Reconciliation, You've Got to Be Dreaming: Exploring Methodologies for Monitoring and Achieving Aboriginal Reconciliation in Australia by 2030

• Date: 01 October 2014
• Published date: 01 October 2014
• Author: Ian S. McIntosh
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21101

C R Q, vol. 32, no. 1, Fall 2014 55

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Confl ict Resolution

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21101

Reconciliation, You’ve Got to Be Dreaming:

Exploring Methodologies for Monitoring

andAchieving Aboriginal Reconciliation in

Australiaby 2030

Ian S. McIntosh

 is article compares and contrasts the deliverables of the Australian

Reconciliation Barometer and a new methodology, reconciliation pro-

cess analysis, for measuring progress toward Aboriginal reconciliation.

Reconciliation process analysis draws heavily on visioning and back-

casting to explore the cumulative impact of the innumerable reconcilia-

tory gestures underway in Australia to highlight where the parties stand

in relation to tipping points and shared goals for the future.  e joint

application of these complementary methodologies will identify not only

the trajectory of Australia’s reconciliatory project but, more important,

the buy-in of indigenous Australians to an ultimate vision of closure

and healing.

The history of indigenous Australia predates European colonization

by more than fi fty thousand years.  e establishment of the British

colony of New South Wales in 1788 had a devastating impact on Aborigi-

nal and Torres Strait Islander lives and livelihoods. Apart from the remoter

parts of the Outback, the loss of lands, cultures, and languages was all but

universal. In Tasmania, the policy of Aboriginal removal, coupled with the

impact of new diseases to which the indigenous peoples had no immunity,

has been described as genocidal.

In this article, I explore the impact of diverse programs of restitu-

tion, reparation, and compensation to address this terrible stain on Aus-

tralia’s history.  is program of activity, collectively known as Aboriginal

Reconciliation, began in earnest only in the 198 0s, and the degree to which

 MCINTOSH

C R Q • DOI: 10.1002/crq

progress is being made is a hotly debated national topic.  e year 2030 is

key in discussions driving Aboriginal reconciliation in Australia.  is was

the time frame adopted by the commonwealth government for delivering

on its promise of eliminating indigenous disadvantage in health and well-

being, perceived by some as the cornerstone of the reconciliation agenda.

I also use this target date for imagining a future in which all the issues that

divide indigenous and nonindigenous Australians have been addressed to

the satisfaction of all parties.

Reconciliation Australia, an organization dedicated to building stronger

relationships with the First Australians, employs a reconciliation barom-

eter, a longitudinal survey measurement tool, for its assessment of recon-

ciliatory activity. Inspired by the South African Reconciliation Barometer,

Australia’s version measures changing notions of inclusiveness and belong-

ing across the continent. As I will detail, the barometer’s strength is in

measuring the extent of the political will and public interest in reconciling

the nation to the idea of making amends for past injustices. Its weakness is

its failure to consider the inaction of successive Australian governments on

the critical topics of reparations, a treaty, or national Aboriginal land rights.

I argue strongly for the implementation of a complementary meth-

odology, reconciliation process analysis, in order to highlight where

Australians stand in terms of realizing a shared vision and a pathway toward

a “united Australia that respects this land of ours; values the Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander heritage; and provides justice and equity for all”

(Reconciliation Australia n.d.).

Progress toward this lofty goal is challenged by the lack of clarity with

regard to defi nitions of what constitutes reconciliation’s goalposts. What

is the precise meaning of justice and equity? What does it mean to value

the indigenous heritage?  ere is an impressive number of reconciliatory

undertakings in Australia (“Sorry Day,” the “Sea of Hands,” National

Aboriginal Apology) perhaps more so than in any other country, but their

cumulative impact in terms of reaching the goal of reconciliation by the

target date is unknown.

Theoretical Perspective

 e emergence of the fi eld of reconciliation studies is a refl ection of a

growing realization throughout the world that creative nonviolent solu-

tions are far more eff ective for averting war and addressing unfi nished busi-

ness than violent solutions. Since 1989, one-third of all peace agreements