Journal articles on the topic 'Torres Strait Treaty'

AbstractThe Torres Strait Treaty between Australia and Papua New Guinea (“PNG”) came into force in 1985. This unique treaty, which defines the maritime, seabed and fisheries boundaries between Australia and PNG, is recognised as one of the most complex, but imaginative maritime delimitation solutions in existence. The Treaty creates a Protected Zone with a view to safeguarding the traditional way of life and livelihood of traditional inhabitants of the Torres Strait and adjacent coast of PNG. Traditional inhabitants are allowed relatively unrestricted cross-border movement into the Protected Zone for the purpose of performing traditional activities. “Traditional inhabitants” are defined by the treaty, but the relevant provision is ambiguous and the question of who is within the terms of the Treaty is highly contentious. The problem is exacerbated by the competing layers of law which govern the Strait and surrounding Borderlands, and by the dissonance between State law, customary laws, and the practical application of the Treaty. This paper looks at the meaning of “traditional inhabitants” and some of the other issues surrounding this question.

Last year Queensland joined Victoria and the Northern Territory in formally committing to a conversation about a treaty with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This article explains what a treaty is, outlines the processes undertaken thus far, situates it within the broader national context, and explores several challenges moving forward.

The Torres Strait lobster fishery differs culturally and ecologically from other Australian lobster fisheries. Ornate rock lobsters (Panulirus ornatus) have been fished by the inhabitants of Torres Strait for centuries, and commercial fishing began in the late 1960s. The fishery is a major source of income for Torres Strait Islanders, and the aim of management is to balance the needs of traditional and commercial users under a treaty between Australia and Papua New Guinea. In 1989, the absolute abundance of lobsters in the main fishing grounds was estimated by a visual census and a simple assessment was made. Since then, annual fishery-independent surveys of the relative stock abundance, and catch sampling, have contributed to the development of a simple cohort dynamics model of the fishery; for a range of fishing mortalities, it estimates the potential yield and percentage escapement and has provided annual assessments of the status of the stock and potential yield one year in advance— information valuable for managers considering development options and negotiating catch-sharing agreements and access rights. Future research will develop the model by incorporating information from ongoing surveys, catch recording, and logbook data from the Australian and Papua New Guinean fisheries.

While there is much theoretical study of the evolution of border disparities, there is little empirical analysis of development asymmetries across border regions, and their causes or solutions. Often disparities among countries hinder the ability of transboundary agreements and other development initiatives to generate sustainable development. This study quantifies development progress amongst communities in Australia and Papua New Guinea (PNG) covered by the Torres Strait Treaty, 26 years after its inception. Using regional census data from 2011 we found contrasting patterns of human development, with markedly poorer education levels in PNG. This asymmetry was confirmed by a Human Development Index of 0.735 for the Torres Strait and 0.270 for the neighbouring province in PNG. From a survey of 1089 PNG households in 2012–2013 we calculated that 63% of people in the villages were multidimensional poor, and 28% were ‘vulnerable to poverty’. Poverty was positively correlated with poor health, which has implications for the control of tuberculosis in the region. While Treaty provisions may have reduced poverty amongst some PNG villages closest to Australian communities, development initiatives by Ok Tedi mine in compensation for its environmental impacts have not. Our study highlights the causes of the sustainable development gap between PNG and Australian communities, and the necessity for transboundary agreements and institutions to have the capacity to adapt to their unintended consequences and rapid global change.

This note extends my previous analysis of the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (‘First Nations’) by providing guidance on the optimal approach for this recognition. The guidance is founded on the concepts of efficiency and equity. An optimal recognition is defined as one that achieves both objectives simultaneously. Efficiency flows from a dynamic recognition that changes over time relatively easily, as exemplified by a treaty-based approach. The equity criterion has, as a proxy, legal pluralism, whereby constitutional recognition enlivens ‘Indigenous jurisprudence’ through mechanisms such as self-governance. The proposal is to combine efficiency and equity by guaranteeing the collective rights of Indigenous Australians in accordance with universally recognised principles and norms of international law, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (for which the Commonwealth of Australia announced its support in 2009). This in turn is likely to guide a treaty-based approach to the relationship between the Commonwealth and First Nations that can evolve towards legal pluralism.

This article is written by a non indigenous person who has spent a number of years working with Torres Strait Islanders and is currently working in Victoria on a project that has its origins in Maori child care practice. The author has found that his work as a white social worker has been markedly influenced by contact with both Torres Strait Islander and Maori culture, and considers that this effect has been both positive and beneficial. White social workers for a number of years have been guilty of implementing an assimilationist policy where Governments treat indigenous people as though they are the same as white Australians. While this can be considered an equal treatment model, this policy and practice has been detrimental to the unique contribution indigenous people can provide to social work knowledge and understanding of child care practices. This article intends to share some insight into both these cultures and to hopefully influence readers to be more open when considering their dealings with indigenous people. Particular attention will be given to Torres Strait Islanders as they are indigenous Australians, with additional reference made to the influence of the Maoris in New Zealand.

The National Indigenous Australians Sexual Health Strategy 1996-97 to 1998-99 provided the impetus and resources to assess the health of the large population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in rural and remote communities in northern Queensland, Australia. This paper describes the development, implementation and results of a community based screening program designed to detect and treat sexually transmissible infections and a range of non-communicable conditions and attendant risk factors. The Well Person's Health Check, conducted between March 1998 and December 2000,demonstrated a high prevalence of largely preventable health problems and initiated the development of a sustainable early detection strategy for the region.

Objectives. In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Queensland, to (a) determine the disease burden of common chronic lung diseases and (b) identify areas of need with respect to lung health services. Methods. Literature reviews and analyses of hospitalisation and mortality data were used to describe disease epidemiology and available programs and services. Key stakeholder interviews and an online survey of health professionals were used to evaluate lung health services across the state and to identify services, needs and gaps. Results. Morbidity and mortality from respiratory diseases in the Indigenous population is substantially higher than the non-Indigenous population across all age groups and regions. There are inadequate clinical services and resources to address disease prevention, detection, intervention and management in an evidence-based and culturally acceptable fashion. There is a lack of culturally appropriate educational resources and management programs, insufficient access to appropriately engaged Indigenous health professionals, a lack of multi-disciplinary specialist outreach teams, fragmented information systems and inadequate coordination of care. Conclusions. Major initiatives are required at all levels of the healthcare system to adequately address service provision for Indigenous Queenslanders with lung diseases, including high quality research to investigate the causes for poor lung health, which are likely to be multifactorial. What is known about the topic? Chronic diseases, including lung disease contribute to, and influence outcomes of, the well-known health and socioeconomic disadvantage among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Nationwide, the most common reason for hospitalisation of Indigenous Australians is for lung diseases (after renal dialysis). What does this paper add? There is currently no state- or nation-wide comprehensive review of chronic lung disease burden and the health services available to prevent, treat and manage lung disease. This review fills this gap in Queensland and has found that chronic lung disease burden is not homogenous. There are substantial gaps in, and barriers to, the provision of high quality, evidence based services and a paucity of well-designed research to inform policy and health service delivery. What are the implications for practitioners? Evidence-based strategies are needed at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels of the healthcare system. Fourteen recommendations relevant to practitioners and policy makers were formulated.

