Search

In both Australia and New Zealand, Indigenous peoples have called for alternative non-colonial political arrangements. In October 2023, Australians voted in a referendum against distinctive Indigenous participation in public policymaking, which had been proposed as a step toward a more inclusive political system. On the same day, New Zealand elected a new Parliament, leading to the formation of a government comprising three parties that had campaigned against what they saw as excessive Māori political influence. Comparing these developments and the histories of the two countries raises questions about liberal equality, democratic citizenship, and whether all or just some citizens should own the liberal democratic state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a result of a number of government reports, there have been numerous systemic changes in Indigenous education in Australia revolving around the importance of partnerships with the community. A forum with our local Dubbo community established the importance of working together and developed a model which placed the child in an ecological perspective that particularly noted the role of Elders and the place of the child in the family. However, there was also the issue of curriculum and mathematics education to be addressed. It was recognised that a colonised curriculum reduces the vision of what might be the potential for Indigenous mathematics education. This paper reports on the sharing that developed between our local community and some researchers and teachers from Sweden, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. It has implications for recognising the impact of testing regimes, the teaching space, understanding the ways children learn, the curriculum, and teacher education. As a result of these discussions, a critical pedagogy that considers culture and place is presented as an ecocultural perspective on mathematics education. This perspective was seen as critical for the curriculum and learning experiences of Indigenous children.

Colonial hegemony distinguishes relationships between the Australian state and Indigenous nations. British government was violently established and there was no accommodation with the Indigenous populations to allow settlement to proceed, as occurred through treaties in Canada and New Zealand. Indigenous arguments for treaties in Australia are, however, well established. Notwithstanding some Commonwealth and state and territory governments considering such agreements over the past 40 years, none have been concluded, and more modest forms of recognition have been alternatively proposed. In 2015, following extensive Indigenous advocacy, the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition appointed a Referendum Council to consult on an amendment to the Commonwealth Constitution to recognise Australia's first peoples. The recommendation of a Voice to Parliament and a Makarrata Commission to oversee truth telling and agreements to allow 'coming together after a struggle' suggested a transformative ambition beyond the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition's expectations. Makarrata does not stipulate treaties as an ideal form of agreement, but in raising the possibility, the Council added to the concept's political momentum. This article discusses the place of treaties in contemporary Australian discourse, including treaty negotiations that are in progress in Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory. It uses examples from New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi to discuss their possibilities and limits in Australia. From these examples, two overarching arguments are made. Firstly, that treaties are potentially transformative, not because they may settle historical grievances, but because their required mutual recognition of each party's enduring political standing means that they define ongoing, just terms of association. Secondly, the substantively different political arrangements that they presume mean that they are not merely instruments of egalitarian justice and are instead concerned with the distribution of political authority – Indigenous authority over their affairs and through a distinctive and culturally contextualised state citizenship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indigenous Australian health is distinguished by a median age of death in the order of 20 years less than that of the non-indigenous population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009). This makes Australia unique among comparable post-colonial societies in failing to make substantive reductions to the indigenous/non-indigenous health differential. Relatively poor indigenous housing, educational attainment, labour market participation and access to traditional resources for economic purposes contribute to the differential. These contributing variables have an inherently political character which is integral to examining the just distribution of public authority, the purpose of political activity, equal political participation and cultural responsiveness in the provision of health services as important theoretical considerations in reducing cross-cultural inequities in the burden of disease. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article identifies a theoretical nexus between indigeneity and liberal democracy in three post-colonial contexts. Like democracy, the politics of indigeneity asks questions and makes assumptions about where power ought to lie and how it ought to be shared in relation to political inclusion and national sovereignty. The interaction of indigeneity with democracy highlights the limitations of liberal theory as well as the opportunities it provides to meet indigenous claims and conceptions of justice. Exploring the ideological tensions and commonalities between democracy and indigeneity allows a contrast, in comparative context, of the proposition that in Fiji, for example, democracy is 'a foreign flower' unsuited to the local environment with the argument that liberal representative democracy can, in fact, mediate power in favour of an inclusive national polity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]