Decolonising curricula in an Australian university : re-imagining curriculum through critical race theory

The recognition of Indigenous knowledge in western academic institutions challenges colonial discourses which have informed and shaped knowledge about Indigenous peoples, cultures and histories. Deeper analysis is required of the ways in which Indigenous knowledge and perspectives are perceived, and the processes through which university curricula can accommodate Indigenous knowledge in teaching and learning. To achieve this deeper analysis, and to invigorate the continuing decolonisation of Australian university curricula, this paper critically interrogates the methodology and conceptualisation of Indigenous knowledge in embedding Indigenous perspectives (EIP) projects in the university curriculum by drawing from tenets of critical race theory and the cultural interface (Nakata, 2007). Accordingly, we conduct this analysis from the standpoint that Indigenous knowledge in university curricula should not subscribe to the luxury of independence of scholarship from politics and activism. The learning objective is to create a space to legitimise politics in the intellectual / academic realm (Dei, 2008, p. 10). We conclude by arguing that critical race theory’s emancipatory, future and action-oriented goals for curricula (Dei, 2008) would enhance effective and sustainable embedding initiatives, and ultimately, preventing such initiatives from returning to the status quo (McLaughlin & Whatman, 2008).

Open content licensing of public sector information and the risk of tortious liability for Australian Governments

There has been an increasing interest by governments worldwide in the potential benefits of open access to public sector information (PSI). However, an important question remains: can a government incur tortious liability for incorrect information released online under an open content licence? This paper argues that the release of PSI online for free under an open content licence, specifically a Creative Commons licence, is within the bounds of an acceptable level of risk to government, especially where users are informed of the limitations of the data and appropriate information management policies and principles are in place to ensure accountability for data quality and accuracy.

Firearm suicide in Queensland

The purpose of this article is to examine firearm suicide in Queensland. In 2006, statistical data were gathered from all closed paper coronial files for the 12-month period of December 2003—December 2004. Of the 567 people who committed suicide in Queensland during this period, 48 (8.5%) used firearms. The following results emerge from this data: first, gun suicides are continuing to decrease in Queensland, most likely as a function of ongoing gun controls, a decrease accompanied by a lesser increase in other methods of suicide, thereby providing little support for substitution theory; second, men continue to be more likely to shoot themselves, particularly elderly men; third, firearms are more likely to be used in rural settings, and by those with no known history of mental illness or previous suicide attempts. Finally, in spite of otherwise very high suicide rates, Aborigines rarely employ firearms, using instead the culturally significant method of hanging.

Developing ethical identities in young offenders through restorative justice practice in Australia

Restorative justice is firmly established in Australian juvenile justice. While the official language used to describe restorative initiatives varies across states and territories, the most common form is a meeting or conference between young offenders and their victims (most commonly known as a family group or youth justice conference). During the past decade, an impressive amount of empirical research has examined how the restorative justice process affects offenders, victims and other participants (such as supporters for young offenders and victims). Results from this line of research are remarkably consistent and show that participants generally regard restorative conferences as procedurally fair and that they are satisfied with the outcomes (eg what young offenders agree to do to make up for their offending behaviour, such as offer a sincere apology or perform work for the victim or the community). What is less common, however, is the perception among participants that restorative conferences achieve the key aim of restoration.By ‘restoration’ we refer to encounters where ‘offenders apologise, their apologies are accepted, victims offer forgiveness,and conferences conclude with a feeling of mutual good will’.