KSJ Consulting Service’s Post

MEDIA RELEASE Monday 14 October 2024 ONE YEAR ON FROM FAILED INDIGENOUS VOICE REFERENDUM, RECONCILIATION SA URGES REFLECTION AND COMPASSION Reconciliation SA is urging Australians to reflect on missed opportunities as the nation marks the one-year anniversary of the failed referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Reconciliation SA chief executive officer Jason Downs says the referendum was a significant moment in Australia's modern history that continues to evoke deep emotions. “Reconciliation SA stands in solidarity with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as we reflect on the profound impact, trauma and resilience that have defined this past year,” Mr Downs says. “This anniversary is not only a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by First Nations peoples, but also an opportunity to acknowledge an unwavering strength, cultural richness and enduring spirit.” Mr Downs says that, sadly, the failure of the referendum has emboldened those Australians keen to undermine progress made toward reconciliation, including some councils and organisations discontinuing Acknowledgement of Country practices. “These actions and attitudes are deeply disappointing, fostering division rather than reflecting the values of an inclusive society that acknowledges and celebrates the world’s oldest continuing living culture,” Mr Downs says. “As we mark one year since the referendum, it is vital that we reflect on missed opportunities – the disappointment, grief and trauma that have resurfaced remind us of the long road we still have ahead to achieve true reconciliation. “However, it’s also important to highlight the incredible resilience and strength that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities continue to display in the face of adversity. Their ongoing leadership and calls for justice inspire us to keep working toward a more equitable and inclusive society.” Reconciliation SA remains committed to fostering meaningful relationships between First Nations and non-Indigenous peoples, advocating for systemic change and promoting the rich cultural knowledge and connection that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have to country. “We cannot shy away from the difficult conversations that arise from moments like this anniversary,” Mr Downs says. “We must confront our history with truth, honour the resilience of First Nations people and ensure that the hope for future generations is built on justice and equality.” For media enquiries, please call 08 7082 2977 or email admin@reconciliationsa.org.au https://hubs.li/Q02Tbt-z0

An investigation by The Weekend Australian into the referendum fallout has revealed: • Internal Yes research showed awareness levels of Indigenous disadvantage only reached 50 per cent by referendum day; • Albanese received input from Yes23 co-chair Danny Gilbert on the voice proposal he took to the 2022 Garma Festival; • Yes23 funding vehicle Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition maintained $2.3m in cash and cash equivalents following the referendum; • Yes23 campaigners and their pollsters at CT Group knew support for the voice was soft even at its mid-60s peak in late 2022; • After meeting with Dutton in February 2023, referendum working group member and Indigenous activist Marcia Langton declared he would break bipartisanship; and • The future of the Morrison-era Coalition of Peaks is being questioned by senior Indigenous leaders who are demanding Albanese not walk away from the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Closing the gap Davis points to the Productivity Commission’s February report that found a “voice or political representation chosen by Aboriginal people was integral to Closing the Gap and change”. The commission has been damning about lack of progress under Closing the Gap signed by all states and territories in 2020. Davis said there had been examples this year of Indigenous people not “being at the table on many laws and policies and many examples of government ignoring the legitimate voice of First Nations”. “This issue is not going away,” she said. “Closing the Gap is a good example of where things are deteriorating. Many of my colleagues … say governments are not committed to Closing the Gap.” The Coalition of Peaks – a group now made up of more than 80 member organisations – was established under the Morrison government in 2020 with the backing of states and territories. Under the agreement, the group was effectively made the unelected representative body for Indigenous communities for shared decisions on Closing the Gap measures. The Productivity Commission says this has not happened and there must be “a paradigm shift” from government. Its fourth annual data report published in July found Australia was on track to meet only four of 17 targets by the end of the national agreement in 2031. Indigenous leaders and others contacted by The Weekend Australian all privately acknowledged the organisations that made up the Coalition of Peaks did important work but expressed concern about its ability to give fearless and coherent advice. One described the it as amorphous. Another said it could not possibly be a voice because the members are almost all CEOs of organisations reliant on government funding.

