The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) Submission to Inquiry into racism, hate and violence directed at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

Senator Jana Stewart

Chair, Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Islander Affairs

Dear Senator Stewart and members of the Joint Standing Committee,

The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry. TASA is the leading professional association for sociology within Australia, with approximately 750 members, including academics, students, public servants, consultants and social researchers.

Sociologists are particularly well placed to speak to issues of race and racism because our analysis centres on the structural and institutional dimensions of inequality, rather than individual attitudes alone. Extensive sociological research demonstrates that racism is embedded in the policies, practices, and norms of key institutions—including education, healthcare, housing, and the criminal justice system—where it produces systematically unequal outcomes over time for those affected.

Sociology also recognises that racism operates simultaneously at multiple levels: internalised, interpersonal, institutional, and structural. While public discussion often focuses on individual acts of prejudice, sociological evidence demonstrates that racism is also embedded within organisational practices, public policy settings, historical narratives, and broader social structures. Understanding these interconnected forms of racism is essential to developing effective responses and achieving lasting change for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and Australian society. This perspective reflects TASA's commitment to supporting Indigenous-led research and learning, addressing unfair systems and barriers, and promoting approaches that reduce racism and recognise Indigenous perspectives and histories, including anti-racist and decolonising approaches, across the discipline of sociology (TASA’s Indigenous Strategic Plan).

The nature, prevalence and impact of racism, hate and violence towards First Nations people, including trends over time.

Australian sociological evidence demonstrates that racism towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is widespread, persistent, and embedded across everyday life, and is an endemic feature of settler-colonial society (Elias, Mansouri & Paradies, 2021). Racism occurs across a wide range of settings—including workplaces, schools, healthcare, and public services—and includes verbal abuse, exclusion, and physical intimidation.

Racism is experienced at multiple levels. A four-levels-of-racism framework involves:

• Interpersonal racism including verbal abuse, exclusion, stereotyping, and everyday discrimination.
• Institutional racism occurring when policies, procedures, and organisational cultures consistently produce unequal outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
• Structural racism referring to the cumulative effects of historical and contemporary systems that distribute power, opportunity, and resources unequally across society.
• Internalised racism occurring when persistent exposure to discriminatory narratives affects self-perception, cultural confidence, and social participation.

Contemporary racism directed at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, traditional custodians, and communities cannot be separated from Australia's history of colonisation and Indigenous dispossession. The dispossession of First Nations peoples from Country, the doctrine of terra nullius, the Stolen Generations, and successive policies of exclusion and assimilation established systems and narratives that continue to shape social institutions today. The 1967 Referendum marks a 60^th anniversary in 2027. While many overtly discriminatory laws have been removed, their social, economic, and cultural consequences continue to be experienced across generations (TASA’s Indigenous Strategic Plan refers to this context).

Racism is not limited to interpersonal encounters but is frequently structural and institutional, occurring across systems such as policing, housing, employment, and government services. The impacts are profound and cumulative: racism is a key driver of inequality in health, wellbeing, and social outcomes, contributing to poorer physical and mental health, chronic disease, reduced life expectancy, and mistrust of institutions. It also underpins broader patterns of disadvantage across education, housing, and the justice system, where First Nations peoples remain disproportionately affected.

The effect of online platforms on the reach, prominence and harm caused by racism and hate directed at First Nations people.

Online platforms amplify racism against First Nations peoples by expanding its reach and visibility while intensifying its harm. Algorithm-driven systems promote polarising content, while features like anonymity reduce accountability, allowing racist narratives and harassment to circulate widely. These dynamics produce forms of hypervisibility and misrepresentation for First Nations people, while also normalising racial abuse, with many experiencing aggression, hostility and racism online (Carlson and Frazer, 2018). High levels of exposure to harmful content contribute to significant emotional and social impacts, illustrating how digital platforms extend and reinforce existing structures of racism.

The period surrounding the 2023 Voice referendum highlighted the capacity of online environments to rapidly amplify anti-Indigenous sentiment, misinformation, and racial hostility. Sociological analysis suggests that digital platforms increasingly function as sites where structural racism is reproduced, normalised, and mobilised, often with significant consequences for the wellbeing, safety, and participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (eSafety Commissioner, 2025).

This demonstrates that online racism should not be understood merely as individual misconduct but as part of broader social and political processes that can reinforce exclusion, prejudice, and discrimination. The online environment shows why it is important to strengthen Indigenous voices, representation and leadership in public discussions, education and research.

Initiatives that are effective in combating racism targeted at First Nations people and reduce individual and collective harm.