This paper argues that the public relations sphere needs to have better understanding and more representation and acknowledgment of Indigenous women’s contemporary experiences and contributions. Indigenous Australian women experience multiple oppressions, such as Eurocentric and patriarchal control and, within the broader areas of Indigenous, women’s, and feminist public relations scholarship, their voices are largely absent. To address these issues, this paper, based on Indigenous women’s standpoint theory and an Indigenous yarning method, presents the narratives of five Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women employed in public relations. These narratives reflect experiences of marginalization by the Australian mainstream culture of whiteness and patriarchy; they also suggest the incidence of work induced mental distress for the women participants. This study of female Indigeneity within public relations aims to promote understanding of intersectional identities, the long-term effects of whiteness and racism, and may suggest how public relations can play a role in decolonizing efforts.

Hospital-treated self-harm rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) people are at least double those for other Australians. Despite this, limited research has explored the relationship between Indigeneity and the clinical management of hospital-treated deliberate self-harm. A retrospective clinical cohort study (2003–2012) at a regional referral centre (NSW) for deliberate self-poisoning was used to explore the magnitude and direction of the relationship between Indigeneity and discharge destination (psychiatric hospital vs. other) using a series of logistic regressions. There were 149 (4%) Indigenous and 3697 (96%) non-Indigenous deliberate self-poisoning admissions during the study period. One-third (31%) were referred to the psychiatric hospital at discharge; Indigenous 21% (n = 32) vs. non-Indigenous 32% (n = 1175). Those who identified as Indigenous were less likely to be discharged to the psychiatric hospital, OR 0.59 (0.40–0.87) at the univariate level, with little change after sequential adjustment; and AOR 0.34 (0.21–0.73) in the fully adjusted model. The Indigenous cohort had a lower likelihood of psychiatric hospital discharge even after adjustment for variables associated with discharge to the psychiatric hospital highlighting the need for further investigation of the reasons accounting for this differential pattern of clinical management and the effectiveness of differential after-care allocation.

In 2017, the Uluru Statement from the Heart was released during the Uluru First Nations Convention. In it, 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates made a powerful statement endorsing constitutional reform to enshrine an Indigenous voice in Australian Parliament and in the Australian Constitution, as well as the establishment of a Makaratta Commission to supervise the subsequent legislative change and ‘truth-telling’ that would enshrine a First Nations Voice in Australia’s Constitution. While the Uluru Statement from the Heart was a culmination of many years of grassroots campaigning and activism, there remains dissent over whether constitutional recognition could be as effective as a treaty.

Part 1 of this article explored the relevance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia, particularly the key principles of self-determination and free, prior and informed consent; how the international human rights framework applies in Australia; and Australia’s lack of compliance with it. Part One concluded by discussing the Uluru Statement from the Heart, presented to all the people of Australia in 2017, and how it marked a turning point in the struggle for recognition by Australia’s Indigenous peoples. Part 2 explores recent developments since the release of the Uluru Statement, especially at sub-national levels, in relation to treaty and truth-telling. It draws some comparisons with Canada and New Zealand, discusses the concept of coexistence, and presents a set of Foundational Principles for Parity and Coexistence between two culturally distinct systems of land ownership, use and tenure.

Recent discussions on whether or not to amend the Australian Constitution to ‘recognise’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are important and long overdue for many Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Federation in 1901 meant the loss of rights and freedoms for Indigenous Australians when the Constitution was made. Today, even after the changes brought about by the 1967 referendum, Australia is still the only democratic nation in the world with a Constitution with clauses that authorise discrimination on the basis of race (Davis & William 2015). Indeed, sub-section 51 of the Constitution allows the Commonwealth to make laws for the people of any race for whom they deem necessary, and section 25 allows the Commonwealth to disqualify individuals from voting because of their race. These disgraceful aspects of the Constitution have allowed such negative and damaging interferences in Indigenous Communities as the Howard government’s ‘Northern Territory Intervention’. Like Davis, I believe it is unacceptable for Australia as a modern liberal democracy to have a ‘race power’ in the Constitution (Davis 2008, p. 8), and so to eradicate that inequity, there must be a Constitutional amendment as well as a treaty put in place.

In Australia, pervasive deficit representations and positioning of Aboriginal peoples continue to impact on teachers’ capacity to meaningfully embed Aboriginal curriculum and pedagogies into their teaching. This sits within a policy context driven by standardization, competition and market forces focused on closing the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal student outcomes to address the statistical dissonance caused by Aboriginal underachievement. Our analysis is informed by Bacchi’s (2009) ‘What’s the ‘problem’ represented to be?’ analytical tool. We reveal discourses that position Aboriginal peoples as the ‘problem’ and the effects of these on teacher practice. Using the 2019 Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration, which represents a national partisan vision of Australian education, we demonstrate how discourses of community engagement, Reconciliation and data-driven solutions continue to position Aboriginal peoples as incapable, and government as savior. This flags the silencing of Aboriginal peoples’ key concerns of racism, social justice, truth-telling, sovereignty, and treaty, all of which are central to the ongoing fight for voice, reparative justice and recognition. Until these concerns are heard and accounted for in policies, the gap will remain, teachers will continue to struggle to meaningfully engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policies and curriculum content and consequently fail Aboriginal aspirations.

The impetus to decolonise high schools and universities has been gaining momentum in Southern locations such as South Africa and Australia. In this article, we use a polyvocal approach, juxtaposing different creative and scholarly voices, to argue that poetry offers a range of generative possibilities for the decolonisation of high school and university curricula. Australian First Nations’ poetry has been at the forefront of the Indigenous political protest movement for land rights, recognition, justice and Treaty since the British settlement/invasion. Poetry has provided Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with a powerful vehicle for speaking back to colonial power. In this article, a team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers argue that poetry can be a powerful vehicle for Indigenous voices and Knowledges. We suggest that poetry can create spaces for deep listening (dadirri), and that listening with the heart can promote truth-telling and build connections between First Nations and white settler communities. These decolonising efforts underpin the “Wandiny (gathering together)—Listen with the Heart: Uniting Nations through Poetry” research that we discuss in this article. We model our call-and-response methodology by including the poetry of our co-author and Aboriginal Elder of the Kungarakan people in the Northern Territory, Aunty Sue Stanton, with poetic responses by some of her co-authors.

