Stuart Allen’s Post

ACCEPT DECISIONS MADE Australians once used to accept "the umpires decision as being final." In the past when a decision was made, it was accepted by both those for or against and everyone moved on. Today it seems that those who oppose a decision made, continue to regularly express their disappointment, raise questions about its validity, look to find excuses for its defeat and push for an opportunity to reverse the decision. Every year, Australia emotionally debates the celebration of Australia Day on January 26, with many monotonously suggesting that it should be changed. On January 22 2024, a special Roy Morgan SMS poll revealed that 68.6% of respondents wanted the date to remain the same, despite this some are still requesting that it be changed. In November 2023 60.7% of Australians voted NO in the Voice referendum. Twelve months on, Yes campaigners are still asserting that the No campaign was full of lies and misinformation, and are demanding that another referendum be held. The District Council of Ceduna recently voted twice, in a very short period of time, to cease livestreaming of Council Meetings. Rather than accepting the decision of our councilors, now made on two occasions, I believe that it has been proposed that public consultation be undertaken to seek further viewpoints on livestreaming. Whilst I support the livestreaming of council meetings, I also believe in accepting the decision made by a democratically elected body, regardless of my personal opinion. Using public opinion to make decisions, rather than relying on elected members, which is what they were elected to do, will mean that only populist decisions are made, and decisions which are needed, but may well be unpopopular, will be avoided. In future councilors, members of parliament or board members will not be needed, if the use of Opinion Polls takes responsibility for decision making.

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

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?

🚨 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

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  

National Reconciliation Week – which began in 1996 – starts on the same significant date every year. Australia’s most successful referendum took place on 27 May in 1967. More than 90 per cent of Australians voted to give the Australian Government power to make laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and recognise them in the Census. It was a day that was decades in the making. The political, social climate of the time was one of ignorance and racism. First Nations people couldn’t travel from state to state, couldn’t marry without permission, and had their lives controlled by different state government laws. The campaign changed Australia forever and it's why we start NRW on this day each year. 📌Check out this timeline of events leading up to the 1967 referendum: https://bit.ly/3LQj0fq National Reconciliation Week’s theme for 2024, Now More Than Ever, is a reminder to all of us that no matter what, the fight for justice and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people must continue. Now more than ever, we need to tackle the unfinished business of reconciliation. We know that the 6.2 million Australians who voted YES in the 2023 Voice to Parliament referendum are committed to better outcomes for First Nations people, and are with us. It is imperative that supporters of reconciliation stand up to defend and uphold the rights of First Nations peoples. To call out racism wherever we encounter it, and to actively reinforce the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across this continent. Now more than ever, the work continues. In treaty making, in truth-telling, in understanding our history, in education, and in tackling racism. We need connection. We need respect. We need action. And we need change.   Now more than ever, we need reconciliation. https://lnkd.in/d3hGDGY6 #Reconciliation #NRW2024 #NowMoreThanEver

The National Reconciliation Week theme for 2024, Now More Than Ever, is a reminder to all of us that no matter what, the fight for justice and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will —and must —continue. Read the explainer below by Reconciliation Australia to get a better understanding of the significance of this week.

In my National Flag Day message last year, I wrote about the then forthcoming Voice referendum stating that I hoped our national flag – a symbol of one country and one people – was on the minds of Australians when they went to vote. On 14 October 2023, millions of Australians rejected the divisive Voice referendum in what was a resounding result. Australians sent a clear message to the Prime Minister: they do not want our country to be divided by ancestry and race. On this National Flag Day, let us look to our one flag to revive our national unity and rediscover our national confidence in testing times. Let us dismiss those voices that are determined to define and divide us on the basis of our differences: our race, sex, religion, class and more besides. Instead, let us renew our focus on the far more meaningful things that we have in common: our love of family, our appreciation for friends and colleagues, our attachment to community, our aspiration, compassion and optimism, our respect for law and liberty, our devotion to our country, and our desire to protect our great democracy and its values. On this 123rd anniversary of our national flag, may we celebrate it as proud Australians. Patriotism is about much more than a love for and loyalty to our country. It is about gratitude to our forebears for forging the achievement of modern Australia. It is about custodianship of their legacy and seeking to build upon it. It is about bequeathing to future generations of Australians a country better than the one we inherited. Today, may we remember the time-transcending meaning of our flag and the duty and unity it inspires.

We would like to note the importance of May 27 for Australia and Australians. Before this day, the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (FCAATSI) organised a petition calling for a referendum on the Constitution. These sections meant that First Nations people were not recognised as part of the Australian population and that the states were in charge of policy-making for the community.   In response to this petition, the Holt Government introduced the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Bill 1967 to Parliament. The legislation was passed unanimously, and finally, a referendum was announced.   On May 27, 1967, Australia’s most successful referendum saw more than 90 percent of Australians vote to give the Australian government power to make laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and recognise them in the Census. We remember past injustices and racist policies the profession of social work has been involved in, and we continuously learn and grow from this history to foster meaningful relationships that embody respect, honesty, the right to self-determination, transparency and knowledge-sharing with both our First Nations people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The AASW vision for reconciliation is one where all Australians hear and learn the truth of our past and work in the present to progress a just society that represents all of us. Picture: Jessie Street's handwritten draft petition called for amendments to the Australian Constitution (1957). see here: https://lnkd.in/gQm9NAWH

ACCEPT RESPONSIBLITY FOR DEFEAT, DON'T BLAME OTHERS Whilst the emphatic defeat of the Yes option in the 2023 referendum continues to be viewed as disappointing, there needs to be deeper consideration and acknowledgement of the actual reasons why it failed. Yes campaign architect, Pofessor Megan Davis, The Australian, 12/10/24, "Outlaw 'Trumpian lies' : voice leader", in supporting proposed misinformation legislation, in order to protect a future referendum from lies and distortions, incorrectly asserts that this was the only reason for its defeat, and refuses to accept reality. The process for setting up the referendum was flawed from the beginning, with well established guidelines and procedures, either ignored or given minimal consideration. The opportunity to present a bi-partisan and united campaign to support the Yes campaign was denied, when essential and necessary clarification of aspects and specific details about the question were not provided. Rather than the result being viewed as a repudiation of the urgent and necessary actions required to address indigenous disadvantage, it should be accepted and acknowledged that Australians were being asked to take a leap of faith on an open-ended question, lacking in specific detail and clarity, something which 60.6% of Australians were not prepared to do. The referendums defeat is the sole responsiblity of Yes Campaigners and their failure to persuade Australians to support it.