The current agenda in public health training in higher education works to produce well-trained public health professionals. Operating within a western pedagogical framework it aims to build a cohort of critical and analytical thinkers, skilful problem solvers and extraordinary communicators across key disciplines in health. Many graduates possess interdisciplinary specialities, skills and knowledge transferable within health and other sectors. Core competencies in the curricula, which notably does not currently include Indigenous health, are considered the foundational platform of theory and practical understandings of public health and the health system. Despite a framework that aims to produce health professionals capable of improving the health of the population as a whole; the lack of engagement with an Indigenous health criticality maintains a longstanding Australian public health tradition of failure when it comes to addressing the health disparities experienced by Indigenous people. As a recent Indigenous public health graduate with practical training and experience working in the public health system, I consider possibilities for decolonising the curricula through an Indigenist approach to health, including theories of transformative learning which could strengthen public health practice and in turn facilitate the changes necessary to improving Indigenous health outcomes.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Worker/Practitioner (A&TSIHW) workforce provides not only clinical skills but also responds to specific social and cultural needs of the communities they serve bringing knowledge derived from lived and embodied knowledges. The A&TSIHW is a recognised health professional within the Australian health system; however, this workforce continues to be under-supported, under-recognised and under-utilised. A common discourse in literature written about A&TSIHWs focused on the need to empower and enhance the A&TSIHW capabilities, or rendered the A&TSIHW as part of the problem in improving the health of Indigenous peoples. In contrast, articles written by A&TSIHWs, published in the Aboriginal and Islander Health Worker Journal, tell a different story, one about the limitations of the health system in its ability to care for Indigenous peoples, recognising A&TSIHW leadership. This paper deals with two interrelated tensions—the undervaluing of the A&TSIHW as a clinician and the undervaluing of the A&TSIHW as an academic—both of which the author has had to navigate. It explores the specific challenges of the A&TSIHW academic who too seeks recognition beyond that of ‘assistant’ within the research enterprise, drawing upon personal experiences and engagement with educational institutions, including higher education.

In the era of Indigenising the academy, health disciplines like nursing are required to teach Indigenous peoples' health, history and culture in their undergraduate programmes in order to meet national accreditation standards. This inclusion of Indigenous peoples' perspectives within nursing education towards registration thus qualifies respective Indigenous perspectives as legitimate parts of the Australian nursing profession's scope of practice, which may sound like a reason to celebrate. However, caution should be exercised. Indigenous and Western knowledge systems are incommensurable. The practice of defining Indigenous perspectives for placements within curricula could be likened to extractive colonialism. Thus, the commodifying of Indigenous perspectives in creating competitive education products is problematic. As a Meriam and Wuthathi man who grew up in the Zenadth Kes (Torres Straits) now living and working on Turrbul and Yuggera country, and as a nurse academic, being immersed in this space of contentions is my reality. In order to enhance the education preparation of nursing students I teach, while simultaneously protect my embodied Indigenous knowledges and the Indigenous perspectives included in the curricula I teach, I privilege Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing in my teaching practice. This yarn is about my experience in this cultural interface.

Health research remains a vital activity of Indigenous health workforces. This paper reports on the main findings of yarning interviews with 14 Indigenous researchers, that was central to a project analysing the role of research training infrastructures in strengthening the Indigenous health research workforce in Australia. The findings highlighted Indigenous researcher peers as core sources of inspiration, moral support and sustenance in academia and in life. Peer generative power arising from peer groups provide a unique enriching to the educational and research experience. Indigenous researcher peers have a strong shared aspiration to champion change to health research and higher education as a key pathway to widespread positive impacting on health and well-being. We suggest the (revived) development at a collective level of a strategic and planned approach to capitalising on the positive outcomes of peer generated leadership and support.

This is a reflective piece that examines the nature of racial complaint with reference to Dr Kris Rallah-Baker's concerns about the racism that characterised his medical education. It will further examine the anti-racist campaign that sprung up in support of Rallah-Baker with a view to illustrating the limits of conventional critical race theory in understanding the course of events. Using the work of Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Gramsci and Stuart Hall, it will be argued that the Rallah-Baker case illustrates that Australian hegemonic formations can never quite command total legitimacy because sovereign formations, anti-racist in outlook, erupt with a frequency and facticity that lay bare the conceit of settler-colonialism. In so doing the paper will work towards an understanding of the critical Indigenous/race paradigm that goes beyond critical race insights borne of other places and experiences. As will be seen, what followed Rallah-Baker's complaint, the campaign that supported him and the concessions finally won was not, as critical race theory is wont to claim, a case simply of ‘interest convergence’; rather it was, I propose, an example of ‘sovereign divergence’.

This study takes a retrospective look at the educational experiences of Indigenous health professionals who graduated from The University of Queensland's Indigenous Health Program between 1994 and 2005, to understand the enablers for growing an Indigenous health workforce capable of advancing the health of Indigenous peoples. Drawing on the qualitative accounts of 31 students and 9 staff members, this paper examines the enablers to educational success at this time, juxtaposed against current Indigenising agendas in higher education, of aspiration and capacity building alongside the task of embedding Indigenous knowledges within curricula. We look back not as a call to return to Indigenous-specific cohort courses but rather reconsider both the measures of and strategies for success in Indigenous higher education, within health and beyond, interrogating the ideological assumptions that inform them.

Over the 10 years of ‘Closing the Gap’, several interventions designed to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students have been trialled. In 2014 the Australian Government announced the ‘Flexible Literacy for Remote Primary Schools Programme’ (FLFRPSP) which was designed primarily to improve the literacy outcomes of students in remote schools with mostly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. The programme, using Direct Instruction (DI) or Explicit Direct Instruction, was extended to 2019 with more than $30 million invested. By 2017, 34 remote schools were participating in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. This paper analyses My School data for 25 ‘very remote’ FLFRPSP schools with more than 80% Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander students. It considers Year 3 and 5 NAPLAN reading results and attendance rates for participating and non-participating primary schools in the 3 years before the programme's implementation and compares them with results since. Findings show that, compared to very remote schools without FLFRPSP, the programme has not improved students' literacy abilities and results. Attendance rates for intervention schools have declined faster than for non-intervention schools. The paper questions the ethics of policy implementation and the role of evidence as a tool for accountability.

In an article published in this journal, Guenther and Osborne (2020) use data from the reading test of the National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) to evaluate the effectiveness of the Flexible Literacy for Remote Primary Schools program in its first 3 years of implementation. However, their analysis has some serious flaws, including that the ‘post-intervention’ data were actually collected from the start of the implementation period. This calls their conclusions that the program was ineffective into question.

Guenther and Osborne's (2020) article ‘Did DI do it?’ raises concerns about the outcomes of a programme designed to improve literacy for First Nations students in remote schools. A critique of the article challenges the methods and findings. In this response, the authors respond to the criticism.