Dr O'SHANE - Last week I was saying on a number of occasions that, even if we make little or no progress on the form of a republic, we must make use of this occasion to change the preamble to our Constitution. I sit on the platform of `A Just Republic - not just a republic' which included the planks that there be a change of the preamble; that there be written into our Constitution a charter of rights; and that there be a very clear statement of definition of the respective roles, functions and responsibilities of the head of state, Prime Minister and cabinet, and of the responsibility of government to parliament.

I have changed my position somewhat on the issue of the preamble. It seems to me that there is really no point in changing a preamble if we are not going to change the Constitution to make it a Constitution which serves a democratic republic of Australia.

The agreement on the wording of a new preamble is the least achievement we should show to our fellow citizens. However, the language and concepts embodied in our national documents should not be exempted from scrutiny. It is true that they have historical worth. I would not put it as high as a number of my fellow delegates have put it, but in any event those words as a preamble are not beyond review and renegotiation.

The two primary rebuttals mounted against any change to the preamble tend to be, `If it ain't broke, don't fix it,' and, `It's so perfect it doesn't need change.' Frankly, I see nothing approaching perfection about these words:

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania . . . have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland . . . 

The words are dull and lacklustre. I put it to you that, in the Australia that is entering the second millennium, they are utterly meaningless. Instead of something that encapsulates our history they are words that point to one moment in time.

Australian history, let me remind you, is many tens of thousands of years older than that paltry, miserly reference allows. As Dr Lois O'Donoghue pointed out last week, there is much about our recent history that is not worthy of celebration. And the claims that the so-called perfection of the Constitution has given us a stable democracy tend to highlight the fact that a Constitution as colourless and as bureaucratic as ours will always be the plaything of the oligarchy rather than the instrument of the people. As a nation we must take the opportunity to reflect on our history and public institutions and to consider the benefits of change, especially if there are reasons to be less than proud about what they represent.

I am willing to agree that the existing Constitution has served a purpose, but that purpose was very specific and has long since been superseded. As it stands, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia merely sets out the terms under which the British parliament confers its consent to the Australian colonies to form a federation. The only references to the people - you, me and all of our fellow Australian citizens - occurs in descriptions of our responsibilities as electors within the states and does not spell out what are the consequences of our responsibilities as electors within the states.

Much of the document is taken up with definitions of procedures between the states and Commonwealth. As I said a moment ago, in my view we have to spell out in the Constitution the respective roles, functions and powers of the Prime Minister and cabinet and government to parliament. Amongst the pages and pages of text about trade between the states, taxation and the powers of executive government, there is reference to only one specific personal right - the promise in section 116 that the Commonwealth will not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. However, there is no reference to what the Commonwealth will do if any state attempts to prohibit free exercise of religion.

Otherwise the Constitution offers very little to individuals, other than promising the right to vote for federal parliamentarians and offering protection to irrigators from federal control of water supplies. Perhaps we are content to identify ourselves as a community of enthusiastic voters practising an unfettered array of cults whilst filling oversized swimming pools. But that is not what I am looking for as my national identity. (Extension of time granted)

There is nothing in the Constitution implied or otherwise about who we are as a nation and what our aspirations are. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes reference to the true history of Australia, including our indigenous heritage. I do not understand how people can argue against including in the preamble some words that establish achievable national goals; words that we might take pride in learning to recite in school and words that resonate with a power and a promise.

I want to read to you some of the words which I believe would give us a sense of identity and encapsulate our national vision. Why not say, `Australians affirm their Constitution as the foundation for their commitment to and their aspiration for democratic government'? Why not say, `Our nation dedicates itself to a responsible and representative system of government that is inclusive of all its peoples, upholds fundamental human rights, respects diversity and spiritual wealth and ensures full participation in its social, cultural and economic life'?

This encapsulates our national vision. This is something meaningful for young Australians to learn and respect. This preamble implies as much protection for the rest of us as it does for cult worshipping irrigators. Instead of having:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,. . . 

why not have:

Australia recognises Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders as its indigenous peoples with continuing rights by virtue of that status. We seek a united Australia that respects and protects the land and the indigenous heritage values and cultures of its peoples and provides justice and equity for all. We, the peoples of Australia, give ourselves this Constitution.

In this way we take charge of our destiny. We can decide for ourselves what rights should be enshrined in our Constitution. This is something we can act on here and now and resolve by the end of this Convention.

I must say that I am very encouraged by the fact that the people opposing a republic have shown their willingness to consider a preamble that recognises indigenous Australians. We have to go further than that, as I said at the outset of this contribution. Delegates from A Just Republic have prepared a preamble that includes in a few concise sentences all of these points that I have been speaking about and I recommend them for your earnest consideration.

Mr CLEARY - What has been intriguing about this gathering over six days is the diversity of the people represented in this chamber. It is not like this in the federal parliament up the hill. Up the hill it is a branch stacked parliament. You could say a lot more about it, but there is no point talking about it right now. But here all sorts of people have found their way into the chamber to talk about Australia. There is a great irony in it as well, for behind the banner of republicanism what has been forgotten is that international forces are growing with such power that the very republic being proposed will be a republic in name.

