The Truth and Reconciliation process in Australia is meant to address and acknowledge “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this land” and acknowledging that “these people were dispossessed, persecuted and oppressed as a result of colonization in Australia” (Reconciliation NSW). The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were long calling for a “comprehensive process of truth-telling about Australia’s history” (Reconciliation Australia). As a result, the process of Truth and Reconciliation officially began in de facto of the Report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1991(Korff).This report called for political leaders and their parties to reconcile between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities to circumvent injustice and community division.As a result, the government formed the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) whose main objective was to set up a 10 year reconciliation process for each state and territory of Australia. The Council that was formed represented the acknowledgement of the history and proceeding misfiring of Australia’s government policy to successfully identify and acknowledge the cultural, social and economic needs of the Aboriginal people of Australia.  The early years of CAR were overshadowed by the High Court’s Mabo decision (1992), which rejected the colonial doctrine of terra nullius or ‘empty land’ and recognized a form of native title to the land (Corntassel and Holder). As part of its recommendations, the commission had suggested implementing an annual day of national apology as a form of restitution but the general public was evenly divided on this issue—almost half supported the commission’s recommendations while the larger half opposed formal apology. By 1998, Howard changed his political position and offered a ‘personal apology’ instead of an official one to those who suffered the abuses of Australia’s stolen generations policies.

1. Corntassel, Jeff, and Cindy Holder. “Who’s Sorry Now? Government Apologies, Truth Commissions, and Indigenous Self-Determination in Australia, Canada, Guatemala, and Peru.” Human Rights Review, vol. 9, no. 4, 2008, pp. 465–489., doi:10.1007/s12142-008-0065-3.
2. Korff, Jens. “What You Need to Know about Reconciliation.” Creative Spirits, Creative Spirits, 12 Nov. 2020, www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/what-you-need-to-know-about-reconciliation.
3. Reconciliation Australia. “Truth-Telling and Reconciliation.” Reconciliation Australia, Reconciliation Australia, 20 Aug. 2020, www.reconciliation.org.au/truth-telling-and-reconciliation.
4. Reconciliation NSW. “What Is Reconciliation?” NSW Schools Reconciliation Challenge, Reconciliation NSW, 14 Apr. 2020, www.schoolsreconciliationchallenge.org.au/reconciliation.

The mandate of the TRC was to cover and address the Aboriginal hindrance and longing in employment, health infrastructure and economic development. As such, the CAR identified 8 key issues within the reconciliation process which included: “understanding country, improving relationships, valuing cultures, shared history, addressing disadvantage, custody levels, destiny (Aboriginal people controlling their own destiny), formal documentation of the process” (Korff). Additionally, to further garner the reconciliation process in Australia the NGO Reconciliation Australia instituted their Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) program which provides a framework to directly address the fragmented relationships between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginal across institutions and organizations in Australia (Reconciliation Australia). The main goal of this program is to improve the socio-economic development for Aboriginal people and drive reconciliation through practical action (Reconciliation Australia). However, Prime Minister Rudd's apology to Aboriginals was heavily criticized by Aboriginal leaders “for separating the act of apologizing from any concrete discussions of restitution or reparation for Indigenous communities” (Corntassel and Holder).Therefore, within the TRC in Australia it has left out the truth-telling aspect towards reconciliation. Therefore, the lack of truth-telling prompted over 250 Aboriginal delegates from the whole region of Australia to gather at Uluru at the First Nations National Constitutional Convention in 2017 (Korff).This meeting led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart which denotes amendments required for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people. The key elements of this statement are: sovereignty, constitutional reform, Makarrata Commission, truth telling, and voice to parliament (The Uluru Statement). In result, the Aboriginal people of Australia are calling for structural reform in order to establish a “new relationship between First Nations and the Australia nation based on justice and self-determination” in order for Aborginal people’s culture and its people to flourish and move forward (The Uluru Statement). Historical narratives compiled by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) in Australia, “Bringing them Home'' was a narrative compiled showcasing the harsh realities of colonialism. It is also important to note that in the decade of reconciliation two key events took place, the Mabo case and the compilation of ‘Stolen Generations’ by HREOC. The narrative in Stolen Generations was the first compilation based on the encounters of aboriginal individuals and how the colonial past still transcends from the past into present day reality (Elder)

