Commission


The Australian Bureau of Statistics ABS endorses the use of this classification for collecting, aggregating and disseminating data relating to the cultural and ethnic diversity of the Australian population. Use of the ASCCEG by statistical, administrative and service delivery agencies improves the comparability and compatibility of data about ethnicity collected from different sources. A second edition was published in and revisions to the second edition were published in , and The identification of cultural and ethnic groups in the classification, and the way in which they are grouped, does not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of the ABS regarding the recognition of any group by governments, organisations or individuals, or the status accorded them.

Nor does it imply the expression of any opinion concerning the relative merit or importance of particular cultural and ethnic groups or the peoples who belong to them. The words ‘ethnicity’ and ‘ethnic’ are associated with many different meanings. For the purposes of the ASCCEG, ‘ethnicity’ refers to the shared identity or similarity of a group of people on the basis of one or more distinguishing characteristics.

The description of ethnicity and distinguishing characteristics were established in the report of the Population Census Ethnicity Committee, chaired by the late Professor W. The key factor for the inclusion of an ethnic group is the group regarding itself and being regarded by others, as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics, not all of which have to be present in the case of each ethnic group.

Cultural and ethnic groups are included to enable:. Considering ethnicity as a multi-dimensional concept based on a number of distinguishing characteristics using a self-perception approach allows for a practical and useful classification attuned to a concept of what constitutes ethnicity and cultural identity. This approach supports the collection and use of data in statistical, administrative and service delivery settings.

Since the Borrie Report was published, the multicultural nature of Australian society has further developed but the approach to the definition of ethnicity in the report is still relevant and serves the purposes of the ASCCEG. In practice, only those cultural and ethnic groups with significant numbers of persons resident in Australia are separately identified in the classification.

Those groups not separately identified are included in the most appropriate residual not elsewhere classified category of the classification.

Residual categories are explained in ‘About Codes’. The code structure of the classification allows for the addition of cultural and ethnic groups, as needed.

The classification is not intended to classify people, but rather to classify all claims of association or identification with a cultural or ethnic group. The ASCCEG has a three level hierarchical structure that consists of broad groups, narrow groups, and cultural and ethnic groups. The classification criteria are the principles by which the base level categories of the classification are formed and then aggregated to form broader or higher-level categories in the classification’s hierarchical structure.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples are recognised with appropriate categories in the narrow group ‘Australian Peoples’ and since European settlement, a distinct Australian cultural identity has emerged prompting the inclusion of ‘Australian’ in that narrow group. Cultural and ethnic group ‘Russian’ has been classified in Broad Group 3 ‘Southern and Eastern European’ on the grounds of cultural similarity with other European cultural and ethnic groups even though much of Russia lies geographically in Asia.

As a general rule, cultural and ethnic groups which originated and are located in Russia have also been classified to Europe. It is acknowledged that this is not necessarily the best solution for all cultural and ethnic groups east of the Urals, many of whom are more culturally Asian than European. The principle that has been adopted for the classification of groups in Russia east of the Urals is that those which speak Altaic or Iranic languages are classified to Narrow Group 72 Central Asian, while those which speak Ugro-Finnic languages are classified to Narrow Group 33 Eastern European.

It is acknowledged that many Jewish people in Australia might not have ties with the Middle East and might consider classification within one of the European broad groups as more correct. However, following consultation with representatives of the Jewish community at the time the ASCCEG was developed, it was decided to adhere to the classification criterion for geographic proximity and include ‘Jewish’ in ‘North African and Middle Eastern’ as this is where the Jewish culture originated.

Many people relate to more than one cultural or ethnic group and will give a multiple response to a question on ancestry, ethnicity or cultural identity.

Often a response will indicate an identification with a country in a national or cultural sense and will also acknowledge continuing ties with other ethnic or cultural groups, for example, Irish Australian, Italian Australian. Data collection models should be developed to capture multiple responses to enhance usefulness of the output.

The effect of these constraints on the classification has been that:. The classification can accommodate changes to Australia’s cultural and ethnic composition and can be used to facilitate comparisons with cultural and ethnicity data from other countries.

Example of the categories in the ‘Oceanian’ broad group:. Residual or ‘not elsewhere classified’ nec categories capture cultural and ethnic groups that are not separately identified in the main structure of the classification due to their low statistical significance.

These categories are represented by four digit codes where the first two digits identify the narrow group to which they relate and the final two digits are ’99’. The classification currently has 24 ‘nec’ categories. Supplementary or ‘not further defined’ nfd codes are used to code responses that are insufficiently specific for the main classification structure to be used. They exist only for operational reasons. No data would be coded to them if sufficiently detailed responses were obtained in all instances.