The paradox is that the Bruce Ruxtons of the world represent and talk about a particular world, a particular Australia, and actually believe in it. But they think that hanging on to the past will protect them. The reality is that that past also is being threatened severely by these international factors. Just at the moment in the OECD there is a bit of legislation, the multilateral agreement on investment. It is being discussed at this present time by 29 OECD countries. For the people here who represent law and talk about the traditions of the past and value the Crown, how do you feel about handing over power to a group of multinational companies which will not be beholden to the laws of the land?

That takes me to this very issue of the preamble. The preamble is a chance to say something about who we are and what we value. It is a chance to say what kind of traditions we want to embody as we move into this republic. It gives you a chance then to talk about whether you want to hand over power to multinational companies, as is being proposed at this time in the OECD. The people in the gallery should realise that, under the models being proposed at the moment and under the preamble suggested, you are not going to be talked about. Professor Craven is happy to affirm the role of the Crown in Australia's history. But he does not affirm the role of the people. He does not affirm the role of Professor Geoffrey Blainey's miners. He does not affirm the role of any workers - not the Kanakas, not immigrant peoples; they do not get a gig in Professor Craven's history.

Professor Craven, under the smokescreen of constitutional law, wants to rule out the contributions of real people. He wants to wipe out anyone's history that is not his own. There are expressions like `appropriate statements of acknowledged historical fact'. What does that mean? Terra nullius. Yes, we will take Professor Craven's expressions; we will put them into the preamble. `Appropriate statements of acknowledged historical fact' - yes, we will go via the High Court. What has the High Court said in Mabo and in Wik? It has said that the Aboriginal people have rights. Yes, we will put that into the Constitution; thank you, Professor Craven.

As for spiritual beliefs, Professor Craven says, `No abstract values.' You do not get a more abstract value than the concept of god. I am not deriding the concept of god. That is its beauty, Archbishop. Its beauty is that it is an abstraction and we seek out abstractions in our life, because abstractions actually develop our imagination; they can inspire us. A boring little technical legal preamble will be a destructive force.

Right now we must grasp this challenge. Why is it so difficult to actually say things about who we are in a preamble? It is usually these older wise men over here - I use that term advisedly; I will get to the women in a second - who are clinging to the past, and they keep telling us to suppress the young ideas. Yet, if I sit down on the bus with Don Chipp, I think, `Isn't it intriguing that Don Chipp represents particular aspects of Australia that I would like to enshrine in a preamble.' I talk to Professor Geoffrey Blainey about the history of our workers, the contribution of miners and shearers and the like. I do not understand why we cannot grapple with these things.

I go back to that point I make about Professor Craven's suggested amendments to the preamble. They are nothing more than a technical ruse to suppress other people's view of history, and views of history that have been affirmed by the High Court. We worked on one of these preambles - subgroup (iv). It says many good things about who we are. It also says that we should seek mutually cooperative relations with our neighbours. I think we must put that in our preamble, especially given this legislation that could pass through the OECD which I am sure, Mr Deputy Chairman, you could not possibly endorse and nor could the royalists, loyalists, unionists or whatever you want to call yourselves to the left over there endorse it also.

Mrs MILNE - The preamble should be totally rewritten and a bill of rights and responsibilities should be incorporated into the Constitution at the same time so that the preamble states the principles and aspirations of the republic and the bill of rights and responsibilities spells out in very specific terms what is legally enforceable in a democratic republic of Australia. If people do not want a bill of rights, the preamble will be subject to the composition, discretion and scrutiny of the High Court. To have no bill of rights and to give the preamble no legal value as an interpretation document is the worst possible outcome for us since it leaves our citizens with no option but to go to the United Nations in Geneva to uphold human rights in Australia.

We have to face the fact that our existing preamble and Constitution do not protect human rights in Australia. I do not want to build on the existing preamble because its language is meaningless to most Australians and it is alienating. Its sentiments, whilst reflecting the values of 1901, certainly do not represent the sentiments, hopes and aspirations of Australians today. It contains no inspirational flourishes or appeals to individual liberty. It is dry and measured and all it says as being the unifying features of federation are that we are loyal to the Crown, that we believe in God and that there was a shared need for unity for white Australia.

The existing preamble does not express the sovereignty of the Australian people as an independent nation and the words `under the Crown' are obsolete in the move to a republic. As a statement, it is also historically wrong. I take Dr Mitchell to task in that regard. It is historically wrong because the preamble indicates the agreement of the people of Australia to federation yet, as we know, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were not consulted and did not give their consent to federation. Furthermore, except for the colonies of South Australia and Western Australia, women were unable to vote in federation referendum. Whilst racism and sexism reflected the spirit of the age at the time of Federation, they are unacceptable as a fundamental constitutional principle in the 21st century.