Introduction In 2017, 250 Indigenous delegates from across the country convened at the National Constitution Convention at Uluru to discuss a strategy towards the implementation of constitutional reform and recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Referendum Council). Informed by community consultations arising out of 12 regional dialogues conducted by the government appointed Referendum Council, the resulting Uluru Statement from the Heart was unlike any constitutional reform previously proposed (Appleby & Synot). Within the Statement, the delegation outlined that to build a more equitable and reconciled nation, an enshrined Voice to Parliament was needed. Such a voice would embed Indigenous participation in parliamentary dialogues and debates while facilitating further discussion pertaining to truth telling and negotiating a Treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. The reforms proposed are based on the collective input of Indigenous communities that were expressed in good faith during the consultation process. Arising out of a government appointed and funded initiative that directly sought Indigenous perspectives on constitutional reform, the trust and good faith invested by Indigenous people was quickly shut down when the Prime Minster, Malcolm Turnbull, rejected the reforms without parliamentary debate or taking them to the people via a referendum (Wahlquist Indigenous Voice Proposal; Appleby and McKinnon). In this article, we argue that through its dismissal the government treated the Uluru Statement from the Heart as a passing phase or mere “thought bubble” that was envisioned to disappear as quickly as it emerged. The Uluru Statement is a gift to the nation. One that genuinely offers new ways of envisioning and enacting reconciliation through equitable relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. Indigenous voices lie at the heart of reconciliation but require constitutional enshrinement to ensure that Indigenous peoples and cultures are represented across all levels of government. Filter Bubbles of Distortion Constitutional change is often spoken of by politicians, its critics, and within the media as something unachievable. For example, in 2017, before even reading the accompanying report, MP Barnaby Joyce (in Fergus) publicly denounced the Uluru Statement as “unwinnable” and not “saleable”. He stated that “if you overreach in politics and ask for something that will not be supported by the Australian people such as another chamber in politics or something that sort of sits above or beside the Senate, that idea just won't fly”. Criticisms such as these are laced with paternalistic rhetoric that suggests its potential defeat at a referendum would be counterproductive and “self-defeating”, meaning that the proposed changes should be rejected for a more digestible version, ultimately saving the movement from itself. While efforts to communicate the necessity of the proposed reforms continues, presumptions that it does not have public support is simply unfounded. The Centre for Governance and Public Policy shows that 71 per cent of the public support constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. Furthermore, an online survey conducted by Cox Inall Ridgeway found that the majority of those surveyed supported constitutional reform to curb racism; remove section 25 and references to race; establish an Indigenous Voice to Parliament; and formally recognise Indigenous peoples through a statement of acknowledgment (Referendum Council). In fact, public support for constitutional reform is growing, with Reconciliation Australia’s reconciliation barometer survey showing an increase from 77 per cent in 2018 to 88 per cent in 2020 (Reconciliation Australia). Media – whether news, social, databases, or search engines – undoubtedly shape the lens through which people come to encounter and understand the world. The information a person receives can be the result of what Eli Pariser has described as “filter bubbles”, in which digital algorithms determine what perspectives, outlooks, and sources of information are considered important, and those that are readily accessible. Misinformation towards constitutional reform, such as that commonly circulated within mainstream and social media and propelled by high profile voices, further creates what neuroscientist Don Vaughn calls “reinforcement bubbles” (Rose Gould). This propagates particular views and stunts informed debate. Despite public support, the reforms proposed in the Uluru Statement continue to be distorted within public and political discourses, with the media used as a means to spread misinformation that equates an Indigenous Voice to Parliament to the establishment of a new “third chamber” (Wahlquist ‘Barnaby’; Karp). In a 2018 interview, PM Scott Morrison suggested that advocates and commentators in favour of constitutional reform were engaging in spin by claiming that a Voice did not function as a third chamber (Prime Minister of Australia). Morrison claimed, “people can dress it up any way they like but I think two chambers is enough”. After a decade of consultative work, eight government reports and inquiries, and countless publications and commentaries, the Uluru Statement continues to be played down as if it were a mere thought bubble, a convoluted work in progress that is in need of refinement. In the same interview, Morrison went on to say that the proposal as it stands now is “unworkable”. Throughout the ongoing movement towards constitutional reform, extensive effort has been invested into ensuring that the reforms proposed are achievable and practical. The Uluru Statement from the Heart represents the culmination of decades of work and proposes clear, concise, and relatively minimal constitutional changes that would translate to potentially significant outcomes for Indigenous Australians (Fredericks & Bradfield). International examples demonstrate how such reforms can translate into parliamentary and governing structures. The Treaty of Waitangi (Palmer) for example seeks to inform Māori and Pākehā (non-Maori) relationships in New Zealand/Aotearoa, whilst designated “Māori Seats” ensure Indigenous representation in parliament (Webster & Cheyne). More recently, 17 of 155 seats were reserved for Indigenous delegates as Chile re-writes its own constitution (Bartlett; Reuters). Indigenous communities and its leaders are more than aware of the necessity of working within the realms of possibility and the need to exhibit caution when presenting such reforms to the public. An expert panel on constitutional reform (Dodson 73), before the conception of the Uluru Statement, acknowledged this, stating “any proposal relating to constitutional recognition of the sovereign status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would be highly contested by many Australians, and likely to jeopardise broad public support for the Panel’s recommendations”. As outlined in the Joint Select Committee’s final report on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Referendum Council), the Voice to parliament would have no veto powers over parliamentary votes or decisions. It operates as a non-binding advisory body that remains external to parliamentary processes. Peak organisations such as the Law Council of Australia (Dolar) reiterate the fact that the proposed reforms are for a voice to Parliament rather than a voice in Parliament. Although not binding, the Voice should not be dismissed as symbolic or something that may be easily circumvented. Its effectiveness lies in its ability to place parliament in a position where they are forced to confront and address Indigenous questions, concerns, opinions, and suggestions within debates before decisions are made. Bursting the ‘Self-Referential Bubble’ Indigenous affairs continue to be one of the few areas where a rhetoric of bipartisan agreement is continuously referenced by both major parties. Disagreement, debate, and conflict is often avoided as governments seek to portray an image of unity, and in doing so, circumvent accusations of turning Indigenous peoples into the subjects of political point scoring. Within parliamentary debates, there is an understandable reservation and discomfort associated with discussions about what is often seen as an Indigenous “other” (Moreton-Robinson) and the policies that a predominantly white government enact over their lives. Yet, it is through rigorous, open, and informed debate that policies may be developed, challenged, and reformed. Although bipartisanship can portray an image of a united front in addressing a so-called “Indigenous problem”, it also stunts the conception of effective and culturally responsive policy. In other words, it often overlooks Indigenous voices. Whilst education and cultural competency plays a significant role within the reconciliation process, the most pressing obstacle is not necessarily non-Indigenous people’s inability to fully comprehend Indigenous lives and socio-cultural understandings. Even within an ideal world where non-Indigenous peoples attain a thorough understanding of Indigenous cultures, they will never truly comprehend what it means to be Indigenous (Fanon; de Sousa Santos). For non-Indigenous peoples, accepting one’s own limitations in fully comprehending Indigenous ontologies – and avoiding filling such gaps with one’s own interpretations and preconceptions – is a necessary component of decolonisation and the movement towards reconciliation (Grosfoguel; Mignolo). As parliament continues to be dominated by non-Indigenous representatives, structural changes are necessary to ensure that Indigenous voices are adequality represented. The structural reforms not only empower Indigenous voices through their inclusion within the parliamentary process but alleviates some of the pressures that arise out of non-Indigenous people having to make decisions in attempts to solve so-called Indigenous “problems”. Government response to constitutional reform, however, is ridden with symbolic piecemeal offerings that equate recognition to a form of acknowledgment without the structural changes necessary to protect and enshrine Indigenous Voices and parliamentary participation. Davis and her colleagues (Davis et al. “The Uluru Statement”) note how the Referendum Council’s recommendations were rejected by the then minister of Indigenous affairs Nigel Scullion on account that it privileged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices. They note that, until the Referendum Council's report, the nation had no real assessment of what communities wanted. Yet by all accounts, the government had spent too much time talking to elites who have regular access to them and purport to speak on the mob's behalf. If he [Scullion] got the sense constitutional symbolism and minimalism was going to fly, then it says a lot about the self-referential bubble in which the Canberra elites live. The Uluru Statement from the Heart stands as testament to Indigenous people’s refusal to be the passive recipients of the decisions of the non-Indigenous political elite. As suggested, “symbolism and minimalism was not going to fly”. Ken Wyatt, Scullion’s replacement, reiterated the importance of co-design, the limitations of government bureaucracy, and the necessity of moving beyond the “Canberra bubble”. Wyatt stated that the Voice is saying clearly that government and the bureaucracy does not know best. It can not be a Canberra-designed approach in the bubble of Canberra. We have to co-design with Aboriginal communities in the same way that we do with state and territory governments and the corporate sector. The Voice would be the mechanism through which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests and perspectives may be strategically placed within parliamentary dialogues. Despite accusations of it operating as a “third chamber”, Indigenous representatives have no interest in functioning in a similar manner to a political party. The language associated with our current parliamentary system demonstrates the constrictive nature of political debate. Ministers are expected to “toe the party line”, “crossing the floor” is presented as an act of defiance, and members must be granted permission to enter a “conscience vote”. An Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be an advisory body that works alongside, but remains external to political ideologies. Their priority is to seek and implement the best outcome for their communities. Negotiations would be fluid, with no floor to cross, whilst a conscience vote would be reflected in every perspective gifted to the parliament. In the 2020 Australia and the World Annual Lecture, Pat Turner described the Voice’s co-design process as convoluted and a continuing example of the government’s neglect to hear and respond to Indigenous peoples’ interests. In the address, Turner points to the Coalition of the Peaks as an exemplar of how co-design negotiations may be facilitated by and through organisations entirely formed and run by Indigenous peoples. The Coalition of the Peaks comprises of fifty Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled peak organisations and was established to address concerns relating to closing the gap targets. As Indigenous peak organisations are accountable to their membership and reliant on government funding, some have questioned whether they are appropriate representative bodies; cautioning that they could potentially compromise the Voice as a community-centric body free from political interference. While there is some debate over which Indigenous representatives should facilitate the co-design of a treaty and Makarrata (truth-telling), there remains a unanimous call for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament that may lead negotiations and secure its place within decision-making processes. Makarrata, Garma, and the Bubbling of New Possibilities An Indigenous Voice to Parliament can be seen as the bubbling spring that provides the source for greater growth and further reform. The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for a three-staged approach comprising of establishing an Indigenous Voice, followed by Treaty, and then Truth-Telling. This sequence has been criticised by some who prioritise Truth and Treaty as the foundation for reform and reconciliation. Their argument is based on the notion that Indigenous Sovereignty must first be acknowledged in Parliament through an agreement-making process and signing of a Treaty. While the Uluru Statement has never lost sight of treaty, the agreement-making process must begin with the acknowledgment of Indigenous people’s inherent right to participate in the conversation. This very basic and foundational right is yet to be acknowledged within Australia’s constitution. The Uluru Statement sets the Voice as its first priority as the Voice establishes the structural foundation on which the conversation pertaining to treaty may take place. It is through the Voice that a Makarrata Commission can be formed and Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples may “come together after a struggle” – the translation of the word’s Yolngu origins (Gaykamangu; Pearson). Only then may we engage in truth telling and forge new paths towards agreement-making and treaty. This however raises the question as to how a Voice to Parliament may look and what outcomes it aims to achieve. As discussed in the previous section, it is a question that is often distorted by disinformation and conjecture within public, political, and news-media discourses. In order to unpack what a Voice to Parliament may entail, we turn to another Yolngu word, Garma. Garma refers to an epistemic and ontological positioning in which knowledge is attained from a point where differences converge and new insights arise. For Yolngu people, Garma is the place where salt and fresh water intersect within the sea. Fresh and Salt water are the embodiments of two Yolngu clans, the Dhuwa and Yirritja, with Garma referring to the point where the knowledge and laws of each clan come into contact, seeking harmonious balance. When the ebb and flow of the tides are in balance, it causes the water to foam and bubble taking on new form and representing innovative ideas and possibilities. Yolngu embrace this phenomenon as an epistemology that teaches responsibility and obligations towards the care of Country. It acknowledges the autonomy of others and finds a space where all may mutually benefit. When the properties of either water type, or the knowledge belonging a single clan dominates, ecological, social, political, and cosmological balance is overthrown. Raymattja Marika-Munungguritj (5) describes Garma as a dynamic interaction of knowledge traditions. Fresh water from the land, bubbling up in fresh water springs to make waterholes, and salt water from the sea are interacting with each other with the energy of the tide and the energy of the bubbling spring. When the tide is high the water rises to its full. When the tide goes out the water reduces its capacity. In the same way Milngurr ebbs and flows. In this way the Dhuwa and Yirritja sides of Yolngu life work together. And in this way Balanda and Yolngu traditions can work together. There must be balance, if not either one will be stronger and will harm the other. The Ganma Theory is Yirritja, the Milngurr Theory is Dhuwa. Like the current push for constitutional change and its rejection of symbolic reforms, Indigenous peoples have demanded real-action and “not just talk” (Synott “The Uluru statement”). In doing so, they implored that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples be involved in all decision-making processes, for they are most knowledgeable of their community’s needs and the most effective methods of service delivery and policy. Indigenous peoples have repeatedly expressed this mandate, which is also legislated under international law through the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Coming together after a struggle does not mean that conflict and disagreement between and amongst Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities will cease. In fact, in alignment with political theories such as agonism and pluralism, coming together within a democratic system necessitates a constructive and responsive embrace of different, competing, and in some cases incommensurable views. A Voice to Parliament will operate in a manner where Indigenous perspectives and truths, as well as disagreements, may be included within negotiations and debates (Larkin & Galloway). Governments and non-Indigenous representatives will no longer speak for or on behalf of Indigenous peoples, for an Indigenous body will enact its own autonomous voice. Indigenous input therefore will not be reduced to reactionary responses and calls for reforms after the damage of mismanagement and policy failure has been caused. Indigenous voices will be permanently documented within parliamentary records and governments forced to respond to the agendas that Indigenous peoples set. Collectively, this amounts to greater participation within the democratic process and facilitates a space where “salt water” and the “bubbling springs” of fresh water may meet, mitigating the risk of harm, and bringing forth new possibilities. Conclusion When salt and fresh water combine during Garma, it begins to take on new form, eventually materialising as foam. Appearing as a singular solid object from afar, foam is but a cluster of interlocking bubbles that gain increased stability and equilibrium through sticking together. When a bubble stands alone, or a person remains within a figurative bubble that is isolated from its surroundings and other ways of knowing, doing, and being, its vulnerabilities and insecurities are exposed. Similarly, when one bubble bursts the collective cluster becomes weaker and unstable. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a vision conceived and presented by Indigenous peoples in good faith. It offers a path forward for not only Indigenous peoples and their future generations but the entire nation (Synott “Constitutional Reform”). It is a gift and an invitation “to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future”. Through calling for the establishment of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, a Makarrata Commission, and seeking Truth, Indigenous advocates for constitutional reform are looking to secure their own foothold and self-determination. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is more than a “thought bubble”, for it is the culmination of Indigenous people’s diverse lived experiences, outlooks, perspectives, and priorities. When the delegates met at Uluru in 2017, the thoughts, experiences, memories, and hopes of Indigenous peoples converged in a manner that created a unified front and collectively called for Voice, Treaty, and Truth. Indigenous people will never cease to pursue self-determination and the best outcomes for their peoples and all Australians. As an offering and gift, the Uluru Statement from the Heart provides the structural foundations needed to achieve this. It just requires governments and the wider public to move beyond their own bubbles and avail themselves of different outlooks and new possibilities. References Anderson, Pat, Megan Davis, and Noel Pearson. “Don’t Silence Our Voice, Minister: Uluru Leaders Condemn Backward Step.” Sydney Morning Herald 20 Oct. 2017. <https://www.smh.com.au/national/don-t-silence-our-voice-minister-uluru-leaders-condemn-backward-step-20191020-p532h0.html>. Appleby, Gabrielle, and Megan Davis. “The Uluru Statement and the Promises of Truth.” Australian Historical Studies 49.4 (2018): 501–9. Appleby, Gabrielle, and Gemma Mckinnon. “Indigenous Recognition: The Uluru Statement.” LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal 37.36 (2017): 36-39. Appleby, Gabrielle, and Eddie Synot. “A First Nations Voice: Institutionalising Political Listening. Federal Law Review 48.4 (2020): 529-542. Bailes, Morry. “Why the Law Council Backs an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.” InDaily 31 July 2018. <https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2018/07/31/why-the-law-council-backs-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament/>. Bartlett, John. "Chile’s Largest Indigenous Group Sees Opportunity in a New Constitution." New York Times, 16 Sep. 2020. 19 Nov. 2020 <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/world/americas/chile-mapuche-constitution.html>. Brennan, Bridget. “Indigenous Leaders Enraged as Advisory Board Referendum is Rejected by Malcolm Turnbull.” ABC News 27 Oct. 2017. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-27/indigenous-leaders-enraged-by-pms-referendum-rejection/9090762>. Centre for Governance and Public Policy. OmniPoll Australian Constitutional Values Survey 2017. Griffith University: Centre for Governance and Public Policy, 30 Oct. 2017. <https://news.griffith.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Griffith-University-UNSW-Australian-Constitutional-Values-Survey-Sept-2017-Results-2.pdf>. Davidson, Helen, and Katherine Murphy. “Referendum Council Endorses Uluru Call for Indigenous Voice to Parliament.” The Guardian 17 July 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/17/referendum-council-endorses-uluru-call-indigenous-voice-parliament>. Davis, Megan. “Some Say a Voice to Parliament Is Toothless. But Together Our Voices Are Powerful.” The Guardian 13 Aug. 2020. <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/13/some-say-a-voice-to-parliament-is-toothless-but-together-our-voices-are-powerful>. ———. “No Time for the Meek.” The Monthly Oct. 2019. <https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/october/1569370776/megan-davis/no-time-meek>. ———. “Moment of Truth.” Quarterly Essay 69 (2019). <https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/content/correspondence-megan-davis>. ———. “The Long Road to Uluru – Truth before Justice.” Griffith Review 2018. <https://www.griffithreview.com/articles/long-road-uluru-walking-together-truth-before-justice-megan-davis/>. ———. “The Status Quo Ain’t Working: The Uluru Statement from the Heart Is the Blueprint for an Australian Republic.” The Monthly 7 June 2018. <https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/megan-davis/2018/07/2018/1528335353/status-quo-ain-t-working>. Davis, Megan, Rosalind Dixon, Gabrielle Appleby, and Noel Pearson. “The Uluru Statement.” Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association Autumn (2018): 41–48. <https://search-informit-com.au.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/fullText;dn=20180726000224;res=AGISPT>. Davis, Megan, Cheryl Saunders, Mark McKenna, Shireen Morris, Christopher Mayes, and Maria Giannacopoulos. “The Uluru Statement from Heart, One Year On: Can a First Nations Voice Yet Be Heard?” ABC Religion and Ethics 26 May 2018. <https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-uluru-statement-from-heart-one-year-on-can-a-first-nations-v/10094678>. De Sousa Santos, Boaventura. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. Routledge, 2015. Dodson, P. 2012. Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution: Report of the Expert Panel. <http://australianpolitics.com/downloads/issues/indigenous/12-01-16_indigenous-recognition-expert-panel-report.pdf>. Dolar, Sol. “Law Council Explains Government’s Key Misunderstanding of the Uluru Statement.” Australasian Lawyer 5 Nov. 2019. <https://www.thelawyermag.com/au/news/general/law-council-explains-governments-key-misunderstanding-of-the-uluru-statement/208247?m=1>. Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Macgibbon & Kee, 1965. Fredericks, Bronwyn, and Abraham Bradfield. “We Don’t Want to Go Back to ‘Normal’, When ‘Normal’ Wasn’t Good for Everyone.” Axon: Creative Explorations 10.2 (2020). <https://www.axonjournal.com.au/issue-vol-10-no-2-dec-2020/we-don-t-want-go-back-normal-when-normal-wasn-t-good-everyone>. Ford, Mazoe, and Clare Blumer. “Vote Compass: Most Australians Back Constitutional Recognition for Indigenous Australians.” ABC News 20 May 2016. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-20/vote-compass-indigenous-recognition/7428030?nw=0>. Gaykamangu, James, and Danial Terence Kelly. “Ngarra Law: Aboriginal Customary Law from Arnhem Land.” Northern Territory Law Journal 2.4 (2012): 236-248. Grant, Stan. “Three Years on From Uluru, We Must Lift the Blindfolds of Liberalism to Make Progress.” The Conversation 25 May 2020. <https://theconversation.com/three-years-on-from-uluru-we-must-lift-the-blindfolds-of-liberalism-to-make-progress-138930>. Grosfoguel, Ramón. "Decolonizing Post-Colonial Studies and Paradigms of Political Economy: Transmodernity, Decolonial Thinking, and Global Coloniality." Transmodernity 1.1 (2011): 1-36. Hunter, Fergus. “'It's Not Going to Happen': Barnaby Joyce Rejects Push for Aboriginal Body in Constitution.” Sydney Morning Herald 29 May 2017. <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/its-not-going-to-happen-barnaby-joyce-rejects-push-for-aboriginal-body-in-constitution-20170529-gwf5ld.html>. Karp, Paul. “Scott Morrison Claims Indigenous Voice to Parliament Would Be a Third Chamber.” The Guardian, 26 Sep. 2018. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/26/scott-morrison-claims-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-would-be-a-third-chamber>. Koziol, Michael. “Joyce Admits He Was Wrong to Call Indigenous Voice a 'Third Chamber’.” Sydney Morning Herald 18 July 2019. <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/barnaby-joyce-admits-he-was-wrong-to-call-indigenous-voice-a-third-chamber-20190718-p528ki.html>. Larkin, Dani, and Kate Galloway. “Uluru Statement from the Heart: Australian Public Law Pluralism.” Bond Law Review 30.2 (2018): 335–345. Law Council of Australia. “Nothing ‘Un-Australian’ about Human Rights, the Constitution and the Rule of Law.” 14 Aug. 2017. <https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media/media-releases/nothing-unaustralian-about-human-rights-the-constitution-and-the-rule-of-law>. Law Council of Australia. “Law Council Supports Calls for Voice to Parliament.” 15 June 2018. <https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media/media-releases/law-council-supports-calls-for-voice-to-parliament>. Marika-Munugurritj, Raymattja. Workshops as Teaching Learning Environments. Paper presented to Yirrkala Action Group, 1992. Martin, Wayne AC. Constitutional Law Dinner 2018 Address by Wayne Martin AC Chief Justice of Western Australia. Sydney: Parliament House, 23 Feb. 2018. Mignolo, Walter. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton University Press, 2012. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. The White Possessive: Property, Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty. U of Minnesota P, 2015. Norman, Heidi. “From Recognition to Reform: The Uluru Statement from the Heart.” Does the Media Fail Aboriginal Political Aspirations? Eds. Amy Thomas, Andrew Jakubowicz, and Heidi Norman. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 2019. 216–231. Pearson, Luke. “What Is a Makarrata? The Yolngu Word Is More than a Synonym for Treaty.” ABC Radio National 10 Aug. 2017. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-10/makarrata-explainer-yolngu-word-more-than-synonym-for-treaty/8790452>. Praiser, Eli. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. Penguin, 2012. Prime Minister, Attorney General, and Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Response to Referendum Council's Report on Constitutional Recognition. 26 Oct. 2017. <https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/response-to-referendum-councils-report-on-constitutional-recognition>. Prime Minister of Australia. Radio interview with Fran Kelly. ABC Radio National 26 Sep 2018. <https://www.pm.gov.au/media/radio-interview-fran-kelly-abc-rn>. Reconciliation Australia. 2020 Australian Reconciliation Barometer, 2020. <https://www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/australian_reconciliation_barometer_2020_-full-report_web.pdf>. Referendum Council. Referendum Council Final Report, 2017. <https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf>. Reuters. "Chile Reserves Seats for Indigenous as It Prepares to Rewrite Constitution." Reuters, 16 Dec. 2020. 19 Nov. 2020 <https://www.reuters.com/article/chile-constitution-indigenous-idUSKBN28Q05J>. Rose Gould, Wendy. “Are You in a Social Media Bubble? Here's How to Tell.” NBC News 22 Oct. 2019. <https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/problem-social-media-reinforcement-bubbles-what-you-can-do-about-ncna1063896>. Rubenstein, Kim. “Power, Control and Citizenship: The Uluru Statement from the Heart as Active Citizenship.” Bond Law Review 30.1 (2018): 19-29. Synott, Eddie. “The Uluru Statement Showed How to Give First Nations People a Real Voice – Now It’s the Time for Action.” The Conversation 5 Mar. 2019. <https://theconversation.com/the-uluru statement-showed-how-to-give-first-nations-people-a-real-voice-now-its-time-for-action-110707>. ———. “Constitutional Reform Made Easy: How to Achieve the Uluru Statement and a Voice.” The Conversation 7 May 2019. <https://theconversation.com/constitutional-reform-made-easy-how-to-achieve-the-uluru-statement-and-a-first-nations-voice-116141>. Turner, Pat. “The Long Cry of Indigenous Peoples to Be Heard – a Defining Moment in Australia.” The 'Australia and the World' 2020 Annual Lecture. National Press Club of Australia, 30 Sep. 2020. <https://ausi.anu.edu.au/events/australia-and-world-2020-annual-lecture-pat-turner-am>. Wahlquist, Calla. “A Year On, the Key Goal of Uluru Statement Remains Elusive.” The Guardian 26 May 2018. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/26/a-year-on-the-key-goal-of-uluru-statement-remains-elusive>. ———. “Barnaby Joyce Criticised for Misinterpreting Proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament.” The Guardian 29 May 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/29/barnaby-joyce-criticised-for-misinterpreting-proposed-indigenous-voice-to-parliament>. ———. “Indigenous Voice Proposal ‘Not Desirable’, Says Turnbull.” The Guardian 26 Oct. 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/26/indigenous-voice-proposal-not-desirable-says-turnbull>. ———. “Turnbull’s Uluru Statement Rejection Is ‘Mean-Spirited Bastardry’ – Legal Expert.” The Guardian 26 Oct. 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/26/turnbulls-uluru-statement-rejection-mean-spirited-bastardry-legal-expert>. Wyatt, Ken. “Indigenous Australia: A New Way of Working.” 15 Sep. 2020. <https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/wyatt/2020/indigenous-australia-new-way-working>. Yunupingu, Galarrwuy. “Rom Watangu: An Indigenous Leader Reflects on a Lifetime Following the Law of the Land.” The Monthly (2016). Zillman, Stephanie. “Indigenous Advisory Body Would Be Supported by Australians, Survey Finds.” ABC News 30 Oct. 2017. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-30/australians-would-support-referendum-indigenous-voice-parliament/9101106>.

