Colonial dominance and Indigenous resistance in Australian national education declarations

ABSTRACT

Australia first documented national goals for primary and secondary education in 1989 with the Hobart Declaration on Schooling. Since then, Australia’s goals for the education of children have been updated in three subsequent National Education Declarations. Each of the Declarations includes specific goals for Indigenous Australian students, as well as goals for students to learn about Indigenous Australian peoples and cultures. Arranged into four thematic sections covering each Declaration, this paper traces colonial representation of Indigenous Australians in these policy documents. Each section discusses the socio-political factors that influenced education policy at the time each Declaration was written, and the socio-political priorities of Indigenous peoples in the same period. We argue that the evolution of representations of Indigenous peoples in education policy is evidence of the continued resistance of Indigenous peoples to colonial dominance in education policies.

KEYWORDS:

• Colonial
• resistance
• aboriginal
• Indigenous
• multiculturalism
• reconciliation
• education policy

Introduction

National education policy in Australia is formulated in a joint meeting of the Australian Education Ministers of the States, Territories and Commonwealth. Every decade since 1989, this group has reviewed and re-defined national goals for primary and secondary schooling in Australia in policy documents entitled ‘Declarations’, named after the city that hosted the meeting. The Declarations define the goals for education, falling broadly within the three functions of education as defined by Labaree (1997) to produce: citizens; a workforce; and educated individuals. The first of these functions aligns closely with concerns for social justice and equity, while the second – producing a workforce, and the third – personal growth and advancement – are more closely aligned with economic rationalism and a neoliberal agenda (Buchanan and Chapman 2011, 32). The expression of these functions in policy varies according to the politics of the prevailing decision makers. Criticism of education policy is often associated with concerns about the emphasis or diminution of one function over another (See Cranston et al. 2010).

The purpose of this paper is to critique how colonial dominance is enacted at a national level in key education policy documents. By colonial dominance we refer to the systems of law and government imposed by a colonial power on First Nations peoples that usurp all pre-existing systems of (Indigenous) law. In this case, we refer to colonial domination in Australia imposed by the British. However, we believe many of the issues discussed here are salient for Indigenous peoples around the world who continue to live under colonial rule or the impact thereof. We are concerned with the ongoing impact of colonisation on Indigenous peoples and the role of education policy as a vehicle that maintains or challenges colonial dominance. This paper does not examine how these policies were interpreted and enacted at a state and local level. We are one Indigenous and two non-Indigenous authors. The language used when referring to First Nations peoples in the country now known as Australia will be ‘Indigenous’ or ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’. Unless otherwise stated, ‘Indigenous’ includes both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. While we argue that the enduring effects of colonisation impact Indigenous peoples, we also acknowledge the ongoing acts of resistance on the part of Indigenous peoples since British invasion concurring with the principle of ‘resistance as the emancipatory imperative of Indigenist research’ (Rigney 1999, 116). It is from this position that we write.

The four national education Declarations form the framework for this paper. Every one of the four education Declarations has included at least one specific goal referencing Indigenous peoples of Australia.

A brief overview of the socio-political context of each Declaration is discussed. We argue that there are themes that are present within each Declaration reflective of the socio-political context of the time. We begin with the theme of ‘multiculturalism’ in the Hobart Declaration, turn to ‘reconciliation’ in the Adelaide Declaration, then onto Closing the Gap in the Melbourne Declaration, and finally, ‘recognition’ in the Alice Springs Mparntwe Declaration. It is the expression of colonialism through these goals that is the focus of this paper.

Theories and approaches informing policy analysis

Our theoretical and methodological positions are informed by Decolonising Race Theory (DRT) (Moodie 2017), Policy Assemblage (Savage 2020) and Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis (ICDA) (Hogarth 2017).

Decolonising race theory. Building upon Critical Race Theory, Indigenous scholars argue that race-based theories fail to address the inextricable link between Indigenous peoples, place, and sovereignty. As both a theoretical and methodological approach DRT is congruent with our analysis of education policy where sovereignty, land-rights, and self-determination have remained constant sites of resistance for Indigenous peoples in Australia since colonisation.

Our work aligns with the basic tenets of DRT. We acknowledge that our approach to this subject is political. We have sought to privilege Indigenous voices and perspectives. With each Declaration we have traced the socio-political priorities of both Indigenous Australia as expressed through Indigenous polity (including but not limited to significant legal cases and investigations, reports of Senate Standing Committees, Royal Commissions, and National Inquiries, public protests, petitions to government) and the socio-political priorities of non-Indigenous Australia as expressed through government policy and legislation. For each Declaration we draw on an example of major government policy of the time to analyse the Declaration counterbalancing this with the corresponding issues concerning Indigenous people. In undertaking this analysis we aim to contribute to the tenet of ‘reparative activism’ with ‘the expectation that research leads to social transformation’ (Moodie 2017, 41).

