By Paul, Melanie, Steve & Quinnie
Composer: Noel Pearson
Title of the speech: “An Australian history for us all”
Date of speech: 20th November 1996
Purpose: To present an argument against Australians
who disagree with the idea that Australians should
accept responsibility of past injustices towards
Aboriginal Australians.
 Audience: Guests attending the Chancellor’s Club
Dinner, University of Western Sydney (a well
educated, middle class crowd who would not be
considered conservative in their attitudes)





Noel Pearson is an Aboriginal Law and history graduate who is an
activist for Aboriginal issues but also a critic to some aspects of
the Aboriginal community (e.g. the high rate of reliance on
welfare), and advocates increased responsibility for the
Aboriginal community.

He is the founder of the Cape York Institute for Policy and
Leadership. Since the end of the 1990s his focus has
encompassed a range of additional issues which he has strongly
argued that the Indigenous policy needs to change direction,
notably in relation to welfare, substance abuse, child protection,
and economic development.
•
•
•
•
In 1992, the Mabo decision invalidated “terra nullius” and
gave Aboriginal people the right to claim Native Title where
it had not already ceased.
In 1996, The Wik decision extended the Mabo findings,
saying that Native Title could coexist with pastoral leases,
but where there was conflict, pastoral lease would prevail.
These were the first times legislation and case law
recognised Aboriginals as the first inhabitants of Australia.
Also in 1996 a few days before Pearsons speech, PM John
Howard criticised the “black armband” view of history, which
caused debate over how Australians should respond to their
past.

Media generated hysteria and PM Howard’s statementAustralian public should not have to accept this ‘black
armband’ view of Australian past, they should not feel guilty
for others’ actions. This Led to further tension and Pearson
addresses this ‘moral and political turbulence’.

Pearson took on a more conservative approach to Aboriginal
politics, strongly criticising his own community for the high
rates of substance abuse and reliance on welfare payouts. He
became an advocate of increased responsibility for the
Aboriginal community.

Noel Pearson was asked to address an academic gathering at
the Uni of Western Sydney and he chose to speak on
Australian History. host was his former history professor, the
Chancellor, Professor Derek Schreuder. His topic, inspired by
High Court decisions and political statements at the time
focused on the relationships between the European settlers
and the Aboriginal people

Native Title, The Wik and Mabo Decision provided a
momentous change in Australian history and for the 1st time,
a legislation and case law recognised Aboriginals as the
original inhabitants of Australia
•
•
•
•
•
•
The truth of Australian history
That Aboriginal history and the people’s treatment must be told,
even if Australians feel guilty or believe that “it’s all in the past, we
have nothing to do with it.”
There is a danger that PM John Howard will undo the Mabo
decision, as he supports the views that Australians should not
apologise for the past
The speech is a strong reflection of the history debate regarding
how Australians should respond to their past
Pearson argues that reconciliation is not about “laying the blame”
– but recognising past injustices and claiming some responsibility
He also argues that the media has created “free speech” into the
freedom to speak in meaningless clichés and “sound bites”
•
•
•
•
Truth and the acceptance of history and past
injustices, even if people “reject responsibility
of it”
Ideas and the truth are more important than
politics
Reconciliation between Aboriginals and
Australians
Responsibility of actions

KAIROS/AUDIENCE: Both work in conjunction with each other to
make the speech much more effective; it is formal occasion, aimed at
the educated community

DECORUM: Noel Pearson delivers a rational argument in a manner
that isn’t ‘threatening’ the audience, and he states that he is there to
open one’s eyes and present a much more intimate perspective on the
issue, rather than force the audience into different views – a very
appropriate manner which undoubtedly gained the needed attention.

ETHOS, LOGOS, PATHOS: Pearson’s perspective may be
contradictory to those of the general public (during 1995), although
during his speech the audience listens with an open mind, due to the
way he presents. His logic and reasoning is what also ‘soften’ his
audience, especially since he is an Indigenous Australian himself. The
excessive amount of feeling (emotion/personal experience) and
inclusive language contributes to the speech’s effectiveness.

Throughout his speech, Pearson refers to a number of
politicians, professors and historians, using their writings as
evidence and support for the arguments he has put forward.
This evidence was a key aspect throughout his presentation,
as the audience saw the seriousness behind Pearson’s
overwhelmingly calm tone and approach to the issue.