In February, whilst the Australian Federal Senate were debating dull three-letter acronyms such as VSU and GST, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard was attending to important issues such as producing a preamble for a nonexistent revised Australian Constitution. This seemingly harmless activity sparked enormous debate in the media regarding the linguistic representation of Australia and the Australian people. Language was the issue and everyone, it seems, fancied themselves as linguists. Howard's preamble became situated within an ideological debate concerning an equitable representation of people in Australia. The response to Howard's preamble has been varied, but generally quite negative, suggesting that it does not embody the views of all Australians or even recognise many aspects of a notion of 'Australian'. Consequently, newspaper editorials have been crammed with protests regarding the representation and exclusion of various groups, and the general white male Christian bias of this text. One of the more interesting comments came from Fr. Frank Brennan who expressed his disgruntlement at the grammatically and consequently ideologically passive representation of indigenous Australians. John Howard's preamble treats only Aborigines passively -- as objects, not subjects. ... Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders appear without ever making it into the subject of any sentence of the preamble. Brennan's comments refer to the fourth sentence of Howard's preamble. Since time immemorial, [our land] has been inhabited [by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders] Indeed this reference to indigenous Australians is the only acknowledgement in the preamble of this group's presence in Australia. It is the passive version of the active sentence "since time immemorial Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have inhabited our land". Considering that active sentences are more commonly used than passive constructions, the fact that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders are referred to passively seems quite significant. Passivisation moves the agent of a sentence, which is usually found in the subject position, to an end of sentence by-phrase adjunct, replacing the agent with the patient in the subject position. This shift in focus causes agency to become unclear. The agent's increased distance from the verb removes the agent from the action, suppressing the direct involvement of the agent with the activity referred to by the verb. In the fourth sentence of Howard's preamble, the agency of "Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders" is obscured by the passive construction. This noun is distanced from the verb, not allowing the act of habitation to be directly ascribed to this entity. Instead, "our land" is given focus and importance by occupying the subject position. This choice of the passive reflects, to some extent, John Howard's and the Liberals' policies regarding the indigenous population of Australia. The political agency of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders has always appeared minimal in issues that affect this group of Australians such as the Liberals' Wik legislation. The apparently insignificant act of distancing the linguistic manifestation of this entity from the action denoted by the verb "habitation" perhaps perpetuates this politically suppressed agency and disempowerment. Yet Brennan makes the mistake of claiming that it is only Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders who have their focus as a political entity removed through their passivisation. Of interest in this text are the first two sentences in the preamble, which are also passives. ... [The Commonwealth of Australia] is constituted by [the equal sovereignty of all its citizens] [The Australian nation] is woven together of [people from many ancestries and arrivals] In these two sentences, the agents, "equal sovereignty of all its citizens" and "people from many ancestries and arrivals" are similarly concealed by layers of grammatical structure. The phrases referring to the Australian nation and Commonwealth are given dominion over the entities signifying Australians as individuals. The nation and Commonwealth are actually the result of the activity of "constituting" and "weaving", performed collectively by the Australian people, yet the grammatical positioning of these entities in the by-phrase adjunct distances them from the verb and therefore action, reducing the potency of their agency. The result is a failure to acknowledge the political and social role of individual Australians in the creation and composition of the Australian nation. Thus, ignoring group crossover, these two entities, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and the citizens of Australia are dealt with in a similar manner by Howard, as passive entities. Though the passive treatment of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders is perhaps unsurprising considering past and present Liberal party policy, the comparable grammatical manipulation of the latter sentences is not as predictable. Liberal philosophy revolves around the individual, with this singularity of thought generally influencing party politics and policy making. The emphasis in these two sentences is not on the Australian people, but the Australian nation which occupies the subject position in both sentences. Then what was Howard intending? Perhaps Howard's desire was not to support the politically passive nature of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders through a corresponding sentence construction. The lack of correlation between the latter two sentences and Liberal party policy would support this argument. However, another suggestion might lie in Howard's intended use for the preamble. Howard wrote this constitutional preamble considering its potential as a verbal document, habitually spoken not by one person, but by collectives in, for example, schools. This context coupled with the placement of "the Commonwealth of Australia" and "the Australian nation" in the subject position with the agency of the individual Australians grammatically suppressed, perhaps fosters a sense of nationalism. As members of a group ritually chant this text, no doubt concentrating on the Australian flag, they subdue thoughts of individuality and agency, focusing on the importance of nation and oneness. This collective voice is emphasised in the plural nouns used in the final line of the preamble, "in this spirit, we, the people of Australia, commit ourselves to the Constitution". Perhaps then, the passive choice of the latter sentences, like the first example, is politically significant after all, reflecting Howard's desire for a mild form of nationalism. If this is the case then, though protests concerning the usual suspects of race, gender and creed are legitimate, the more subtle political motivations behind such a potentially significant text should be examined more closely. Citation reference for this article MLA style: Felicity Meakins. "The Subject of Howard's Desire: Passive Sentences and Political Intention." M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 2.5 (1999). [your date of access] <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/9907/howard.php>. Chicago style: Felicity Meakins, "The Subject of Howard's Desire: Passive Sentences and Political Intention," M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 2, no. 5 (1999), <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/9907/howard.php> ([your date of access]). APA style: Felicity Meakins. (1999) The subject of Howard's desire: passive sentences and political intention. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 2(5). <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/9907/howard.php> ([your date of access]).