Policy assemblage. Adopting policy assemblage fits with our commitment to reparative activism. Policy assemblage is concerned with power and resistance to power, politics, problematisation, and agency actors. It assumes that policies are in a constant state of flux and are influenced by factors that may be proximal or distal temporally and/or geographically (Savage 2020). This is important in the Australian context where the overlay of 230 + years of colonial rule has shaped the policy landscape as it pertains to Indigenous people. Policy assemblage assisted us to draw connections and to interrogate the influence of events nationally and globally, and across a 230 + year timeframe. Policy assemblage also aided us to address problematisation in policy which we juxtaposed with historical and current concerns of the Indigenous polity thus highlighting both power (who defines what the problem is) and resistance.

Indigenous critical discourse analysis. Along with Moodie’s Decolonising Race Theory we were also guided by Hogarth’s Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis (ICDA) which draws on the work of Indigenous scholars – Rigney’s Indigenist Research Principles (Rigney 1999) and Nakata’s Indigenous Standpoint Theory (Nakata 2007). Hogarth applies the principles of Indigenist Research and Indigenous Standpoint Theory to Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis to create Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis. We owe a special debt to Rigney for his principle of resistance as an emancipatory imperative (Rigney 1999, 116) and Wolfe for his concept of the logic of elimination (Wolfe 2006) where Indigenous people are depicted as racialized rather than as a sovereign entity.

We conducted a textual analysis of the goals in the declarations relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and goals that related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, cultures, and histories. We did not conduct analyses on goal elaborations because these did not appear in Declarations until the third in 2008 and the fourth in 2019.

Hobart Declaration on Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling 1989

The Hobart Declaration on Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling 1989 (Australian Education Council 1989) is the first of the four national education Declarations. The Hobart Declaration is pivotal insofar as States and Territories agreed for the first time on national goals for ‘the delivery of better educational outcomes’ and to reduce the differences in educational outcomes ‘through the pursuit of explicit common goals’ (Council for the Australian Federation 2007, 1). The Hobart Declaration 1989 was formulated in the year that followed Australia’s Bicentennial anniversary of the British landing at Sydney Cove. The slogan of the Bicentenary was ‘Living Together’, the theme being a celebration of Australian multiculturalism (Curthoys 2000; Sharp 2012).

Nation-building narratives feature strongly throughout the Hobart Declaration, with multiculturalism described as an element of Australia’s national identity. The Hobart Declaration has ten national goals for schooling (Australian Education Council 1989). The goal relevant to the aims of this paper is Goal 8, which is: ‘to provide students with an understanding and respect for our cultural heritage including the particular cultural background of Aboriginal and ethnic groups’ (Australian Education Council 1989, para. 11).

Grouping Aboriginal and other ethnic groups together in policy was consistent with the emerging discourse around multiculturalism which positioned mainstream Anglo culture as the standard by which other cultures become ‘other’. However, for Indigenous peoples, the multicultural banner to gather all other cultural groups is a poor fit due to Indigenous Australians holding ‘Their unique position as original inhabitants, history of colonisation and genocide, continued connection to the land, and continued experience of inequality/disadvantage in education, health and employment outcomes/opportunities’, which are ‘largely erased within multicultural discourses’ (Kamp et al. 2018, 52).

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism has been a concept in Australia since the 1950s following Australia’s attempts to at first assimilate, then integrate, an influx of non-British migrants from Europe after WWII who were then followed by refugees from South-East Asia in the 1970s (Hage 2002; Koleth 2010). Multiculturalism was introduced in part to appease a nervous, predominantly White English-speaking Australian population that it would remain fundamentally Anglo-Celtic whilst accommodating the non-English speaking new Australians (Hage, 2002). Multiculturalism gained traction in social welfare policy under the Whitlam Government (1972–1975) in its attempt to redress disadvantage and evolved into cultural policy under the Fraser Government (1975–1983) (Hage, 2002). It was during the years of the Hawke Government (1983–1992) that multiculturalism emerged to define Australia’s national identity. The Hobart Declaration was written in the same year as the release of the Hawke Federal Government’s ‘National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia’, the goals of which were to ‘apply equally to all Australians, whether Aboriginal, Anglo-Celtic, or non-English speaking background and whether they were born in Australia or not’ (Office of Multicultural Affairs 1989, 1). No longer was Australia’s Anglo-Celtic majority accommodating other cultures, it was now an Anglo-Celtic culture that had been changed because of its multicultural diversity. Multiculturalism came to reflect the reality that Australia was made up of diverse cultures (Hage, 2002). By the 1980s, multiculturalism had become a ‘pillar of Australia’s nation-building narratives’ (Koleth 2010, Conclusion para. 4). By 1989 the concept of multiculturalism was well-established and ‘ingrained within the school curriculum’ (Sharp 2012, 408).

