Doing Justice: Treaty in Victoria

Eleanor Bourke1

1Chair of the Aboriginal Treaty Working Group

After two hundred years of resistance and resilience, Aboriginal people have begun a revival of cultural practices and the benefits are far reaching. Join Keynote speaker, Victorian Treaty Advancement Commissioner, Jill Gallagher as she explores how treaties can be the foundation stones of renewed prosperity and improved social, emotional and well-being outcomes for Aboriginal Victorians.


Biography:

Eleanor Bourke was born in Hamilton, Victoria, and is an Elder of the Wergaia people, and a Wamba Wamba descendant.  Her career in Aboriginal Affairs spans four decades in Victoria, the ACT and South Australia. In 2005 she became a Native titleholder through Victoria’s historic first positive determination, known as the Wotjobaluk native title claim, which includes the Wergaia, Jardwa, Jardwajarli and Japagulk

She is a graduate of RMIT in Journalism; holds a BA in Professional Writing, Canberra University and holds a Masters in Education from the University of Adelaide.

She was the Co-Chair of Reconciliation Victoria for six years and a board member of Native Title Services Victoria.

In 2008 she was formally recognised at the World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education (WIPCAE) as a Respected elder and Education warrior for her work in Aboriginal education.  In 2010 Eleanor was inducted into the Victorian Womens’ Honour Roll.

She has held professorial positions at University of South Australia and the Centre for Aboriginal and Islander Studies at Monash University. She has lectured in Indigenous issues nationally and as far afield as Northern Arizona University, Harvard University, University of British Columbia and University College Dublin.

Eleanor has served on the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC) for over a decade and for much of this time she was either chairperson or deputy chair. She has been a member of the Victorian Government’s Aboriginal Treaty Working Group since 2016 and more recently appointed Co-Chairperson of the Aboriginal Treaty Working Group.

Ethical Tensions in Criminology

Panellists

  • Professor Joseph Pugliese
  • Dr Mary Graham
  • Emeritus Professor Richard Harding
  • Deborah Glass OBE

 

Criminologist have historically worked in close proximity to institutions that are subject to criticisms of oppression and injustice. Prisons, courtrooms, mental health institutions, corrections and detention centres, and often police stations themselves are locations that have been heavily criticised for their discriminatory practices, and for being arms of a state or states that are themselves sometimes unjust regimes. Ethical dilemmas confront criminologists when we intellectualise or ventriloquise the voices of oppressed or policed populations, and interaction with any state bureaucracies will be fraught when that state is itself a vehicle for oppression – such as in contexts like contemporary colonial Australia. How to act ethically, how to render an ethical account, how to resist unethical convenience, is a constant struggle of most criminological work.

This plenary panel considers some of the ethical landscapes and conundrums that face criminologists today and engages in a conversation on the many ethical struggles that haunt our field.

Criminology Adrift

Jeff Ferrell1

1Texas Christian University, USA, and University of Kent, UK

 

We occupy a contemporary world awash in drift and drifters – a world in which dislocation and disorientation have become phenomena in their own right. To make sense of this world we might inquire into drift’s long history, while also situating contemporary drift within the particular legal, economic, and cultural dynamics of the late modern world. In critically analyzing this world we will surely want to account for drift’s contested politics – the ways in which legal and economic arrangements both spawn dislocation and seek to control it, and the ways in which the dislocated create their own slippery strategies of illicit resistance. In all of this we can usefully recall and reinvent drift as a conceptual orientation within criminology, and can perhaps bring criminology into closer engagement with the contemporary world. To do so, though, we’ll need to acknowledge that the discipline of criminology is itself increasingly disoriented; when it comes to drift, we are that into which we inquire.

Briefing prison design in a risk-averse environment

Mr Kavan Applegate1
1University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom,

The pursuit of rehabilitation in a corrections environment poses numerous challenges and, for the architect, many competing requirements must be balanced as the design of a prison goes from a blank sheet of paper to a fully-fledged and signed-off prison design. But within operational requirements, security assessments, environmental analyses, engineering coordination, and fit-for-purpose legalese comes a risk-averse mentality that for correctional designers requires the management of reward against risk. Often, the aspirational briefing for rehabilitation may be tainted or subverted through compressed timeframes, fears around contractual defaults and risk-avoidance strategies, especially in the Public Private Partnership delivery model. So, how might we change the briefing process and assign the risk to the most appropriate party? Or should we simply decide that rehabilitative design is so important that a particular risk is worth taking?


Biography:

Kavan Applegate, Director of Guymer Bailey Architects, has been working on secure facility architecture for at least 20 years. Joining Guymer Bailey Architects’ Brisbane studio in 1995, he moved south and started the Melbourne studio in 2000, and has led the briefing, design, documentation, and delivery of dozens of secure buildings and entire facilities throughout Australia. Jointly leading a team of 50 architects and landscape architects, Kavan is passionate about the rehabilitative effects of architecture and the importance of creating normalised secure environments.

Transformative Justice and New Abolition in the United States

Michelle Brown1

1 Department of Sociology, University of Tennessee, 901 McClung Tower, Knoxville, TN 37996, mbrow121@utk.edu

From Australia to Europe, South Africa to Palestine, there is a marked revival of abolitionist discourse in theory and practice, each with locally and historically contextualized features of justice (Davis 2016). In the United States, the call for abolition of the major institutions of criminal justice: prisons, police, cash bail, the monetization of fines, border control, etc., has entered a remarkable moment of resurgence.  These demands have entered popular mainstream discussion by way of political movements centered upon racial and social justice against the volatile rise of the far right and the ascendance of neoliberal positions of leftist reform.  In this talk, I take the US as a specific case and work through how various strands of historical thought, theory, and contemporary practice culminate in a call for transformative justice.  As the dominant form of alternative justice envisioned by abolition workers on the ground, one that seeks to address harm without any reliance on the state (generationFive 2017), transformative justice demands critical attention to the ways in which movement organizers have envisioned and pursued abolitionist and transformative interventions and to the principles to which they hold fast.

ABOUT ANZSOC

The society is devoted to promoting criminological study, research and practice in the region and bringing together persons engaged in all aspects of the field. The membership of the society reflects the diversity of persons involved in the field, including practitioners, academics, policy makers and students.

Conference Managers

Please contact the team at Conference Design with any questions regarding the conference.
© 2018 Conference Design Pty Ltd