The spirit of the tent embassy: 40 years on

or th so how far F me, the Aboriginal tent embassy is something at has always been there in my consciousness as mething I gain strength from, and a reminder of we’ve come (and how far we have to go) in building a better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Now at its 40th anniversary, the tent embassy continues to be a symbol of living conditions and land ownership of Indigenous Australian peoples. It is a comment on the avenues of protest open to the often silent members of Indigenous society.1 In many ways, what the tent embassy stands for is also what we, at the Australian Indigenous Doctors’ Association (AIDA), strive to achieve in Indigenous health. We want to confront and reverse the negative impacts of colonisation, discrimination and cultural suffocation. In other words, we want self-determination. Self-determination is essential to improving Indigenous health and wellbeing. Self-determination means equal entitlement to be in control of our own destinies while living with governing institutions.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people need to be participating in every layer of decision making to meet our health needs. We should also be actively involved in the design, delivery and control of health services. It’s no coincidence that this notion first gained traction in a health service sense in 1971 — a year before the establishment of the tent embassy — with the formation of the Aboriginal Medical Service in Redfern, the first Aboriginal community-controlled health service.3 Indigenous self-determination was a catchcry at the time, and 40 years later is still being called for. An example of this occurred recently in relation to the consultation process for the Stronger Futures legislation (the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2012).4 This legislation outlines the process for the next stage of the Northern Territory Emergency Response, and could have been an important opportunity for the Australian Government to practise the principles of Indigenous people being actively involved in programs and policies. While the proposed legislation commits to a 10-year funding e Racial Discrimination Act unities were not properly ultation process. The Ausuced “special measures” in the possibility that the long-term health effects. involved in decision-makt affect us, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people also need to have access to health services that are equal in standard to those enjoyed by other Australians. This is particularly important, given that the Indigenous population has a greater need for health care than non-Indigenous Australians due to their lower life expectancy, and higher morbidity and mortality rates. In 2008, 30% of Indigenous people aged 15 years and over reported that they had a problem accessing services.5 The ability to access health services includes considerations such as travelling distance, financial cost and cultural appropriateness. Where culturally appropriate services do exist, they are often underresourced or unable to meet community needs. It is sobering to see that, 40 years after four Aboriginal men, Bertie Williams, Billie Craigie, Tony Coorey and Michael Anderson, camped under a beach umbrella in Canberra and called for equal rights, as a group, we still do not enjoy the same opportunities to be healthy as nonIndigenous people. Research into the hospital management and outcomes of stroke in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, published in 2012, has found that we were less likely to be treated in a stroke unit and receive timely assessments from allied health professionals than non-Indigenous patients. The study also found that Indigenous patients aged 18–64 years had threefold odds of dying or being dependent at discharge.6 Studies such as these indicate that we still have a long way to go in providing good-quality health care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people — care that is affordable, accessible, available and appropriate; care that requires a real commitment from doctors and other health care providers. As members of the medical fraternity, we each have a responsibility to adapt our practice to improve patient engagement and health care outcomes. This includes having knowledge of, respect for and sensitivity about the cultural needs of Indigenous patients, and acknowledging the socioeconomic and cultural factors influencing the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.7 The medical fraternity should value and understand the relationship between cultural integrity and Indigenous health; this relationship is one of the driving forces behind the push to recognise Indigenous people in the constitution.8 Enhancing the awareness and participation of doctors, educators and other health professionals to improve the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people requires commitment and collaboration across the education and training continuum. An example of such a commitment can already be found at the medical school level, where there have been initiatives to increase cultural safety, leadership and support for Indigenous medical