In Australia, the question of who is considered Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is more than a legal definition — it’s a deeply personal, cultural and, increasingly, political matter. At the centre of this debate lies the three-part test used to determine Aboriginality and eligibility for a Certificate of Aboriginality or Confirmation of Aboriginality.
The framework, which underpins much of our policy and recognition system, requires that an individual must:
- Be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent;
- Identify as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person; and
- Be accepted by the community in which they live (or have lived) as such.
While this test is widely accepted — and has been referenced in court rulings, government policy, and community guidelines — it is not without flaws. Increasingly, many are asking whether it has unintentionally created divides across the Indigenous landscape: between those who can “prove” descent and those who carry lived connection and community recognition but lack documentation.
Why the Three-Part Test Exists
The test was established to protect Indigenous identity from being reduced to mere appearance or ancestry. It reflects a balance between heritage (descent), self-determination (self-identity), and cultural connection (community recognition).
This was, in principle, a progressive step — ensuring that Aboriginal identity could not be claimed lightly, while respecting the right of individuals and communities to define themselves. The intention was to safeguard integrity and authenticity in recognition, particularly in contexts involving access to targeted opportunities such as scholarships, employment, and business contracts.
But over time, what began as a safeguard has become a gatekeeper — one that can both protect and divide.
The Pitfalls: When the Criteria Become Barriers
1. Proving Descent in a Broken Record System For many Aboriginal people, especially those affected by the Stolen Generations, establishing genealogical descent is simply not possible. Colonial recordkeeping was inconsistent, names were changed or erased, and in some cases, families were deliberately separated from their cultural identity.
To demand proof of descent through written documentation can, therefore, be deeply unjust — it privileges those whose lineage was less disrupted by colonial systems and penalises those most impacted by them.
2. Community Recognition: The Strongest Yet Most Contested Link Community recognition is intended to be the anchor — the cultural and social validation that grounds Aboriginality in belonging and shared identity. But this too is fraught. Communities differ in size, governance, politics, and their interpretation of what recognition means.
In some regions, community recognition is formalised through Aboriginal corporations or councils. In others, it is personal and relational. The challenge arises when one community’s recognition is dismissed by another — or by government agencies that fail to understand local dynamics.
3. The Business–Community Divide The modern landscape of Indigenous procurement and corporate partnerships has, in many ways, commercialised Aboriginal identity. Businesses owned by individuals who meet the descent and self-identity criteria — but who have little genuine connection to community — can still access Indigenous procurement advantages.
This has fuelled resentment within communities who feel that certificates have become transactional tools, detached from cultural responsibility. The very system designed to empower Indigenous people can, paradoxically, reward individualism over collective community outcomes.
A Difficult Question: What If Descent Cannot Be Proven, but Community Connection Is Undeniable?
This is the ethical dilemma at the heart of the current system.
If a person is widely known, respected, and accepted within a community as an Aboriginal person — they live there, contribute culturally, raise their children in community, and uphold Indigenous values — but they cannot provide documentary proof of descent, should they be denied formal recognition?
Many Elders and communities say no. They argue that community recognition is the truest test of Aboriginality because culture and belonging are lived, not written on paper. Connection is felt in ceremony, in language, in responsibility — not in a family tree typed on colonial archives.
Others, however, warn that removing descent from the equation risks opening the door to appropriation or identity fraud — an issue that has increasingly appeared in the public eye. Without a genealogical link, how can we ensure that recognition remains grounded in genuine cultural lineage rather than goodwill alone?
Both sides of this debate reveal a deeper truth: the three-part test was built for clarity, but identity has never been clear-cut.
When the Framework Fails Its Purpose
The rigid application of the three-part criteria has produced several troubling outcomes:
- Disconnection Over Documentation – Those unable to produce “proof” of descent, despite genuine belonging, are alienated from their identity and opportunities.
- Division Between Communities – Competing interpretations of who counts as Aboriginal fracture solidarity and trust between groups and individuals.
- Tokenism in Business – Certification sometimes becomes a strategic asset rather than a marker of cultural continuity, diluting its moral and community significance.
- Emotional and Cultural Harm – People forced to “prove” their identity can experience shame, rejection, or trauma — particularly when their own community validation is dismissed by bureaucratic systems.
In short, the framework sometimes punishes the very people it was meant to protect.
Towards a More Inclusive and Culturally Grounded Approach
If Australia is to honor both heritage and lived connection, we must ask whether the current framework should evolve. Some pathways forward could include:
1. Recognising Community as the Core Give greater weight to verified community recognition — particularly from respected Elders or traditional authority structures — where documentary proof of descent cannot be obtained due to historical disruption.
2. Creating a Pathway of Reconnection For individuals seeking to reconnect after family separation or disconnection, there should be structured processes of cultural mentorship and support, not rejection. Recognition could be conditional on ongoing cultural engagement rather than denied outright.
3. Decentralising Decision-Making Empower local Aboriginal governance bodies — not bureaucrats — to determine recognition according to their own cultural frameworks and history. Aboriginality cannot be measured by one form template nationwide.
4. Refocusing Certification on Purpose, Not Privilege Ensure that certificates of Aboriginality and Indigenous business registrations serve as tools for community empowerment, not merely as gateways for personal or corporate gain. Evidence of ongoing contribution to community could form part of renewal processes.
A Time for Honest Reflection
The three-part test was designed to protect Indigenous identity from misuse — yet it has become, in some cases, a wedge between community and opportunity. It has left many asking: Who gets to decide who is Aboriginal?
Is Aboriginality something that can be proved by paperwork, or something that is lived through culture, belonging and contribution?
If a community recognises someone as one of their own — if that person participates, contributes and is accepted in every meaningful way — does it truly serve justice to deny them recognition simply because colonisation erased their family records?
Perhaps it’s time Australia re-examined not only how we define Aboriginality, but why we define it. Because if the aim of recognition is empowerment, inclusion and reconciliation — then the measure must also be guided by compassion, integrity, and truth.
