Race Relations, Noel Pearson

The following two page study I prepared when I was a Parish Pastor at the Lutheran Church of St Andrew the Apostle in Brisbane, Australia. It was in a group called 'Table Talk'. This was about 1998. Some of the questions relate to recommendations in the 1997 document >We're all people. Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Aboriginal Issues and Ministry, Lutheran Church of Australia<. This was prior to the 'Year of Jubilee' in 2000.

Since white settlement of Australia in 1788, the Aboriginal community has remained a conspicuously disadvantaged minority group. Decades of Federal and State government welfare policies have not prevented alcoholism, domestic violence and unemployment from undermining life in Aboriginal communities. Radically different policies are now being trialled, in recognition that a social emergency exists and in recognition that 'money for nothing' welfare handouts have not succeeded in developing human capabilities in Aboriginal communities. Despite the 2008 'sorry day' apology, emotional hurts still run deep, and perceived injustices continue to impact upon the recognition of Aboriginal rights and the advancement of Aboriginal capabilities.

An analysis and evaluation of the successes and failures of the various government reparations schemes developed in order to provide redress for wages of Indigenous Australians stolen by Australian Governments throughout the 19th-20th centuries.

On Nov 5, 2014, Australians witnessed arguably the only great piece of oratory delivered 'down under' for a generation: Noel Pearson's eulogy for former Labour Prime MInister, Gough Whitlam.  This paper, written for a wider audience (and now lengthened to consider dispositio, Feb 2019), uses some rhetorical tools borrowed from the Romans "Gough" admired (as Pearson notes) in order to analyse the delivery, ethos, pathos, argument and style of this extraordinary speech.

Aboriginal Australian public intellectual Noel Pearson has gained prominence and influence for his brand of policy reform in Indigenous affairs by drawing upon the capabilities approach. This article challenges the coherence of Pearson’s position, arguing that his unrelenting focus on personal responsibility leads him to conflate different elements within capabilities thinking. Pearson 1) mistakes social capabilities (to which people are entitled) for human potential to be unfolded and 2) casts and prescribes personal responsibility as a type of latent capability. The latter a) inverts the capabilities approach wherein phenomena such as personal responsibility arise as an effect of the realization of latent capabilities rather than serving as latent capabilities themselves and b) is at odds with the liberal basis of the capabilities approach that rejects imposing “good” ways of life on people. This is illustrated through reference to Pearson’s advocacy of Direct Instruction teaching and engagement with the “real economy”. The paper recognizes Pearson’s contribution to the policy debate and that the problems he highlights are real, but argues that the remedial approaches adopted are problematic, including in terms of Pearson’s stated stance against assimilationist policy agendas.

Poverty and human well-being studies in Australia have been led by socioeconomic statistics which are limited in their description of the problem. There is a growing call for alternate ways, to conceptualise and evaluate poverty and well-being, which assist the government to develop broader and more inclusive poverty alleviation policies that can target more than what these statistics are able to capture. This paper argues for a broader informational space which is not dominant in Australian approaches to conceptualise, measure and evaluate poverty and well-being. The " Capability Approach " brings capabilities and functionings into the informational space, highlighting issues of equality as well as diversity, making it useful for normative evaluations of poverty and well-being especially in an affluent country like Australia. This paper explores the basic tenets of the Capability Approach and how it may be applied to conceptualise and evaluate social policy in Australia. The Capability Approach is compared and contrasted with the " Close the Gap " framework of the Australian Indigenous policy as an illustrative exercise. In conclusion, the paper makes recommendation for further conceptual and empirical work using the Capability Approach to inform Australian social policy.

Since white settlement of Australia in 1788, the Aboriginal community has remained a conspicuously disadvantaged minority group. Decades of Federal and State government welfare policies have not prevented alcoholism, domestic violence and unemployment from undermining life in Aboriginal communities. Radically different policies are now being trialled, in recognition that a social emergency exists and in recognition that 'money for nothing' welfare handouts have not succeeded in developing human capabilities in Aboriginal communities. Despite the 2008 'sorry day' apology, emotional hurts still run deep, and perceived injustices continue to impact upon the recognition of Aboriginal rights and the advancement of Aboriginal capabilities.