Dr Don Fuller

The Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education has campuses at Batchelor, Darwin and Alice Springs and aims to provide training and education to Indigenous students.

In the latest available annual report of 2022, 101 staff were recruited. Given an average staffing level of nearly 200, employed across a variety of contracts, this suggests a very high level of staff turnover.

Batchelor prides itself on using a teaching concept called, both ways learning. According to this idea, learning and training is based on Indigenous traditional skills, knowledge and concepts. Western education concepts are then ‘layered’ over this Indigenous foundation.

However, there are many with long associations with teaching and learning, that would question the degree to which such a principle can be applied in a teaching and learning context and just how it can be taught for the benefit of students, in a practical manner.

For example, the previous New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern, has been highly criticised for attempting to introduce ‘Maori knowledge’ into areas of learning, including mathematics and science. Both of these disciplines are relevant to training in the building and construction trades, as well as most others.

Many have argued it is not possible to do this as such disciplines are established and based on their own separate formulations and logic. It has been pointed out that most do not want maths and science taught as a Catholic, Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist philosophy.

Rather the educational attraction of the scientific method is that it is politically, religiously and ‘value’ free.

The financial statements provided with the annual report indicate that around $15 million was provided to the Batchelor Institute by the commonwealth and around $11.5 million by the NT government. Government tax-payer funding was therefore responsible for around 80 per cent of total revenue and income.

It has been reported that there have been at least eight internal or external investigations, reviews or audits at the Institute since around 2017, examining all aspects of management, allegations of corrupt behaviour, gross financial mismanagement, bullying, nepotism and a toxic culture.

Since senior management and the board -which is known as the council – are ultimately responsible for these problems it is worth examining possible reasons for, how and why, such unfortunate behaviours can occur in an organisation with such important responsibilities – the education and training of Indigenous Territorians.

In the introduction to the annual report, in the section dealing with acknowledgement of country, there is a statement that “we should always pay respect to the ‘sovereign status’ of our hosts”.

Sovereign status may be defined as “according the First Peoples their rightful status as the original peoples and acknowledging the need for restitution of what was taken from them”.

However, this highlights several problems of definition with substantial political implications – including how a relevant racial group can be defined and identified several hundred years following the arrival of substantial immigration from Europe, for example.

It raises the important questions of who can actually be identified and logically qualified to have inheritance rights as ‘sovereign owners’ of land not currently occupied or legally recognised as belonging to a particular Aboriginal group of people.

In addition, Indigenous sovereignty is not recognised in the Australian constitution or under Australian law.

The recent referendum on having an Indigenous representative body to federal parliament, colloquially known as the Voice, indicates that a substantial majority of Australians throughout the country, including the Northern Territory, are not likely to subscribe to the concept of a separate Aboriginal sovereignty applying to all Australian land.

Importantly as well, it is not clear how the concept of Aboriginal sovereignty in this context, can also conform with the concept of both ways learning seen to be a fundamental quality to the teaching programs at Batchelor Institute.

That is, what areas of western education are to be accepted for ‘layering’ over traditional Indigenous knowledge?

Pat Anderson was appointed chair of Batchelor Institute council in February 2019.

In the council chair’s message of 2022, it is stated that the Batchelor Institute “welcomed [Prime Minister] Mr. [Anthony] Albanese’s commitment to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart, in its entirety.”

As mentioned however, the recent referendum on the Voice, demonstrated that a clear majority of the Australian people and Territorians did not support the concept of the Voice.

Rather, it has been reported that many saw it as unnecessary and divisive.

This brings into question whether it is a reasonable matter to have the leader of an important educational institution, supported mainly by taxpayer funding, expressing views not supported by the majority of citizens.

In the annual report, in the section headed Batchelor Institute elder academic, there is a statement by Dr Sue Stanton on the need for “cultural transformation of the entire workplace, the systems and processes”.

However, it is far from clear what this cultural transformation actually means, or what it is likely to involve. For example, it is envisaged that this should involve a two way approach?

How does such an objective for example, affect the need to comply with mainstream financial responsibilities of accountability and transparency regarding large amounts of taxpayer funding?

How would such a transformation reflect the requirements of the VET quality framework or the Tertiary Education and Quality Standards Act?