To try to cut and shut the existing words, which is being talked about here in the context of building on the existing preamble, will not inspire the nation and it will not be a source of national reflection and collective wisdom. There is a strong argument that a new preamble that is both poetic and pragmatic and a concise, lucid and memorable articulation of the democratic principles, aspirations and common values for which we stand, would also help to elevate the status of an Australian head of state who would embody for all Australians those ideals set out in the preamble for the Australian people.

Any new republic must also address the issue of Aboriginal reconciliation. It must acknowledge indigenous people as the first Australians, tell of their dispossession of traditional land, of their never having ceded ownership of it and recognition of their special cultural status. The preamble must also equip Australia to go into the new millennium with a clear statement of their commitment to the protection of the environment. Respect for the land is a strong unifying force and a shared value for the next millennium, which will be the age of ecology.

But I must also raise the issue of the relationship between the preamble and the bill of rights.Why didn't we have a bill of rights in 1901? Theoretically because the founding fathers preferred to believe in the common law, the good sense of parliament, the convention and the gentlemanly traditions of utilitarian political culture as being sufficient to protect individual rights and freedoms in Australia. The truth is that the delegates at that time were aware that the acceptance of a bill of rights would threaten the legitimacy of existing colonial legislation which discriminated against the Chinese.

Federation was contingent upon racial discrimination in Australia. White Australia would not have voted for Federation if the Constitution had included a bill of rights. I dispute the legal argument about the preamble and the bill of rights. I believe it is not beyond our legal brains to overcome that. The critical thing is to link the two.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - We can just get through the speakers on the list if we do not have extensions of time. So the chair will not entertain any extensions of time.

Dr CLEM JONES - Delegates, I will be very brief. What has just been said by the three previous speakers very much outlines my personal views on this matter. I believe also that verbosity in a preamble is undesirable because it encourages misunderstandings and misinterpretations as the years go by. I believe we want a succinct statement which involves all people, all creeds and all wishes and desires.

To that end, I foreshadow an amendment which I will move in due course, and the aim is to incorporate the existing situation and the three fringe areas of the debate we have had during the last six days - local government, the place and rights of women in our community and our indigenous people. I believe the preamble should state:

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which will consist of the President, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament", or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth". The three levels of Government shall be the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Parliaments of the Sovereign States and internal Territories and Local Government.

It is very important, I believe, to note `and local government' - something which we have been talking about for a long time and which we have never done anything about. I continue:

Australia recognises that gender equities shall be recognised in all processes of change, including constitutional changes -

and that provides to involve all of us in the future changes of the Constitution -

so as to promote woman's equality in society to ensure social cohesion, political stability and promotion of its democratic culture.

Australia recognises Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders as its indigenous people and dedicates itself to a responsible and representative system of government that is inclusive of all its people, upholding fundamental human rights, and ensures participation of all its people in its social, cultural and economic life.

We believe that most of what has been said here today is included succinctly in that preamble. In due course, I will move that amendment.

Dr SHEIL - I am rather attracted to the warnings that were given to all four committees by the parliamentary and constitutional counsels that advised them, and that was not to have too diffuse a wording to the preamble of the Constitution. If you make it diffuse it could be confusing and then it could lend itself to interpretation by judges that could be unworldly. I see that as a big danger. I do not think we should have any racial minority enshrined in the Constitution because it could have an adverse effect on, for example, the reconciliation process that Aborigines and whites want. If you enshrine somebody in the Constitution it could drive a bigger wedge between us all than already exists.

As I pointed out the other day - for example, with the Aborigines - Aborigines were not left off the federal rolls at Federation through any sense that they were in any way inferior. The federal government was the creation of the state governments and the only income that it was given was one-quarter of tariff collections. As Aborigines had nothing to do with tariff collections, it was thought that the federal government should not be able to pass restrictive laws about them. A section was put into the Constitution especially so that the federal government could pass restrictive legislation on certain racial minorities: the Afghans, the Japanese pearl and trochus shell divers, the Kanakas, the Chinese in the goldfields - all these people that were felt may need restrictions on their movements or occupations. So the federal government was given the opportunity to pass those laws, but the Aborigines were specifically excluded from that. So really it was a protection for Aborigines that they were left off the federal rolls and fully entitled, like the rest of us, to the state rolls.

Then in 1967 I think there was a greater rapprochement between the people and the Aborigines than a lot of people realise. In 1967 the people voted in a referendum for unity with the Aborigines, not for the splits that have occurred since. The splits, of course, have been caused by successive federal governments and successive High Courts. In fact, there is great enmity now not only between different sections of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders but between them and the Australian people themselves. I think we should put more faith in the Australian people and the Aborigines and get us back together again, because now we are in court and fighting each other. All the Aborigines want to do is talk to us and come to some arrangement that is agreeable and accommodating, but they cannot because we have been forced into courts. I think we should get back and maybe even have a referendum on the matter so we can get back to the Aborigines and talk to them.