As well as this, Pearson added a ‘personal touch’ to his
speech, a key element which can, and did succeed in
capturing the audience. Given his status as an Indigenous
Australian Lawyer and activist, he was able to provide the all
important personal perspective, on a level which proves the
typical Aboriginal stereotype wrong. The formal and civilised
approach to his arguments provided the audience with logic
and well educated arguments.
METAPHOR

“Australia’s colonial history is what the Americans would call a hot
button issue”  Early on in his speech, Pearson states how
delicate and controversial this topic is, especially when ordinary
Australians are asked to take responsibility for the past.

“Howard’s opinions resonate...with ordinary Australians” 
Pearson alludes to the unfortunate fact that Prime Minister (at the
time) John Howard shares similar views with most Australians, a
view which is largely against taking any responsibility for the past.

“Brain Damaged Dialogue”  Pearson also attacks the media,
arguing that free speech has become ‘tabloid free speech’, the
‘right’ to speak in clichés and slogans, not real debate. Along with
this, he incorporates alliteration, adding to its effectiveness.
METAPHOR

"These are lines that resonate", "...resonates
with the instincts and feelings of ordinary
Australians“

The word 'resonate' is used with the notion
that political ideas 'vibrate in harmony' or
'strike a chord' that expresses the way people
feel
COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE

“Aborigines should stop being victims and
‘get over it’”  Pearson, when describing the
perspective ordinary Australians have on the
issue; the use of colloquial language, a very
heartless expression (‘get over it’) highlights
the lack of respect for such a sensitive topic.
IRONY

“For how can we as a contemporary community in 1996 share and
celebrate in the achievements of the past, indeed feel responsibility
for and express pride in aspects of our past, and not feel responsibility
for and express shame in relation to other aspects of the past?”
 Here Pearson presents a fundamental and extremely strong
argument, a sentence which surely puts ordinary Australians in an
embarrassing position. An educated and well thought statement, it
without a doubt caused the audience to question what has been
happening throughout Australian society.

“If the amendments by Howard are approved, Mabo will be no
more...we will indeed be guilty”  As politicians attempt to
“exorcise” the imaginary guilt which seems to burden ordinary
Australians on a daily basis, actual guilt will take its place, the guilt of
forgetting a horrific series of events, with no apology or any type of
sympathy.
INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE
 “You have taken from us not just our land...but
some of our ways...”  Pearson uses inclusive
language to in some ways allude to the fact that
Australians as a whole have contributed to the issue
facing Indigenous Australians. As well as this,
Pearson incorporates personal perspectives, as he
himself is Aboriginal.
Metonymy

"The more vehement the denials the more they
betray an anxiety to exorcise guilt“

Uses the term 'exorcise' in relation to guilt implying
that guilt is of a demonic nature.

Denial is presented as something evil, thus leading
one to consider the effects of the Great Australian
Silence.
Hypophora
 "In conclusion, what substance is there in the new
emphasis on our colonial history that Prime Minister
John Howard and his Minister are urging and in the
crusade against the black armbands and their alleged
obsession with guilt? The answer is: nothing at all.
 Helps to maintain interest by playing on the curiousity
of the people
 Ignites a thought process whereby one asks themselves
'...what substance?' before Pearson answers the
question for them thereby positioning the audience to
support his claim
Truncated Sentences

"Black Armbands. Guilt Industry. Political
Correctness. Aboriginal Industry. These are lines
that resonate.“

There is added emphasis and therefore added
impact.

Can be seen as slogans set for advertising, they are
lines created to dominate and influence the minds
of society
QUOTATIONS
Pearson uses a range of quotations throughout his
speech, quoting John Howard, Paul Keating,
Professor Stanner, Robert Hughes, Senator Herron,
Dr John Hewson, and even himself. The wide range
of sources, some even from North America work to
support his case.
 He uses quotes from other speeches in order to
support his arguments and overall purpose
 eg. "I think what we need to do is open our hearts a
bit. All of us." (PM, Keating)


The following speeches link to the key issues
of Noel Pearson’s speech including identity,
unity, justice, freedom, equality
 Faith Bandler: “Faith, Hope and Reconciliation”
 PJ Keating: Funeral Service of the Unknown
Australian Soldier

Pearson presents his speech in a very effective
manner; he is able to present his arguments in a
formal and educated way and is greatly aided
with his lawyer background. Throughout the
speech, he is able to incorporate personal
perspectives, priceless views which have indeed
gone a long way in fighting for his case.

His history-student approach is found to be
evident throughout the speech via the
incorporation of historical quotes that are used
to support his arguments.
Pearson
VS.
Howard
By Paul, Melanie, Steve & Quinine