In 1987 the Hawke Government announced a Royal Commisssion into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADC). The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was established in 1990 replacing the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC) (1977–1985). The Aboriginal Education Policy Task Force presented its final report to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in 1988 (Aboriginal Education Policy Task Force 1988). This report gave rise to the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy containing 21 goals for Indigenous peoples’ education (Ministerial Council on Education 1999). This policy would stand for 27 years until it was replaced by a new national Indigenous education policy in 2015.

The priorities for Indigenous people in the decade leading up to the Hobart Declaration 1989 were land rights; a treaty; racism in the justice system; and reuniting families separated under Government assimilation policies. In their ‘Overview of Indigenous Affairs’, Dow and Gardiner-Garden (2011) list significant events for Indigenous peoples from Federation in 1901 until 1991. From 1901 to 1991 they identify 31 land rights claims made by Indignous peoples, 17 of which were made in the decade before the Hobart Declaration 1989. There were three formal requests by Indigenous peoples for a treaty; the first of these in 1976, then in 1979 and again in 1988 in the year of the Bicentenary. According to Harris (1979; as cited in Short 2003) in the 1979 call for a treaty there was the hope that this would encompass, ‘political autonomy, [compensation] for the loss and damage to traditional lands and way of life, [and] protecting Aboriginal identity, language, law and culture’ (292). This formal request for a treaty in 1979 set in train a process that led to the reconciliation movement. This is discussed in greater detail in the section of this paper to follow on the Melbourne Declaration. Linkup (NSW) was established in 1980 with the aim of reuniting Indigenous people who had been removed under State and Territory Governments’ assimilation policies (the people now referred to as the Stolen Generations) with their families.

While the contemporary concerns of Indigenous people in the 1980s were land rights; a treaty; and reuniting families, education policy sought to define the Indigenous subject under the multicultural banner as both culturally separate and distanced from the modern, White Australia.

Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century 1999

Drafted on the cusp of the new millennia, the concepts of social justice, technology and environmental issues featured in the Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs 1999). Where the Hobart Declaration was concerned with national identity and multiculturalism, the Adelaide Declaration was concerned with Australia’s international identity and position in relation to the rest of the world.

The Adelaide Declaration was formulated in an era of ultra-right politics. In light of the conservative political climate, the first paragraph of the preamble declares somewhat defiantly, ‘Australia's future depends upon each citizen having the necessary knowledge, understanding, skills and values for a productive and rewarding life in an educated, just and open society’ (italics added) (Ministerial Council on Education 1999). The Declaration goes on to link social justice and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Adelaide Declaration included two goals pertaining to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These goals are premised on the idea that schooling should be socially just, so that:

1. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students have equitable access to, and opportunities in, schooling so that their learning outcomes improve and, over time, match those of other students

2. All students understand and acknowledge the value of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures to Australian society and possess the knowledge, skills and understanding to contribute to and benefit from, reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians (Ministerial Council on Education 1999, National goals, 230).

The goal of reconciliation first appears in the Adelaide Declaration and is included in subsequent education Declarations. However, the emergence of reconciliations onto the political landscape began 20 years before the Adelaide Declaration.

Reconciliation

The origin of the concept of reconciliation started in 1979 with a resolution for a treaty between ‘the Aboriginal nation and the Australian government’ (Fenley 2011, 372) that was presented to the Fraser Government by the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC). The NAC was established in 1977 by the Fraser Government. Its main role was to advise the Government on matters relating to Indigenous people. The resolution for a treaty gained momentum after a ‘think tank’ of academics, known as the Aboriginal Treaty Committee, began promoting the cause (Short 2003, 292). Instigated and chaired by Dr H. C. ‘Nugget’ Coombs, the Aboriginal Treaty Committee had a changing membership over the four and a half years of its existence (Wright 1985). However, opposition to a treaty within Government led to a watering-down of the concept of a treaty to a ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ (Short 2003, 292).

