Pearson and Mansell, it seems to me, are each rather harsh in their judgments of those who adopt opposing strategies to their own preferred mode of operation in Australian public life. In many ways their insider and outsider strategies play complementary roles in relation to each other. This was evident back in 1993 in negotiations around Native Title legislation, when Pearson worked more closely with the Labor Government and Mansell with the Senate crossbenches. And it may be similarly the case in more recent times, when Pearson has engaged with a Coalition government over welfare reform while Mansell and other Indigenous leaders have kept other agendas alive more on the margins of public debate, such as the demand for Indigenous-specific rights.

Analytically, we need to recognise that insider and outsider roles and strategies feed off each other in public life, with each reinforcing and complementing the other as much as being directly opposing alternatives. Insider strategies, and strategists, need outsiders also to be present in the public realm in order for their ‘insidedness’ to be effective while outsiders also rely on insiders to carry at least some part of their principled cause into practice. Perhaps Pearson’s complaint about his fellow Indigenous leaders is more one of numbers. He sees more Indigenous leaders pursuing strategies at odds with government than working in partnership with government like himself. And yet, interestingly, among those of whom Pearson has been most critical in recent times are some, like Marion Scrymgour —in 2008 the Deputy Chief Minister in Northern Territory Labor Government – who positionally, are far more insiders than Pearson. Their experience over the last few years, in particular, would seem to be worthy of further study for what it can tell us about the insider and outsider roles and strategies of Indigenous public leaders.