### Title 5: "Echoes of Choice: Democracy's Resilience in the Face of Division" ### Linked Story: The Brexit Referendum - A Decision that Reshaped a Continent The Brexit referendum of 2016 is a profound embodiment of "Echoes of Choice: Democracy's Resilience in the Face of Division." This pivotal moment in the history of the United Kingdom and the European Union exemplifies how democratic choices can lead to significant and unforeseen shifts in political, economic, and social landscapes. Leading up to the referendum, the UK was deeply divided over the issue of EU membership. Arguments ranged from sovereignty, immigration, and legal autonomy to economic security and global influence. The campaign period was intense, with both "Leave" and "Remain" sides presenting their visions for the UK's future. The decision to hold a referendum itself was a testament to the democratic process, offering the public a direct voice in a decision of monumental importance. When the votes were tallied, 52% had chosen to leave the EU, while 48% voted to remain. The narrow margin highlighted the deep divisions within British society but also underscored the resilience of democracy—allowing for a monumental decision to be made peacefully through the ballot box. The aftermath of the referendum has been a journey through complex negotiations, political upheaval, and societal reflection. The process of untangling the UK from over four decades of EU membership tested the country's political institutions and democratic practices. It led to changes in leadership, with two Prime Ministers stepping down, and sparked intense public debate about the future direction of the country. Brexit has had far-reaching consequences, not only for the UK and the EU but also for the global community, reshaping international trade, migration, and diplomatic relationships. It served as a wake-up call for political leaders and institutions worldwide about the power of populist movements and the importance of addressing the underlying issues that drive societal divisions. Through the lens of "Echoes of Choice: Democracy's Resilience in the Face of Division," the Brexit story reflects democracy's capacity to navigate through periods of deep division and uncertainty. It illustrates how the collective choices of a populace can redefine a nation's path, highlighting the significance of each vote in shaping the contours of democracy. The Brexit referendum serves as a reminder of the responsibilities that come with democratic freedom—the duty to engage, to inform oneself, and to consider the far-reaching implications of one's choices on the fabric of society.

Tomorrow's Referendum: (From my Facebook page) Why I will be voting NO / NO. There are many reasons. Several principles have stood to me throughout a quite difficult life. One in particular has stood to me for decades - "If in doubt, don't". I have very serious doubts about the effectiveness of the proposed changes. To be honest, despite the expenditure of tens of millions by government on the current referendum, it is little more than a farce. Opaque / Obfuscating wording guarantees failure and rich lawyers going forward. You simply cannot come up with words such as "durable relationships" [Family Amendment] and (the State) "shall strive to support such provision" [Care Amendment]. What the hell do these words mean? Roderic O'Gorman TD and the Green Party Ireland have time and again proved to be hypocrites. Most people now accept that the Green party lives somewhere in outer space or beyond. O'Gorman has put immense pressure on NGO's to vote yes. I believe his threatening words are enough to nullify the referendum (if right was right). The majority also know that Leo Varadkar T.D. and Micheal Martin are monstrously incompetent and traitors to the Ireland that Padraig Pearse and his colleagues died for in 1916. Both continue to sell our people out, whether its cost of living, health care, housing, homelessness, vulture funds, access to the courts. It just goes on and on. The Attorney General advised Roderick O'Gorman that there is "legal uncertainly" about the proposed Care Amendment but O'Gorman, Greens, FF and FG covered up these advises - why? The AG advised Government that there is a "lack of guidance from the Courts" about how the word "strive" would be interpreted. It seems that Atlantic Technological University and all the NGO's (Non -Governmental Organizations), the Law Society are set to approve the changes to the constitution, but that is to be expected. However, I have been struck by the amount of lawyers (particularly female lawyers) that are so opposed to this referendum. I will try and follow this post with two 10 minute videos that perhaps explain better that I can, the issues with tomorrows referendum. I will finish with 7 bullet points that reinforce my hunch that "IF IN DOUBT DON'T: - * No special recognition at all for women or mothers in the constitution. * No new rights for disabled people or their carers. * No definition of durable relationships. * No clarity on how existing immigration law, tax law, pension law, succession law will be affected. * No constitutional recognition or protection for mothers who wish to be home parents. * No to rushed and guillotined legislation. * No need to waste €20 million on incompetent and misleading referendums. As a country, we really can do better. That is why I intend to vote NO. Take care.