1. Corntassel, Jeff, and Cindy Holder. “Who’s Sorry Now? Government Apologies, Truth Commissions, and Indigenous Self-Determination in Australia, Canada, Guatemala, and Peru.” Human Rights Review, vol. 9, no. 4, 2008, pp. 465–489., doi:10.1007/s12142-008-0065-3
2. Elder, Catriona. Review of Unfinished Business in (Post)Reconciliation Australia, Australian Humanities Review, no. 61, May 2017, australianhumanitiesreview.org/2017/06/13/unfinished-business-in-postreconciliation-australia/.
3. Korff, Jens. “Explainer: Uluru Statement from the Heart.” Creative Spirits, 7 Nov. 2020, www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/uluru-statement-from-the-heart.
4. Korff, Jens. “What You Need to Know about Reconciliation.” Creative Spirits, Creative Spirits, 12 Nov. 2020, www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/what-you-need-to-know-about-reconciliation.
5. Reconciliation Australia. “Reconciliation Action Plans.” Reconciliation Australia, Reconciliation Australia, 24 Aug. 2020, www.reconciliation.org.au/reconciliation-action-plans/.
6. The Uluru Statement. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Uluru Statement from the Heart, The Uluru Statement, www.ulurustatement.org/faqs.

1. PM John Howard - The Howard government tabled the Bring Them Home report relating to the forced relocation of Aboriginal children and they were called to apologize for the wrongdoings. However, the government adopted most of the recommendations of the report, though pointedly did not agree that a national "apology" from the Parliament would be an appropriate response.
2. PM Kevin Michael Rudd - In 2007, the Rudd government defeated the Howard government and was said this administration would foster a new relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Additionally, in 2008 he gave a public apology speech to acknowledge Aboriginal people and the way in which children were forcefully removed from their families. 
3. PM Paul Keating - Keating gave a high priority to progressing and defining Aboriginal Reconciliation. In 1995 the Keating government guided HREOC to look into the “removal of indigenous children.” This inquiry later known as the “Stolen Generations” became the first account of the experiences of the Aboriginals in Australia. He was the first government official to formally address Aboriginal people regarding the injustices they dealt with. 
4. Justice Gerrard Brennan - Judge Gerrard Brennan gave the monumental final decision of Aboriginal Land Rights in the Mabo case. 
5. Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR): was to promote reconciliation initiatives, and encourage through leadership, education, and discussion a deeper understanding of Aboriginal history, cultures, dispossession, and continuing disadvantage. 
6. Referendum Council -  The 16-member council was appointed by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, on 7 December 2015. The council was to advise the government on steps towards a referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution (Working with Indigenous Australians).  
7. Reconciliation Australia: This actor is an NGO which was established in 2001 as the national body on reconciliation in Australia. Reconciliation was established following the disbandment of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) in 2000. 
8. 250 Aboriginal delegates: These delegates from all over Australia gathered at Uluru, Northern Territory, on the lands of the Anangu people, at the First Nations National Constitutional Convention. They discussed and uniformly wrote the Uluru Statement from the Heart which seeks for constitutional recognition (Korff)
9. ANaR (Australia for Native Title and Reconciliation): NGO which was established in 1997 when Indigenous leaders approached well-known organizations to seek their support in the fight against the Howard Government's native tide amendments (Brennan). 
10. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC): This team was put together to look into the removal of Indigenous Children under the Keating government. HREOC compiled the first ever narrative of first-person accounts of discrimination experienced by Indigenous People. 

Brennan, Sean. “Reconciliation in Australia: The Relationship Between Indigenous Peoples and the Wider Community.” Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 11, no. 1, 2004, pp. 149–161., www.jstor.org/stable/24590504.

Korff, Jens. “Explainer: Uluru Statement from the Heart.” Creative Spirits, 7 Nov. 2020, www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/uluru-statement-from-the-heart.

Working with Indigenous Australians. “Reconciliation 1991 to the Present.” History: Reconciliation: Working with Indigenous Australians, 2020, www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/History_7_Reconciliation.html.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples : “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a guarantee that Indigenous Peoples rights to self-determination, to lands and territories, to cultural identities, to self-representation and to their unique values and beliefs will be respected at the international level” (ANTaR). Australia officially adopted the UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous People in 2009. This was a key moment as Australia under the former Howard government voted against UNDRIP in 2007

1. ANTaR. “UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” ANTaR, ANTaR, 19 Sept. 2017, antar.org.au/campaigns/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples.