Abstract Background Otitis media with effusion (OME) is common and occurs at disproportionately higher rates among Indigenous children. Left untreated, OME can negatively affect language, development, learning, and health and wellbeing throughout the life-course. Currently, OME care includes observation for 3 months followed by consideration of surgical ventilation tube insertion. The use of a non-invasive, low-cost nasal balloon autoinflation device has been found beneficial in other populations but has not been investigated among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. Methods/design This multi-centre, open-label, randomised controlled trial will determine the effectiveness of nasal balloon autoinflation compared to no nasal balloon autoinflation, for the treatment of OME among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Australia. Children aged 3–16 years with unilateral or bilateral OME are being recruited from Aboriginal Health Services and the community. The primary outcome is the proportion of children showing tympanometric improvement of OME at 1 month. Improvement is defined as a change from bilateral type B tympanograms to at least one type A or C1 tympanogram, or from unilateral type B tympanogram to type A or C1 tympanogram in the index ear, without deterioration (type A or C1 to type C2, C3, or B tympanogram) in the contralateral ear. A sample size of 340 children (170 in each group) at 1 month will detect an absolute difference of 15% between groups with 80% power at 5% significance. Anticipating a 15% loss to follow-up, 400 children will be randomised. The primary analysis will be by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes include tympanometric changes at 3 and 6 months, hearing at 3 months, ear health-related quality of life (OMQ-14), and cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation including perspectives of parents or carers, health care providers, and researchers on trial implementation will also be undertaken. Discussion INFLATE will answer the important clinical question of whether nasal balloon autoinflation is an effective and acceptable treatment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children with OME. INFLATE will help fill the evidence gap for safe, low-cost, accessible OME therapies. Trial registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617001652369. Registered on 22 December 2017. The Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry is a primary registry of the WHO ICTRP network and includes all items from the WHO Trial Registration data set. Retrospective registration.

