… and urges the country Indepedents to support Tony Abbott.
The story is here.
Pearson’s main issue seems to be the Queensland Wild Rivers legislation, which Brian wrote about recently.
As the article notes, this intervention comes on the back of an attack by Pearson on Friday on Labor.
One thing of interest is that Pearson seems to be acting, in this context, as his own local member. That is – his concerns appear to be mainly about his own region, and his common theme of seeing his own ideas implemented elsewhere.
In that vein, there’s a very interesting article in the latest issue of Overland by Chris Graham, which among other things, makes the point that Pearson’s biggest blind spot is his isolation from other Indigenous leaders, and also critiques the policy initiatives he’s seen implemented (largely with Peter Beattie’s support) in Cape York.
I agree Pearson is now a prominent and respected Australia however if he is going to play politics he should make sure he really speaks for all Australians and not just his own political agenda & interests..
Pearson is his own man, and I’m sure he has local support for his initiatives. It’s questionable about how much it extends beyond his region, and you’d have to wonder what influence it would have with Oakeshott if any.
And you’d also have to wonder, if the report is correct, how credible would be his claim that Abbott as PM would be a unique opportunity for aboriginals to make a lasting difference. There’s nothing in Abbott’s public record to suggest this could be remotely true, but perhaps he’s promised a lot in private.
But after the Denison hospital episode I’d be pretty wary.
Make no mistake, this is a continuation of a blatant propaganda campaign of The Australian and Noel Pearson.
They have been waging this campaign for years (for a thorough analysis of this campaign and reporting from the Aus, check out our Senate Submission here: http://bit.ly/ahn6N6).
The Wenlock River on Cape York was recently declared protected, and included protective buffers around the river which has stopped a huge new bauxite mine on the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve. This was strongly supported by many Traditional Owners in the catchment area – including those whose land the mine was planned on. The mining company – Cape Alumina – blew their top when the decision was made, as did Noel Pearson (once again).
Because of the propaganda war waged by The Australian, the hard questions have never been asked about Noel Pearson’s real motivations. Why is he so vehemently opposed to Wild Rivers? What support is he offering the mining companies? Why was his campaign allowed to get off without scrutiny handing out flyers on Cape York telling people they won’t be able to hunt and fish because of Wild Rivers (a heinous mistruth)?
Until a journalist or two has the courage to ask these hard questions (as Leigh Sales did once on Lateline – http://bit.ly/aCrIvX), then the reality of Wild Rivers and the voices of Indigenous people who strongly disagree with Noel, will continue to be smothered and marginalised.
I think this comment in The Australian editorial is very instructive: “Mr Oakeshott in particular seems to have a blind faith in the goodness of the Greens”. In other words, the Pearson story today is a calculated and blatant continuation of their propaganda war to install an Abbott Government. And Pearson is a willing participant.
The notion that Australia can only have reconciliation with PM Abbott, who Pearson desrcibes thus:
suffers from the same problem as Julia Gillard’s ertswhile(?) belief that we can only have a serious climate change policy if there is a “consensus” which includes the Coalition. It means that progress on a critically important issue is effectively held to ransom by the Australian branch of the Tea Party movement.
Well, that’s exactly what I’d expect this prick to do. he so beneath contempt I can’t be bothered commenting further.
So what are the would-be temperamental moderates in the Liberal Party, and indeed the National Party? Chopped liver?
Yes, apparently that’s exactly what they are.
Interesting that Pearson’s rationale goes right to the top of the Liberal Party/Metropolitan conservative intelligentsia pymarid. The article makes no mention of Pearson having any thoughts on Warren Entsch and his outtreach to Indigenous communities. That would be because Entsch could do for this issue what MacFarlane tried to do for the ETS, I suppose—challenge Coalition attitudes from within the Coalition’s Rightwing. And that could seriously fuck-up Howardian culture war revanchism, imposed on high from the Quadrant set with the assistance of Silent Majority Tough Love Theorists like Noel.
(I say all this as someone who is pretty agnostic about the Intervention, as I don’t have enough first hand knowledge to come to any conclusions about this one subject which I think you need 1st hand knowledge to truly understand.)