• PM Howard’s empty gestures of reconciliation had overshadowed the substantive work of CAR, which issued a final report in December 2000.
• CAR organized a convention in 1997 to address the implications of the Bringing Them Home report and Prime Minister John Howard was invited to speak. Having already stated that he would not offer either an apology or financial compensation to those subjected to Australia’s forced relocation policies https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/article/10.1007/s12142-008-0065-3#Sec2
• 1998, Howard changed his political position and offered a ‘personal apology’ instead of an official one to those who suffered the abuses of Australia’s stolen generations policies (Corntassel & Holder). 
• The CAR’s report, entitled Reconciliation: Australia’s Challenge, stressed that reconciliation was an ongoing process and put forward new national strategies that warranted restitution and renewed treaty making. In response to the report, Prime Minister Howard noted that his government would consider its proposals but essentially dismissed any notion of offering an apology or treaty in keeping with his previously stated positions (Corntassel & Holder). 
• Individuals known as Australians for Reconciliation (AFR) coordinators were contracted by CAR to promote reconciliation initiatives within communities (Brennan). 
•  Howard’s attempt to confine Australia’s genocidal policies solely to those of ‘the past’ illustrates the dangers of promoting a discourse on reconciliation without having first achieved some form of restitution. Any reparations or land title discussions were now off the table as an official apology would expose the current ‘blemishes’ in Australia’s ongoing colonial history. Despite not having offered an official apology, Howard was now ready to embrace the symbolic language of reconciliation and policies of affirmative repair. He began by appointing a new Minister of Reconciliation in 1998. Ten months later, Howard introduced a ‘motion of reconciliation’ to the Commonwealth Parliament, which offered ‘regret’ to indigenous peoples for harmful Australian policies of the past but no authentic apology. Howard’s empty gestures of reconciliation had overshadowed the substantive work of CAR, which issued a final report in December 2000 (Corntassel & Holder).

Inability to constitutionally recognize Aboriginal people:

the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists has found: "The lack of recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the traditional owners of the land and waters of Australia in the Constitution impacts on identity and sense of belonging within the communities, perpetuating discrimination and eroding mental health and social and emotional wellbeing"(The Royal Australia & New Zealand College of Psychiatrist).  

It was also recognition that progress also required a sea change in the understanding and involvement of non-Aboriginal Australians. While the reconciliation process has successfully motivated and moved thousands of ordinary people, court decisions, laws and political developments made the reconciliation process much harder (Korff). 

Challenge in Academic Literature:  

Another key barrier to the seamless process of TRC was the interpretive nature of the text produced by CAR in attempts to uncover the atrocities committed in the past. Historian Patrick Wolfe argues that the usage of the phrase “sharing history” as opposed to “shared history” denotes the past history as interpretive (Atwood). . Thus, instead of relaying the past as something that is mutually shared between the Aboriginal Community and the Anlgo-Australians, using the phrase “sharing history” creates a sense of distance between the past and present. It “denies the present of the past” (Atwood). I argue that this distance which was created from the narrative in historical accounts fails to relay the presence of the colonial past in the present day. Thus, hindering the reconciliation process. 

• • Failure to acknowledge the repercussions of the past today leads to an ineffective reconciliation process. This is mainly because  reconciliation includes acknowledging the past and recognizing the presence of colonial sentiments in present day. If we fail to acknowledge the present we will never be able to better ourselves as a nation and put an end to discriminatory practices.

Australia, apologies that were meant to serve as basic building blocks of reconciliation with indigenous peoples ultimately failed to succeed even as apologies, let alone as tools of reconciliation. In Australia, attempts by a civil society movement to compensate for state officials’ unwillingness to acknowledge state responsibility for injustices suffered by indigenous peoples failed to advance the project of reconciliation and may even have impeded it by fueling a popular backlash. Prime Minister Rudd’s 2008 apology, while offering a new opening for indigenous self-determination, has thus far de-linked the act of apologizing from any possibility of restitution or reparation.  the premium that state officials placed on maintaining absolute political and legal authority over indigenous peoples made it impossible for them to offer genuine apologies and so made it impossible for them to initiate a process of genuine reconciliation.  Clearly, in the struggles over the politics of perception, the injustices of history were being memorialized on Australian government terms rather than on indigenous terms (Corntassel & Holder). Another key aspect which contributed to a completely successful reconciliation process was how academic literature aimed to encourage disremembering of the gruesome events of the past. The article, “Unsettling Pasts” by Bain Atwood, highlights the usage of “temporal categories” (Atwood 7) in academic literature. Atwood argued that the usage of such categories creates a distance between the colonial past and its presence today. It almost mitigates any trace of the colonial history in our social dynamic today. CAR’s referral to the wrongdoings of the past as the “past wrongs” (Atwood) insinuates as though “they’re not present today.” (Atwood). Furthermore, it is important to note that academic literature which is geared to promote a more Anglo-Australian centric point of view by subduing the atrocities of the past will most likely educate future generations about the past with unrealistic facts, causing hindrance in the reconciliation process. This will also hinder a potentially positive social change

