When Professor Andrew Gunstone toured his book in South Australia earlier this year, it was a Q&A filled with lessons, with many insights below taken from the night.

One of which was about avoiding the pitfalls of tokenism. 

Since their introduction, Australia has witnessed a significant rise in organisations adopting Reconciliation Action Plans (RAPs) over the past few years, regardless of recent events.

While the intention behind these plans is commendable, the reality is that there is a noticeable disconnect between the rhetoric of organisational leaders and their actions focused on profitability and productivity.

This separation often leads to a lack of meaningful change.

Initially, many viewed RAPs as mere tick-box exercises. However, when done well, RAPs can bring about substantial progress. Reconciliation Australia’s biannual surveys highlight that staff in organisations with well-executed RAPs demonstrate better understanding and support for reconciliation compared to the general population.

Issues still persist, with some of the most extreme examples coming from companies like Rio Tinto and Telstra, which, despite having high-level RAPs, have in recent years, been involved in significant controversies affecting Indigenous communities.

The problem lies in the integration and genuine commitment to RAPs.

For RAPs to be effective, they must be tied to the key performance indicators (KPIs) of senior leadership, influencing their performance bonuses. This approach ensures accountability and motivates leaders to achieve RAP targets.

Moreover, transparency is crucial. Organisations should conduct audits and publish traffic light reports detailing their progress on RAP targets. This public accountability would help differentiate between organisations that are truly committed and those that are not.

In the context of broader societal engagement, apathy remains a significant barrier. Many Australians rank Indigenous issues low on their list of priorities. To overcome this, discussions about reconciliation should emphasise the strengths and benefits of Indigenous knowledge, showcasing how it can enrich and improve the entire nation.

Finally, collaboration and partnership are key.

Some within organisations and government structures hinder progress. A holistic approach is required, learning from Indigenous knowledge systems that emphasise interconnectedness, can drive more effective and unified efforts towards reconciliation.

The journey towards true reconciliation is ongoing. By holding leaders accountable, fostering transparency, and emphasising the strengths of Indigenous contributions, Australia can move closer to a more equitable and just society.

The history of reconciliation in Australia traces back to the 1990s with the Keating and Hawke governments. While many attribute its origin to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, it began earlier, notably with Bob Hawke’s 1988 Barunga Festival promise of a treaty. Despite this promise, the focus shifted to reconciliation, often overshadowing the need for a treaty.

Reconciliation was intended to mean different things to different people to garner broad support. However, this approach has led to varied interpretations and a lack of clarity. Genuine reconciliation requires more than improved relationships; it necessitates addressing systemic issues and promoting Indigenous rights and representation.

It is crucial to differentiate between genuine efforts and performative actions. An example that Professor Gunstone noted was at a university, where a non-Indigenous artist was appointed to create an Aboriginal-themed mural without consulting Indigenous staff.

Recognising this as a clear oversight, there was push back which succeeded in halting the project. This incident underscored the importance of involving Indigenous voices in decisions that affect their community, a principle central to genuine reconciliation.

Performative actions, such as the university’s initial mural project, often masquerade as steps toward reconciliation but lack substance. True reconciliation goes beyond surface-level gestures. It addresses deep-seated issues like racism, white privilege, and the need for truth-telling at both national and organisational levels. It involves integrating Indigenous knowledge, ensuring representation at all levels, and fostering self-determination.

Victoria provided a positive example. The state’s efforts demonstrate that substantial reconciliation can coexist with everyday life, dispelling fears of disruption. Initiatives like the Yoorrook Justice Commission, which compels officials to acknowledge historical and ongoing injustices, highlight the power of truth-telling. Since then, the SA First Nations Voice has been established and made its first speech.

Nationally, reconciliation must also engage with international frameworks, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Unlike Canada, which integrates UNDRIP into its legislation, Australia’s commitment remains largely symbolic. Strengthening our alignment with international standards is essential for meaningful progress.

Allyship plays a crucial role in sustaining reconciliation efforts. Continuous learning and engagement are key to ensuring that support for reconciliation translates into lasting change.

Genuine reconciliation involves more than symbolic actions. It requires systemic change, truth-telling, and the active participation of Indigenous voices in decision-making processes. By learning from past efforts and engaging with international standards, the wider community can work towards a future where reconciliation is substantive and transformative.