And here’s the Mangosuthu Buthelezi of Australian politics on the Greens.
There is another irony here. In 1995-96, in the context of the Queensland State election and its aftermath, Noel Pearson was literally cursing the Greens for not being sufficiently friendly to the State Labor government and the Wilderness Society over issues relating to Cape York. How times change!
I am surprised that people are surprised that there are prominent conservative indigenous people.
As far as I am aware, there is no reliable political analysis that concludes that there is a necessary correlation between a person’s race and that person’s politics.
What does Pearson mean by the word “reconciliation” in this sentence? Reconciliation is possible between two or more parties on an infinite number of terms. Reconciliation requires at least one party to reconcile itself to the fact that its previous claims and aspirations are no longer valid.
Does Pearson’s view of “reconciliation” involve surrender of Aboriginal claims? If so, what do other Aboriginal leaders think about Pearson’s demarche?
It’s a pity that Pearson has become ‘the’ voice of indigenous Australia. Many indigenous people loathe him a refer to him as the Cane Toad.
Sam #9, the issue here isn’t that people are surprised that some individual indigenous people have conservative views. It’s that a concerted campaign has been and is being waged by Australia’s right wing politicians, media and inteligentsia to accord these individuals a standing which may be way out of proportion to the actual levels of support for their views among indigenous people.
Paul 12, how does anyone know what is “the actual levels of support for their views among indigenous people.”
Sam, Pearson isn’t really what you just described. He’s the kind of person who goes to great length about how partisan and ideological labels shouldn’t be applied to him—but in reality that translates into him playing a higher level, more cynical game of politics, one where he expects equal access to leaders of government and Oppositions. When Gillard forms a govt he will maintain that his lobbying against her meant nothing, and that it would be a travesty of justice to even accuse him of meddling in politics.
And he will continue to use the meeja to maintain this status.
I have to give him credit for being just about the most famous pressure group leader in Australia, regardless of whether he or his organisation merits that attention.
You beat me to it Paul. Sam misses the point by a country mile.
I’m surprised that you’re surprised that people are surprised, considering that no-one’s expressed any surprise in this thread; Pearson being a Tory isn’t exactly news.
That was a terrific Overland piece. Why can’t we see real journalism like that in our papers?
Sam #13, that’s a fair question, to which I have two responses:
1. John Howard thinks he already knows the answer to this question as he has called Pearson “more than anybody else the authentic voice of indigenous Australia”. Tony Abbott has expressed similar sentiments. In the 1980s, Howard, Abbott and virtually the entire Liberal Party except for Malcolm Fraser presumed to “know” that Buthelezi, rather than Nelson Mandela, was the “authentic voice” of black South Afrcians, so they have form.
2. Wesley Aird and some other indigenous individuals with similar views are openly hostile to attempting to find something like the correct answer to this question by establishing an elected indigenous representative body.
Nickws, I was thinking more about Wesley Aird, whom Paul described (libelously) as the “Mangosuthu Buthelezi of Australian politics”.
Pearson is just an operator.
Paul 18, that is a non response, and you know it. What Howard or Abbott self-servingly say is irrelevant.
And whether or not Aird and others are hostile to an elected indigenous body also tells us little or nothing.
One day a reputable pollster might actually ask indigenous Australians their opinions on a range of questions. Then we’ll have a clue. That will be a lot better than simple mindedly condemning them for siding with their putative oppressors.
Pearson, like me, was raised in the Australian Lutheran tradition, and went to the same boarding school, indeed with some of my nephews.
I’ve moved away from that tradition. What’s important, I think, is an authoritarian/paternalistic streak. It was no more in evidence when on Australian Story he was seeking his own community to sign up to his scheme. They were clearly reluctant to do so, but if they did they got government dollars, if they didn’t, then too bad.
Where I wouldn’t underestimate him is in mounting a High Court challenge to the Wild Rivers legislation, which, BTW doesn’t affect his home community.
Heh, I find I’m the only one on this thread to hold that view, everyone else thinks he actually has core political beliefs that adhere to conservatism (instead of, say, to inflated self reverence).
