Hear, hear, Megan! I think you've described a hagiographic trend in the public coverage of Indigenous affairs that has greatly contributed to stifling debate in the area (e.g. the issues facing Indigenous people are much broader than can be addressed by the rubric of 'welfare reform' or 'getting off the grog'). The habitual genuflection towards the work of Noel Pearson (which is often narrrowly interpreted or taken out of context, as you've said) masks a poverty of intellectual capital in the Indigenous public policy debate. Now the Coalition government has savaged the area of Indigenous affairs, the wheels are spinning, and even they aren't really too sure what to do themselves.

What gets me is the way that the latte-sippers of yesteryear are now intoning 'and then I read the work of Noel Pearson, and it was the only thing that made sense to me about Indigenous affairs' as if they've had a Damascan epiphany. The whole public debate is very limited because of the lack of general knowledge of Indigenous issues and the collusion of the media on various government bandwagons.

I don't want to get into Noel-bashing, but I think you're right on the mark and that this trend is just plain boring, as much as anything else.

I'm probably misremembering but wasn't it Noel Pearson that described ATSIC as Aborgines Talking Sh1t in Canberra"? It goes with APEC - a perfect Excuse to Chat and GATT - General Agreement to talk and talk - i think its great to see a sense of humour on the record.

One person can't and shouldn't be expected to be a saviour and lead all people out of all their troubles, he can only do what he can do and he comes across like an active, intelligent and thoughtful person and a good spokesman in the public domain.

He also offers a bit of relief for people who don't always treat Aboriginal Australians as though they were museum artefacts who must never change; noble savages who came from utopian societies; miscreants and drunkard recidivists; political victims who will never escape 'the struggle'; or marginal objects of media curiosity etc.

Many of the people I know in the city (not the bush admittedly) are normal, talented, friendly but imperfact people who get on with their lives like quiet achievers. Not everything they do is a political statement nor do they aim to live as constant exemplars of Aboriginality. They eat, they smile, they laugh, they cry, they travel overseas - they have a shared history with the rest of us flawed members of our society but they are also incredibly important as individuals not MERELY as members of a group. It's also extremely tiring and dispiriting to exist as an ad or a badge for an argument rather than just be the person around whom argument swirls.

Finally, noting the author's spelling, I am now but I wasn't previously aware that Noel Pearson was French? Should we now call him Mr Christmas Pearson? :) Season's Greetings then Mr Pearson, you are doing a good job.

As someone who has watched the Pearson StaR rise and rise, I find it difficult to accept Megans' fair handed approach to Pearson which is then cushioned in a call for a much more balanced call for open public debate.

Pearsons response to O'Donahue was predicably full of half baked political theories, mixed with good Lutheran social engineering approaches to Aboriginal welfare and borrowed from god knows where.

This is one of the few times Pearson has ever engaged in one-one debate public debate about his ideas with another 'Indigneous leader'. He has in my view deliberately avoided any call for accountability for his views from those he purports to represent.

His sluttish participation in the indigenous components of the cultural wars (via the Murdoch press) has created and manufactured consent around some of the oldest and most racist myths about Indigeous people.

For those already caught in the trance of Pearson's star qualities consider this.

He has never provided any evidence which suggests that such imposition of obligations makes people better citizens, helps them escape poverty or provides any beneficial outcomes.

Pearson’s chant of ‘Must be the grog, can't be the government’ is a dog whistle to those not wanting to understand the historical legacy of Aboriginal disadvantage or how white Australian privilege came about. Roll up Roll up! Every man and his dog can become an expert on Indigenous issues and policy in this political vacuum.

Does he deserve such a temperate appraisal of his role in creating and supporting a neo-con white discourse of victim blaming and contempt for Aboriginal people?

I say no. If the modus operendai here is to reveal Pearson as a wooden political peg then I would suggest that one ‘just calling like it is’.

Yes easy to say, harder to do I hear some think.

And I suspect Megan would agree with me on the above but she also understands that entry into any public debate these days (in Indigenous affairs) must be cognizant of how ideologically Right wing such public space is. But it has to start somewhere

Pt 1.

True one size does NOT fit all aboriginal communities, yet it has been the approach, both within states and federally, toward aboriginal and islander affairs since the 1800's.