The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs was charged with the task of investigating and reporting upon the feasibility of a compact or ‘Makaratta’ between the Commonwealth and Aboriginal people (Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs 1983). The Committee recommended a change to the Constitution as their preferred method of implementing a compact, and that the Government should consult with Indigenous peoples about the amendment. They also considered a nationwide education campaign for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities as necessary to raising awareness of a compact.

The attitudes held by non-Aboriginal Australians toward Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and vice-versa lie at the heart of the situation and, until they can be properly oriented, a compact, no matter what its form and content, will at best only create superficial improvement (Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs 1983, 162).

In the report tabled in 1983, they considered, optimistically, that this education program could take up to ten years.

Following from this report, improving the relationship between non-Indigenous and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples became the focus of government policy (Short 2003). To this end, and with bipartisan support, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991 (Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991, Aust) was passed with one objective,

to promote a process of reconciliation between Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and the wider Australian community, based on an appreciation by the Australian community as a whole of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and achievements and of the unique position of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders as the indigenous peoples of Australia, and by means that include the fostering of an ongoing national commitment to co-operate to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage. (‘Council for Reconciliation Act' 1991, Part 2.5, Object).

The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was established and funded by the Commonwealth Government in 1991. Reconciliation became a focus for three Federal Governments and two different political parties through the 1990s.

Some of the priorities for Indigenous peoples in the 1990s echoed those of the previous decade. At the end of the 1990s the events that defined Indigenous priorities were: Land rights as expressed through the Native Title cases brought before the High Court; the pursuit of justice and acknowledgement following the findings and recommendations of the RCIADC and the Bringing Them Home report; reconciliation as evidenced by the Reconciliation Convention; and relating specifically to a recommendation from the Bringing Them Home report, an apology from the Federal Governments for harms done to those now referred to as the Stolen Generations (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report 1997, Recommendation 5a).

Reconciliation, social justice, environmental stewardship, and Australia’s preparedness for and role as a player on the international stage continued as prominent themes over the next two education Declarations. Land rights, sovereignty, justice, acknowledgement of harms done, and reconciliation were the political themes that marked the decade of the 1990s for Indigenous people.

Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians 2008

At the time of the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians 2008 (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs 2008) Australia was into its eighth year of severe drought. On the economic front, although Australia remained shielded from the full impact, world economies were experiencing the repercussions of the 2007–2008 Global Financial Crisis which sent many into the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s (Helleiner 2011). The goals of the Melbourne Declaration included addressing climate change, and Australia’s place as a member of a global community. Where the Hobart and Adelaide Declarations reference Australia’s position in the international context, the Melbourne Declaration embraces the ideology and language of neoliberalism employing references to globalisation. It acknowledges that to be competitive in a global market Australia needs to prepare an agile workforce that can think creatively across disciplines, has the capacity to address environmental challenges, is skilled in digital technologies and STEM, and can operate as a member of a global community.

There was a raft of new initiatives introduced in the Melbourne Declaration including the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), a national program that tests literacy and numeracy levels in students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9; the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA); the MySchool website that lists the number of teachers, the enrolment profile, financial status, and attendance rates of almost every school in Australia; and the addition of Cross-Curriculum Priorities (CCP) in environmental sustainability and Indigenous content. It is worth noting that NAPLAN and the CCP in Indigenous content drew specific criticism in respect to Indigenous students and Indigenous peoples generally: NAPLAN and other forms of standardised testing because they discriminate against marginalised groups (Ford 2013; Gillborn 2008); and the Indigenous CCP which was considered by its critics as tokenistic in its approach to the inclusion of Indigenous content in the curriculum and for reinforcing the dominant discourse of Indigenous knowledges as deficient (Lowe and Galstaun 2020; Lowe and Yunkaporta 2018; Maxwell, Lowe, and Salter 2018; Rudolph 2016). The broader social policy framework that is expressed in the Melbourne Declaration is Closing the Gap.

Closing the gap

The Melbourne Declaration has two educational goals. The first is that, ‘Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence’ and the second, that ‘All young Australians become: Successful learners; confident and creative individuals; and active and informed citizens’ (Ministerial Council on Education 2008, 3).

These goals are applied across eight areas known as Commitments to Action. The Melbourne Declaration acknowledges in the preamble two groups for whom the education system has failed to meet its obligations – Indigenous Australians, and students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. For Indigenous students the commitment to action is ‘improving educational outcomes for Indigenous youth and disadvantaged young Australians, especially those from low socioeconomic backgrounds’ (15). Conflating ‘Indigenous youth’ with ‘disadvantaged young Australians’ (Ministerial Council on Education 2008, 15) is unhelpful in that it risks reinforcing racial stereotypes.