For initiatives to combat racism against First Nations peoples to be effective, they need to combine structural, cultural and interpersonal approaches. This includes systemic reforms (such as legal frameworks, education systems and community-led policies) that address underlying power inequalities, alongside educational and public campaigns that challenge racist norms and promote culturally informed understandings. However, both institutional change and collective social action are necessary to reduce individual and collective harm.

A further requirement for effective initiatives is that they are led by First Nations peoples’ experiences, knowledges, and priorities. Those directly affected by racism are best placed to both identify its effects and the strategies most likely to reduce harm.  Initiatives that do not place Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at their centre but instead seek to legislate for rather than with those affected, are typically insufficiently grounded. In doing so, they can reproduce the same structural conditions that generate racial harm. They are liable to, at best be ineffective and, in many cases, run the risk of compounding or intensifying the harm they aim to address, as evidenced by the increased interpersonal and structural racism experienced by First Nations people in the aftermath of the unsuccessful Voice referendum vote (Wilkes, et al. 2025).

Institutions also have a role to play. Part of TASA’s work includes the development and implementation of an Indigenous Engagement Policy that seeks to embed recognition, respect, and cultural safety at every level of the organization and its activities. Some of the ways in which we aim to address this follow. These initiatives reflect TASA's commitment to including Indigenous knowledge, supporting Indigenous leadership, and making sociology more culturally respectful and responsive (TASA’s Indigenous Strategic Plan).

• Awareness of language. in recognition of the historical and ongoing complicity of academia as an institution that contributes to the marginalization of First Nations peoples and perspectives, we recognize the need to ensure the writing of sociologists specifically, and academics more generally, does not perpetuate colonial preconceptions and cause or reinforce harm.
  
• Indigenising curriculums and policies. This involves embedding First Nations knowledges, perspectives and ways of learning across teaching, learning and practices, rather than treating them as add-ons or isolated topics. The aim is to challenge the dominance of Western perspectives and ensure all students and practitioners develop a more accurate, respectful and inclusive understanding of Indigenous cultures and histories.
  
• Cultural safety. This involves ensuring that the systems, processes, and values of an organisation do not negatively impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, including through unconscious racism. It also requires respect for First Peoples' self-determination, decision-making, and governance.
  
• Cultural load. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples often carry additional responsibilities associated with cultural obligations, educating others, responding to bias and racism, and being expected to represent all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and perspectives, at all times.

Recognition of Country, Indigenous authority, and social cohesion

Sociology recognises that Country is not merely symbolic. TASA recognises Country as a living, relational and rights-bearing entity, central to Indigenous culture, knowledge, and decision-making (TASA’s Indigenous Strategic Plan). Country represents enduring relationships between peoples, place, culture, responsibility, and knowledge. Public practices such as Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country are important because they challenge historical narratives that erased Indigenous presence and authority. These practices contribute to public education, strengthen social inclusion, and encourage recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as continuing custodians of Country. In an environment where such practices increasingly attract hostility and misinformation (Australian Financial Review, 2025; Croakey Health Media 2025), sociologists emphasise their role as practical ways to support understanding, recognition, and stronger relationships across society.

TASA has adopted specific Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country protocols across its activities. TASA’s acknowledgement begins by recognising the Country that sustains all Australians before acknowledging the traditional custodian group collectives and the cultural knowledge holders responsible for maintaining Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law, customs, and custodianship obligations. These practices recognise Country as foundational to Indigenous social life and knowledge systems, while encouraging respectful engagement with Indigenous histories, cultures, and continuing custodianship. Such practices contribute to reducing ignorance, prejudice, and exclusion by normalising recognition of Indigenous presence and authority. Changing the Acknowledgement of Country to emphasise Country could well be a helpful transformation.

The threat posed by ideologically motivated extremism towards First Nations people and the role of intelligence and law enforcement agencies in protecting the community from that threat.

Ideologically motivated extremism, particularly far-right, nationalist and racist movements, poses a significant threat to First Nations communities because it reproduces colonial hierarchies that position Indigenous peoples as “Other” and as legitimate targets of exclusion and violence.

Sociologists observe that ideologically motivated hostility toward Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples often extends beyond direct attacks on individuals and communities. It can also target Indigenous visibility, including public recognition of Country, Indigenous cultural practices, truth-telling initiatives, self-determination processes, and Indigenous participation in public institutions. This kind of hostility weakens Indigenous participation, leadership, and decision-making, which are important for a fair and inclusive society, which TASA considers essential components of an equitable and inclusive society. These forms of hostility contribute to a broader social environment in which racism is normalised and exclusion legitimised.