That would appear to include you in your Airdless post @ 9.
Here’s personal anecdote that highligths the kind of blindness Pearson was criticsed for.
I was very recently having this whole ‘it’s all Goughs/welfare’s fault’ re: any Indigenous issue.
My partners in the conversation were two very experience remote health workers, 1 GP, 1 RN, who have been around a long time and were waxing lyrical of the ‘good old days’, particularly the old Aboriginal stockman. One of them related the story of how they’d caught up with an old man in a Aged Care Facility and were reliving those g.o.d.’s. They asked him about famous person X here in the Territory who owned a lot of cattle stations back in the day. His response – “he (X) treated the cattle better than us”.
Much merriment ensured, at the wit of this old stockman, which, I suggested, was missing the fucking point.
Never mind that Aboriginals in Cape York voted overwhelmingly for Labor.
Sam #20, the fact that a non-indigenous former Liberal Prime Minister and the non-indigenous current Liberal would-be Prime Minister presume to anoint particular individuals as “authentic voices” of indigenous Australia is far from irrelevant. The fact that an indigenous individual who largely agrees with the “authentic voice” is opposed to having the authenticity of the voice tested through a process such as election of an indigenous representative body does say something. Both of these points are germane to the arguments of Chris Graham in the article linked in the opening post.
I am disappointed, to put it no more strongly than that, by the last sentence of your comment.
I agree Pearson is now a prominent and respected Australia however if he is going to play politics he should make sure he really speaks for all Australians and not just his own political agenda & interests..
Oh really? What does that mean? He’s supposed to only express opinions consistent with the generality? Or perhaps he’s the unelected representative of us all?
Months after the symbolic touchy feely White People feel Good About Themselves Days, of sorry ‘Apology’ the ALP keboshes the property rights of the indigenous people again and nothing is said about it. Disgraceful.
I remember being surprised and pleased when Fraser granted land rights to Arnhem Land Aborigines. Up till then I had seen him as a right wing warrior who didn’t give a stuff about people.
The interesting thing about Abbott was that he didn’t do his normal attack dog act on Jenny Macklin when he was the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs and was actually supportive. My take on this was that he has genuine concerns re Aborigines and and understands the difficulties that Jenny was up against. If the only issue was Aboriginal affairs I would be tempted to support Tony ahead of Julia.
Unfortunately “Aboriginal Leaders” are often anointed by non-Aboriginals who like what they are saying so it is hard to tell to what extent Noel is supported in Cape York let alone the broader Australia. Even so, he has a right as an individual to express his preferences and push them publicly. Shame he doesn’t want the same prime minister as I do though.
Paul 25, well then you shouldn’t have said that Aird is another Buthelezi.
My koori mate reckons Pearson is d-ckhead…
Paul N says:
“The fact that an indigenous individual who largely agrees with the “authentic voice” is opposed to having the authenticity of the voice tested through a process such as election of an indigenous representative body does say something.”
This is a snide remark. There are principled reasons for not wanting an ATSIC Mark II.
I note Pearson supporters tend to get elected to the CYLC, so he must have some support. Furthermore, a wide range of indigenous leaders from outisde of Cape York such as Chris Sarra and Murrandoo Yanner have spoken of their support for Pearson.
Hypanthium #30:
There is a difference between not wanting to restore a very defectively structured indigenous representative body like ATSIC and being opposed to the general principle of an indigenous representative body.
Significant number of Aboriginals in central Australia do not regard Pearson as speaking for them. You can get an inkling of this from the fact that Barbara Ward an indigenous woman opposed to the Intervention ran as a Green candidate in Lingiari and received over 12% of the vote in an elecorate where previously the Greens had been almost invisible.
@30 –
You might like to have a read of the linked Overland article, I’d suggest.
Pearson wants indigenous Australians to get off their arses and look after their kids properly, send them to school and get a job. Such an outlook is offensive to some leftists. I note with suitable mirth and merriment that Mark Bahnisch has long arrgued on this blog that all indigenous Australians should be paid a life long disability pension, irrespective of any organic incapacity for work, because they have been “dispossessed”.