The Melbourne Declaration references Closing the Gap in the Commitment to Action that address the educational needs of these two groups. It states:

Australian governments commit to working with all school sectors to: ‘close the gap’ for young Indigenous Australians; provide targeted support to disadvantaged students; focus on school improvement in low socioeconomic communities (Ministerial Council on Education 2008, 15).

The Closing the Gap policy was a major policy initiative introduced by the newly elected Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, on February 13, 2008, during his formal apology to the Stolen Generations on behalf of the Government and Australian people (Commonwealth of Australia, 13 February 2008). The apology was the first order of business for his new government on the first sitting day of parliament. ‘Closing the Gap’ in the Australian context was proposed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Tom Calma (2005). In his 2005 Social Justice Report, Calma called on state and federal governments to ‘commit to achieving equality of health status and life expectation between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous people within 25 years’ (Calma 2005, 13). The apology and the Closing the Gap initiative were considered an important step towards reconciliation (Menzies 2019). Others saw it as a symbolic gesture. According to Menzies (2019), this policy response fell short of the recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report; recommendations she argues would have contributed more to the process of healing for Indigenous Australians especially for the members of the Stolen Generations.

There were three Closing the Gap targets specific to education agreed to by COAG (Council of Australian Governments) in October 2008. They were to ensure all Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities had access to early childhood education within five years; to halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements for Indigenous children within a decade; and to halve the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 attainment or equivalent attainment rates by 2020 (2009, 3).

Australia is one of several countries to employ the gap concept in policy to address disparity in educational outcomes for marginalised peoples. New Zealand is credited with introducing it in the 1990s, followed by the US and Britain (Rudolph 2016). Roithmayr (2003) and Ladson-Billings (2006) critique the gap in the South African and US contexts respectively. Both argue that the language of the gap promotes White-normative benchmarks of achievement and problematises the shortfall between these benchmarks and the educational outcomes of disadvantaged and marginalised students, while ignoring the impacts that discrimination, racism, and structural disadvantage play in creating and maintaining those outcomes.

Another critic of gap language and thinking argues that the concept of the gap inadvertently reinforces colonial dominance; devalues Indigenous knowledges and systems of education; and may mask acts of Indigenous resistance to education as another form assimilation. There is also the risk that Closing the Gap policy may be seen as a demarcation between the unenlightened past and the new progressive future – that we can simply move forward from this point without reference to the past and the ongoing impact of the historical harms (Rudolph 2016).

Finally, using a gap as a measure is not without its shortcomings. In particular, the gap, which measures the differences between two groups, is deceptive in that the target measures are relative rather than being absolute.

There were several significant national and international events that impacted Indigenous peoples in the nine years between the Adelaide Declaration 1999 and the Melbourne Declaration 2008. Nationally, in 2004 the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was abolished (See Behrendt 2005). In 2007, the Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse (Little Children Are Sacred report) was released (Wild and Anderson 2007); the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) to the Little Children are Sacred report was initiated and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 was suspended in order to enact the NTER (See Newhouse and Ghezelbash 2009). In a pre-election announcement in 2007, Prime Minister Howard said that, if re-elected he will support ‘a new Statement of Reconciliation incorporated into the Preamble of the Australian Constitution’ (Howard 2007, 6). At the change of federal government in 2007, the newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd offered an apology to the Stolen Generations on behalf of the Government and the Australian people.

Internationally, in 2007 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In the same year, the Australian Government voted against adopting UNDRIP (See Agreements, Treaties and Negotiated Settlements 2020).

The apology for and acknowledgement of harms done by the forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families under Australia’s assimilation policies was a watershed in the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia. However, the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the abolition of ATSIC remind Indigenous Australians that what is considered in their best interests will be determined by others. The ongoing struggle for self-determination is explored through Constitutional change in the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Declaration.

Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration 2019

The decade preceding the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration (Council of Australian Governments Education Council 2019) saw six changes in Prime Ministers in Australia including Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who came to power on June 24, 2010, after defeating Rudd as Labor leader. Three years later in 2013 Australia had a succession of three Prime Ministers in one year; Gillard was deposed, Rudd returned to the leadership of the Labor party and then lost the 2013 election to Abbott. The coalition Government, which remained in power for the rest of the decade, changed leaders three times by the end of the decade.

