Peter Murchland’s Post

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.

NATIONAL SORRY DAY With Sorry Day upon us, and seven months passed since the Voice Referendum, I’ve been moved to reflect on where we are now. You will have noticed how active the NO voters who agreed ‘we need to do something, just not this’ have been. There’s been a Royal Commission launched into conditions in remote communities. Senator Price, mooted at the time as a ‘future Prime Minister’ has risen to play a significant role in the Opposition’s far-reaching policy proposals, and the Government has shown their commitment by staying the course signalled by the Referendum in the first place. Of course none of this is true and the almost total radio silence on these issues is both underwhelming and unsurprising. So where are we now? I was told by a student yesterday that she experiences racism on a daily basis, instances of overt racism are on the rise, and colleagues claim to have different versions of history they adhere to (ones which tend to make the white guys look good). The LNP in Queensland withdrew from the Truth and Treaty process (having ‘listened’ to the voters in North Queensland - just not the black ones who overwhelmingly supported the Voice). It would be easy to think we are lost - if we didn’t have tens of thousands of years of evidence of the resilience of our First Peoples! The next logical step seems to be truth-telling. The optimist in me says most non-Indigenous Australians simply don’t understand the process and implications of colonisation. The pessimist says they know but they don’t care. But while I’m an optimist at heart, I’m not a naive optimist. If we are to embark on Truth-Telling, a process which will be challenging and damaging, then the Truth-Telling needs Truth-Listening in equal measure! And make no mistake the Truth-Listening will be equally challenging and damaging. But it is necessary. If we are to genuinely move forward towards reconciliation, we need to do so from a place informed by truth, with acknowledgement of the past, and with genuine commitment to an improved Australia for all Australians. Non-Indigenous Australia can no longer take a laidback attitude towards reconciliation. Reconciliation can only be achieved with genuine commitment, from everybody. We might be famous for saying ‘she’ll be right’, but let’s face it, since colonisation, she never has been!

🚨 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

→ #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 

→ 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 

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 [email protected] https://hubs.li/Q02Tbt-z0

In today's mail ... "I’m excited to share with you today an update on our ongoing campaign to end Canada’s equalization program. We reignited the idea here in Alberta, we pushed for an equalization referendum, and then we won that referendum. It’s now official Alberta government policy to abolish equalization. Since then, we've been working tirelessly to spread the message beyond Alberta. Recently, those efforts took a huge step forward. First, in May, Newfoundland and Labrador launched a legal challenge against the constitutionality of the equalization formula. Newfoundland and Labrador Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General John Hogan pointed out that a lack of consultation had left the Province no choice but to take legal action. “The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is challenging the current equalization formula as being unconstitutional. When the Government of Canada dismissed our concerns and extended the equalization formula until 2029, we were left with no other alternative except to launch a court challenge.” Next, the Saskatchewan government announced they would be supporting Newfoundland and Labrador’s case. Then, last week, British Columbia Premier David Eby announced that his province would also be supporting Newfoundland and Labrador’s constitutional challenge. That's right - even the NDP in British Columbia are opposed to equalization now! In fact, Eby went a step further and said that BC is considering not only just supporting the existing case, but potentially filing a separate lawsuit of their own. His announcement came during the annual Council of the Federation meetings in Halifax - a gathering of Canada’s 13 premiers: "I will acknowledge it is very hard for British Columbians to be paying into a program right now at a time when they are facing serious cost of living concerns," said Eby. "Every person in every province deserves high quality health care and schools and so on. But that is clearly not what the program is doing anymore," he continued. The equalization program has once again become a flashpoint in federal-provincial relations across the country - tearing a hole in national unity and forcing the provinces to launch legal challenges in an attempt to ease the divide. It's incredibly pleasing to see premiers of all political stripes coming together in opposition to this failed policy. This is proof that our hard work is paying off, and that our strategy is working. For updates and more information ... https://lnkd.in/gXWWwCk8