Concerning local government, local government is of course the instrument of the state governments. I can understand how they want to bypass the state governments and get their noses in the federal trough. It sounds very nice and very easy. I remember that the Whitlam government's plan was to get rid of the states, bypass them, have areas of regional development with all the strings tied to Canberra. I think that would be a backward step.

In the matter of human rights, the men that wrote those undying words - that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - owned slaves. They did not count blacks or women, and the legacy has come back to haunt them. If you have a bill of rights, you immediately limit rights because everything that is not in the bill is no longer your right. This could happen in Australia if you persist with having a bill of rights. There are about three ways you can get rights. The Russian way says that you have the right to this, that and the other thing provided you do not break any law. Then they pass laws so that you are effectively robbed of the right. You might think you have the ability to think your own thoughts but you have not. They can tell from what you read or what theatre you go to and lots of ways whether you are thinking subversive thoughts. The American way is to say that you have the right to all these things and no law shall be passed to interfere with those rights, and they have the right to carry guns. They have a gun society that is sunk in litigation, and that is not the sort of thing we want here in Australia.

Reverend TIM COSTELLO - There have been a lot of very memorable metaphors for the preamble. Mary Delahunty spoke of its being a doormat and there have been a number of other images. I think the preamble is the door through which we as Australians enter into what is the most important moral charter between government and the people, which is our Constitution. Some, particularly and most notably Professor Craven, are worried about what goes in here, saying that if there are abstract values like equality, democracy and rights then we only have very vague statements, and vague statements become really dangerous, even poisonous - words that, according to his understanding of biology, and I defer to him on this, are a lymph gland pumping these poisons through the body of the Constitution will actually cause all sorts of terrible problems to occur in the future - and therefore we should be aware of the idealists and their explicit values.

There is absolutely no way of escaping values in the preamble. Whether they are explicit or silent, they are there. In the present preamble that we are considering amending the values are very clear. They scream out loudly. The ones that scream most defiantly and loudly are the ones that have been omitted, particularly the omission of reference to the indigenous people. It is a statement of values of white Australia, a statement of history as it was understood - even though wrongly - in those times, but we want to move on from there and declare as not our times when this debate is taking place.

When you look at the present preamble, the statement of values starts with `Whereas the people . . . ' So it starts with a very strong notion of sovereignty and democracy sheeting home to people. Then it states the spiritual values with `. . . humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God . . . ' There has been quite a lot of debate about that, but I think that is a very refreshing value, particularly if we find a way of wording it which means students can appeal to their spiritual resources. In the face of crass materialism, oppressive materialism and everyone talking about the bottom line - as if that only ever can mean an economic bottom line - the value of referring to God, to spiritual reality, says that as Australians we affirm there are things much more fundamental, that there is a dimension of life much more life-giving than simply the values that seem to be so dominant with the advertisers and mind benders today.

The present preamble says, `have agreed to unite' - that refers to the colonies uniting with a central government. That is an important value but not as significant today in 1998. We have values that say that what unites us is a common story. States and nation yes, but more particularly our story is European settlement in the midst of a culture that has existed for 40,000 years. Therefore, we feel proud to be living among one of the most ancient, enduring civilisations on earth. That value is our common story - European settlement in the midst of that ancient culture. There is the value of being the only nation with a whole continent to care for environmentally; the value of stewardship which is critical in our times.

Our agreement to unite is not simply to get an administrative document, as our present Constitution is, and doing deals with the states and giving them certain powers, particularly in the Senate so that the states will come in. It is actually the union around values that are very deep with most of us. The value of a fair go is a very profound statement in a globalised society which says that we will continue rewarding winners and the same people will be winning and the same people will be losing. Our value of a fair go rejects that.

Finally, the values in our present preamble say that `it is expedient to provide'. It goes on to talk about some pragmatic values which is rather like what we are doing over these two weeks. We have to practically arrive at a settlement, but it is the interplay between that expedience and those values which are our common story which is fundamental to a preamble setting up a moral charter - inviting people and their rights and concerns into the Constitution and not just the rights of a central government and the states which make up the bulk of our present Constitution. Therefore, I support the ATSIC preamble, which I think does the best in involving environment, the indigenous people, human rights, our diversity and our common story of European settlement in this ancient country.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA - I will address as best I can the issues that have been raised in the working groups in relation to a new preamble. I belong to a political party that supports broader constitutional reform. We see this debate, the republican debate, as a wonderful opportunity to realistically and bravely appraise our current structures and our parliament. We have long supported a new preamble.

I think the republican debate enables us to craft a preamble that reflects modern Australia - one which, without denying our past, embodies our current, our present, aspirations for the future. With all due respect to Professor Craven, I was stunned when I saw point 5 of his amendment, which suggests the preamble should not contain statements of abstract values or rights such as equality and democracy. Since when are rights abstract? Surely democracy, equality and rights are the very things we should seek to prescribe, to enshrine, in our Constitution and indeed in our preamble.