Missed opportunity The Referendum on the Voice to Parliament is a huge missed opportunity for Peter Dutton. Had he taken a bipartisan approach to the Referendum, he could have: • Opened the door to substantive recognition of First Peoples in our Constitution • Engaged in refining the changes to the Constitution • Substantially reduced the division and rancour that abounded in the leadup to the Referendum • Countered many of the spurious arguments put forth in opposition to the proposed changes He could have advanced the following counter-arguments with great force and conviction. About creating division, indicating that recognition entails making a distinction, not necessarily creating division. A division infers creating an unfair advantage. The proposed change sought to counter the unfair disadvantage experienced by the First Peoples in Australia through gifting them the ear of our Parliament and Government. About representations, assuring everyone that we all have the right to make representations on any topic. The purpose of this distinction is to provide clarity of voice of First Peoples, being a benefit to First Peoples and to all Australians. About more detail, advising that the Coalition had established clear design options and will work with Government to ensure an effective design is established. About equal rights, reinforcing that the changes do not compromise our human rights, that discrimination to provide a beneficial effect is not a racist action, and this provision is to counter disadvantage, not create disadvantage. About past injustices, saying that whilst we may not have perpetrated the injustices ourselves, it is long past time that we give serious attention to redressing their effects, some of which are still being experienced today. About the effects of colonisation, saying that all Australians experience the benefits of colonisation in some manner or another, but only one group, the First Peoples, has suffered such extensive and lasting negative effects. About risks, saying that all Australians have the right to make representations on any topic. The more we restrict the Voice, the greater the risk that we fail to close the gap. About systemic racism, saying that this is the most significant underlying cause of the gap, requiring significant structural change. We need guidance from First Peoples to enable governments to best redirect the vast existing resources aimed at supporting First Peoples to realise the optimum effects in closing the gap. Instead, Peter Dutton chose to make First Peoples a political football, to accept that a successful No campaign was essential to winning the next election, and to decline the gracious invitation to walk with the First Peoples in Australia. When we next seek to change the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples, it is essential that a bi-partisan approach is established.

→ Anniversary of Remain’s landslide win in 1975 referendum 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟲 𝗥𝗘𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗨𝗠 𝗪𝗔𝗦 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗩𝗘 It was 49 years ago today, on 6 June 1975, that Britain learnt the result of the UK’s first ever referendum, on whether the country should remain in the European Community. Remain won by a LANDSLIDE. Over 67% of those who voted chose to remain in the European Community. That represented a HUGE margin of 34.5% in favour of membership. What’s more, majorities in ALL four countries of the UK voted to remain. ▪ 𝗔 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 Compare that with the second referendum on EU membership, eight years ago, on 23 June 2016. Of around 33 million valid votes cast, just over 17 million voted for Britain to leave the EU, whereas just over 16 million voted for Britain to remain a member. That represented a TINY margin of only 3.8% in favour of the UK leaving the European Community – a result within the margin of error. What’s more, majorities in two of the four countries of the UK – Scotland and Northern Ireland – voted to remain in the EU. And Gibraltar, which also participated in the referendum, voted by a massive 96% to remain. ▪ 𝗔 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 Whereas the 1975 referendum was conclusive, fairly run, and brought the nation together, the 2016 referendum was deeply flawed, inconclusive, and split the nation. Brexiters say that the general election of December 2019 settled the issue, because the Tories won with a manifesto promise to ‘Get Brexit done’. But in that general election, most voters didn’t vote for the Tories. Most voters voted for parties that wanted another referendum on Brexit. Johnson’s Tory party won with the support of less than 30% of all those eligible to vote. Our unbalanced and old-fashioned system of voting returned a result NOT representative of the nation. Regardless, the Tory government went ahead with a harsh version of Brexit that nobody voted for in the referendum. This is causing huge problems for Britain, including costly and complicated trade with the EU, a chronic shortage of workers, and a cost-of-living crisis. Polling by different pollsters shows that a significant majority of voters consider that Brexit is a mistake, and they would now vote to rejoin the EU. [Source: https://lnkd.in/eBdu3yqK] Doesn’t something seem excruciatingly out of kilter? The country deserves a democratic opportunity to reconsider Brexit. Even in our own lives we get opportunities to review past decisions, don’t we? And yet, Brexit isn't even being mentioned by the main parties in this general election. © Report and graphic by Jon Danzig #Brexit #EU #EuropeanUnion #referendum #democracy #politics #generalelection 

