Historical reasoning about Indigenous imprisonment: a community of fate?

The high rate of Indigenous incarceration is a problem for public policy and therefore for historical and social analysis. This paper compares and contrasts two recent attempts at such analysis: Thalia Anthony’s Indigenous People, Crime and Punishment (2013) and Don Weatherburn’s Arresting Incarceration: Pathways Out of Indigenous Imprisonment (2014). What difference do these books’ contrasting narrative models of Australian history make to our thinking about contemporary Indigenous incarceration? The paper reveals several differences and similarities in their perspectives: how they position themselves in relation to the values that shape Australian debate about punishment; their historical understanding of the institutions of ‘protection’ and of the impact of ‘assimilation’; whether the law and order apparatus is systemically biased against Indigenous Australians; and whether Indigenous Australians should be understood as a ‘community of fate’

'Essentially sea‑going people' : how Torres Strait Islanders shaped Australia's border

As an Opposition member of parliament in the 1950s and 1960s, Gough Whitlam took a keen interest in Australia’s responsibilities, under the United Nations’ mandate, to develop the Territory of Papua New Guinea until it became a self-determining nation. In a chapter titled ‘International Affairs’, Whitlam proudly recalled his government’s steps towards Papua New Guinea’s independence (declared and recognised on 16 September 1975). However, Australia’s relationship with Papua New Guinea in the 1970s could also have been discussed by Whitlam under the heading ‘Indigenous Affairs’ because from 1973 Torres Strait Islanders demanded (and were accorded) a voice in designing the border between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Whitlam’s framing of the border issue as ‘international’, to the neglect of its domestic Indigenous dimension, is an instance of history being written in what Tracey BanivanuaMar has called an ‘imperial’ mode. Historians, she argues, should ask to what extent decolonisation was merely an ‘imperial’ project: did ‘decolonisation’ not also enable the mobilisation of Indigenous ‘peoples’ to become self-determining in their relationships with other Indigenous peoples? This is what the Torres Strait Islanders did when they asserted their political interests during the negotiation of the Australia–Papua New Guinea border, though you will not learn this from Whitlam’s ‘imperial’ account

How shall we write the history of self‑determination in Australia?

The Uluru Statement from the Heart of May 2017 articulated an Indigenous vision for a better relationship between settler and Indigenous Australians: one ‘based on justice and self-determination’. The culmination of years of consultation with Indigenous people about constitutional recognition, the statement proposed a referendum in which the Australian people could approve (or not) the formation of an Indigenous deliberative and advisory body – a Voice to Parliament. The government-appointed Referendum Council endorsed this proposal, but the Australian Government quickly dismissed it in October 2017. One prominent advocate of the Uluru Statement and member of the Referendum Council, Megan Davis, seemed to anticipate that response when, back in January 2016, she stated that ‘Australia has rejected self-determination – freedom, agency, choice, autonomy, dignity – as being fundamental to Indigenous humanness and development’

'Taxpayers' money'? : ATSIC and the Indigenous sector

Funding organisations controlled by Indigenous Australians and dedicated to serving them, in the name of ‘self-determination’, has created risks both for governments (who must satisfy the public that ‘taxpayers’ money’ is being well spent) and Indigenous leaders (who must not only meet service expectations of Indigenous Australians but also acquit funding according to government criteria). This chapter compares two experiments in governance: the Indigenous sector (thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC)

New treaty, new tradition: reconciling New Zealand and Māori Law

According to Carwyn Jones, New Zealand’s late twentieth century return to the Treaty of Waitangi is both an opportunity for tikanga Māori and a threat to it

Reconciliation as public culture : taking cultural studies beyond Ghassan Hage's 'white nationalist'

This year we celebrate not only the twentieth anniversary of the Culture and Communication Studies section but also the twentieth anniversary of Ghassan Hage’s White nation—his ethnographic account of what he calls the white national subject. My paper is an attempt to build on Ghassan’s work by considering research published since his book. I will argue that in the public culture of Australia, Indigenous people and Indigenous things are now prolifically affirmed. Before I explore this Indigenous-affirmative culture, let me explicitly exclude two topics: the extent and nature of racism against Indigenous Australians; and Indigenous Australians’ experiences of contemporary Australian society

Knowing and not knowing : the Ngarrindjeri dilemma

Doreen Kartinyeri (1935–2007) was an Aboriginal historian, in particular, a genealogist of several regions and lineages in South Australia. In her posthumously published autobiography she evokes the tensions between two orders of knowledge that were mobilised when she wrote things down. Written genealogy, drawing on oral, scientific and bureaucratic sources, was sometimes in tension with Indigenous strategies of forgetting and silence. And her inscription of secret/sacred Law—a tactic intended to mobilise the state's defence of ‘Aboriginal heritage’—was intensely controversial among both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. In this reading of Doreen Kartinyeri: My Ngarrindjeri Calling, I highlight the author's attempts at resolving these tensions—metaphorically (her body) and ethically (her conception of the interests of future generations)

‘Essentially sea-going people’: How Torres Strait Islanders shaped Australia’s border

As an Opposition member of parliament in the 1950s and 1960s, Gough Whitlam took a keen interest in Australia’s responsibilities, under the United Nations’ mandate, to develop the Territory of Papua New Guinea until it became a self-determining nation. In a chapter titled ‘International Affairs’, Whitlam proudly recalled his government’s steps towards Papua New Guinea’s independence (declared and recognised on 16 September 1975). However, Australia’s relationship with Papua New Guinea in the 1970s could also have been discussed by Whitlam under the heading ‘Indigenous Affairs’ because from 1973 Torres Strait Islanders demanded (and were accorded) a voice in designing the border between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Whitlam’s framing of the border issue as ‘international’, to the neglect of its domestic Indigenous dimension, is an instance of history being written in what Tracey BanivanuaMar has called an ‘imperial’ mode. Historians, she argues, should ask to what extent decolonisation was merely an ‘imperial’ project: did ‘decolonisation’ not also enable the mobilisation of Indigenous ‘peoples’ to become self-determining in their relationships with other Indigenous peoples? This is what the Torres Strait Islanders did when they asserted their political interests during the negotiation of the Australia–Papua New Guinea border, though you will not learn this from Whitlam’s ‘imperial’ account

Top-down tensions. by Tim Rowse

Can ATSIC really contribute to Aboriginal self-determination