With respect to an earlier speaker, this is not about enshrining the rights of minorities. This is about celebrating our uniquely multicultural and diverse nation. We must use this opportunity to consolidate our multicultural heritage and the generous diverse nation that we now are.

Of course, any new preamble must include recognition of prior ownership by indigenous Australians. Any meaningful republican debate has to discuss how we achieve reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.

I agree with other members who have spoken here today about a vision of a fairer society, and a new preamble must be a greener one as well. We must put into our preamble the fact that we cherish, that we love, the great sky and land and sea of this great nation. Let us put that in our preamble.

I notice that people have sought to enshrine the flag in our preamble. I make a point on behalf of my party that we strongly believe that our flag should not be changed without popular support, and that means a referendum. The Australian Democrats are committed to that position, but do you put it in the preamble? I throw that back to the movers of that amendment and leave it up to them and legal advice as to whether or not that is the best way to proceed.

I have no problem with recognising the role of our country in the Commonwealth. In fact, I think most people here share a desire that we act as a member of a family of nations with cultural make-ups as diverse as our own who are dedicated to the wellbeing of this planet.

Mary, I enjoyed your colourful language, too. I do agree with you. I would like a preamble in our Constitution to include concepts of active citizenship and involvement. It should be a sexy issue. I think this Convention has invigorated debates around the pubs, clubs, school rooms and workplaces of people in Australia. I love Mark Warren's comments from McFeast when he said, `Let's put the pub back in republic.' That is happening - I truly believe that.

On a more serious note, I recommend those marvellously modern constitutions from places like Namibia and South Africa, to which many members of this Convention have referred - the fact that they recognise past injustice, they celebrate their present diversity and they also put in their aspirations for unity and for peace. Professor Craven said that the difficulty in enshrining some of these aspirations was like flying to the moon. Well, Professor Craven, I want to fly to the moon. We can fly to the moon. It is difficult and we know that, but it is worth it. I want a preamble and a constitution that reflect the aspirations, the desires and the truths - all those feelings that we cherish, all those things that Australians hold dear.

Ms HANDSHIN - Former Chief Judge of the Family Court Elizabeth Evatt commented that it is hard to see that a document framed 100 years ago for the circumstances of the end of the last century could be making a statement that is valid for Australians in the 1990s. A Constitution which is valid for Australians must reflect the realities of our nation and people today.

If the Constitution is to become a more relevant document which fulfils the symbolic function of drawing the people together, then it must attend to two main issues. As the operating manual for our nation, the Constitution must enumerate the actualities of our present system, and it must do so in a language which makes it both comprehensible and accessible to the people for whom it is written. Secondly, and most importantly, it must redress the inequities it currently perpetuates.

The exclusivity of the group of citizens who founded the document is reflected in the narrow parameters of the preamble. If the Constitution is the technical document, then the preamble must be the vision statement. I believe that the preamble can and must play a role in drawing the people to the Constitution.

Among recommendations emerging from the Adelaide Federation Centenary Convention of 1997, of which I was a member, is that a new preamble should reflect the core principles of our nation. It should be aspirational, inclusive and adopting a collective `we, the people' approach. The preamble should support values of democracy, equality, cultural diversity, recognition of the prior occupation and rights of indigenous Australians, a commitment to environmental responsibility, and it should contain an assertion of our independence. It is important that the preamble acknowledge the past, articulate the present and display our intention to embrace the future.

Finally, the task of making the Constitution more accessible lies not only in its revised content but also in the projection of this document to the people. People must be educated about the Constitution and imbued with a sense of pride in and ownership for the document. The fact that the Constitution can be a more relevant and, hence, unifying document is exciting to me as a young person. Let us not squander this remarkable opportunity. We should accept this challenge and reinvigorate the national narrative.

CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much, Mia.

Ms SCHUBERT - One of the pieces of insider wisdom that I have listened to in the last six months of debate about constitutional reform particularly has run a little something like this: we shouldn't change our preamble because, if we tried to enshrine the values and the aspirations of today's community, we might fearfully enshrine the prejudices of an era. What would have happened, these commentators say, if those federators had enshrined their values in the Constitution?

Although the preamble of our existing Constitution does not specifically state their values, the rest of that document does, unequivocally. It does bespeak a nation racist in its outlook. It does bespeak a nation colonial in its practice. And it does bespeak a nation intent on preserving an Anglo heritage above the racial contributions and the cultural contributions of many other peoples who have later come to this nation and made it the rich melting pot of cultural diversity that we own and cherish today.

I think we need and must make a statement in our new Constitution - because we will have one - about the kind of society in which we live and the kind of society we want to be. I think there are overarching perennial values, if you like, that can be safely enshrined: a commitment to those values of democracy, tolerance, the good old Australian fair go, which are not prescriptive or dangerous but which are actually the tools for unifying a nation and for building a sense of self in clearly articulated terms.