🚨 Scottish Independence Polling — 10 Years On 🚨 In exclusive research for The Sunday Times and The Times, Opinium reveals that if a second independence referendum were held today, the margin between Yes and No would be far closer, with just a 2-point lead for the Union (No: 47%, Yes: 45%). Support among younger voters for independence is particularly strong, with 63% of 16 to 34-year-olds backing independence. Despite the narrowing of the No lead since 2014, there is relatively little that Scots think would actually improve under independence according to many Scottish voters. Independence and its impact remain divisive: 47% believe tax rates would be worse, and 42% expect Scotland’s defence and security to be worse. The full insights, to be published later this week, suggest that the ideal solution for most seems to be remaining in the Union. But this means it is up to Unionists to put forward a positive vision for what an empowered Scotland within the UK looks like. Stay tuned for Opinium's full insights, written by myself and Kai Hain, in a report this Wednesday, marking the 10th anniversary of the referendum. In the meantime, you can explore the published data tables for the current polling here: https://lnkd.in/exbUSWYu See the article in The Sunday Times here: https://lnkd.in/etku6rCS #Opinium #Scotland #IndyRef #ScottishIndependence #Polling #SundayTimes

Active enduring mutual recognition Last year, in discussion with my son about the forthcoming Referendum, he made the point that there was a need for a simple, clear, compelling case for voting Yes. That was something that we Yes voters failed to do well. A recent reference to an article by Professor Gabrielle Appleby - see https://lnkd.in/gSQnnHXf - drew my attention to her description - Australia is engaging in an exercise of mutual recognition that offers a respectful relationship forward for all Australians. This, for me, is the essence of the case for changing our Constitution. We desire to establish an active form of mutual recognition - because Australians and Indigenous Australians change, if for no other reason, than through generational change. Hence, a preamble or similar is a static form of recognition that easily becomes a "one off event", a "tick box", a "we've done that now, let's move on" approach. Whereas a "Voice" provides for ongoing recognition and engagement. We desire an enduring form of mutual recognition - because First Nations have existed for over 60,000 years and will keep on existing, and because Australia, despite having existed for only just over 120 years, is most likely to keep on existing. So, an enduring form of mutual recognition is most appropriately incorporated into our Constitution. We desire mutual recognition because First Nations have never ceded their sovereignty and because First Nations were not included in the formation of the Constitution, in that not all Colonies recognised First Nations people and a Terra Nullius view prevailed at that time. The Constitution and our system of government has a colonial heritage which will never disappear. Hence, the need for mutual recognition, of First Nations and of the Nation of Australia. This leads me to ask all No Voters two questions: 1) What form of mutual recognition do you propose if you still hold that a Voice to Parliament is not a suitable form to include in the Constitution? 2) What do you propose as an alternate approach, if you deem that "mutual recognition" is not an appropriate way to proceed?

