Yes, I've dedicated my career (so far) to examining and overcoming this division.  I just finished my 3rd book, all of which deal, either directly or indirectly, with this situation.

The conference you mention brings up one possible way to overcome it--by triangulating everyone around a common topic.  This is what my first book does with realism, reactions to which constitute the common inheritance from Kant.  But of course, how the topic is dealt with, which intellectual landmarks are assumed are used casually, what kinds of approaches are acceptable--these all differ.  These differences should be exciting and seen as an opportunity to revisit one's own prejudices and assumptions in a Gadamerian fashion, but this is rarely done.  It's a lot more comfortable, and profitable in the short run, to talk to people on your wavelength.  Some people have been able to translate successfully; in particular, Dreyfus&his students have done a great job showing the relevance of Heidegger & Merleu-Ponty to cognitive science and philosophy of mind.  Aside from the long-simmering hostilities, I think the main obstacle is just the sheer amount of effort it takes to get out of one's rut & grasp a whole other tradition.

Anyway, I'm fighting for it!  Jeff Malpas is another, who's from down under.  Do you know him or his work? (I don't mean to imply that Australia's so small that everyone knows everyone, but the philosophy community might be small enough)