Noel Pearson has been embraced by Australian's conservative intelligentsia in the past decade and a half. In the late 1990s he moved from a fairly orthodox left-wing position in which he described the Coalition as "racist scum", to one where he became a prominent critic of the left's approach to indigenous affairs, and accepted the necessity of working with conservatives to bring about positive change. Now with some recent conciliatory remarks, and especially his fine tribute to Gough Whitlam, Pearson seems to be offering an olive branch to the left.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But what about his carefully cultivated relationship with the right? A Rightful Place, Pearson's passionate Quarterly Essay examination of indigenous constitutional recognition, sees him delicately negotiating his way through the toxic culture wars, but leaves the reader with more questions than answers about his "90 per cent strategy" for a reconciled Australia.
The most striking part of Pearson's essay is his discussion of the question of genocide in Australian history, specifically in Tasmania in the first half of the 19th century. It is striking not so much because of the content, which is widely accepted among scholars as simple historical truth, but because of the challenge it presents to the very people that Pearson wants to bring into the reconciliation process. The notion that what occurred in Tasmania amounts to genocide is one that many conservative Australians find uncomfortable, if not an outrageous slur against the nation itself.
Pearson believes it to be a political truism that - à la "only Nixon could go to China" - only a conservative leader can bring true reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. Nevertheless, having won the admiration of conservatives as he pursued tough welfare and education reforms, Pearson has now decided to confront them with some of Australian history's most devastating truths.
As he admitted at the launch of A Rightful Place at the Sydney Opera House, this goes against his political strategy. Pearson could have taken the easy option and avoided any discussion of genocide, but instead he made a conscious choice to use it as the contextual background for his argument about constitutional recognition. Facing up to our history, he believes, is "a national challenge".
In outlining his pitch to conservatives, Pearson goes out of his way to remind them of his address at The Australian's 50th anniversary dinner in July, for him "a signal event". Quoting his own speech at length, he praises the national broadsheet for its unrivalled coverage of indigenous affairs. He is most effusive about Chris Mitchell, the paper's editor in chief since 2002, who "seems impelled by an unremitting sense of native duty to the nation by taking his indigenous brethren with utmost seriousness." Pearson reiterated his praise on the ABC's Q&A this week, naming Rupert Murdoch as one of a handful of people whose support is vital to a successful referendum on constitutional recognition.
To many, however, The Australian's treatment of indigenous affairs under Chris Mitchell is paradoxical. The paper is widely - and correctly - lauded for its comprehensive coverage of indigenous issues. But as Robert Manne argued in Bad News, published in the Quarterly Essay in 2011, it too often presents a distorted view of the indigenous political landscape. Manne calls it "univocalism", whereby the widespread indigenous opposition to Pearson's ideas is overlooked in favour of a "there is no alternative" approach.
In a recent editorial, The Australian identified Pearson as "the Aboriginal advocate most admired by the nation's establishment and intelligentsia." This is undoubtedly true, but it is no excuse for neglecting the enormous diversity of indigenous viewpoints from across the country.
The distortion is also reflected in The Australian's markedly selective embrace of Pearson's ideas. In a two-week period surrounding the release of A Rightful Place in September, the paper published more than 20,000 words of reports and commentary relating to Pearson's essay and constitutional recognition. Not once was his discussion of genocide mentioned. Aside from a few vague references to past injustices, there was no attempt to engage with Pearson's moving chapter on coming to terms with our history, and how it relates to his arguments about constitutional recognition. Pearson laid down the challenge, and the conservative intelligentsia squibbed it. Where does this leave his strategy?
Pearson evidently sees The Australian as a vital ally in his long campaign to change the lives of Aborigines, as well as the hearts and minds of non-indigenous conservative Australians. In concentrating his energies on the political right, Pearson implicitly acknowledges that Aborigines already enjoy the left's goodwill and support, even as he criticises their moral vanity.
Conservative Australians, on the other hand, have traditionally been hostile to the suggestion that our history is made up of anything but triumph, and are therefore sceptical of indigenous rights agendas. Noel Pearson has set himself an immense challenge in attempting to move them beyond scepticism to a point where they can accept and celebrate the unique place of indigenous Australians in the commonwealth.
Dominic Kelly is a PhD candidate and tutor in politics at La Trobe University.