Law enforcement agencies play a critical role in responding to hate crimes, monitoring extremist activity, and protecting communities from violence. However, their effectiveness is shaped by broader issues of trust and legitimacy, given longstanding experiences of over‑policing, over-incarceration and systemic racism among First Nations peoples (Cunneen & Tauri, 2019).  Protecting communities therefore requires more than enforcement responses along. It requires community‑led approaches that address both the immediate risks of violence and the underlying structural conditions of settler-colonialism that enable it, including within the law enforcement agencies whose role it is to address these issues. This includes addressing the ongoing impacts of settler-colonialism, strengthening community trust, and ensuring that institutions responsible for public safety are themselves free from discriminatory practice.

The effectiveness of avenues for reporting and responding to racism against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including the consistency, timeliness and appropriateness of outcomes across jurisdictions and institutions.

From a sociological perspective, the effectiveness of avenues for reporting and responding to racism against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is often constrained by structural inequalities. While formal complaint mechanisms exist, they have been largely ineffective in addressing racism at a systemic level.

These mechanisms are frequently undermined by barriers to reporting, including justifiable mistrust of institutions, previous negative experiences, the role of and culturally unsafe processes (Carlson & Frazer, 2019). As a result, racism is often significantly underreported, and many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples may perceive that complaints will not be taken seriously or acted upon or result in meaningful action.

Existing reporting systems are therefore only partially effective. While they provide important formal pathways, they often remain shaped by the same institutional and colonial structures that produce racial harm, limiting their appropriateness and capacity to deliver equitable outcomes for First Nations peoples.

Effective reporting systems must also be culturally safe, trauma-informed, and trusted by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Increasing Indigenous participation in complaint handling, oversight mechanisms, and organisational governance may improve confidence in reporting processes and contribute to more equitable outcomes.

Other matters related to racism, hatred and violence directed at First Nations people.

Looking at it sociologically, racism, hatred, and violence directed at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples cannot be understood as isolated incidents. They are interconnected expressions of historical, institutional, and structural processes that continue to shape Australian society. Effective responses therefore require action at multiple levels: addressing internalised prejudice, challenging interpersonal discrimination, reforming institutional practices, and transforming the structural conditions that reproduce inequality.

Sociology has an important role to play in this work. Through research, education, public engagement, policy development and institutional reform, sociology can assist Australian society to better understand the causes and consequences of racism and contribute to more equitable and respectful relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.

TASA supports approaches that centre Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges, leadership, cultural authority, self-determination, and recognition of Country. These commitments are reflected in TASA's Indigenous Strategic Plan and its vision for an Australian sociology that contributes to Indigenous-led positive social change, recognition and respect for Indigenous cultures and knowledge, and fair systems and institutions as structural justice. These are not optional extras. They are important for reducing racism and building a fairer society.

TASA Executive

1 June 2026

The submission is available in pdf format here.

February 29, 2016

Sen Robert Simms
Greens LGBTI Spokesperson
PO Box 8117 Station Arcade
Adelaide, SA, 5000

Offer to brief the Review of the Safe Schools Coalition, from the Australian Sociological Association

The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) is Australia’s peak association for sociologists.  Our members include leading experts on issues of education, sexuality, gender, families, relationships, and youth. For more on TASA, visit www.tasa.org.au.

Many of our members have followed with interest the recent national debate around the Safe Schools Coalition.  The Australian Sociological Association is making an open offer to brief any Members of Parliament (State or Federal) who have questions about the research and evidence on programs such as the Safe Schools Coalition. We are able to assemble an advisory group of Australian experts in this field, to talk through the evidence and ideas informing this debate.

We especially welcome the opportunity to contribute to and brief those involved in the review of the Safe Schools Coalition recently called by the Prime Minister.

Sincerely,

Katie Hughes
President, The Australian Sociological Association

Response from The Australian Sociological Association (TASA)

Introduction

The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the National Innovation and Science Agenda’s proposed framework for developing the national assessment of the engagement and impact of university research and to comment on the Engagement and Impact Assessment Consultation Paper.

Feedback Questions

Definitions and scope

1. What definition of ‘engagement’ should be used for the purpose of assessment? 

We suggest a modified version of the ATSE definition (p6) the interaction between researchers and research organisations and their larger communities/industries for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge, understanding OR resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity.

Rationale: social research is often for the common good and researchers engage with stakeholders without the expectation of resource exchange or reimbursement

2. What definition of ‘impact’ should be used for the purpose of assessment? 

We suggest that the broad UK REF definition is adequate

‘an effect on, change, benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life beyond academia.’