Inspirational preambles tell us something of ourselves. They are a place for history and a place for aspiration. They are a place to affirm our sovereignty and to articulate the broad aspirations of a community. A new preamble offers us the chance to strengthen ownership of our Constitution by enhancing its accessibility, its relevance and its resonance.

Also, I cannot agree with the suggestion by Professor Craven - and I fear that he has taken a pretty great beating this morning in the comments of many delegates - that a new preamble should build upon the existing one. Should Australians adopt a new statement, the older version would remain as a matter of historic record - it does not need a second coming. Its retention or that of its language lacks imagination. Instead, I argue that we must use clear, plain language to articulate the common ground of a contemporary community.

We should cite the aspirations which provide a framework for our federal republic: the pursuit of democratic, representative and responsible government in the context of participatory and inclusive political structures. We should cite the overarching, timeless principles of justice and equality and of the fundamental human rights of all of our citizens. We should cite the status of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders as those of Australia's first peoples, recognising their prior occupation, ownership and sovereignty. We should cite our cultural diversity as unique and valuable to our nationhood. We should cite our commitment to the wise management of our natural environment. We should cite our responsibilities to future generations, conscious of the impact of day-to-day decision making in the broader big picture. And we must cite that the authority for constitutional government flows from the Australian people.

Mr ELLIOTT - There is no question that the preamble to the Constitution needs to be reformed. Some parts are quite easy: the historical updates for the inclusion of Western Australia and to make sure the Northern Territory is also acknowledged, and the need to make a correction, long overdue, in a recognition of the prior occupation of Australia. But it is also important that a statement be made of values and aspirations.

I am not fearful of the legal implications. It does not mean I treat them lightly; it simply means we should take care with the words that we choose, and we should clearly state what we intend and what we want. It has been put by others that courts should be explicitly instructed within the Constitution, though I suggest not within the preamble. The preamble should not be used for purposes of legal interpretation. For those who are nervous about legal interpretation, I suppose that offers a safe way out. But I do say: let us be proud of the Constitution and place within the preamble a statement that engenders pride.

I note that subgroup (iii) raise the question as to whether or not there should be one question put to people or two questions. Do we simply ask a question about the republic and include within that the question of changes to the preamble or do we ask one question about the republic and a second question about the preamble? I would tend to opt for the latter course.

We know that changes to the Constitution have failed because of opponents grabbing every opportunity to misinform and to strike fear into people's hearts. I think the sorts of arguments that we have heard from Professor Craven will be used to frighten people away from the question of the republic. In the process, we may lose the important changes that we lose in the preamble as well.

I do think that there is strong support for changes to the preamble. If we put the question separately, the likely outcome is that the chances of both getting changes to the preamble and getting the republic will be enhanced. For that reason I believe there should be two questions put and not one. Section 92 on interstate trade may be of value to people, but let us give them something that really excites them - and let us fix up the preamble.

Mr LI - Young Australians know, in general, very little if anything about our Constitution. It was only at constitutional law lectures at Sydney University that I began to take a real interest in this remarkable and fundamental document. I would like to see our Constitution taught to our school children in their classes. It is our basic document: it describes who we are, how our nation was formed, how it has developed and where we want to go with our nation in the next century. Yet the actual provisions of the Constitution are too complex and too legalistic to be taught in schools.

This is where the preamble has the potential to serve as an inspiring piece of writing, uniting all our young Australians under a common national purpose and common identity. In the United States of America young Americans may be united by the words `We the people'. In France the hearts of the young are moved by fundamental principles of the French republic: liberty, equality, fraternity. In Australia let us allow our young Australians to be moved, inspired, educated and united by a preamble which is accessible to them.

A member of the public has sent me a preamble which strikes me as the sort of preamble which has the potential to do all of these things. Allow me to read selectively from it. Bear in mind the potential of these words to educate, to inspire and to unite school children. It reads:

Before the people of Australia was the land.

And the land was the Dreaming.

And we the indigenous people known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders came to the land and it possessed us as its ancient power possesses all who live here.

And we, the Australians who came after, acknowledge our debt to the first inhabitants for teaching us that we do not, in spirit, own the land but are owned by it.

. . . . . . . . .

Together we declare that Australians are people of many races from around the world, that we celebrate our diversity and welcome all those who are prepared to live in peace and harmony with us, respecting the values of tolerance and equality and a `fair go' for all, without discrimination against any person on the grounds of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation, age or disability.

. . . . . . . . .

We value achievement in the arts and sciences, in business and in sport and aspire to excellence in all our endeavours be they physical, spiritual, mental or intellectual, scientific or cultural.

Recognising the constitutional legacy derived from Great Britain through the successful establishment of a democratic nation in this continent, we recommit ourselves to the principles of universal suffrage based on one vote for each adult citizen and hereby assert that the rule of law and equal civil, legal and political rights and responsibilities are fundamental to Australian society.

. . . . . . . . .

. . .. we the citizens of Australia humbly relying on Almighty God are united in one indissoluble federal Commonwealth which derives its power and value from our consent to such unity and from these fundamental beliefs that we share.