Abstract Background A syphilis outbreak among Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (respectfully referred to as Aboriginal) has resulted in almost 4000 notifications by 2020, with several congenital syphilis cases and infant deaths. Outbreak control efforts became coordinated under a National enhanced test and treat response in 2017. We evaluated the impact of these efforts and of expansion of testing interventions on syphilis prevalence. Methods We developed an individual-based mathematical model of infectious syphilis transmission among young heterosexual Aboriginal people aged 15-34 years living in and move between regional and remote areas with which we assessed the impact of existing and hypothetical outbreak control responses on syphilis prevalence. Results The increased testing coverage achieved through the response (from 18% to 39% over 2011-2020) could stabilize the epidemic from 2021. To return to pre-outbreak prevalence (&lt;0.24%) by 2025, testing coverage must reach 60%. The addition of annual community-wide screening, where 30% of youth in communities are tested over 6 weeks, would reduce prevalence to the pre-outbreak level within four years. If testing coverage had been scaled-up to 60% at the start of outbreak in mid-2011, the outbreak would have been mitigated. Conclusions Our results suggest that to control the syphilis outbreak the response needs to be delivered to enable the maximum coverage of testing to be reached in the shortest time in order to reduce the prevalence to pre-outbreak levels. Reduction could be hastened with community-wide screening at similar time periods across all communities together with increases in annual testing coverage.