3. How should the scope of the assessment be defined?

A combination of qualitative and quantitative measures should be used. Quantitative –industry funding and competitive grants, citations in grey literature, contribution to parliamentary submissions (and other government consultations)

Qualitative- Qualitative measures of engagement include reports for external bodies, membership of boards (e.g. local, state and federal government, local, national and international NGOs, professional bodies), community participation in events, audience numbers (e.g. at performances, film screenings etc.), contributions to the media and public debate, engagement with community organisations, educational training and toolkits, e.g. for secondary school students.

4. Would a selective approach using case studies or exemplars to assess impact provide benefits and incentives to universities?

TASA agrees with the case study approach to the measurement of impact. We suggest that there should be an equitable allocation of case studies across disciplines. In order to be a measure of university research strengths in an area, case studies should depict the work of research groupings (rather than individuals) and be selective so as to focus on unique strengths.

5. If case studies or exemplars are used, should they focus on the outcomes of research or the steps taken by the institution to facilitate the outcomes? 

Case studies can only demonstrate the value of university research if they focus on the research itself and its outcomes. We endorse a scholarly peer-review model of engagement and impact assessment; that is, assessment by an academic panel, rather than by a panel predominantly composed of representatives from industry. An academic panel which understands the nature of university research is likely to be in a better position to ensure that the methodology for assessment of case studies is sufficiently robust to be confident that the assessment results would be replicated by differently constituted panels. We are concerned that focussing on ‘steps taken by the institution’ could be more susceptible to gaming and manipulation and could result in superficial measures of impact.

6. What data is available to universities that could contribute to the engagement and impact assessment?

7. Should the destination of Higher Degree Research students be included in the scope of the assessment?

There is not strong support for this measure among our discipline. The link between university research, HDR research and HDR employment outcomes is far from clear for Sociology PhDs. The relationships are quite varied, and with limited construct validity.

8. Should other types of students be included or excluded from the scope of assessment (e.g. professional Masters level programmes, undergraduate students)? 

No this could create an unnecessary administrative burden

Key Issues

9. What are the key challenges for assessing engagement and impact and how can these be addressed? 

• difficulties in attribution

In the social sciences the key challenge is mainly around measuring impact. Social science is about concepts and ideas that cannot be reduced to simple indicators; the link between idea and uptake may be long-term or even hidden and the domain of impact may be nebulous. Our research is focused on ideas, and on social, cultural and political understanding, critique and transformation. Sometimes it deals with issues that are socially and politically contentious, which may affect its immediate uptake. The impact of this research is often diffuse and gradual, therefore not easy to measure. Often our research feeds into a large complex dynamic in social, cultural and economic change so we discourage a search for causation and instead recommend that the ARC focusses on the processes researchers engage in to have an impact outside universities.

• managing time-lags between research and its effects

Allowing a sufficient time-lag between research and impact is important eg 10 years

• balancing data collection and verification against reporting burden

Selective case studies (from FOR codes or groups of researchers) are preferable to all academics providing case studies

• managing disciplinary differences (including interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research).

As there are substantial differences between disciplines in terms of research and publication norms it is important that the results are moderated between disciplines.

10. Is it worthwhile to seek to attribute specific impacts to specific research and, if so, how should impact be attributed (especially in regard to a possible methodology that uses case studies or exemplars)?

Yes it may be worthwhile to identify impacts that are linked to research publications or groups of publications. Rationale: that quality impact will flow from quality research rather than disconnected ‘engagement’ with the media etc.

To what level of granularity and classification (e.g. ANZSRC Fields of Research) should measures be aggregated?

It makes sense that the same FOR codes used in the ERA will also be used in the engagement and impact exercise. Multiple coding will be needed to allow interdisciplinary groups/centres to demonstrate their impact effectively.

11. What timeframes should be considered for the engagement activities under assessment?

Within the measurable period of the EIA, eg 3-5 years

12. What timeframes should be considered for the impact activities under assessment? 

We suggest that it would be sensible to have at least 10 year time frame from when research was conducted and/or published.

13. How can the assessment balance the need to minimise reporting burden with robust requirements for data collection and verification?

There will be resource implications for any new reporting requirements. However some efficiencies may be achieved by separating out the ERA (academic quality) from the EIA (engagement and impact). These two research assessment periods could be parallel so that there only one period of measurement is required.

Clear requirements of auditable traces are important to ensure both veracity and administrative efficiency. Focus on producing lists of such things as collaborators or dissemination activities, media mentions, citations in grey literature reports, etc (in specified categories), rather than qualitative descriptive data is more auditable and administratively simple to maintain and report.

14. What approaches or measures can be used to manage the disciplinary differences in research engagement and impact? 

Allow broader indicators for engagement and impact; use of selective case studies. Importantly the results should be moderated between disciplines.

