A surface reading of nineteenth century church records and civil registers in New South Wales indicates the inconsistencies, ambiguities and occasional indifference found in the bureaucratic inscription of Aboriginal identities by the state and its church agencies. Michael Herzfeld, in his book The Social Production of Indifference, examines the ways in which bureaucratic processes encode categories of identity that become criteria for inclusion or exclusion in the nation state. He argues that bureaucratic neglect of a class of people who should logically be included in administrative processes may look like official indifference but the exclusion is neither meaningless nor inconsequential. Instead, such an oversight indicates ‘a [passive] rejection of those who are different’ providing a ‘moral alibi for inaction’ which can tacitly sanction repressive actions against the excluded group. These may range from petty discriminations to genocidal killings. Bryan Turner, in his article ‘Personhood and Citizenship’, looks closely at the links between legal identity and civil status. According to Turner the extent to which the identity of an individual person or a category of people is socially recognised and legally constituted is related to their qualification to enjoy full civil rights. In this chapter I will argue that, in the case of New South Wales Aboriginal people, the British and colonial administrations were unable to develop a comprehensive and/or appropriate definition of what constituted Aboriginality and its position with respect to European society.