Another factor which attributes to an unsuccessful reconciliation process was PM John Howards refusal to apologize for the genocide of Indigenous community of Australia. In 1999, PM Howard offered a statement of regret, however, he refused to apologize due to not agreeing with a genocide taking place. This statement caused quite a stir and became a hurdle in the reconciliation process. It is important to note that not only did PM Howard publicly deny affirming with the conclusion of the report, “Bringing them Home” but he claimed that a genocide never happened. For decades during the colonial period, Indigenous children were taken away from families to help them assimilate, the humiliation and the degradation faced by the Indigenous community was unlike no other. Pm Howard’s claim proved that reconciliation is meaningless with a positive social impact and change. As a Prime Minister you're responsible for representing the entire nation, when a political authority disrupts the social fabric of a state by denying the truth, he causes the positive social changes which might be taking place to come to a halt. 

The third factor which contributed to the unsuccessful reconciliation process was the ambiguity associated with the term “reconciliation.” The article, “Is Reconciliation in Australia a Dead End?” by Elizabeth Moran, highlights the differences between the three key frameworks of reconciliation. Firstly, the religious model of reconciliation, secondly, a political model of reconciliation, and thirdly, the legal perspective on reconciliation. Moran argues that while religious framework focuses on reconciliation being a “gift from god as an act of unconditional love and grace” (Moran), she argues that the political model contradicts this belief, and is based upon forgiveness “transcending past differences in the interest of national unity.” (Moran). In contrast to these two frameworks, although the legal framework acknowledges the history, it can severely “ hinder the reconciliation process as it funnels reconciliation into existing legal frameworks and legal language.” (Moran). Hence, I argue that the striking differences of the true meaning of reconciliation makes reconciliation a tough and perhaps a confusing one. 

While reconciliation can be seen as an ongoing process, where one constantly tries to break out of the stigma and preconceived notions about certain minorities, the aforementioned factors highlight the importance of social change. It is important to realize that Truth and Reconciliation is an amalgamation of social transformation and political change. Due to the lack of sincerity displayed by PM Howard, he disrupted social transformation and the reconciliation process. Furthermore, the lack of changes in the legal code tailored to accommodate the Indigenous community of Australia also contributed to the unsuccessful reconciliation.

1. 1. Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, Government Printer of Australia, 1976. www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00117
   2. Dalton, Vicki. “Aboriginal Deaths in Prison 1980 to 1998: National Overview.” Oct. 1999, www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/tandi131.pdf.
   3. Keating, Paul. Transcript, ANTaR, 1992. antar.org.au/sites/default/files/paul_keating_speech_transcript.pdf.
   4. Native Title Act 1993, Commonwealth of Australia, 2010. extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/aus15378.pdf
   5. Read,  Peter. The Stolen Generations, New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs, 1981. dietitiansaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Reading-7_StolenGenerations.pdf.
   6. Reconciliation Australia. “Reconciliation Action Plans.” Reconciliation Australia, Reconciliation Australia, 24 Aug. 2020, www.reconciliation.org.au/reconciliation-action-plans/.
   7. Rudd, Kevin. “Speech to the Parliament.” Speech by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the Parliament. Speech to the Parliament, Canberra, www.dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/public-diplomacy/programs-activities/Pages/speech-by-prime-minister-kevin-rudd-to-the-parliament.
   8. Uluru Statement From The Heart.” 2017. www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF
   9. Wilson, Ronald Darling. Bringing Them Home: National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families (Australia), 1997. humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/social_justice/bringing_them_home_report.pdf.
   10. Reconciliation Australia. “The State of Reconciliation in Australia Summary Report.” Reconciliation Australia, 2017. www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/State-of-Reconciliation-Report_SUMMARY.pdf

• Attwood, Bain. “Unsettling Pasts: Reconciliation and History in Settler Australia.” Postcolonial Studies, no. 3, 6 Aug. 2006, pp. 243–259., doi:doi.org/10.1080/13688790500231012.

