Aboriginal leadership and welfare reform: you’re not the first, Nöel

Policy ideas will and always should be contested. Yet in recent times Indigenous policy in Australia seems to be Noel Pearson’s way or the highway for the Australian media.

This is why it was refreshing to read Lowitja O’Donoghue’s comments in The Age (July 30, 2005). O’Donoghue talked about Pearson’s ideas for Cape York communities and expressed concern at how those ideas are misconstrued as needing to be applied to all Indigenous communities, regardless of whether or not the Indigenous community is, as Pearson always implies, as unsuccessful as Cape York, and whether or not there is evidence that current trials in Cape York actually work.

As O’Donoghue argues, “Let him do it in Cape York and show us that it works”. O’Donoghue also made reference to Pearson’s behaviour during the black caucus at the Reconciliation Australia workshop held in Canberra on May 30-31, 2005. O’Donoghue said “people were stunned” during the black caucus as Pearson “chided them over the stolen generation, saying if he wanted to he could have brought along his mother to cry”. And, “he told younger Aboriginal leaders they were all in too much of a hurry”.

It was an unfortunate baptism of fire for Aboriginal leadership but interesting to witness first-hand the methods of those who can’t tolerate difference of opinion. It is true, as O’Donoghue claimed, that no one stood up to Pearson except her, but it is also true that many younger people were stunned by the aggression and zeal of the tirade railing against alternative views - though not an entirely unfamiliar tone in Howard’s Australia. It was quite clear that any differing opinions were going to be shot down and ridiculed as not being pragmatic and hard-headed enough. It was clear that this was not an environment for robust debate.

That is why the O’Donoghue and Pearson’s exchange in The Age was so instructive for many Indigenous people. It was a much-needed exchange between two Aboriginal leaders with national profiles, particularly at a time when the media gives credence to only one opinion and one set of ideas.

Of course, The Age editorial seemed to view the exchange differently. An editorial (August 8, 2005) titled, “Time to reconcile differing views,” argued that Indigenous Australians are not being “helped by in-fighting between their most respected leaders”. Why is it that blackfellas have to reconcile their views if there is a fundamental, ideological difference of opinion? We should be able to partake in a  robust discussion of policy and ideas.

Does that privilege in the contemporary climate extend only to media pin-up boy Barnaby Joyce? And if there is a difference of opinion, why is the woman described as the aggressor?

Penelope Debelle in “Clash of cultures” (The Age, July 30, 2005) described O’Donoghue as “increasingly grumpy”. What Indigenous person isn’t increasingly grumpy in the current climate? And why is it that a feisty woman leader is viewed as angry and grumpy? Is it because she doesn’t agree with Pearson? No one would dare describe Pearson in such a way (what female journalist would be tempted after the 1999 incident on ABC Radio when he tipped a glass of water over a female journalist’s head).

Nevertheless Pearson’s response was very measured and diplomatic and represented an important dialogue. He highlighted the commonality of their positions about which The Age editorial was clearly chuffed, hailing it an agreement between leaders: “Let us hope that this is a signal for a new era of co-operation. The welfare of their people may depend on it.” Of course, it lets a lot of people off the hook if the welfare of Indigenous peoples depends so heavily on a lack of debate.

Pearson is advocating certain policies in the context of Cape York and, as widely reported, he is also a consultant to the Federal Government on welfare policy. None of the ideas are particularly novel except they are applied to Aboriginal communities.

Costello’s recent trip to the Cape highlighted the way in which the media constructs internal “Chinese walls” for Pearson in that he can be either discretely a community leader or he can discretely be a consultant to the government on welfare policy.

Of course, Pearson is always a community leader but the words he preaches must also be taken with the stamp of the current Federal Government. The headlines, “Treasurer praises Pearson plan” and “Costello embraces Pearson’s radical reforms,” seem meaningless. Pearson’s a paid consultant - of course the treasurer is embracing it. Only Christian Kerr of Crikey! was truly on the ball. He astutely wrote of Costello’s trip:

Look at one of the highlights of the Queensland trip - meeting Noel Pearson. Hello! He's a paid government consultant. Treasurer meets public servant. That's news? It speaks volumes for the Costello push.