Abstract Background Sexually transmissible infections (STIs), such as gonorrhoea and chlamydia, are highly prevalent, particularly in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia. In these settings, due to distance to centralised laboratories, the return of laboratory test results can take a week or longer, and many young people do not receive treatment, or it is considerably delayed. Point-of-care testing (POCT) provides an opportunity for same day diagnosis and treatment. Molecular POC testing for STIs was available at 31 regional or remote primary health care clinic sites through the Test-Treat-And-GO (TANGO2) program. This qualitative study sought to identify barriers and facilitators to further scaling up STI POCT in remote Aboriginal communities within Australia. Methods A total of 15 healthcare workers (including nurses and Aboriginal health practitioners) and five managers (including clinic coordinators and practice managers) were recruited from remote health services involved in the TTANGO2 program to participate in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Health services’ clinics were purposively selected to include those with high or low STI POCT uptake. Personnel participants were selected via a hybrid approach including nomination by clinic managers and purposive sampling to include those in roles relevant to STI testing and treatment and those who had received TTANGO2 training for POCT technology. Milat’s scaling up guide informed the coding framework and analysis. Results Acceptability of STI POCT technology among healthcare workers and managers was predominantly influenced by self-efficacy and perceived effectiveness of POCT technology as well as perceptions of additional workload burden associated with POCT. Barriers to integration of STI POCT included retention of trained staff to conduct POCT. Patient reach (including strategies for patient engagement) was broadly considered an enabler for STI testing scale up using POCT technology. Conclusions Remote healthcare clinics should be supported by both program and clinic management throughout scaling up efforts to ensure broad acceptability of STI POCT as well as addressing local health systems’ issues and identifying and enhancing opportunities for patient engagement.

