Notes on Indigenous Sovereignty, Education Sovereignty, and Practice

Acknowledgments and Country

Michelle speaks on sovereignty from the unceded lands of the Awabakal country; offers respect to Elders, ancestors, Country, and acknowledges the ongoing sustenance of the place over tens of thousands of years. Includes a photo of Awabakal Country and a personal note about the child’s toes as a reminder that we are Country and Country is us.
Acknowledges the Wollamadagal people of Dharug Nation where Macquarie University sits; this is also unceded sovereign Aboriginal land.
As a Gomilorro woman, Michelle recognises that everywhere we are is stolen Indigenous land and that occupation has involved the theft of land, people, bodies, and knowledges.
Framing question: sovereignty is a long-standing, culturally embedded concept for Indigenous peoples in Australia; the word sovereignty is relatively new in vernacular usage, but the underlying ideas have existed for millennia.
Mary Graham ( Distinguished Professor ) frames Aboriginal peoples as an old society with a relationalist political philosophy and long-term processes of political design; Indigenous knowledge and governance stretch across thousands of generations, enabling sustainable environments, kinship structures, and complex social technologies.
Australia is described as a young country with sovereignty asserted through invasions and colonial violence; Indigenous sovereignty predates colonisation and remains embedded in Country.

What is Sovereignty? Indigenous Perspectives in Australia

Sovereignty has been conceptualised and enacted by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for tens of thousands of years; the term may be new, but the substance is ancient and ongoing.
Important caveat: sovereignty is not universally defined; Indigenous peoples may have different interpretations and enactments.
Bob Morgan (Gamilaraay) defines sovereignty as the social and political rights, freedoms, and resources to make decisions for sociopolitical change and development within the context of cultural survival and celebration. It is an enactment of Indigenous political rights and freedoms done by Indigenous peoples, not imposed by others.
Other scholars describe sovereignty as maintained through pre-European governance models that emphasise inclusivity and diversity; recognition of hundreds of languages across the continent demonstrates deep multilingualism and multiculturalism; sovereignty involves inclusion and diversity.
Marcia Langton emphasises the deep connection to place, ancestors, and culture; sovereignty predates colonists and is deeply emotional, social, and political.
Sovereignty is often described as embodied and carried in the body, through ancestral or cellular memory, and enacted in daily life, including struggles to retain autonomy.
Sovereignty is not a relic; it continues to exist even when exercised rights are restricted or suppressed.
Michael Mansour asserts that sovereignty continues to exist even if people are prevented from exercising it; there has never been a ceded sovereignty; all land across the continent is characterized as stolen Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land, with no treaties in exchange for sovereignty.

Indigenous Notions of Sovereignty vs Western Notions

Teela Reid (Wiradjuri and Mwalin) notes that sovereignty is a colonial word, not of Indigenous origin; it is a legal term broadly defined as a supreme power or authority over the body politic. Indigenous sovereignty is not defined by white systems, and no white law can extinguish First Nation sovereignty.
Western constructions of sovereignty are grounded in a social contract model (unified supreme authority, territory integrity, individual rights), which can misalign with Indigenous concepts of sovereignty.
Larissa Behrendt (note: represented here as an Aboriginal scholar) argues that everyday law balances sovereignty between local, state, and federal levels; Indigenous sovereignty does not inherently threaten Australian sovereignty—there are legal mechanisms for reconciliation and balance.
The perceived threat of Indigenous sovereignty is deep and complex, linked to narratives about peaceful settlement unraveling and difficult truths about how Australia was established.
The Change the Date campaign, the Voice to Parliament referendum (2023), and public commentary around Indigenous sovereignty illustrate contested public reception and backlash.
Briggs’ critique of Advance Australia Fair (the national anthem) illustrates ongoing symbolic contestation around Indigenous sovereignty and national identity.
The ongoing struggle is described as unfinished business that fundamentally unsettles patriarchal white sovereignty.