This whole aboriginal leadership debate gives rise, i think, to the question of whether aboriginal people are acting as a 'whole', i.e. aboriginal people of australia united in one voice, and therefore a 'team'. or whether aboriginal people are acting as representatives of a certain area/mob and whatever issues forth from their mouth/hand is representative of that mob/are only.

the danger is the rise of the competition between individual areas to obtain resources to progress development/capacity building in those areas only. something of an aboriginal form of laise-faire - individuals at arms length in competition.

the pilot projects initiated in the cape york area in 2002 were announced at a meeting in townsville for the aboriginal and torres strait islander women's taskforce on violence in queensland.

aboriginal women had been assisted by courier mail reporter tony koch to expose the levels of violence and abuse within our communities and had the state governments ear about what was going on and the need for support to stop it - that was in 1998. four years later and into the second implementation stage of the atsi women's taskforce on violence report came the news of the pearson driven pilot project for the cape. pearson has a lot riding on the success of this pilot project, he's just got to get matching stats.

Pt. 2.

there is no denying that women and children in the cape communities have been suffering intolerable violence and abuse and that something had to happen. so in that context i've absolutely no problems with pearson's solution if it works for those communities. however, in order for that solution to work i think the solution needs to get the full support and consent of the communities which are affected.

im not quite sure if the democratic process is at play here... its whose way or the highway? maybe those community people are not capable of making that kind of decision - now who's asking that question? me, noel, the boss (the libs), the community? the touting of paternalism revisited this decision making business is understandable.

as for the differences in leadership styles, the o'donoghues, the dodsons, the pearsons, the mundines, the yunipingus, the yus et al... its a two-fold line, your mob and your people as a whole - they dont work without each other.

Rainier said ..."entry into any public debate these days (in Indigenous affairs) must be cognizant of how ideologically Right wing such public space is"

Interesting comment which seems to imply that when You enter into public debate, your (non-Right wing) views may be in the minority but are nevertheless preferable than those held by what you see as the majority of those engaging in the same debate. That could well be the case because of course it is not numbers that make an argument right yet you don't provide evidence for either the ideological domination of public space or your argument's inherent superiority.

However, I dont agree with you about this anyway.

I think Australians on the whole are less concerned with trotting out popular political jargon which is delivered up with such barely concealed hate or snideness. They are less concerned with overthrowing someone's perceived conspiracy than they are in just wanting someone/some people to help Australia help its citizens.

Lastly, I dont think the dish of dislike that you serve up at Pearson is terribly useful - I mean he's not going to stop working just because you insult him in public. He's here and so are others who are working hard in their own ways. If "one-size really doesn't fit all" then why the criticism of a person's apparently very different approach? Is everything he does all bad?

The very political style of pretty rude criticism also seems to indicate that you and others are more concerned with his politics than his actions. If Noel Pearson chose to argue against "cancer" would that make you argue for it?

Ro,

I don’t see what you’re getting at other than attacking me for questioning Pearson’s political and ideological integrity. Is there something you find offensive about this? Why? Is this not permissible? And who sez so?

I can’t help but think that Pearson’s rhetoric is much important to his supporters than those he is speaking about. I can understand how attractive it must be to defend one eloquent black spokesperson absolving white fear and guilt? Cathy Freeman did it on the track; Noel does from a lectern to the middle classes who flock to hear his latest orations about ‘naughty aborigines’, and their behavioral dysfunctions.
And everyone goes home feeling like they’ve done something for blackfellas. Puleeze!

And Ro,

• When you speak of Australians being less concerned with political jargon, who are these people- you’re golf mates or the bloke who owns the corner store? Pray tell?

Forgive me for being somewhat cynical but your reference to Australian egalitarianism and its apparent concern for Indigenous peoples – but it’s simply not born out in contemporary evidence.
• So tell me oh knowledgeable one, what are Pearson’s actual actions? I’ve got a pretty good idea about what they are, but it appears you have a much more grounded understanding

On-Ya Megan Davis,

Agree with the main bit of what you say "Indigenous communities are different with different problems requiring different solutions".

Keep on Keeping on.

Earlier this year there was a march to acknowledge the first anniversary of the death of TJ Hickey at Waterloo after a bicycle accident. The march got big press. Yet in the fortnight before the protest two young aboriginals in Redfern died from heroin overdose (one in the very centre of The Block). Those young Aboriginals did not get a mention in any forum.
The subsequent inquiries into Redfern highlighted what was known by many for years, that the indigenous community was ravaged by heroin. Yet after all that was exposed the heroin trade is still flourishing in Eveleigh Street, Aboriginals selling Aboriginals heroin.
For all the debate that has taken place NOTHING has been achieved, and now Megan wishes to move the subject of debate from how best to resolve the problem to how we should debate debates.
Is it any wonder the government are seeking to take back power over Aboriginal Australia.
PFH

PFH, you totally miss the point of Megan's arguement.
If public debates have an impact on social policy, then the current process by which one commentator dominates the discourse is not tenable to solving problems, either in Redfern or in remote communities.