The other point Graham makes is that there are significant intra-community issues about Pearson’s legitimacy in FNQ as a “leader” (not to mention the fact that his powerbase is really in the Queensland government funded Cape York Institute rather than the CYLC). Some of this goes back to the direct effects of dispossession in some of the notorious mass enforced movements of populations by the Joh government and the churches, the Lutheran church in particular.
Paul is right, I believe, on the basic argument that white politicians ought not to anoint particular leaders as ‘legitimate’. But it also behooves people to find out something of the way power plays out within Indigenous communities themselves.
Well, you note a falsehood.
Provide one link to substantiate that slur.
I know the Right are keen to rewrite history, but surely questioning the dispossession of Aboriginal land is a stretch even for them?
hypanthium@34
Utter rubbish.
Would that perhaps be distinct from the desire on the part of Twiggy, Palmer and Co to squirrel away the profits made on Australian resources entirely for themselves? Or do they have a different set of rules because they are rich?
Ironic ain’t it, when you look at the real ownership of these resources they seek to pillage that they ultimately belong to the Indigenous people. Poetic justice if Indigenous people can get back even a lousy handful of Centrelink dollars to compensate for the damage done to their lives, their country and their culture by wilfully ignorant invaders.
Doug @32
Actually, her name is Barb *Shaw* (not “Ward”). But yes…
Glenn #3 – You are quite right to assert that there is a propaganda mini-campaign run by The Australian on indigenous affairs and that Noel Pearson, who is perceived to’ve crossed the floor as it were is the hero in their stories. The sensible aboriginal activist doing battle against the nefarious greenies and commos. Etc.
I am prepared to change my mind about Wild Rivers but I have never had an opportunity to engage with the facts in the context of a tolerant and civilized discussion.
That said, it’s well out of line to suggest that Pearson is a front for mining companies. Is his assertion that the legislation does not prevent mining accurate? It seems to me that the legislation is a resource wall deigned to safeguard a limited essential resource for corporatist players (those agricultural concerns who depend on the Murray-Darling river system).
Leigh Sales appears to me unreasonably hostile to Pearson in this interview. And Pearson is quite upfront about who he’s fronting for: his family. At no point does Sales present any evidence that mining companies are behind it. Nor do you. And I’d wager the media presence of Pearson’s lobby would be a lot more visible if that were, indeed, the case.
http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-a-better-prime-minister-for-aborigines-says-northern-territory-labor/story-fn5tas5k-1225915260923
The more I hear of Noel Pearson’s heated rhetoric, the less impressed I am.
I seriously doubt he has wide spread support among the national indigenous community.
Adrien,
Pearson’s assertion that Wild Rivers does not prevent mining is incorrect, accept in the case of existing mining leases.
The clear example is the Cape Alumina mine proposed over the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve, which has been stopped because of it.
It is well known that Pearson strongly supports the mining industry (the Lateline story proceeding the Sales interview touched on this – http://bit.ly/dA1Nxh).
I merely pose the question – what is Pearson’s view on the Cape Alumina mine? Is his opposition to Wild Rivers so vehement because of this and other mines? No journalist has ever asked these questions of him. Given the extreme hyperbole of his campaign, the questions deserve to be asked.
And I have to say, as far as “media lobby” goes, you can’t get much more power than having The Australian run your campaigns on their front page, and print your op ed pieces ad nausium. Let’s not pretend here that Pearson is a disenfranchised, marginalised voice.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s3004685.htm
On ABC the Drum – a good sumary of Pearson
Glenn – Thanks for the info viz the Cape Alumina mine. And yes, it would be absurd to say that Pearson is marginalized. He’s the pre-eminent indigenous voice in the country.
And, yes, we should hear the other side.
Still I don’t think it’s fair to label him a front for the mining lobby without evidence. And the building of resource walls that disenfranchise relatively powerless people to safeguard said resources for big players is an undiscussed factor. As is the clash of progressive agendas at play here.
Is it OT for me to point out that this afternoon’s developments kind of proves Pearson has really, really bad instincts as the leader of a QUANGO?
