Much might be said about the preamble put forward by the Labor Party, and indeed it might be said about many of the attempts put forward by dozens of Australians in letters to newspapers, in competitions and over talk-back radio, including some of the entries in the competition run by this newspaper in the past month.
The fact that some many attempts score an almost-but-not-quite response indicates how difficult it is for a draft to come from one individual or one perspective. It means, of course, that the Government’s draft will require further input and changes before it will be acceptable by the vast majority of Australians. And the preamble must be accepted by the vast majority of Australians and a reasonable majority in each of the various groups that make up Australian society if it is to be a success. A bare majority in a bare majority of states may well be the requirement for constitutional change, but it would be a sad thing if a new preamble did not get overwhelming majorities in all states. A preamble should unite not divide. And to unite it must distill essences common to all facets of Australian life, not be a concoction of beliefs held by some, even if a majority.
The Government’s draft has captured some critical features of Australian society that are worth expressing — the “”people from many ancestries and arrivals”; the role of immigrants; the vastness of the continent and its influence on the people; honour to the Aboriginal people for ancient and continuing cultures; freedoms of various kinds; and equality before the law.
But the draft contains several awkward elements that will not engender sufficient support to make them acceptable, even if they might gain bare-majority support. It also makes several omissions.
The most awkward element is “”mateship”. The phrase is one that refers almost exclusively to a male domain. It is a worthy character trait. It evokes a sense of helping a man when he’s down on his luck. But tot he extent that it is not inclusive of most females it is not a suitable inclusion for a preamble. Moreover, mateship evokes a Henry Lawson view of the world where the worker, later the soldier (but not officer) uses mateship to overcome hardship inflicted by not just the physical environment or a war, but also by hardship inflicted by the squattocracy or the officer classes. It evokes a sense of class warfare or warfare against nature that are out-dated.
There is almost a poor white armband view of history associated with “”mateship”.
The Government’s draft mentions Australia as a nation with “”equal sovereignty of all its citizens”.
This is a worthwhile expression, but there is a difficulty with it if the republic question fails. The present Constitution is a monarchist document. Ultimately, sovereignty is vested in the sovereign and the British Parliament. Sure, if that were exercised in a raw manner, there would be rebellion in Australia. Nonetheless, that is where symbolic sovereignty lies. And the preamble is about symbolism. It would be nonsense to declare “”equal sovereignty of all . . . citizens” in a preamble while the Constitution proper states that “”the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen” and that “”the legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives”.
In this Westminster model the Queen and the Parliament are sovereign, not the people.
Then the Government’s draft mentions God. That could exclude many of the 25 per cent of the population or so who, according to the most recent census, did not express a belief in a god. This may not be of huge moment. Many agnostics are – of their nature – indifferent about it. Many atheists are not the sort to die in a ditch over religion. Even so, many might see the word God with a capital G as a Christian expression or perhaps a Christian, Jewish or Muslim expression that does not embrace religions that do not focus on a single god.
The clause about Australians having “”an equal dignity which may never be infringed by prejudice or fashion or ideology nor invoked against achievement” is awkwardly phrased and seems like a silly swipe at political correctness, which will ultimately become dated, rather than a statement of timeless merit.
Of more import is the clause that mentions indigenous people. It says: “”Since time immemorial our land has been inhabited by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are honoured for their ancient and continuing cultures.”
This is fine as far as it goes. But many indigenous people might see it as inadequate. There is no recognition of prior ownership or existing guardianship. Sure, many white Australians might object to that. But there is no point in having a clause about indigenous people unless broad opinion among indigenous people see it as a positive step.
Amble must be inclusive and unifying. If it excludes or causes division it is self-defeating.
The republic referendum is a different matter. Ultimately it is a political matter, even though it has strong symbolic overtones. In a democracy, once the requirements for constitutional change have been met, people by and large accept the new Constitution. It carries a stamp of legitimacy. If the Yes case is carried in the republic referendum, even by a bare majority, those who vote No (whether monarchist or direct-election adherents) will accept it and give allegiance to the new president. But the preamble is a different matter. It is a statement of national ideals. It must carry huge support for success. It would be better to have no preamble than to have one passed by anything other than an overwhelming majority. A new preamble must not become a festering sore in Australian nationhood. The Government must listen to a wide cross-section of views and embrace them. It is not a time to engage in pointscoring or sneaking through narrow agenda items.