Mr WEBSTER - Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important working group report. I was on Working Group No. (ii), which was dealing with the whole concept of Almighty God in the preamble. It is very encouraging to hear, today and on previous days, people speaking in a commendable way to include the whole concept of `humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God' in our preamble.

I think it was Janet Holmes a Court who asked a question on Friday with regard to how this would sit with Buddhists and Muslims and other people. I had the opportunity during my life in the other parliament on the hill to speak to the Dalai Lama, for example. Somebody said that Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in Australia today. I asked the Dalai Lama about this concept of Almighty God and he said, `At the end of the day it is the same supreme being.' Those were his words.

Just a couple of weeks ago, somebody else said that the Islamic faith was the fastest growing faith in Australia. I was getting a suit dry-cleaned at the Springwood dry-cleaners where my dry-cleaner is Bill, a very strict Moslem. It was unusual for me to be getting my suits dry-cleaned again because I had not been doing that for a few years. Bill said, `Are you off to Canberra again?' I said, `Yes.' He said, `What are you doing?' I said, `I'm on the Constitutional Convention as a delegate.' He said, `Oh, yes. What are you going to do down there?' I said, `Well, one of the things that I am going to be advocating is that we make sure that humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God remains in our preamble, because there are moves from some quarters to have it removed.'

What happened then was an explosion, as he jumped in the air, banged his ironing machine and steam went in all directions. He said, `How dare they take Almighty God from the Constitution. You tell them from Bill the dry-cleaner' - as he kept banging his steamer - `your Moslem friend in Springwood, that I will be down to see them.' Through the cloud of steam, I could see this name `Salman Rushdie'. I do not know why that flashed into my mind. I said to him, just to calm him down, `Look, Bill, don't get steamed up. I'll go down and press your point and iron out the problem.' So I am here to say that the members of the Islamic faith, I am sure, do not have any problems with the whole concept of Almighty God.

I have sat down in creek beds with Aboriginal leaders; I know many of them. I know that, when they talk of the great creator and the great spirit, they too equate in a measure - some varying degrees of measure, I suppose - with the Christian concept of Almighty God. The Jewish people expressed their view in the 1890s when it was proposed on the first occasion, and they agreed that the concept of Almighty God, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, would be quite acceptable to them. Those who have atheistic views do not believe it whether it is in or out of there, so it does not make any difference.

So, Mr Chairman, I just thought I would bring these thoughts to the Convention with regard to perhaps alleviating some of the concerns that some people might have about including such a statement as `humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God' in our preamble. I commend to all delegates that we leave it there just as it is.

Mr DJERRKURA - Mr Chairman and delegates, I certainly do not want to confuse the House again with any outburst of my own language, since I have a mission to reach compromise and common ground with my Australian colleagues. We are looking to a new vision, a new direction, a new commitment that will bring out the spirit of the Australian nation united in reconciliation. It is time to reflect what we believe to be our new nation's values and give clear direction to governments.

A new preamble must recognise Australia's history - and Australia's indigenous people are part of that history. Recognition of basic human rights for all citizens and respect for cultural diversity are qualities that a good constitutional preamble must contain; the current preamble does not contain them. This is a very powerful opportunity for a new preamble to become a symbol of reconciliation.

Some people have argued that we should not specify individual groups. But, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, being invisible in a document that defines our nation means being invisible in the political landscape of our nation. This has been our experience, and it is not something we want to continue. For us, the implications of no change are unacceptable.

The ATSIC proposal for a new preamble reflects ideals and includes truly representative and responsible government that is inclusive of all its peoples; upholds fundamental human rights, diversity and participation; recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the rights due to indigenous peoples; respects this great land of ours and our cultural inheritance; commits us to justice and equity; and derives its authority from all Australians.

For these reasons I seek your support for the following text, which is only slightly different to the text that ATSIC circulated last week:

Australians affirm their Constitution as the foundation of their commitment to, and their aspirations for, constitutional government.

Our nation dedicates itself to a reasonable and representative system of government that is inclusive of all its peoples, upholds fundamental human rights, respects and cherishes diversity and ensures full participation in its social, cultural and economic life.

Australia recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as its indigenous peoples with continuing rights by virtue of that status.

We seek a united Australia that respects and protects the land and the environment, including the indigenous heritage and the values and cultures of its people, and provides justice and equity for all people.

We the people of Australia give ourselves this Constitution.

CHAIRMAN - Could I point out that if there are amendments such as that identified by Mr Djerrkura it might be advisable to table them as an amendment that can be considered during our voting process this afternoon.

Mr BEANLAND - Delegates, in looking at the preamble I think it is fair to say that in a republic a preamble needs be inspirational, needs to be visionary, needs to give hope. But, having said that, we must be careful in the way we word that preamble because it is a most significant part of the Constitution. One of the former speakers, I think, said that perhaps we ought to include something in the Constitution to clearly spell out to our judicial officers in the courts of this land that the preamble is not to be used in making judicial decisions.