The abject failure of his lobbying should be grounds for him to quit involving himself in partisan politics. Or be forced to do so by new legislation introduced in the public good.
@9: “As far as I am aware, there is no reliable political analysis that concludes that there is a necessary correlation between a person’s race and that person’s politics.”
Well there certainly is in the US. I would be surprised if aborigines were not heavily skewqed towards labour though you may well be right that there is ‘no reliable political analysis” showing this. Then again, there is an Australian aversion to breaking down any data at all by ethnicity.
I actually think that Pearson may regard himself as an elder.As that in itself isn’t that faulty,and compared to Gillard his word power and use is pretty good don’t you think!?It was a good piece in the Overland, Pearson has many defects,one he hasn’t got is being part of the Self describing British Culture as of Tone and Julie.Yet you will find those obnoxious self descriptions partially from Pearson too.
Noel Pearson, the tame blackfella so beloved by the lying rodent, is so obsessed with his own political career that he has long abandoned the very people he purports to represent as he persues self interest. That he is paraded as the oppositions sage on matters indigenous simply proves that the liebrals have no interest in indigenous affairs apart from providing yet another one of their flunkys with a cushy job.
I’m going to have to do this in a couple of comments.
First, the linked piece by Chris Graham at Overland is pretty stunning, but clearly unsympathetic, so I would hesitate in accepting it as entirely fair and accurate.
The degree of support of him in Cape York is simply in the too hard basket for me at this distance.
Nevertheless the tendency to regard him, and for him to regard himself as speaking for Aborigines in Australia is annoying and clearly false. I recall an interview with three Aboriginal leaders not so long ago, probably Late Night Live. Two were tip-toeing around the issue of Pearson’s representative status. The third, Lowitja O’Donoghue, came straight out and said, “Well, he doesn’t speak for me” to the evident support of the other two.
The issue of Pearson’s representations came up right near the end of the press conference with Windsor and Oakeshott. Oakeshott said that indigenous affairs are almost invariably linked with the Northern Territory and North Queensland. He said there are more Aborigines living on the coast between Sydney and Rockhampton.
Kim @ 35 said:
What’s that all about, Kim? There is a brief history of Hope Vale here. This site has information about the clans and peoples. As far as I can see they all come from those parts.
I was raised a Lutheran and attended what I understood to be the only Lutheran primary school in Qld. There was another Lutheran church, back then, the so-called Missouri Lutherans. There weren’t many of us and fewer of them. I only knew of one mission, Hope Vale.
When they were still relocated at Woorabinda in the 1940s our teacher organised pen pals with the kids at Woorabinda.
In the late 1950s my sister was the teacher at Hope Vale. My mum, two other siblings and I visited her there in 1959, when the population would have been about 150. The missionary ruled the place and all the men used to assemble each morning to be assigned their work for the day.
But even then on the vast area covered by the mission there were several independent farming families. One of these was possibly the passion fruit grower that Pearson spoke of in the Leigh Sales interview. One of their problems is that they have no individual title to the land, so cannot raise finance with banks like other farmers.
I think this is the kind of small-scale development Pearson would like to see. It’s all that I’ve ever heard him speak about. Absolutely not a food bowl, as he made clear to Sales. We are talking about 12,000 indigenous people in a place the size of Victoria.
Glenn @ 3 and @ 43 you still haven’t made a case that Pearson supports mining and the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve.
In the first Lateline item he helped a mining sand mining company as a 23 year old. He is then quoted, but without the vision we don’t know whether that was the younger Pearson. I’m inclined to think it is. A lot has changed since then.
I thought the Sales interview was reasonably straightforward. Sales was probing a bit as journos do, but Pearson’s answers were nothing he hasn’t said elsewhere.
He says the Wild Rivers legislation won’t stop mining, you say it will. I’m not a lawyer, but I suspect that the legislators who make the laws can change them, especially in a unicameral parliament. If the State really wanted a mining venture to go ahead, surely it could excise the area and grant permission, unless Commonwealth powers come into play. And then stopping the Mary River dam didn’t need wild rivers legislation.
