Obsessed with looking inclusive, who does this box-ticking actually serve?

Sometimes, when people are genuinely trying to do the right thing, they get it wrong.

Addressing Indigenous disadvantage would have to be chief among the plethora of examples available. A large part of our difficulty comes from our obvious incapacity to discuss policies and issues in this area in an adult and respectful manner.

The limited number of Australians who have any firsthand experience of Indigenous Australia makes it hard. Helping decide what to do about issues in remote areas if you've never been there, and have no insight at all into the pressures under which people live, makes it not impossible, but pretty difficult.

Toss in to that difficult scenario the acute sensitivity of some Indigenous Australians to any criticism. That sensitivity is demonstrated not by a shy withdrawal, but more often by an aggressive claim of bias and racism. Neither are appropriate.

The social and cultural expectations of Indigenous and non-Indigenous are often very different. That isn't always recognised in policy discussions, or easy to deal with when it is.

The poor handling of the referendum has only increased the difficulty in getting to the nub of Indigenous disadvantage.

Part of the problem is the same thing that hampers so many political discussions, namely, dividing into two camps. It is quite obviously stupid to think of Indigenous Australia as one homogeneous group who are all suffering the same degree of disadvantage.

It is equally stupid to speak as though you think most Australians are redneck apologists for the terrible things that have been done over time to Indigenous Australians.

It might be simple but it's not smart to make blanket policies for any one large group. The definition we use to ascertain if you can claim indigeneity is fairly loose. It puts people of vastly different disadvantage in the same bucket.

In many ways, that's not a bad thing. We should be encouraging those who have Indigenous heritage to be proud of it. The old days of referring to people as half- or quarter-caste were terrible. It said you weren't one or the other. It may have been the word "caste", because we don't flinch in saying someone has a Chinese mother and an Irish father.

So now we have a broad definition that puts a very wide range of people in the same bucket. Clearly using that definition to trigger policy options is not too smart, because it is so broad. The differences within the group are just so vast.

Imagine a young family living in a remote part of Kakadu who've not had the desire nor perhaps the opportunity to leave. They live a fairly traditional lifestyle, they are fully versed in their culture, lore and stories.

They are protecting and maintaining their culture not in books and libraries, but by living it.

Education, health services, housing and protective services are minimal compared to that in towns and cities. Then turn to an Indigenous family living in town camps outside Alice Springs, or in some parts of Darwin. There may be members of that family who have non-Indigenous relatives. This family faces vastly different challenges and all-too-few opportunities.

Then we turn to another young family living in the suburbs of a capital city. Mum and dad both have Indigenous ancestry, of which they are rightly proud.

They have jobs and access to education, health, housing and law enforcement. They want their kids to learn about Indigenous culture. But the parents haven't lived that culture in the way they would have if they had lived in remote communities.

These families are all Indigenous, but they are not the same at all. We need to triage our focus on to those most in need, with the most disadvantage.

It is a sensible way to address any policy issue, and get to the hard stuff as soon as you can. It is also fair to recognise the added difficulties faced by Indigenous Australians who are not in big cities and towns, who live in remote areas and face particular disadvantage.

There's a darker side to the loose definition of Indigenous. It has produced an ever-growing pool of people with indigenous heritage who live in big cities and towns, have never lived a traditional lifestyle and never been to a remote community.

They provide a ready pool of low-hanging fruit to tick-a-box bureaucracies keen to show they are helping Indigenous Australia. Parliaments, public service bureaucracies, companies and universities all seem to have an obsession with being seen to be doing the right thing.

If they can produce statistics that show they are being inclusive of Indigenous Australia, they can pat themselves on the back and open another chardonnay. Given bureaucracies across the board love to meet targets, who do you think is getting the benefits?

READ MORE:

Let me help you: it is not the most disadvantaged Indigenous people in remote communities. This follows through to policy advice. The majority of people giving advice as Indigenous Australians do not live, and maybe have not lived, in the settlements that need the most help.

We are so sensitive about these differences that it is almost impossible to access information about the numbers of Indigenous Australians remaining who haven't had the chance or desire to partner into the wider Australian population.

These people should have a special and revered place. But see how you go accessing data on their birth rate, health, even location. To have this information would be a help to policymakers. And it would help tell the story of how people in remote communities have lived through change over time.

It is not a slight on all those with some Indigenous heritage in cities and towns, it's a recognition of the special place that those who still live a traditional lifestyle remotely should be given. And of the special difficulties they face.

They are the true keepers of the culture of the oldest civilisation. And yet every day, the broad definition of Indigenous diminishes their voice. We disadvantage the disadvantaged.