Using supplementary codes enables responses or input data which can only be assigned codes at the broad or narrow group levels of the classification to be processed within a collection at the four digit level.

The coding process can be as precise as the input data quality allows, preserving data that would otherwise be discarded as uncodable or aggregated with other data to which it is unrelated in the ‘inadequately described’ supplementary category. Supplementary codes are not part of the classification structure. Four digit codes commencing with ’09’ are used to code ancestry responses which broadly describe the region of origin but cannot be coded to either a substantive cultural or ethnic group or to one of the ‘nfd’ codes.

These codes allow the collection and storage of data for responses such as African, Asian, and European. For example, Sicilian may be a response to a question about ancestry but it does not exactly match the title of the category ‘ Italian’.

A coding index is therefore necessary to act as a link between responses and the classification. The accurate coding of ancestry responses within Australian Bureau of Statistics ABS collections is carried out by automated coding systems that link high-frequency responses to their corresponding categories in the ASCCEG via a coding index. The ASCCEG coding index connects more than one thousand high-frequency ancestry responses to each of their corresponding cultural and ethnic groups within the ASCCEG, enabling responses to be assigned accurately and quickly to the appropriate category of the classification.

The index includes:. Classification codes for particular responses have been allocated by reference to literature in the field and consultation with academics, government and private organisations with relevant knowledge and expertise; and by analysis of ABS data. In addition to its coding function, the index can be used to clarify the nature, extent and varietal content of each classification category.

The following coding rules outline the parameters used to build the entries in the coding index:. The coding rules outlined above can also be used as a guide for coding responses that are not covered by the coding index. The full range of Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups ASCCEG codes should be used in all stages of statistical production including validating input codes at the editing stage of data processing, aggregating data to higher levels of the classification’s structure, and deriving output items.

The valid range of codes consists of:. The valid range of codes are shown in Tables 1. Data should be coded and stored at the most detailed four digit level of the classification. Collecting and storing data at the four-digit level of the classification allows the greatest flexibility for the output of statistical data, enables more detailed and complex analyses, and facilitates comparisons with other data sets.

The hierarchical structure of the ASCCEG allows users the flexibility to present statistics at the level of the classification which suits their purpose s. Data can be output at broad group, narrow group or cultural and ethnic group levels of the classification.

If necessary, significant cultural and ethnic groups within a narrow group can be presented separately while the remaining cultural and ethnic groups within the narrow group are aggregated. The same principle can be adopted to highlight significant narrow groups within a broad group.

Aggregated categories should be labelled ‘Other’ or ‘Other narrow group name ‘. Cultural and ethnic groups from different narrow groups should not be added together to form an aggregation that is not included in the classification structure as this corrupts the application of the classification criteria and has negative repercussions for data comparability.

Similarly, narrow groups from different broad groups should not be added together. It was restricted to an examination of feedback received since the last minor review was done in The outcome of the review was that one new cultural and ethnic group was added to the classification.

Consequent updates were made to correspondence tables and the coding index to ensure that the new cultural and ethnic group was reflected in those products. They show:. These correspondence tables are available in Table 3.

The data cube contains the ASCCEG structure, supplementary codes, and correspondence tables between the current and most recent previous edition. Search ABS. APA Copy. Reference period. Next release Unknown. Ethnicity The words ‘ethnicity’ and ‘ethnic’ are associated with many different meanings. These characteristics include: A long shared history, the memory of which is kept alive. A cultural tradition, including family and social customs, sometimes religiously based.

A common geographic origin. A common language but not necessarily limited to that group. A common literature written or oral. A common religion. Being a minority often with a sense of being oppressed.

Being racially conspicuous. Cultural and ethnic groups are included to enable: Measurement of the extent to which individuals associate with particular groups. Measuring active association produces data for groups which is useful for policy and service delivery needs. This means a number of categories that equate to national cultural identities are included, for example, Australian.

A stronger emphasis on historical origins would have resulted in data for more groups with which individuals may have no or little social, cultural or economic affinity. The recommended method of collecting ethnicity or ancestry statistics in the ABS and other organisations. It is a self-assessed response to a direct question. No attempt is made to historically determine the origins of individuals.

Building the classification. Classification structure The ASCCEG has a three level hierarchical structure that consists of broad groups, narrow groups, and cultural and ethnic groups. Broad group This is the highest level of the classification. There are nine broad groups. Each one contains between two and five narrow groups. Narrow group This is the second or middle level of the classification.

There are 28 narrow groups. Each one contains between one and 33 cultural and ethnic groups.