I think Pearson is saying that the greater effect of Wild Rivers is on small-scale developments, like aquaculture and horticulture.
On the other thread I’ve come to a tentative position on Wild Rivers. We should have Commonwealth legislation as suggested by Professor George Williams which would enshrine the rights of Indigenous peoples all over Australia to an effective veto on what happens on their land. That, of course, does not mean that they could do whatever they liked.
The thirteen acts that already apply plus the idea of comprehensive property management plans with conservation outcomes also mentioned there should be enough to provide a reasonable balance.
I think Rob Oakeshott’s comments about Noel Pearson in response to a question at the press conference were courteous but nonetheless apposite – he basically said that Pearson was a good man doing good work, but he was only one indigenous voice among many.
I think I should also say that I was probably a bit cavalier about Wesley Aird yesterday, and that it isn’t the fault of people like Aird, Pearson, Warren Mundine, etc., that various white political interests want to arrogate to themselves the right to anoint this or that indigenous individual as the “authentic voice of indigenous Australia” just because they seem to be saying something which chimes with the agenda of said white interests.
Brian (52) – not only can the Queensland Government exempt an area from the Wild Rivers Act, but such exemptions were built into the act from the start, see Sections 45 and 46:
No one can proceed with a development unless they first submit a Development Application and get a permit. This makes it clear that there is no automatic right to do anything, so no compensation is required in the event a permit is refused. Getting a permit involves the application being assessed against a number of Acts, including the Wild Rivers Act. The intention of the act is to preserve the pristine quality of declared catchments, so if a development doesn’t harm the catchment, it will get approval.
Since then the Cape Alumina application was APPROVED but with conditions on set-backs that were considered by the applicant to be too onerous, so they withdrew.
Dave Kimble, thanks for that clarification. It’s important in this context.
I didn’t follow the Cape Alumina issue beyond hearing some news items on the radio, but yes, now I recall that part of the story.
One problem is that land under Aboriginal management was typically managed especially with mosaic burning. It doesn’t simply remain in a pristine state.
On the other thread I said this:
I was referring there to likely outcomes in the grazing areas of the Gulf (Katter’s electorate) rather than the Cape, but I understand there is grazing in the Cape also. The problem is regrowth and thickening, the infestation of weeds and ferals where the landowners no longer have an economic incentive to do anything about it.
How this applies in the Cape I’m not sure, but I think it was what Mayor of the Northern Peninsula Area, Joseph Elu was on about. See also his Youtube at the bottom of this post where he talks about pigs and cane toads.
One further not so small point. It’s my impression that Pearson is not (not yet anyway) an elder in his own community. That’s what I took from the Australian Story segment.
I imagine it’s not a position you apply for.
But they do have an official Council which is no doubt elected.
Brian (55) – Cape Alumina wanted the set-backs to be only 200 metres and the Government decided on 500 metres. The two scenarios are shown at proposed and recommended from Senate Submissions.
Cattle grazing can seriously damage creek banks by trampling and erosion, so fencing off the creeks and having water pumped to troughs would probably be allowed with a set-back of only 25 metres. Whether this would be cost-effective is another matter. The 1,000 metres only defines the area where “appropriate management solutions” need to be proposed.
Mayor Elu’s assertion that “locking up” areas would cause the land to degrade from feral pigs and cane toads is nonsense. The areas are undeveloped at present and already have feral pigs and cane toads.
There was massive amounts of consultation on the legislation. Noel’s brother, Gerhardt Pearson, was Executive Director of Balkanu Cape York Development Association, which was given $600,000 by the Queensland Government to prepare a full report on the impacts on indigenous development. It’s just that they didn’t like the outcome.
The reality is that every law restricts somebody from doing something – if those impacted were to insist that they needed to agree to restrictions before they could become law, nothing would ever get done.
Many indigenous leaders support Wild Rivers. This extract from the Wilderness Society’s submission to the Senate Enquiry:
Dave, on consultation see here.
I’m not prepared to take any statement, yours included, on face value on this issue, so I’m agnostic.
Have to fly now.
Correction : not $600,000 but $63,500.
This from http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/mms/Login.aspx