Its about problem definition and solution by respective communities.

The debates have simply identified problems that are already well known to Indigenous leaders at the grassroots. But have we heard from Redfern community people, have we heard from Cape York leaders?

There voices have been locked out in favour of a castigating discourse about substance abuse in Aboriginal communities.

Am I putting to much emphasis on how its being covered in the media and not enough about what to do about it? I don't think so.

Its as though everyone is now expert at naming what the problems are -as if this encapsulates the 'solution'. It does not.

Hence the reason Megan is trying to first balance the debate toward proper support for grassroots leadership.

Why should the cape communities come under the Iron Rule of Noel Pearson? Boni Robertson, a long term critic of Pearson, has come out recently and queried his welfare reforms from the position that they violate fundamental human rights. Robertson and Pearson have been at loggerheads for a number of years but it would be difficult to find any comments from either party that has attacked the other personally.
Perhaps O'Donauhue could learn from this.

I think it is important to stimulate open autonomous debate on what is occurring at ground level between communities of Cape York.

No where in Australia is there a place that is more mis-understood, than Cape York.

Be it in the nature of Wik, CYPLUS or recent changes to Local Government Councils, Health and Crime Prevention, the new introduction of Alcohol Laws, or through Economic "self determination" and Employment?

The Cape, like many isolated regions of Australia, has a history of haphazard processes in national and state development.

There is a lack of Social Planning, lack of intergration between major government departments, lack of "inclusiveness" of peoples at ground levels, lack of understanding in a Community Development that prevents strain, and which leads us out of the causal links that contribute to the break-down of family and community crime

www.miacat.com

Gee, what a nice hatchet job. There are so many contradictions in Megan Davis's post, I hardly know where to start pointing them out.

Mr Pearson’s “behaviour” appears unacceptable to the Ms Davis, apparently because he had the gall to stand up at an aboriginal talk fest and tell the assembled luminaries what they did not want to hear. Megan Davis then claimed that Mr pearson “can not tolerate opposing views". But since he alone was the only naysayer, any impartial observer would quickly conclude that it is Pearson’s "opposing view" which is not being "tolerated” by vested interests.

The fact that The Age’s editorial deplored the lack of common ground between two of this nations most respected aboriginal leaders is portrayed as some sort of media bias which is having a shot at “blackfellas.”

Davis then tries to portray Pearson as a paid puppet of John Howard who is simply parroting what his masters have scripted for him. Got news for ya, Megan, every aboriginal leader is on the public payroll. Are they all dancing monkeys for the Liberal Party's organ grinder too?

Davis then claims that Noel Pearson is stifling debate. Apparently, being a heretic to a demonstrably failing orthodoxy and pointing out that the sacred ideology has been found wanting, is “stifling debate.” I would have thought that forcefully defending an unpopular position was it was promoting it.

But Davis got it right when she argued that even Australia’s Left have given up fighting for sundry aboriginal “causes.” Too true Megan. Even they have finally figured out that their trendy ideas have been catastrophic for aboriginal society and they have summoned up enough neuronal activity to comprehend that Noel Pearson was right all along.

Davis then actually admits that “future” ALP president Warren Mundine also agrees with the Howard Government’s approach as well.

Seems that the only people who are criticising the Pearson's policy are all former disgruntled members and minions of ATSIC, who bemoan the loss of their power, privileges and well paid sinecures.

"Seems that the only people who are criticising the Pearson's policy are all former disgruntled members and minions of ATSIC, who bemoan the loss of their power, privileges and well paid sinecures"

How wrong you are about Megan and many others. If you only knew, or more importantly, really wanted to know.

I agree with Megan Davis about different communities having different needs.
The Howard government's philosophy is divide and rule and it is so easy for him to achieve this with indigenous peoples, due to the tyranny of distance and diversity of language and needs.
Howard denies basic health and education rights to these people and is arrogant in the extreme.
White Australians do not have to perform "mutual obligation" to have these rights. Could anyone imagine the response from white citizens, being told to wash their face and hands to be allowed their rights?.
The argument about the qualities of "indigenous leaders" in this forum, is a nonsense. This is only sugar and spice for Howard's uncaring attitude to indigenous peoples, and aids and abets Howard,s lambasting of "indigenous leaders", who do not agree with his white, ignorant outlook.
Howard has a legal and moral obligation under the UN Charter of Human Rights, to provide the same rights to all citizens of Australia