Disagreeing with Pearson’s ideas doesn’t mean wallowing in victimhood or not being pragmatic and hard headed enough. Nor does it mean wanting our children to go to school hungry or to bed hungry, as often implied. We all want our children in the community to be happy and healthy - nobody has a monopoly over that.

The response by many Indigenous leaders like O’Donoghue is simply that Pearson’s is not entirely correct in his approach. That is not to say everything he advocates is wrong and indeed only Pearson knows what works best for his people in the Cape. Nevertheless viewed in the context of the broader welfare debate and the “poverty wars”, welfare is a contested field of policy making in Australia. Indigenous people, like non-Indigenous Australians, are entitled to have different ideas on how to achieve reform, and like the history wars, the poverty wars are not so easily won.

Interestingly in Pearson’s response, he charged O’Donoghue’s use of words like “paternalistic” and “patronising” as “hot buttons” that stifle debate. This was ironic given it’s a ploy Pearson only knows too well. Pearson is clever and politically astute. He knows the power of language and he too employs the “hot buttons” that, in reality, stifle debate. This has been the hallmark of conservative debate in Australia and that’s how one curries favour with conservatives from the outset: “leftist”, “progressivist”, “unprincipled sloppy” and “morally vain”. Pearson has used all of these banal and stereotypical words in the context of Aboriginal policy in attacking the Left “welfare agenda”. On that basis Pearson too is guilty of stifling debate and negating dissent - the Reconciliation Workshop was a prime example of that.

It’s not difficult, however, to have some sympathy with Pearson’s attack on the Left. Their silence on Indigenous policy has been deafening. Maybe the silence is because deep down many agree with the notion that in today’s affluent Australia, Indigenous people are the architects of their own misfortune or maybe some fear being labelled “morally vain” or of “cafe latte” or “chardonnay socialist” persuasion.

The most likely reason for this is the paucity of ideas and lack of courage to participate in a debate, underpinned by race that may harm chances of re-election. One just has to marvel at the ALP and how Warren Mundine, the next ALP national president, writes Indigenous policy for the Howard Government. John Howard has said that their idea to dismantle communal title, for example, came straight from government consultation with the unelected National Indigenous Committee and in particular was influenced by a paper written by Warren Mundine - a policy which is not an ALP policy.

It really goes to show what a fine mess the ALP is in. One can’t imagine that a future national president of Australia’s oldest political party writing Liberal party policy would have been acceptable under the leadership of past Labor prime ministers Bob Hawke or Paul Keating. Yet only the National Indigenous Times and Crikey! have speculated the incredulous and “utterly unthinkable” notion of an ALP president writing policy for the Liberal party.

Since the abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), (we have seen) the National Indigenous Committee proposals to diminish communal title, to mainstream legal services, the proliferation of Shared Responsibility Agreements and the clear policy delineation between urban Indigenous people and rural and remote “authentic” Indigenous people, and it’s inevitable there will be strident disagreement. The decision as to whether one policy approach is successful over another depends on the political climate and if there is ideological agreement from the ruling party. The policy that prevails in any political climate does not necessarily equate to whether the alternative choice was right or wrong, but it’s vital, as O’Donoghue and Pearson have done, to have open debate so Indigenous communities can hear what’s being advocated on their behalf.

States rights debate has imbued Australian history with conflict for over a century and the media has embraced the unique characteristics and personalities of different states - look at the popularity of Barnaby Joyce. Yet when it comes to Indigenous issues, it is a one size fits all approach - indeed there is little cognisance of the remote and urban situations of Indigenous people. It is indeed a conundrum that most of the media doesn’t truly reflect the diversity of Indigenous communities - Cape York communities are different to communities in Logan City, Redfern, Uluru or Perth.

Why then must we all agree and why is disagreement viewed as potentially detrimental to the welfare of our people? The variety of Indigenous Australian’s opinion and beliefs are no different to the diverse opinions that make up the Australian community - you just need to replace the “hot buttons” of debate from “cafe latte” or “bleeding heart” to “elite black chic”, “coconut” or the nomenclature of choice. The primary aim in public debate today is to make the insult match your ideological agenda.