Reconciliation: Resolution or rhetoric?

Abstract

This research study explores and presents the different perspectives of the Australian reconciliation movement. It is to ascertain how the ideals proposed by the reconciliation process might have impact upon the health of Indigenous Australians. Specifically, this study asks: 1. What are the different perspectives on Reconciliation? 2. Can the different ideals proposed by the various advocates of the reconciliation movement have an impact upon the health of Indigenous Australians? The study argues that the Reconciliation Movement has failed to deliver the expected outcome. The establishment of the Reconciliation Movement has failed to deliver the expected social, economic and health gains for Indigenous Australians, and in fact these are strong evidence to suggest that the reconciliation movement itself has become a divisive tool. The many divergent perspectives on the goals and outcomes of the reconciliation movement are believed to be the primary source of such division. The consequences of such divisiveness have left its impact on the Indigenous Australian and non-Indigenous Australian health professionals working with and among the Indigenous Australian population. The methodology undertaken to investigate the different perspectives on reconciliation was an extensive literature search and the use of content analysis, which utilised sources such as journal articles, general texts, Ovid search, television documentaries and government publications. The main findings of this paper were the acknowledgement that the transfer of land to Indigenous Australians is fundamental to the reconciliation process. The current Australian government's goal of reconciliation on the other hand does not provide social justice and equity for Indigenous Australians, both prerequisites to any lasting reconciliation outcome.