In 2019, the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration was developed on the land of the Arrernte peoples of Mparntwe (Alice Springs). The title of the declaration acknowledges the traditional name of Alice Springs – Mparntwe, and the opening lines of the declaration acknowledge the Arrernte people as the traditional custodians of Alice Springs and the surrounding region. The cover of the declaration is a dot painting by a young Aboriginal artist from Papunya and a watermark motif of the dot painting recurs throughout. Along with the featured artwork and the opening acknowledgement, the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration makes a powerful, symbolic statement in acknowledging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and cultures. In this section we will examine two other references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this declaration; the first is in the preamble, the second is the goal specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

The paragraph of the preamble dedicated to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples reads,

We recognise the more than 60,000 years of continual connection by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a key part of the nation’s history, present and future. Through education, we are committed to ensuring that all students learn about the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, and to seeing all young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples thrive in their education and all facets of life (Council of Australian Governments Education Council 2019, 3).

The opening sentence of the preamble does not recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ continual connection to land or country. Rather, it recognises ‘continual connection … as a key part of the nation’s history, present and future’. In these terms Indigenous Australians are at once accessories to the modern nation’s historical identity while omitting the reference to Indigenous sovereignty.

The second sentence of this paragraph says that ‘Through education, we are committed to ensuring that all students learn about the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures … ’. While learning about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures is welcomed, it places constraints around what can be known about Indigenous peoples. ‘Cultural diversity’ does not invite Indigenous voices that speak to experiences of colonialism, racism, dispossession, and resistance. However, the elaboration of the goal specific to Indigenous students does invite Indigenous voices when it notes that ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, knowledge and experiences (italics added) are fundamental to Australia’s social, economic and cultural wellbeing’ (Council of Australian Governments Education Council 2019, 16).

The Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration identifies a specific goal dedicated to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education. Unlike the previous Melbourne Declaration (2008) that linked ‘educational outcomes for Indigenous youth’ with ‘disadvantaged young Australians, especially from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Ministerial Council on Education 2008, 15), the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration goal reads,

Australian Governments commit to empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to reach their potential and to ensuring the education community works to ‘close the gap’ for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Council of Australian Governments Education Council 2019, 16).

The declaration makes positive, symbolic statements about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. It also acknowledges the important role of the education system in influencing outcomes for Indigenous students.

Closing the Gap policy language continues to be employed in this declaration as is the commitment to ‘reconciliation between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and non-Indigenous Australians (Council of Australian Governments Education Council 2019, 8).

Recognition

Constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples re-emerged on the national political agenda in this decade. Although a detailed exploration of constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians is outside the scope of this paper, the following briefly summarises the process towards constitutional recognition over the past decade.¹

Between 2012 and 2018 there was a sequence of five major reports regarding Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. They were the reports of the Expert Panel on Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution (2012); the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Act of Recognition Review Panel (Anderson, Hosch, and Eccles 2014); the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (2015); the Referendum Council (2017); and the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (Final Report) (Dodson and Leeser 2018).

There were important differences between the first three reports and the final two reports. Put simply, the first three sought to alter the wording of the Constitution to acknowledge and include Indigenous Australians in the Preamble and to amend the Constitution that currently allows laws to be made that discriminate against Indigenous Australians. These changes to the Constitution would be primarily symbolic. They would recognise Indigenous Australians as the original inhabitants of Australia. The final two reports differed in that they also sought Constitutional change. However, the change sought was both symbolic and substantive.

The Regional Dialogues conducted by the Referendum Council from December 2016 to May 2017 employed the recommendations of the Expert Panel to inform their discussions as per the terms of reference. However, they added the provision of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament and sought opinions about a treaty. They adopted a different approach to that of the Expert Panel in that they asked Indigenous people the question: ‘what is meaningful recognition to you?’ (Davis and Williams 2021, 128). The response was that Indigenous people wanted to see symbolic recognition through changes to the Constitution. Moreover, they overwhelmingly agreed to substantive change in the form of a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, and a Treaty. What also arose out of the Regional Dialogues was the importance of Truth-telling (Davis and Williams 2021).

The final report in the series of five was the the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (Final Report) (Dodson and Leeser 2018) that sought to provide more detail on what a Voice to Parliament would look like before taking the issue to a referendum. The report of the Referendum Council and this report differed fundamentally on this point. The Referendum Council believed the details of the Voice to Parliament could be defined after a referendum.

