• Should we have a National Language Centre?

Some thoughts on the issue to get the ball rolling (Vaso 3/10):

My understanding is that there is no national peak body that represents Aboriginal/Indigenous language centres and language programmes. FATSIL's role to: be the national body for community based language programmes, to advise government and other agencies and to support language programmes has systemic problems due to apparent association rules preventing language centres from becoming members of the Federation. This has frustrated language centre in the West for many years, and hence alternative networks such as NALC (Network of Aboriginal Language Centres) was formed a few years back in response. Recent discussions at the WA State language Conference (May 2007) raised the issue of a peak body and the lack of a National language policy. NSW had just released their State policy and I understand Victoria is preparing to follow suit.

I think some relevant questions are:

what would a National Language Centre do?

What structure would it take?

where would it be based?

• Should we have a body that represents language centres?

Personally, I like the model of Federation - but a peak body should have direct influence from the grass roots up, and not be removed from the communities and programmes they represent. During discussions at the WA state conference, I imagined a body similar to WACOSS/VCOSS etc - when the media need a statement relevant to social and community services, they go to the state body. We could have state councils made of of delegates from each language centre/programme in each state.

Each language centre/programme (LC) is a member at their state/territory level (SFLC). Each state council has a delegate at the National Level, ie a federation of language centres (NFLC). Decisions of the peak body would have to be discussed at state individual language centre/programme level (taken to community/commitee/advisory board etc), directed to the state level and then represented to the federal level. Recommendations to language policy and other issues could be raised at state levels to be discussed and passed at National level etc.

There may be a need to have more than one state delegate to maximise relevance, eg WA as a state has great variation in its language strength - the situation in the southwest is different to the midwest, which is different to the Pilbara and then the Kimberly. This could be discussed more.

Is it desirable to merge the roles/aims/structure of FATSIL with the needs for a body representing language centre and language speakers? Would FATSIL reconsider changing its constitution to allow language centres as members in this current climate, thus supposedly strengthening FATSIL? Language Centres and programmes are meant to be representative of their speakers and communities in both essence and organisational structure. Membership of FATSIL is for individual members only. So can we combine the both? These are my thoughts for now.

From Pat McConvell, representing my own views, not necessarily those of AIATSIS

I think the recommendation for a National Indigenous Language Centre is very important. It would for instance be very useful to have such a body to help with tasks like the one we are engaged in at the moment - conveying the wishes of major meetings like ILC to the government and improving them with input from communities and experts so that they will be better received by governments.

The idea of a NILC was put forward as one of the recommendations of the National Indigenous Languages Survey report (2005). Various functions of a NILC are discussed there - a model proposed by Lester irabinna Rigney and other ideas for it.

The four main policy recommendations of the NILS report (p.5) were to support

1. Language nests (Indigenous language in early childhood)

2. Community language teams

3. Regional Indigenous Language Centres

4. a National Indigenous Languages Centre

2 & 3 are to some extent supported by existing DCITA programs. 1 is not being supported, possibly because it falls into the DEST portfolio. Support for this was already included in the list of receommendations at the conference. A national centre (NILC) could help with the establishment of, and better logistical support for, all the other programs, existing and proposed (1,2,3) as well as promoting indigenous languages and their status nationally.

The NILS report (Recommendation 4, p.117) called for a feasibility study to take place for a National Indigenous Languages Centre in 2005-6. Such a study has not taken place but could be started,

Given that there is uncertainty and disagreement over a national centre I think this recommendation for a feasability study should be endorsed by the meeting. That way a model could be developed that worked out the functions and the consitituion of such a body. I think it would be a very bad move to recommend that a NILC NOT be supported. We cannot answer all the questions rised by Vaso immediately but a feasability study could.

A Federation of language centres may be a good idea as part of the constituion but there is a need for a secretariat which carries out work which regional language centres cannot do. I realsie that language centres may fear that a national centre could cut into their budget, but I think on consideration they would see that it could also help them with tasks they find difficult, and we should anyway be looking at a larger allocation of funds overall.

Possible Roles of a National Language Centre