One year on from the failed referendum, Kimberley leaders remain resolute in their commitment to a future where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices are heard and genuinely influence decision-making. Kimberley Aboriginal people show remarkable resilience, moving forward despite the challenges, disappointment and setbacks. In Bardi language we say: Iwooloongan Iyoordin biinmal ningamoord ambooriny, Tide come in, tide go out. We are strong people. We know that 77.5% of remote Kimberley communities voted yes to a Voice to Parliament. We also know that our members remain committed to the need for a Kimberley Aboriginal Regional Body, one that works directly with government on the matters that affect our lives, our rights and our futures. The KLC continues to support the key reform concepts of the Uluru Statement, and firmly believes that a process to oversee both treaty and truth-telling is critical to achieving justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. To date, there has not been a nationally coordinated process of truth-telling about Australia’s history of colonisation. In the words of former KLC CEO Nolan Hunter and academic Damien Freeman, ”this has been one of the biggest historical barriers to genuine reconciliation in Australia". Linking agreement-making with truth-telling provides the potential for substantive justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. While truth-telling can shine light on the wrongs of the past and their contemporary effects, agreements – or treaties – provide a practical way to address, redress and compensate for those wrongs. Agreements can recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s identities and political status, provide redress for past wrongs, and enshrine commitments from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and governments. They can be vehicles for economic and social empowerment and self-determination. To pave a way forward, we urge our Kimberley community and the rest of Australia to stand strong through these challenging times - the ebbs and flows of the tide - and rise with us. Together, we can close the gap to create a more just and equitable future for everyone in our region and our nation. - Statement by KLC CEO Tyronne Garstone  

Yesterday (26 May) was national Sorry Day. The "Bringing Them Home" stolen children report was tabled in Parliament 26 May 1997. Today (27 May) is the anniversary of the 1967 referendum to give First Nations people of Australia the right to vote. 3 June is the anniversary of the Mabo land rights decision. In light of last year's referendum on a voice to Parliament, I find this week's Reconciliation Week theme "Now More Than Ever" both energising and depressing. The great work of the Uluru Statement from the Heart didn't finish with last year's Voice to Parliament referendum. Australia has had work to do - the referendum would have set us in the right direction, with an enshrined ability to listen when shaping the laws that shape our nation. The latest Closing the Gap report shows 5 important targets are "on track" - leaving 19 vital targets without a clear path. Why? The Productivity Commission thinks Government approaches need to fundamentally change - to create the incentives to do things differently, and hold government to account when it fails. Without The Voice to Parliament, the task that faces Australia will be so much harder. Now More Than Ever, we need systemic, long term investment in doing things differently. Marginalised voices, perspectives and impacts need to be up front in policy and system design - measures intended to benefit all Australians must be specifically tailored to maximise opportunity and minimise harm for people facing systemic barriers. I heard on the radio this morning that Queensland is trialling 50c public transport fares to encourage people to use public transport and leave their cars at home. The pilot has been criticised as likely to benefit those who already use public transport, that live in wealthier areas supported by good public transport systems - potentially further marginalising other communities. Good initiatives need to recognise and change underlying biases and inequality in social, policy and physical infrastructure. New Digital ID laws were passed recently, with changes agreed in the Senate to promote inclusion. This is a good sign, as is the development of Commonwealth inclusive design principles. But this needs to be an ongoing focus of public policy across the board.

Today marks the anniversary of the 2023 Voice Referendum, a day when 60% of Australians said no to recognising First Nations people and giving us a voice in our own affairs. In 2023, all we asked for was to be seen, to be written into the nation’s birth certificate. The constitution, written in 1901, excluded any recognition of First Nations—the Firstborn of this land, who have lived and thrived here for over 65,000 years. I truly believed Australia was ready for this. But referendums aren’t easy. Of the 44 since 1901, only eight have been successful. The most significant was in 1967, allowing us to be counted as citizens and giving the government legal power to make laws for us. In 2023, we weren’t asking for much more—just recognition and a voice in decisions that affect us. But still, the nation said no. It was a sad day. We, as Bininj and Yolngu people, do not deny the world around us. We see you, Balanda people, Gadiya people. But 60% of you chose not to see us. You chose not to correct history. You chose to keep us silent. And that is on you. It is my hope that most of you who voted no did so out of confusion, fear, or uncertainty, stirred by the powerful “no” campaign, rather than a rejection of reconciliation or refusal to acknowledge our country’s ancient history. Regardless, as a voice of reason and optimism, I will not lie down and pretend that our existence and voices don’t matter. In 1803, Matthew Flinders referred to Indigenous people as “Australians,” long before this country was named. We have always been the first Australians, and we will continue to stand strong despite this setback. This morning, I put on a 10 kg weight vest and went for a long walk, carrying the weight of my ancestors on my shoulders—their hopes and aspirations. I will never see that as a burden but as a gift that I carry proudly. Thank you to the 6.5 million allies who voted yes. Our fight for recognition and justice continues. We rise again. #VoiceReferendum #IndigenousRights #alwayswasalwayswillbe #aboriginal