15. What measures or approaches to evaluation used for the assessment can appropriately account for interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary engagement and impacts? 

Types of engagement and impact indicators

• There could be a weighting given to interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary measures of engagement (eg instead of an engagement being allocated to one discipline it can be allocated across two or more, with the total ‘unit of measurement’ perhaps being a maximum of 2 instead of the one it would receive if allocated to a single discipline)
• A certain number of case studies per institution (pro-rata for institutional size) could be allocated to cross-disciplinary impacts

16. What types of engagement indicators should be used?

Many of the suggestions listed in appendix B are not suitable for social science contributions. We note that impact and engagement interweave and overlap. We suggest the following:

• Contribution to public debate – indicated by media, civic engagement, awards, alt metrics
• Appointments based on disciplinary expertise to external advisory boards – e.g. government and NGO bodies ((local, state, national, international)
• Research reports, consultations, training and support for external bodies
• Publications in professional and trade journals and newsletters
• Engagement with government policy making, e.g. via consultations with government departments, invitations to make submissions to parliamentary committees, senate enquiries
• Expert advice and testimony
• Engagement with community organisations, not-for-profits, NGOs, community legal centres
• Engagement with government and private schools
• Presentations at non-academic industry, government or professional fora
• Category 2 & 3 research funding, plus ARC Linkage funding
• Community participation in research events (e.g. public lectures)
• Research-based professional training for external bodies

17. What types of impact indicators should be used?

Many of the suggestions listed in appendix B are not suitable for social science contributions. Again we note that impact and engagement interweave and overlap. We suggest the following:

• Policy impact – policy briefings, submissions, advisory boards and evidence of policy change
• Changing practices – industry notes, community reports, consultations, training, funding and testimonials, professional body publications (newsletters, professional journals)
• Capacity building – training, running professional development, evidence of change
• Community building- Community publications, evidence of change
• Education/dissemination – research-based websites, community reports, downloads of reports, web traffic
• Contracts (including evaluation, research, consulting) with external bodies and reports for external bodies
• Public intellectual activities (media, The Conversation etc)

There is then, a need to have a mixture of qualitative and quantitative measures of engagement and impact in the social sciences.

We further suggest that it may be useful to group indicators into particular types or spaces of engagement/impact, such as:

• Research collaboration in research – includes formal partners co-funding, but also use of advisory boards from industry to research. It is suggested that to reduce bias in funding sources that focus here is on the numbers of collaborating organisations and/or individuals, rather than the financial contribution.
• Dissemination activities with industry – eg presentations, writing reports
• Media and public policy engagement – citations of research in media and policy documents; authorship of media items; submissions to public policy processes including Parliamentary inquiries.
• Impact on organisational/policy change – statements from organisations/agencies in which changes occurred, or how they were used in policy/organisational change.

Other 18. Are there any additional comments you wish to make?

We wish to note that in the social sciences, engagement and impact relates primarily to civil society including government, non-profit organisations, community associations and groups, as well as private enterprises, and the broader public (ie users of services and products). Commercialisation and patents are typically not relevant markers of engagement or impact.

Prepared by Jo Lindsay on behalf of the TASA executive

Acknowledgement to contibuters

Paul Henman, Deb King, Amanda Wise, Ellie Vasta, Narelle Warren, Brady Robards

At the 2015 annual TASA conference in Cairns, President Katie Hughes announced TASA's support for Marriage Equality. The letter of support for Marriage Equality can be accessed here.

This short clip is from an interview by Adam Stephen for the Drive Program on ABC Far North.

MEDIA RELEASE

RESPONSE TO PRIME MINISTER’S INNOVATION STATEMENT

The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) broadly supports a renewed emphasis on innovation and cross-sector research, but has concerns that the Federal Government’s apparent focus on the economy, and partnerships between universities and business, neglects the opportunity to encourage an ‘ideas boom’ with impact beyond science and the economy.

TASA President Associate Professor Katie Hughes explained:

“The definition of innovation must include social as well as technical innovation. Projects that create new opportunities for strengthening communities enhancing resilience, social inclusion, equity and respect are essential for Australia’s future social and economic flourishing. Such projects hold the potential for a more sustained and dynamic change than any narrow focus on commercialization or economic impact.”

“We agree with the recently retired Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, who has argued forcefully that science and the social sciences should work more closely together in order to better meet society’s needs.”

In this collaboration, sociology contributes knowledge about the future needs of society and the impact of science and industry activity on Australia’s social fabric.

“A broader partnership between the natural and social sciences, government, business, and civil society, will lead not only to innovation, but innovation best suited to meet social needs.”