Key terms

Aboriginal: people who inhabit a land before the arrival of colonists

Nation: a large group of people inhabiting a country, united by common descent, culture, language etc.

Equality: the state of being equal in rights, opportunities and status

Opportunity: the possibility to do something due to a particular set of circumstances

Discrimination: the prejudicial or unjust treatment of certain people on the grounds of age, race, sex etc.

Who is the composer?

Noel Pearson was born 25th of June, 1965 in Cooktown, Queensland. He grew up in Hopevale, a Lutheran mission located on the Cape York Peninsula. Pearson studied at the University of Sydney, graduating with history and law degrees. In 1990, he co-founded the Cape York Land Council, where he stayed until 1996 as the Executive Director. He has been involved in various land rights claims for Indigenous peoples and is known as an activist for Aboriginal land rights. Pearson has also advocated for Indigenous policy relating to substance abuse, welfare, child protection, economic development and education.

What is the context of the text?

The text is a eulogy for Prime Minister Gough Whitlam at his State memorial service at Sydney Town Hall on the 5th of November 2014. It has been called “one of the best political speeches of our time”. Gough Whitlam was the leader of the Labor Party from 1967 to 1977, and the 21st prime minister of Australia. He served one full term, from 1972 to 1974, leading his party to power for the first time in 23 years. After being re-elected in 1975, he was controversially dismissed by the Governor-General of Australia on November 11, 1975, as his administration was rocked by scandals and mismanagement.

What is the purpose and audience of the text?

A eulogy is a speech given at a funeral or memorial service to commemorate the life of the deceased person. The purpose of Noel Pearson’s eulogy for Gough Whitlam was to pay tribute to the opportunities that Whitlam gave all Australians, particularly Indigenous Australians like himself. The audience of the eulogy was the 2000 people seated at the venue, many more watching on big screens outside and the Australian public in general. Pearson seems to have been representing Australia’s Indigenous people, although after he delivered the eulogy some Aboriginal people were angry about this perception, as Pearson is a controversial figure in the Indigenous community due to his part in the formation of various welfare policies. In response, Pearson denied that he was speaking for anyone else besides himself.

What is the text about?

The eulogy is essentially a celebration of the positive things that Gough Whitlam did for Australia. As Pearson says: ‘we salute this old man for his great love and dedication to his country and to the Australian people’ and ‘I share this consciousness with millions of my fellow Australians whose experiences speak in some way or another to the great power of distributed opportunity’. It is told from the point of view of Pearson, who also happens to be of Aboriginal descent. He describes his origins and credits Whitlam’s policies and law reforms with his own success: ‘my chances in this nation were a result of the Whitlam program. My grandparents and parents could never have imagined the doors that opened to me which were closed to them.’

Pearson credits Whitlam as being responsible for uplifting Australians (including Indigenous people), ending the speech with: ‘When he breathed he truly was Australia’s greatest white elder and friend without peer of the original Australians.’ How does it engage the responder through ideas, techniques and strategies? One thing that is immediately clear about the speech is that Pearson never uses either Gough or Whitlam to refer to the deceased prime minister. He refers many times to the ‘Whitlam Government’ but when he must discuss the man himself, he refers to him as ‘old man.’ The reason for this is cultural, as Indigenous Australian’s show respect for the dead by avoiding the use of their name, instead calling the deceased ‘old lady’ or ‘old man’.

Pearson begins his speech with a quote from former Prime Minister Paul Keating. By using the quote in the beginning of the speech, Pearson implies that Keating agrees with the rest of his argument. Keating’s policies were also instrumental in bringing long overdue equality to Indigenous Australians in relation to land rights, so by referencing Keating, Pearson draws a parallel between the two great former leaders and their role in improving life for Australia’s Aboriginal people. Pearson’s oratory is mostly powerful because of its delivery. He does not use overly fancy words, but rather relies on rhythm and the sound of the words to hold his audience’s attention and sweep them up. The speech is delivered in such a way that it feels like a poetic, spoken word piece, largely due to Pearson’s sentence formation and word emphasis. The rhythm of Pearson’s words tunes the listener into the rise and fall of his delivery. The stress that is placed on syllables creates a meter and through this the audience can feel the rhythm held by the position of stressed syllables in each line. His gathering of syllables toward the end of the first sentence – ‘Paul Keating said the reward for public life is public progress’ – builds tension while the second sentence features multi syllabic words that are evenly spaced throughout the sentence, creating a sense of calm. The first sentence also effectively uses alliteration. The phrases, ‘public life’ and ‘public progress’, use the same consonant ‘p’ sound to grab the audience’s attention. Sound and rhetorical devices like alliteration and assonance also enhance the musical quality of a speech, as the repetition of the consonant and vowel sounds contributes to its rhythmic structure and can affect the mood. In the fourth sentence Pearson uses assonance for a dramatic effect, repeating the ‘e’ vowel sound in “Raised next to the wood heap of the nation’s democracy, bequeathed no allegiance to any political party, I speak to this old man’s legacy with no partisan brief.” The repetition of the ‘e’ sound also signifies importance, causing the audience to really pay attention and heed Pearson’s words.

Pearson uses other rhetorical devices in his speech including simile, irony and pathos to convey his message and emphasise his point. He uses these devices to demonstrate to the audience just how much he feels that Whitlam has contributed to modern Australian politics. Firstly, he uses a simile to create a powerful image, comparing the Australian public with Monty Python characters: ‘38 years later we are like John Cleese, Eric Idle and Michael Palin’s Jewish insurgents ranting against the despotic rule of Rome, defiantly demanding “and what did the Roman’s ever do for us anyway?”’ The ‘Romans’ in this instance, of course, represents Whitlam. The ironic response is a long list of his achievements, such as: ‘ Medibank and the Trade Practices Act, cutting tariff protections and no-fault divorce in the Family Law Act, the Australia Council, the Federal Court, the Order of Australia, federal legal aid, the Racial Discrimination Act, needs-based schools funding, the recognition of China, the abolition of conscription, the law reform commission, student financial assistance ...’

Pearson’s figures of speech and choice of words elicit an emotional response from the audience, achieving pathos, meaning that he has a strong emotional influence over the audience. Firstly, his rhythmic language lulls the audience into an almost hypnotic state, secondly, imagery created by the allusion of Whitlam as a toga-wearing Roman commands the audience’s respect and enhances the affection they feel toward Whitlam, as a carefree Australian like the rest of us – ‘one who would have been as naturally garbed in a toga as a safari suit.’ He creates a vivid image of the character of Whitlam by describing him as standing ‘imperiously with twinkling eyes and that slight self-mocking smile playing around his mouth’. He further adds, this would have in turn had the effect of ‘infuriating his enemies and delighting his followers’. Here, Pearson strengthens his argument that Whitlam was a rare politician who defied others by valuing reform for the betterment of citizens over the retaining of power. This is a powerful opinion as fellow Australians would be able to see the benefits this provides not only to individuals, but to the country as a whole.