The first article by Bain Atwood explores the injustices endured by many indigenous nations around the world. In his introduction, he gives an example of countries like South Africa and New Zealand and Canada who consciously confronted their indigenous history. However, Atwood argues that Australia’s confrontation route has been a bit different from the rest in a few ways. Firstly, he argues that confrontation and reconciling with the past has been especially different due to the belief held by Europeans settled in Australia or “Anglo-Austalians” that - that much of history is not volatile or gruesome. I believe the first step to truth and reconciliation is acknowledgement; an element which is missing in the process in Australia. Atwood attributes much of this issue to the constant attempt of disremembering. Firstly, through literature and then through memorialising practices. 

• Corntassel, Jeff, and Cindy Holder. “Who’s Sorry Now? Government Apologies, Truth Commissions, and Indigenous Self-Determination in Australia, Canada, Guatemala, and Peru.” Human Rights Review, vol. 9, no. 4, 2008, pp. 465–489., doi:10.1007/s12142-008-0065-3.

In this article, the three authors (names) explore the different aspects of a truth and reconciliation process and their effectiveness in 4 countries; Canada, Australia, Peru and Guatemala. This article is a great tool to use in a research based study as it provides statistical evidence on the effective in all 4 countries. Furthermore, the authors emphasize that although attempts were made in each of these countries towards reconciliation, there was little to no change in transforming inter-group relations. The authors highlight the importance of forgiveness in such a process and the importance of recognizing a “shared future.” Furthermore, they highlight the state central nature of the reconciliation process. This article provides a comparative analysis of the TRC in different countries and their deficiencies in achieving a successful Truth and reconciliation.

•  Short, Damien. “Reconciliation, Assimilation, and the Indigenous Peoples of Australia.” International Political Science Review, vol. 24, no. 4, Oct. 2003, pp. 491–513, doi:10.1177/01925121030244005.

This article by Short examines how the rigid policy framing in Australia became a hindrance in a successful Truth and Reconciliation process. Short highlights the condescending attitude of the British which led to the turmoil faced by the indigenous communities in Australia. He furthermore argues that the process of “Truth and Reconciliation” is just an innovative technique employed as a “response to the atrocities” committed in the past. This article is captivating and gauges the interest of the reader by emphasizing whether the TRC process is honest or just an act. 

• Elder, Catriona. Review of Unfinished Business in (Post)Reconciliation Australia, Australian Humanities Review, no. 61, May 2017, australianhumanitiesreview.org/2017/06/13/unfinished-business-in-postreconciliation-australia/

In this article, the author Catrina Elder explores the various routes of discourse reconciliation has taken over the last three decades. Calder first begins to analyze the ‘historical gap’ filled by literature. She analyzes whether images and accounts of the brutality which took place will enable us to heal and become a united community with strong moral values again. Secondly, she analyzes which groups participated in the TRC process and propelled the initiative forward and thirdly, she analyzes postcolonial rights associated with the TRC process. She determines whether there is a change in pattern of reconciliation years after the initial efforts to apologize and reconcile were made. 

• Reconciliation Australia. “Truth-Telling and Reconciliation.” Reconciliation Australia, Reconciliation Australia, 20 Aug. 2020, www.reconciliation.org.au/truth-telling-and-reconciliation.

This article by Reconciliation Australia highlights what Truth and Reconciliation really mean. This article is geared towards focusing on the Torres Strait Islander Aboroginal community of Australia. Creating emphasizes on two vital aspects of this process, acknowledging the past and the resilience of the Aobriginal people, this article takes several key documents into account. Firstly, they analyze reports from the Royal Commission into Aboroginal Deaths in Custody, Uluru Statement from The Heart and other reports like the Referendum Council’s Final Report. This article provides a great comprehensive insight into the Truth and Reconciliation process in Australia. 

• Brennan, Sean. “Reconciliation in Australia: The Relationship Between Indigenous Peoples and the Wider Community.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 11, no. 1, 2004, pp. 149–161. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24590504. Accessed 30 Nov. 2020.