Indigenous Sovereignty vs Western Notions: Key Distinctions

Sovereignty is described as colonial in origin (a term used within white legal and political frameworks); Indigenous sovereignty is not defined by or confined to these frameworks but exists as a continuous, place-based authority.
The legal notion of sovereignty (as a social contract or centralized authority) can clash with Indigenous understandings that are relational, place-based, and kinship-driven.
The idea that Indigenous sovereignty is a threat is part of a broader political and social contestation in mainstream Australia; yet sovereignty can be reconciled through existing constitutional and legal mechanisms that balance multi-layer governance.
The language of sovereignty can obscure the deeper reality: rights, responsibilities, and relationships embedded in Country, language, family, and culture.

Indigenous Education Sovereignty

Education sovereignty is defined as education on our own terms; it questions whether mainstream schooling serves Indigenous learners equally and whether it respects Indigenous values, knowledge, and ways of knowing.
It challenges linear, top-down teaching models and seeks to incorporate Indigenous timeframes, reciprocity, and relational learning.
The story and six-element framework illustrate how Indigenous education sovereignty can be lived in practice.

The Six Elements of Indigenous Education Sovereignty (as used in the doctoral narrative)

Time: education that recognises cyclical, non-linear concepts of time; learning occurs across generations and through cycles rather than a strict calendar-based progression.
Agency: learners have autonomy and choice; learners shape what and how they learn.
Relationality: learning is deeply connected to relationships—between people, country, ancestors, and knowledge holders.
Country: learning takes place in relation to Country; the land itself teaches and sustains knowledge.
Pattern Thinking: knowledge is interconnected; understanding the bigger patterns and connections across subjects rather than isolating topics.
Intergenerational Reciprocity: learning occurs across generations; knowledge is passed down through generational networks and reciprocal teaching.

Indigenous Education Sovereignty in Practice: The Story of the National Indigenous Fire Workshop (Yorta Yorta Country)

Setting: The National Indigenous Fire Workshop occurs on Yorta Yorta Country in early June; the landscape is described with morning dew, campfires, and a community of participants from across Australia (over 400 people).
Participants: School-age young people attend; the environment prompts considerations about how learning time is scheduled (parents, carers, teachers, and schools).
Personal example: The narrator befriends Emily (9) and Tim (7); their camp experience involves family members (e.g., their aunts) and a supportive community learning alongside their mother.
Daily life at the workshop: Campfire conversations each evening involve practical questions (What if the campfire has burned for four hours and a storm comes? What time of year is it? How close to the ocean or inland is the site? What type of wood is used? How much rain falls?)—built to foster inquiry and care for country.
Cultural fire Masterclass sessions: Emily and Tim participate; they sometimes separate from the group to explore their own world with peers; they return to the campfire to share and discuss.
Learning process: They are taught to carve with care and weave with love; they dance at night with memories of ancestors; the children demonstrate deep analytical and reflective thinking for their ages; their mother notes that months later they continue to discuss and reflect on their experiences.
The vignette emphasizes that Indigenous learning is relational, non-linear, intergenerational, and country-centered; fire knowledge is connected to environment, culture, and community; this illustrates learning that occurs beyond the boundaries of conventional schooling.
Key takeaways from the vignette:
- Country can be a teacher; learning happens through relationships and environment, not just a classroom.
- Education sovereignty thrives when teaching and learning are anchored in country, culture, and community.
- Knowledge is interconnected across topics and generations, not siloed in a single subject.
- Time is cyclical; learners can re-engage with ideas and places across generations.
- Learners (like Emily and Tim) exercise agency in their education and contribute to community knowledge.
The storyteller uses this vignette to illustrate the practical potential of Indigenous education sovereignty and to advocate for embracing Indigenous ways of knowing in education more broadly.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Society