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, our judicial officers these days more and more, in some courts at least, seem to want to be legislators, not just mere interpreters of the law laid down by the parliaments. So this is a very significant issue. I notice that Professor Craven has received some criticism for the comments he has made in relation to this. Nevertheless, some of the points he made I totally agree with. The fact is that it is happening more and more.

I appreciate that delegates might want to have a citizens' bill of rights. Sure, if we want it, we put it into the Constitution, and we spell it out in the Constitution so that, when we come to the citizens' bill of rights and people want to relate to it and refer to it, there it is spelt out in some detail. I think it would be quite unwise to have some vague, abstract term simply within the preamble and not go on to spell it out in detail.

I suppose what I am saying in relation to this and to other matters that I will refer to in a moment is that a great deal more work needs to be done on the preamble other than that which we are putting into the preamble over a few days at this Convention. There are months and months of work. Someone referred to the United States' preamble to its Constitution. Of course, that was done over many months indeed, as were the preambles to other nations' constitutions. It is not something to be arrived at in a few minutes. It must be succinct, it must be visionary, it must show hope and it must be long-term. I totally disagree with those who say that it must relate to contemporary society. It must be for the future. It must be all-encompassing. After all, we must not forget, as was said previously, that the current Constitution has lasted on nigh on 100 years. I am sure that the work we are doing here we expect to last in the long term - hopefully for another century, or maybe longer.

Aspirational? Sure, but let us be succinct about it. Let us say what we want to say. I totally agree we have to relate to, and put reference in the preamble to, the indigenous people and certainly to God, and I am pleased to see that is being put back in. There are other areas. Someone mentioned local government. I think we need to have more debate as to whether we should put local government in the preamble or whether it should be spelt out somewhere else. These are issues fundamental to the Constitution but they are receiving but a few moments of attention on the stage of history as people get up and discuss it today.

No doubt we will have a vote at some later stage in relation to it when we come to all of the amendments. Yet I put it to delegates that, having read through the amendments and clauses I have seen to date, I find none of them - with respect - is that inspirational, none of them shows that hope and vision for the future, and none of them covers the aspects that we need to cover. They are all going to end up far too wordy; no-one will remember them or recite them. The great works of history show they do have to be succinct if they are going to be remembered, if they are going to be useful and if they are going to be inspirational and visionary.

So I believe that, if we are going to spell out details in the preamble, certainly we will have to spell out in the Constitution that the judiciary cannot be referring to the preamble and start using it in judicial decisions. As for the more important and detailed issues, particularly a Bill of Rights and a republic, people want them and I totally agree they should be spelt out. They need to be spelt out in the body of the Constitution itself.

There are no short cuts to preparing this nation for a republic. I am shocked to hear that some people around this room seem to think there is some short cut, who seem to think it can be done in five minutes and who seem to have the view that what is needed is some sort of minor touch-up job here and there. It requires a great deal of effort and energy on so many aspects, so many parts of our Constitution in areas that we do not already cover. I implore delegates to be very careful in this area and to send it off to a working party over coming weeks and months for the work and effort that needs to be put into it.

Brigadier GARLAND - Legal advice given to me is that, whilst section 128 of the Constitution most certainly can be used to amend the Constitution as such, it cannot be used to amend or delete the covering clauses, that is, clauses one to eight, nor the preamble. This is the proposal which was put to you by Dr David Mitchell this morning. My advice is separate to his.

It seems to me that, at this stage of the game, trying to amend the preamble to our current Constitution would be akin to a parliament trying to amend a minister's second reading speech on any bill or act that was eventually enacted into law which was 20 years old. It seems to me that we are at cross-purposes when we start talking about changing the preamble.

I personally believe that the rights of Aboriginals ought to be included in the Constitution. Indeed, over my years of service I have had many Aboriginals and also members from the Torres Strait islands serve with me and for me, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that they have been magnificent soldiers and, what is more, even greater Australians. But I do not believe that any preamble will cover the sorts of things which the Aboriginal community wants.

Most certainly, put it into the Constitution but do not let us worry about putting it into the preamble. Let us make it a section of the Constitution and then there can be no doubt exactly what we are talking about. As for what is in the preamble, do judges take any notice of it or don't they? Mr Beanland has covered that and I will not go into that, but if it is in the Constitution they most certainly have to take notice of what is there.

I am also of the opinion that national symbols - things like the flag, the coat of arms, et cetera - are not going to be preserved if they are included in the preamble. The only way that they can in fact be preserved and the only way the Australian people can have a say if somebody wants to change them is if they are included in the main body of the Constitution. It is not beyond the wit of anybody to put forward a referendum to the people of Australia saying that we wish to change the Constitution to include things like Aboriginal rights, retention of the flag, retention of our coat of arms and a dozen other matters relating to the environment, et cetera. If it is put in the preamble, you might as well flush it down the toilet.

Next Page

Previous Page