I plan to discuss this further in a future article.

It is not clear that a tertiary teaching education organisation should be heavily involved in politics or that their leadership should adopt strong, public political positions.

It has been argued for example, that holding an ‘acceptable political position’ may unduly influence recruitment for a position rather than an academic ability in teaching, research or administration.

Recently debate has intensified over the proper role of tertiary providers in political and social affairs. At the centre of this debate is whether tertiary institutions should offer strong political positions on matters or remain neutral.

This has also been brought into sharp focus recently, with respect to potential conflicts of interest involving senior management at Charles Darwin University.

The notion that tertiary institutions should practice institutional neutrality and concentrate on the core business of quality teaching and research comes from the fundamental view that institutional neutrality is essential to academic freedom.

Such a view arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to consider and evaluate different viewpoints.

In contrast, it has been argued that tertiary administrators need to back a particular view, for example on the need for the Voice, or the impact of fossil fuels on climate change, in order to support members of teaching and research staff.

However, the problem arises as to whether all faculty staff agree with a particular point of view.

This has recently been demonstrated to be clearly not the case at Charles Darwin University.

There are a number of examples of where tertiary institutions do adopt a particular political position where they advocate for funding for particular issues. Religious universities for example, are clearly not neutral.

At the same time it is not realistic to think that an institutional political position has no effect on academic freedom.

As mentioned, such a position is likely to influence who gets employment within an institution and the intellectual focus of an institution.

Another problem is where such political positioning should begin and stop. For example, should the focus be on Indigenous rights, climate change, vaccination or the Middle East? Or all these areas?

It has been argued that turning a tertiary institution from the one organisation in society that vigorously defends academic freedom in teaching and research, into an organisation that pursues the politics of its administrators and some members of staff, by using the institution’s authority and legitimacy, is leading to significant damage to the status and image of academic institutions within society.

However, if neutrality is not possible and politicisation unreasonable, some would argue for what has been termed ‘institutional restraint’.

While a number of writers argue for a strong presumption against an academic institution taking a position or playing an active role with respect to external issues of a political, economic, social, moral, or legal character, it is expected that the academic institution should take a position with regard to education and research.

This might include comments on how graduate education and research serves national needs, or policies related to the autonomy or education quality of the organisation.

The institution is a stakeholder in its community, and may have positions on local land use and zoning, or its own employment practices. The institution may also be an investor and has fiduciary and other responsibilities.

What is apparent however, is the potential negative impact that the public endorsement of adversarial political views espoused by senior management can have on the strategic direction and performance of the organisation and its organisational culture, and the occupational health and safety of staff members.

Following an investigation, the NT Independent Commissioner Against Corruption made 27 recommendations in 2023 about Batchelor Institute, involving major changes to financial arrangements and the corporate culture.

While the institute agreed to undertake such changes, it is not clear what progress has been made.

However, it is noteworthy that following the publication of the NT ICAC Report, the NT Auditor-General refused to sign off on both the Batchelor Institute’s 2021 and 2022 annual reports.

A lack of clear direction by leadership focussing on quality education involving teaching and research instead of adversarial, debatable political objectives, open to wide and personal interpretation, inevitably leads to confusion and dissatisfaction amongst staff.

It is likely to be a key reason why levels of staff dissatisfaction and turnover are unacceptably high at Batchelor Institute.

The chair has experience in the field of Indigenous health and wide experience as an activist for Indigenous causes.

The important question is whether this experience is both relevant and sufficient to lead such an important tertiary institution as the Batchelor Institute.

It would be normal to expect the leader of such an organisation to possess high level post-graduate qualifications, including individually produced internationally refereed journal articles, and books within important fields of research.

In most cases, such education and research knowledge and experience should be complemented by a demonstrated capability in high level management and leadership, and an ability to work constructively and positively with administrative, teaching staff and students from diverse, including mainstream, backgrounds.

Dr Don Fuller was involved with the establishment of the first NT clinical school under the leadership of Flinders University vice-chancellor Professor Ian Chubb, 27 years ago. He holds a first class Honours degree and a PhD in economics from the University of Adelaide. Don worked as Professor of Governance and head of the schools of law and business at Charles Darwin University. He grew up in Darwin and attended Darwin High School.