In this article Brennan highlights some of the criticisms of the reconciliation process. He argues that although political motives are important, they can easily be overlooked in reconciliation if they’re not met with a positive social change. He argues that an unfortunate reality is the social reality many races in Australia are met with - especially, the Abroignal community. This article presents a striking reality of how reconciliation is not the only change necessary to mitigate preconceived notions about minorities. 

• Moran, Elizabeth. “Is Reconciliation in Australia a Dead End?” Australian Journal of Human Rights , vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, pp. 109–140., doi:10.1080/1323238X.2006.11910815.

This article by Elizabeth Moran looks at the growing importance of reconciliation after the second world war. Moran argues that although reconciliation is important, it is almost like a “dead end” if it happens without a social change and transformation. Moran examines three key aspects of reconciliation in Australia, the religious model of forgiveness, the political model of reconciliation and the legal perspective on reconciliation. Moran examines the differences in what reconciliation really means in each of these aspects - arguing that it has a different meaning in all. She claims that rights should be separated from the process of reconciliation in order for the TRC to be fully effective.

• Mellor, David, Di Bretherton, and Lucy Firth. "Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Australia: The Dilemma of Apologies, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation." Peace and Conflict, vol. 13, no. 1, 2007, pp. 11-36.

This article highlights the criticisms of the Truth and Reconciliation process in Australia. The authors probe into the unfortunate reality of the Aboriginal community in Australia. Both authors, Bretherton and Firth analyze reconciliation through quantitative analysis by interviewing10 participants. The study analyzes the “neglected Indigenous perspective” (Bretherton and Firth). In order to do so, the authors provide the background for the socio-economic conditions, the process of assimilation, and the struggle of the Aboriginal community in Australia.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, Government Printer of Australia, 1976.

Andrews, Dan. “Delivering Truth And Justice For Aboriginal Victorians.” Premier of Victoria, 11 July 2020, www.premier.vic.gov.au/delivering-truth-and-justice-aboriginal-victorians.

ANTaR. “The Sea of Hands.” ANTaR Victoria, ANTaR, antarvictoria.org.au/seaofhands.

Attwood, Bain. “Unsettling Pasts: Reconciliation and History in Settler Australia.” Postcolonial Studies, no. 3, 6 Aug. 2006, pp. 243–259., doi:doi.org/10.1080/13688790500231012.

Australian Human Rights Commission. “National Sorry Day: Australian Human Rights Commission.” The Australian Human Rights Commission, 26 May 1970, humanrights.gov.au/about/get-involved/events/national-sorry-day.

Brennan, Sean. “Reconciliation in Australia: The Relationship Between Indigenous Peoples and the Wider Community.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 11, no. 1, 2004, pp. 149–161. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24590504. Accessed 30 Nov. 2020.

Chrysanthos, Natassia. “What Is the Uluru Statement from the Heart?” The Sydney Morning Herald, The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 May 2019, www.smh.com.au/national/what-is-the-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-20190523-p51qlj.html.

CLC . “The Aboriginal Land Rights Act.” The Aboriginal Land Rights Act | Central Land Council, Australia, Central Land Council, 2020, www.clc.org.au/articles/info/the-aboriginal-land-rights-act/.

Corntassel, Jeff, and Cindy Holder. “Who’s Sorry Now? Government Apologies, Truth Commissions, and Indigenous Self-Determination in Australia, Canada, Guatemala, and Peru.” Human Rights Review, vol. 9, no. 4, 2008, pp. 465–489., doi:10.1007/s12142-008-0065-3.

Dalton, Vicki. “Aboriginal Deaths in Prison 1980 to 1998: National Overview.” Oct. 1999, www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/tandi131.pdf.

Elder, Catriona. Review of Unfinished Business in (Post)Reconciliation Australia, Australian Humanities Review, no. 61, May 2017, australianhumanitiesreview.org/2017/06/13/unfinished-business-in-postreconciliation-australia/.

Hobbs, Harry. “Response to Referendum Council Report Suggests a Narrow Path Forward on Indigenous Constitutional Reform.” The Conversation, The Conversation, 28 May 2019, theconversation.com/response-to-referendum-council-report-suggests-a-narrow-path-forward-on-indigenous-constitutional-reform-80315.

Jopson, Debra, and Tony Stephens. “From the Archives, 2000: Bridge Walk for Reconciliation Attracts Thousands.” The Sydney Morning Herald, The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 May 2020, www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/from-the-archives-2000-bridge-walk-for-reconciliation-attracts-thousands-20200520-p54uw2.html.

