Reconciliation and Social Justice Library
Reconciliation and Social Justice Library
6.19 The Green Paper on a draft Australian Language and Literacy Policy was released in December 1990 122 . The third of its 3 goals dealt with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages and stated:
Those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages still actively transmitted to and used by children must be maintained and developed. All others should be recorded, where possible, for the benefit of the descendants of their speakers and for the nation's heritage 123 .
6.20 As the Green Paper claimed only 20 languages were "still actively transmitted", the remaining 70 surviving languages were to be ignored by the proposed policy. The proposed policy offered only recording for those languages.
6.21 The Green Paper proposed four strategies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander language maintenance and development, to be implemented as relevant under the AEP or through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. It described them as:
1. Sustained support for a comprehensive network of regional language centres including centres which already exist.
These centres would appoint teacher/linguists and would be responsible for the development of curricula and teaching programs for Aboriginal languages identified by the Aboriginal communities as priorities to be accommodated by the general curricula for schools and other education institutions. This appears to be a cost-efficient way of providing the necessary infrastructure to support Aboriginal language maintenance and development.
2. In consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the Aboriginal Employment, Education and Training Committee, establishment of a national Aboriginal language network based on the regional Aboriginal language centres.
This network would determine priorities for the accommodation of Aboriginal languages within education systems.
3. Research, recording and retrieval of Aboriginal languages.
This would need to be considered by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.
4. Appropriate training for Aboriginal people to implement programs supporting Aboriginal languages 124 .
6.22 It is clear that DEET still believed that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander language could be taught successfully by a predominantly European education system and controlled by that system. 125 The very narrow DEET view of language maintenance, being primarily conducted through schools with curriculum development and teaching programs being devised by regional language centres, was strongly criticised for these shortcomings. It was certainly not based on experience with NALP where only 27% of funds went to schools. The Green Paper ignored the 56% of funds that went to ATSI communities and regional language centres and the 17% that went to institutions, private companies and individuals. It proposed turning these funds over to education systems through the AEP. The committee is critical of DEET's failure to comprehend the full nature of language maintenance and its efforts to restrict the program to an education system base.
6.23 The way in which the Green Paper was released was damaging to the morale of those working in language maintenance outside of schools. It failed to comprehend the nature of language maintenance activities and was prepared with little or no consultation with ATSI people. The only consultation that could be said to have occurred was that associated with the NALP Review. As outlined in paragraphs 6.16 and 6.17 those consulted in the NALP Review were opposed to language maintenance being integrated into AEP. Despite these clearly articulated concerns the Green Paper proceeded on the basis of recommending incorporation.
6.24 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander language maintenance does not have a long history of Commonwealth Government support. Apart from the bilingual schools established by the Commonwealth in the Northern Territory in the mid 1970s no other programs were established until the NALP was established in 1987. While offering help and encouragement to many language projects in its short lifetime its submission-based annual funding meant that projects were never certain of ongoing funding or the level of that funding. This hindered effective long-term planning within many projects. The NALP was a fixed term program and close to the end of that term the NALP Review was commissioned by DEET. However no forward planning had been evident as to what would replace NALP, if anything, when it finished. Instead projects were left on tenterhooks while DEET provided last minute extensions of funding for ongoing projects such as language centres and did not fund any new projects.
6.25 In the period leading up to the release of the Green Paper, language maintenance agencies had become very uncertain about the continuity of their particular program or its level of funding. The uncertainty about funding left many language workers and the communities they served, uncertain as to the real commitment of the Government and the importance attaching to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages. When the Green Paper was released it stated that only 20 languages would be supported and that this would be done through the education system. Most of the work of language centres and field workers was apparently to be discontinued. This was a severe and unconsidered blow to communities and their language workers. The Green Paper did however provoke a unified response on a number of issues from ATSI language service agencies.
6.26 The White Paper was released in early September 1991 and announced a national policy and a national strategy to promote language and literacy in Australia through the Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP). The White Paper claims that it:
delivers the Prime Minister's promise to maintain and develop the National Policy on Languages (NPL), incorporating the principles of the NPL into a new Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP) .126
6.27 Of the four goals of the Australian Language and Literacy Policy the third relates specifically to ATSI languages:
those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages which are still transmitted should be maintained and developed, and those that are not should be recorded where appropriate. 127
6.28 Despite this being essentially the same as the goal strongly objected to in the Green Paper, the White Paper claims that responses to the Green Paper "revealed a high level of community support for the four key goals". This claim is clearly false. Fortunately the expanded version of the goal used elsewhere in the White Paper is a little more comprehensive. It states:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages should be maintained and developed where they are still transmitted. Other languages should be assisted in an appropriate way, for example through recording. These activities should only occur where the speakers so desire and in consultation with their community, for the benefit of the descendants of their speakers and for the nation's heritage. 128
6.29 he White Paper goes on to expand this policy:
The Commonwealth's policy is to preserve, protect and promote the rights and freedom of indigenous Australians to use and develop indigenous Australian languages. The use of indigenous languages as accredited vehicles of instruction is encouraged where possible, in order to develop and support:
· the survival of indigenous Australian languages;
educational opportunity;
increased student success and performance;
increased student awareness and knowledge of their culture and history; and
· increased student and community pride. 129
6.30 Despite the claim that this policy incorporates the principles of the National Policy on Languages it is nowhere near as comprehensive as the NPL. It continues to place an inexplicably heavy emphasis on school based educational programs and outcomes to the detriment of community language maintenance and development work and their expected socio-linguistic outcomes.
6.31 Under the ALLP the White Paper proposes a National Aboriginal Languages and Literacy Strategy (NALLS). The three parts of the strategy are an Aboriginal Languages Initiatives Program (ALIP), Aboriginal Literacy Strategy and an Aboriginal Language Education Strategy. Only the latter two will be under the AEP. The ALIP will replace NALP and will have significantly greater funding than NALP.
6.32 The White Paper described the Aboriginal Languages Initiatives Program as providing:
recurrent funding for Regional Aboriginal Language Centres that provide appropriate language activities and support for local community projects and education programs in more than one major language grouping. The Regional Aboriginal Language Centres will build on existing Aboriginal language centres and similar organisations.
one-off project funding for local Aboriginal community groups undertaking similar work in their own language, with the necessary support provided by the Regional Aboriginal Language Centres.
limited financial support for the establishment of Regional Aboriginal Languages Committees across Australia, based on the Regional Aboriginal Language Centres, and comprising representation of major Aboriginal language organisations in the area, major Aboriginal language groups, Aboriginal education in the region and regional representatives of ATSIC. These committees will provide the key focus for decision-making about Aboriginal Local Languages Initiatives in each region.
the capacity for Regional Aboriginal Languages Committees to use some of their funds to sponsor the establishment of a National Federation of Aboriginal Languages Committees to discuss Aboriginal language issues with governments, relevant government authorities and other institutions involved with languages work in Australia and the wider community. 130
6.33 The Aboriginal Languages Initiatives Program will be funded $1.75 million in 1991-92, rising to $3.0 million from 1992-93. It will start on 1 January 1992 and replace NALP. This program consists of the $1.0 million per year formerly under NALP and new funding of $0.75 million in 1991-92 and $2.0 million from 1992-93. 131 The $7.75m for the first three years of operation is not markedly different to that originally recommended for NALP ($6.00m in 1987 dollars) 132 in the National Policy on Language.
6.34 The Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) has proposed that it administer the Aboriginal Languages Initiatives Program separately from the AEP, in consultation with ATSIC, with decisions on implementation being made at the regional level by the Regional Aboriginal Languages Committees. 133