Abstract Background Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is implicated in up to 50% of diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) and significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality in this population. An evidence-based guideline that is relevant to the national context including consideration of the unique geographical and health care system differences between Australia and other countries, and delivery of culturally safe care to First Nations people, is urgently required to improve outcomes for patients with PAD and DFU in Australia. We aimed to identify and adapt current international guidelines for diagnosis and management of patients with PAD and DFU to develop an updated Australian guideline. Methods Using a panel of national content experts and the National Health and Medical Research Council procedures, the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines were adapted to the Australian context. The guideline adaptation frameworks ADAPTE and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were applied to the IWGDF guideline for PAD by the expert panel. Recommendations were then adopted, adapted or excluded, and specific considerations for implementation, population subgroups, monitoring and future research in Australia were developed with accompanying clinical pathways provided to support guideline implementation. Results Of the 17 recommendations from the IWGDF Guideline on diagnosis, prognosis and management of PAD in patients with diabetes with and without foot ulcers, 16 were adopted for the Australian guideline and one recommendation was adapted due to the original recommendation lacking feasibility in the Australian context. In Australia we recommend all people with diabetes and DFU undergo clinical assessment for PAD with accompanying bedside testing. Further vascular imaging and possible need for revascularisation should be considered for all patients with non-healing DFU irrespective of bedside results. All centres treating DFU should have expertise in, and/or rapid access to facilities necessary to diagnose and treat PAD, and should provide multidisciplinary care post-operatively, including implementation of intensive cardiovascular risk management. Conclusions A guideline containing 17 recommendations for the diagnosis and management of PAD for Australian patients with DFU was developed with accompanying clinical pathways. As part of the adaptation of the IWGDF guideline to the Australian context, recommendations are supported by considerations for implementation, monitoring, and future research priorities, and in relation to specific subgroups including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and geographically remote people. This manuscript has been published online in full with the authorisation of Diabetes Feet Australia and can be found on the Diabetes Feet Australia website: https://www.diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/.