What is wrong with you idiots!
Noel Pearson is simply saying what is right, and god knows (along with Pauline Hanson) that it is about time but nonetheless good to hear an Aboriginal leader waking up. It is good to see an Aboriginal leader realise that "stolen generation" may have produced a lot of problems but "why cry about it?" Besides, wouldn't the fate of children have been worse if left with drunk parents? I think this issue has been extremely unfair on white Australia. Megan Davis hasn't broken through the "left's brainwashing".
Pauline Hanson and Greaham Campbell said the same things as Pearson, and there were Aboriginals then who supported them, not as high profile as Noel Pearson though, so why were they ignored? Why does Davis think that the media is biased in focusing on Pearson?
Well anyway, it is all clear to me. The media in this country generally leans left and is generally to "queesy" on tough issues like immigration and Aboriginal problems and so tend to leave them alone if possible. It is only since P.Hanson that they can even talk about issues of multiculturalism etc, and even Pearson back then was not seeing clearly. The media latches on to Pearson because he is right, and he is black, not white. A white person saying such things is apparently a racist so they were all taught at media school.
There are many problems in the Aboriginal community that need to be fixed, and to tip toe around and superficially dress the wounds by "walking over bridges" etc. is merely token garbage, those people don't really care about the welfare of aboriginals or any other poor people. People like Pearson, Hanson talk about welfare refrom and being frank with their community because they really want to fix a problem. Crying about "stolen generation" or Captain Cook will only further serve to give those Aboriginals who are in the "dumps" a further reason to not try to get themselves out of it, just blame the white man. Have you seen any English convict descendents suing Britian lately?

No Matthew S, Pearson isn't saying what is right, he is saying what appeals to people like you. He also, as it turns out, is a consultant to the Govt, and you have to admit, this does cast a level of doubt over his independence.

While his ideas are worth thinking about, largely, what he is saying isn't true for my community. I do acknowledge that passive welfare is an issue, but only in a minority, alcoholism exists, but you should see the whitefellas go in my home town on this one, there is a level of domestic violence, ditto re the last point. Racism is a big problem, more than many are willing to admit, and this fundamentally affects the level of healthcare, education, employment etc etc that Nyungars are able to accept. And this isn’t about “left brainwashing”, this is first hand experience brother boy.

Megans point is that its not as simple as the way Pearson paints it. And she is correct. She also points out that other blackfellas have other opinions. Which is also correct. Not to mention that these opinions are also valid. Correct again. Just because they don’t automatically agree with Pearsons doesn’t mean they should be attacked as being “left” or other such rubbish, they should be acknowledged as being important in a complex area of debate.

My experience and the experience of my mob doesn’t seem to match that of Pearsons, and this is the point. It’s different in our part of the world (SW WA), and to be expected to fit into a FNQ model just doesn’t work. Let him prove it works in his land first.

And Hanson? Please, when does a recycled z-grade have any credence here, apart from proof of ignorance that is.

Well said Wardandi!

Have many of you experienced the conditions you discuss?
There are difficult problems to solve, and noel seems genuine enough.
its important not to try and set up 2 different levels of society, but the issues need to be addressed. Take AMP's for example...the evidence suggests that its working to reduce violence etc. this is good. Are the comunities ALL in favour of the restrictions.
I'm guessing that many would not have visited Cooktown since the laws came in, lots of homeless people now and beggars etc.
This could be later interpreted as displacing people and separating families.
Myself, I reckon we all could be covered by the same restrictions and regulations. Theres no need to differentiate on the basis of race.

Having read the article by Megan Davis (no relation) I am adding my support to her position, although, there are one or two points that need to be opened up some more and my following observations on these are written as a member of the Kukuyalanji nation from Cape York Peninsula. I was born in Mossman, and even though having been raised elsewhere I continue to communicate with immediate and extended family on 'the Cape'. There is a contrary [albeit quiet] intrinsic view from here that Pearson is not intimate with the central issues of concern. Certainy, not as much as the politicians seem to want to believe. Perhaps this is his skill, knowing what politicians want to hear. When his manifesto "Our Right to Take Responsibility" first appeared, circa 1999, I had read this with anticipation and expectation that here was a black leader who just might have something new, something different to offer. Unfortunately, I found this so called "analysis" to be hollow, a whiteness of the issues, lacking depth and breadth in treatment of these. Like most Australians, I also desire Indigenous Australians [I prefer First Nations people of Australia or First Nations people] to enjoy first class standards across all social indicators. But, while much of the content is not new, Pearson's rhetoric conveys a vitriol towards Indigenous Australians [even if they happen to be surviving on 'the Cape']that makes him unacceptable to be considered as a leader.