In the decade between the Melbourne Declaration 2009 and the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Declaration 2019 a significant international event for Indigenous people was the endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People by the Australian Government in 2009 (Agreements, February 18 2020). Two national reports of significance to Indigenous peoples were the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory (White & Gooda) in 2017; and the 10-year review of Closing the Gap that identified two of seven targets on track in 2017 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2018, 3).

The political themes for Indigenous Australians in this decade included constitutional recognition, a treaty and truth-telling about the ongoing impact of colonisation since British invasion.

Discussion

While official initiatives such as reconciliation, constitutional recognition and apology aim to be mechanisms of encounter and resolution, in many ways they are products of our own understandings of the political, which overlay this shared space (Strakosch 2016, 17).

Our analysis identified four key themes across Australia’s national education Declarations (1989–2019) relating to Indigenous peoples. These findings chart a path of policy priorities and social and political influences on Australian education policy over the past 30 + years. In all four declarations, there is incompatibility between the policy themes and the socio-political priorities voiced by Indigenous peoples. Where multiculturalism was promoted in the 1989 Hobart Declaration, Indigenous peoples sought recognition as the sovereign owners of the land; at the time the 1999 Adelaide Declaration was created reconciliation was included as a goal for education where Indigenous peoples were petitioning for a treaty; the Melbourne Declaration of 2008 reflected Closing the Gap policy following the Rudd government apology to the Stolen Generations while agencies and instruments protecting Indigenous self-determination were wound back. In 2019, the tension between Indigenous priorities and government policy was once again about recognition and with it, meaningful participation in decision making.

Since British invasion, Indigenous peoples’ priorities have consistently included recognition, both substantive and symbolic, as the soveriegn owners of the land now known as Australia; the desire for self-determination and control in decisions that directly impact their lives; and truth telling about the history and impact of colonisation.

We found deficit language and problematisation are vehicles for colonial dominance in national education policy. Deficit language and problematisation has located the cause of Indigenous disadvantage with Indigenous people themselves. ‘Othering’ and ‘Gap language’ ensures Whiteness remains the benchmark for what constitutes the ‘ideal’ in what Gillborn (2005) describes as one of the more insidious forms of White supremacy.

It is important to acknowledge the gradual evolution over time towards recognition of Indigenous peoples in education policy. It is equally important to recognise that in all probability these changes are hard won by Indigenous people themselves. Commenting on race equity and politics in Britain, Gillborn (2005) observes that changes in major policy frequently arises ‘directly from resistance and protest by Black and other minoritized communities’ (original emphasis) (487), including the concept of multiculturalism that was incorporated into policy following race riots in England in the early 1980s.

The tension between the interests of the colonial power and those of the colonised is evident in the respective themes identified within the four Declarations and the socio-political priorities of Indigenous people. There is also tension between the rhetoric of policy and the lived experience of Indigenous peoples. Closing the Gap has failed to deliver on all but two of its targets, partly because of lack of consultation with Indigenous people (Coalition of Peaks 2020; Council of Australian Governments 2018). There are examples of ideological tension expressed in the content of the declarations. In the Melbourne Declaration (2008) the education goal for improving outcomes for Indigenous students conflates these students with socio-economic disadvantage. In the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Declaration (2019) the recognition of the traditional custodians of the land in the opening lines of the document is inconsistent with the statement in the preamble that fails to recognise 60,000 years of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ connection to country.

These points of difference between the political priorities of Indigenous peoples and policymakers operating within a colonial context can be seen as signifiers. They signify the ongoing presence of an Indigenous polity resisting colonialism; they mark the space in which open dialogue can occur; and they delineate things that may be irreconcilable. These signifiers challenge the colonial project that seeks to eliminate ‘Indigenous political difference’ and ‘establish absolute sovereignty’ (Strakosch 2016, 19).

Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars writing about decolonisation interrogate the importance of difference and the irreconcilable in colonised societies. Tuck and Yang (2012) point to the inevitability of irreconcilable differences when they suggest

Attending to what is irreconcilable within settler colonial relations and what is incommensurable between decolonizing projects and other social justice projects will help to reduce the frustration of attempts at solidarity. (2012, 4)

Similarly, Fast & Drouin-Gagné (2019) argue

If we are going to change the relationship between Indigenous peoples and settler society’ that ‘ideas of differences, uncommonality, and difficult contact need to exist, rather than ideas of inclusion, integration, and assimilation (106).

These authors identify the importance of recognising tensions and differences that are irreconcilable. Furthermore, there is an invitation to enter into a conversation about these differences without being armed with a preconceived solution or approach which ‘preconfigures political possibilities’ (Strakosch 2016, 17).