Indigenous sovereignty requires recognition that sovereignty is ongoing, embedded in place, and expressed through everyday practices, not simply a formal political term.
Mainstream Australia should acknowledge Indigenous sovereignty as a legitimate, place-based authority that coexists with other governance structures; this includes respecting language, law, and cultural practices that precede colonisation.
Education systems can integrate Indigenous knowledge by privileging Indigenous teachers and knowledge holders, adopting non-linear time concepts, recognizing relational learning, and allowing communities to define education on their terms.
Policies should address (without tokenism) the historical and ongoing impacts of colonisation, including the legacy of cultural genocide in schooling, and should support a pluralistic approach to schooling that respects Indigenous epistemologies.
The phrase “the future is Indigenous” (Bronwyn Karstwyn) suggests a need to actively nurture Indigenous genius, leadership, and knowledge as central to social and educational futures.
Acknowledgement of ongoing struggles, including resistance to symbolic or policy-level changes that do not address underlying rights, land, and governance issues.

Connections to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance

The discussion links Indigenous sovereignty to foundational principles like relationality, custodial responsibilities to country, and long-term knowledge transference across generations.
It highlights that sovereignty is not merely about political power over territory but about the rights and duties of people to govern themselves and to sustain culture, language, and land.
It connects to broader debates about decolonisation, representation, and inclusion in national narratives, including debates around national symbols, constitutional status, and recognition of Indigenous governance structures.
The Indigenous Fire Workshop vignette demonstrates how culturally grounded knowledge can address ecological and environmental issues while empowering youth and strengthening community bonds.

Ethical, Philosophical, and Practical Implications

Ethically: Acknowledge the enduring sovereignty of Indigenous peoples and the ongoing impacts of colonisation; respect Indigenous epistemologies as valid sources of knowledge, not as adjuncts to Western frameworks.
Philosophically: Sovereignty is not a universal, one-size-fits-all concept; it is plural, place-based, dynamic, and embedded in relations between people, land, and ancestors.
Practically: Education reform should be grounded in Indigenous leadership, flexibility in teaching timeframes, and experiential learning that integrates country and culture; policy should remove barriers to Indigenous self-determination in education and governance.

Notable Figures and References Mentioned

Mary Graham: Prolific Indigenous scholar who frames sovereignty and long-term Indigenous political design.
Bob Morgan (Gamilaraay): Sovereignty defined as social and political rights, freedoms, and resources to make decisions within cultural survival and celebration.
Marcia Langton: Emphasises deep connection to place, ancestors, and culture; sovereignty predates colonisation.
Tracy Bunder and Aileen Morton Robinson: Sovereignty as embodied; carried in the body and enacted daily.
Irene Watson: Questions whether Indigenous sovereignty should be feared and discusses the role of force in state sovereignty.
Larissa Behrendt (Aboriginal scholar): Everyday law balances sovereignty across levels of government; sovereignty can be reconciled with Australian governance.
Teela Reid: Sovereignty is a colonial word; need to recognise Indigenous language and concepts beyond Western definitions.
Bronwyn Karstwyn: Argued that the future is Indigenous; importance of nurturing Indigenous leadership and knowledge.
Michael Mansour: Sovereignty persists even when not exercised; no treaty has extinguished sovereignty.
The National Indigenous Fire Workshop: A real-world example of Indigenous education sovereignty in practice on Yorta Yorta Country with hundreds of participants and youth engagement.

Notes on Indigenous Sovereignty, Education Sovereignty, and Practice

Acknowledgments and Country

What is Sovereignty? Indigenous Perspectives in Australia

Indigenous Notions of Sovereignty vs Western Notions

Indigenous Sovereignty vs Western Notions: Key Distinctions

Indigenous Education Sovereignty

The Six Elements of Indigenous Education Sovereignty (as used in the doctoral narrative)

Indigenous Education Sovereignty in Practice: The Story of the National Indigenous Fire Workshop (Yorta Yorta Country)

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Society

Connections to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance

Ethical, Philosophical, and Practical Implications

Notable Figures and References Mentioned

Suggested Follow-Up Readings and References