It was generally understood that the Scottish Parliament could hold referendums on anything up to and including independence before the UK Supreme Court changed the rules retrospectively. This Scotsman article featuring previously hidden government documents proves it: Downing Street advisers admitted Scotland could have independence referendum (Source: Scotsman: 20/7/2021) Downing Street advisers privately conceded that Scotland could have a referendum on “anything it wants” without Westminster’s consent, previously classified documents from Tony Blair’s premiership have disclosed. An email from Prime Minister’s key aide Pat McFadden ahead of releasing plans for devolution in 1997 also revealed “a couple of very worried Scottish MPs” were concerned about “the slippery slope to independence”. In the email to Mr Blair’s chief of staff Jonathan Powell, Mr McFadden quoted Donald Dewar, the Scottish Secretary, following speculation in the press that the Scottish Parliament would be able to hold an independence referendum. Scotland voted in favour of devolution in September 1997, a key Labour general election pledge, creating its own parliament responsible for matters such as education, health and transport. But it was not until 2014 that an independence referendum was held, with 55% voting against proposals to become an independent country. Secret emails from Mr Blair’s early days in Government, released by the National Archives in Kew, appear to suggest it was known within some in Westminster that an independence referendum could, in theory, be held by Scotland. Mr McFadden wrote: “In the Scottish papers at the weekend there was some speculation over whether the Scottish Parliament would be able to hold a referendum on independence. “The reserved powers model means that the Scottish Parliament will have the power to legislate on anything not in the reserved list. “Therefore it can have referendums on anything it wants, even if it cannot enact the result.” He added: “A couple of very worried Scottish MPs have rung me about this. “It scares them a great deal that such a referendum could take place. “Donald’s view is that the Scottish Parliament can have a referendum on whatever it likes, even matters outside its competence, which is in line with the logic of the White Paper.”

→ #Brexit needs a rethink, whichever way you voted 𝗡𝗘𝗜𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗔𝗜𝗡 𝗡𝗢𝗥 𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗔𝗖𝗛𝗜𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗗 𝗔 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗘 𝗠𝗔𝗝𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗬 Before the referendum, we used to be friends. Brexit put an end to that. This isn’t the fault of voters. Everyone had the right to vote as they did in the referendum – whether for Leave or Remain. The problem was the design and execution of an entirely flawed referendum, that has caused deep divisions across the United Kingdom, and which has NOT resulted in a settled or decisive national view on Leave or Remain. The 2016 referendum would never have been allowed in other democracies that have much more experience and wisdom in running them. We’ve only ever had three UK-wide referendums in the country’s history, and none of them were run satisfactorily. In 2016, we had a referendum that pitched a entirely known outcome, Remain (we’d had it for over 40 years) against an entirely vague outcome, Leave (nobody knew what kind of Brexit we’d get). This was asking for trouble. And trouble is what we got. Leave only attracted the support of a mere 37% of registered voters. Remain got even less support – only 35% of those eligible to vote. This would not have been sufficient in other democracies for a big change to have gone ahead. But in other democracies, our referendum would never have gone ahead. For starters, the Leave choice would have had to be properly defined BEFORE it was put to a vote. Or alternatively, a second referendum would have had to be organised so the nation could choose between a specific and fully defined version of Leave compared to the option of an already defined Remain. With only 37% of registered voters supporting Leave, and half the countries of the UK voting strongly against it, there was clearly insufficient support for Brexit to go ahead. But with only 35% of eligible voters supporting Remain, it should also have been obvious that there were misgivings about our EU membership that needed to be addressed. This could all have been so different with a better way of establishing the country's majority view on this. Instead, an entirely flawed referendum has caused a rupture of the UK from which we have still not healed. To bring the country back together, we need mature and polite debates, and democratic routes to finding and achieving a Brexit or a Remain that would now suit most of the country, especially with the new knowledge we’ve all gained during the eight years since the referendum took place. We used to be friends. We can be again – but this issue must be resolved. © Report and graphic by Jon Danzig #EU #referendum