Political ideology and culture are expressed through policy. However, what is also expressed in Australia’s national education policy is Indigenous resistance. Indigenous resistance is seen in the emergence of Indigenous political priorities expressed in these Declarations – recognition of their sovereign status (Alice Springs [Mparntwe] Declaration 2019); an acknowledgement that the education system, not the individual, has failed to meet the needs of Indigenous students (Melbourne Declaration 2008); specific goals relating to the education needs of Indigenous students (Adelaide 1999, Melbourne 2008, and Alice Springs [Mparntwe] 2019 Declarations); specific goals relating to learning about Indigenous peoples, languages and cultures (all four Declarations); the inclusion of Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing in the curriculum through the Cross Curriculum Priorities (Melbourne, 1999 and Alice Springs [Mparntwe] 2019; the inclusion of Indigenous art in the policy documents Alice Springs [Mparntwe] 2019). We contend that the inclusion of these things is evidence of an Indigenous polity that challenges colonial dominance in education.

At the same time, we acknowledge that some of these things may be seen as symbolic or tokenistic. We certainly encourage further efforts to include Indigenous worldviews in the curriculum. The inclusion of Indigenous worldviews is important because it opens possibilities that cannot exist in the echo chamber of a monoculture. Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing expands our adaptive and creative potential because it demands that we learn to think in different ways. Learning Indigenous worldviews also allows for a deeper understanding of Indigenous peoples’ and cultures. However, the challenge is to create an environment that invites Indigenous input and embraces Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies.

This paper explores the expression of political priorities in national education policy as they relate to Indigenous peoples in Australia over a span of 30 years. We do not address how these policies are enacted at local level, although we are aware of educators who are passionate about the inclusion of Indigenous worldviews in their teaching practice. We are also aware of educators who are less inclined to teach in this area for various reasons. Further research into training pre-service teachers about Indigenous pedagogy and how to teach Indigenous content is indicated.

Our analysis is based largely on conclusions drawn from policy documents and archival material. Official information in written form privileges colonial worldviews and we acknowledge that we may not have been able to document the full extent of Indigenous struggles in this paper. We apologise for any omissions or misrepresentations that may have occurred as a result. We also acknowledge that Indigenous peoples in colonised countries across the world share similar struggles for recognition of sovereignty, self-determination, justice, and truth-telling. We have attempted to source original material from Indigenous authors from colonised countries including the country now known as Australia that speak to the universality of the ongoing struggles and resistance of colonised peoples.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Coralie Properjohn

Coralie Properjohn is a PhD Researcher with Transforming early Education and Child Health (TeEACH), Translational Health Research Institute at Western Sydney University. She is an honorary lecturer in Social Work in the College of Human and Social Futures at the University of Newcastle (NSW). Her research interests cover the intersection of women and mental health, and the impact of covid lockdowns in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. Her current research explores how the history of the Stolen Generations is taught in primary schools in New South Wales.

Rebekah Grace

Professor Rebekah Grace is the Director of the Transforming early Education and Child Health (TeEACH) Research Centre at Western Sydney University. Her research seeks to understand the complexities characterising the lives of people who experience disadvantage, adversity, and marginalisation. It is co-designed with service organisations to answer questions underpinning their service delivery decisions. Her research is built on a prevention and implementation science approach and spans the education, psychology, health, and social welfare fields. Rebekah is committed to participatory methods and privileging the voices of key stakeholders, including children and community members.

Corrinne T. Sullivan

Corrinne Sullivan is associate Professor and Associate Dean (Indigenous Education), School of Social Sciences, Western Sydney University.

Corrinne is an Aboriginal scholar from the Wiradjuri Nation in Central-West New South Wales. Her research interests are multi-disciplinary and focus broadly on experiences and effects of body and identity in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Her current work explores Indigenous Education, Indigenous sexuality and gender diversity through the perspectives of youth, older people, sex workers, and in digital spaces. The key objectives of Corrinne's research initiatives are to fill gaps in these areas of knowledge by; working with peoples; and with Indigenous community organisations to develop appropriate resources that can contribute toward building inclusive communities. The outcomes of her research inform law-making, policy, as well as access and delivery of support and services that are culturally appropriate.

Notes

1 For a comprehensive history of constitutional recognition and recognition of sovereignty for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples see M. Davis and G. Williams, Everything you need to know about the Uluru Statement from the Heart, NewSouth Publishing, 2021.