Keating, Paul. Transcript, ANTaR, 1992. antar.org.au/sites/default/files/paul_keating_speech_transcript.pdf.

Korff, Jens. “What You Need to Know about Reconciliation.” Creative Spirits, Creative Spirits, 12 Nov. 2020, www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/what-you-need-to-know-about-reconciliation.

Korff, Jens. “Explainer: Uluru Statement from the Heart.” Creative Spirits, 7 Nov. 2020, www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/uluru-statement-from-the-heart.

Mellor, David, Di Bretherton, and Lucy Firth. "Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Australia: The Dilemma of Apologies, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation." Peace and Conflict, vol. 13, no. 1, 2007, pp. 11-36.

Moran, Elizabeth. “Is Reconciliation in Australia a Dead End?” Australian Journal of  Human Rights , vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, pp. 109–140., doi:10.1080/1323238X.2006.11910815.

National Museum of Australia. “Indigenous Australians' Right to Vote.” National Museum of Australia, National Museum of Australia, 24 Apr. 2020, www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/indigenous-australians-right-to-vote#:~:text=Voting rights for Indigenous people,and vote in federal elections.&text=Once enrolled, however, voting was compulsory.

Native Title Act 1993, Commonwealth of Australia, 2010.

Queensland Government. “Native Title.” Queensland Government, 23 Jan. 2020, www.qld.gov.au/atsi/environment-land-use-native-title/native-title/about-native-title.

Read, Peter. The Stolen Generations, New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs, 1981. dietitiansaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Reading-7_StolenGenerations.pdf.

Reconciliation Australia. “National Reconciliation Week.” Reconciliation Australia, Reconciliation Australia, 9 June 2020, www.reconciliation.org.au/national-reconciliation-week/.

Reconciliation Australia. “Reconciliation Action Plans.” Reconciliation Australia, Reconciliation Australia, 24 Aug. 2020, www.reconciliation.org.au/reconciliation-action-plans/.

Reconciliation Australia. “Truth-Telling and Reconciliation.” Reconciliation Australia, Reconciliation Australia, 20 Aug. 2020, www.reconciliation.org.au/truth-telling-and-reconciliation.

Reconciliation NSW. “What Is Reconciliation?” NSW Schools Reconciliation Challenge, Reconciliation NSW, 14 Apr. 2020, www.schoolsreconciliationchallenge.org.au/reconciliation.

Reconciliation SA. “Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.” Reconciliation SA, 14 Aug. 2019, reconciliationsa.org.au/achievements/council-for-aboriginal-reconciliation/.

Rudd, Kevin. “Speech to the Parliament.” Speech by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the Parliament. Speech to the Parliament, Canberra, www.dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/public-diplomacy/programs-activities/Pages/speech-by-prime-minister-kevin-rudd-to-the-parliament.

SBS. “Paul Keating's Redfern Speech Still Powerful after 25 Years.” SBS News, SBS, 9 Dec. 2017, www.sbs.com.au/news/paul-keating-s-redfern-speech-still-powerful-after-25-years.

Brennan, Sean. “Reconciliation in Australia: The Relationship Between Indigenous Peoples and the Wider Community.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 11, no. 1, 2004, pp. 149–161. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24590504. Accessed 30 Nov. 2020.

State Library Victoria. “Reconciliation Convention 1997.” Ergo, State Library Victoria, ergo.slv.vic.gov.au/explore-history/fight-rights/indigenous-rights/reconciliation-convention-1997#:~:text=The official movement toward national,all Australians about Indigenous issues.

The Royal Australia & New Zealand College of Psychiatrist. “Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Australian Constitution.” RANZCP, 1 Nov. 2018, www.ranzcp.org/news-policy/policy-and-advocacy/position-statements/recognition-of-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-island.

The Uluru Statement. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Uluru Statement from the Heart, The Uluru Statement, ulurustatement.org/faqs.

Thomas, Matthew. “The 1967 Referendum.” Parliament of Australia, Parliament of Australia, 25 May 2017, www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2017/May/The_1967_Referendum.

Tudge, Alan. “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013.” Alan Tudge MP, 25 Feb. 2015, www.alantudge.com.au/speeches/Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-Peoples-Recognition-Act-2013/.

“Uluru Statement From The Heart.” 2017.

Wilson, Ronald Darling. Bringing Them Home: National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families (Australia), 1997. humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/social_justice/bringing_them_home_report.pdf.