The Foundation for National Renewal   The Constitutional Convention of February 1998

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 6 February 1998
Page 11

Professor WINTERTON- Perhaps I can say two things. First of all, with regard to the territories, they were not added to the initial preamble because it was a statement of historical fact and the people of the territories did not approve the original Constitution. So to add them now would be an incorrect statement. In response to the earlier point, the word `trust' was deliberately used for two reasons. One is to indicate that the relation of the Aborigines to the continent prior to European settlement was to be analogous to ours. That is why the same word was used. I do not like the word `nationhood' and so on. It appears to me to have connotations that may be true or untrue. I do not think erroneous statements should appear in the preamble.

It was also hoped there to introduce the environmental concept. Personally, to bring the environmental concept in in that way and to do the indigenous one at the same time saves some controversy. People might resist having an environmental statement on its own. There may be debate about it. This gives recognition to environmental values with the indigenous recognition at the same time.

Ms SCOTT- As a member of that group, I want to make the point that the inclusion of this preamble was not meant to be one that came as a draft from us. It was given as one that may be an example. I would not want us to start talking about the words that are in this preamble in any detail at the moment because it was just given as one possible example of a preamble that might work.

Dr COCCHIARO- I would like to add and point out to delegates again that in the report we have stated that the committee considered the attached draft preamble as an example of the type of preamble that could embody its proposals. Also, the committee agreed specifically that we felt it was not appropriate for the working group or for this Convention to spell out each individual word of the preamble but that we should set out clear views of the contents. We believe that if we go into each individual word we will be here until kingdom come.

Mr BRUMBY- I just want to back up that point. We did not adopt any constitutional preamble or any firm set of words. What we did agree though as a committee was the things which Tony has run through- the need to build on the existing preamble, some of the recognition that needed to be there and, ideally, we would like to see some basic values incorporated, which he mentioned, such as representative parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, equality, diversity and something on the environment. Our view was that we would like to see those but we have not agreed on a final form of words. There was the caveat that Professor Craven had raised that this could lead to some interpretation by the High Court, so we left it as broad as that. It would be a matter for the resolutions committee to come up with a final and tighter set of words.

Sir DAVID SMITH- I am sorry that my friend Professor Winterton dismissed Mr Kilgariff's reference to the territories on the basis that, as the territories were not mentioned in the original preamble, they do not need to get a mention here. For heaven's sake, we are dealing with things to be added to the preamble. I would have thought that the citizens who live in the territories could be added.

Ms HOLMES a COURT- Mr Chairman, I particularly want to ask Tony this question as we heard this morning from Stella that about 30 per cent of our population are not Anglo-Saxon. As a Christian who cannot take the step of believing in God and therefore is not allowed to be a Christian, I do not have difficulty with the words `on the blessing of Almighty God'. But I wonder if your group, as you have put up a draft preamble, discussed how Buddhists, Muslims, Aboriginal people and so on feel about having that. I do not want to take that out, but is it possible that some extra phrase could go in which is more inclusive?

Dr COCCHIARO- I think that is a very valid point. We did not discuss it because there are so many issues, as you have all worked out, that the preamble includes and involves. I think that is a very valid point that I would support.

Mr CASTAN- I have just one point of clarification. I think Dr Cocchiaro said that the committee was of the view that neither the committee nor this Convention should settle on a form of words. I do not know that we came to that view. It was better expressed by John Brumby, I think, that it was contemplated that this Convention would in due course come to a form of words. It was thought that this morning we could not do that. We should not treat the task as something that has gone away; rather, if any group in Australia is to undertake it, it should be done by this Convention here assembled in the next week.

Ms DELAHUNTY- I want to take up the fact that we did not offer a draft preamble. We discussed the difficulty of the words- and we have not got time at this Convention, of course, to analyse every word; we would descend into semantics- but what Professor Winterton's draft does offer us is a model for the type of preamble that we might end up with as it builds on the original preamble. It tells a story of Australia. That is why the putative state of the Northern Territory is not there but could be at some stage. It tells of the evolution of Australia. We were attracted to the notion of including some unifying values because we felt strongly that the Australian people felt this was the time to build those sorts of values and aspirations that we share into the Constitution, provided we can satisfy the legal difficulties.

CHAIRMAN- Do you want to respond to that?

Dr COCCHIARO- Yes. I think that is right. It was my understanding that the committee certainly felt we could not spell out all the words of the preamble. We did not discuss it in detail, and it is obviously open to this forum if they want to change their minds to do that. But again I would stress that, as you have seen, it is going to be extremely difficult to come to a precise set of words. If we outline specific general principles that must be included, I think that will also work.

Professor CRAVEN- I was part of that allegedly strong but ultimately defeated minority that thought that an extensively valued preamble would be a disaster. I feel that I should say that it is regrettable that there has not come before this Convention, by way of resolution from a working group, a principle or a proposal that represents an absolutely minimal approach to the preamble. I think that such a preamble would indeed acknowledge the position of indigenous people but would go very little further, and in particular would contain absolutely no abstract statements of value which, as my friend has very properly and accurately pointed out as part of the proceedings, have the potential to be extraordinarily dangerous. I will take such steps as I can to move, either by way of a substantive motion or an amendment at some point, a proposal which will contain such a minimal approach to the preamble.

CHAIRMAN- That will be possible when we consider this in debate on Monday, and you can lodge it as an amendment.

Ms SCHUBERT- It is daggy. Whilst I appreciate what Working Group 1 has sought to do in blending the old and the new, any preamble which retains the word `whereas' instantly alienates a younger generation of Australians. This is an opportunity to put our preamble and our Constitution into the type of plain English that is accessible to all Australians, and which does not have the frills and bells and whistles which clearly identify it as a product of a past era, rather than one which provides for a future framework for our nation.

CHAIRMAN- I think arguments like that will take in the debate on Monday. I propose to move on to the next sub-group. Before I do so, because Moira Rayner is there, can I explain. You asked me a question before about the working group on the processes for ongoing debate on constitutional reform. I note that on day 7 in session two, the issue has been listed. Working groups are to meet in the afternoon of day 6, that is, on Monday, to consider that topic. The lists for working groups are already open at the secretariat. If you or any other delegate wishes to put your name on working groups for that purpose, you may do so. The working groups then will deliberate and we will receive a report in session two on Tuesday, 10 February. Thank you, Dr Cocchiaro. I call upon Archbishop Peter Hollingworth to present the report of subgroup (ii).

REPORT OF SUBGROUP (ii)

It is recommended to the Convention that the present formula, "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God", be retained in any subsequent amendments to the Preamble.

This action will keep our Constitution clearly in line with nearly all other constitutions of nations in this region and beyond where reference is made to the Divinity as the source of all power and be a unifying statement for people of all religious faiths throughout Australia.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH- Why is it necessary even to bring such a fundamental matter before this Convention? It is necessary for four reasons. We cannot assume that everybody accepts the proposition and we cannot assume that the reasons they give are sound. First of all, the Constitutional Centenary Foundation, of which I am a member, has moved to delete the reference. Secondly, I understand that a convention held here immediately prior to this Convention discussed the matter but did not vote on it due to their consensus style of decision making. Nonetheless, there was, I am informed, strong support in some quarters that the reference to God should be removed.

The third reason is that there are other draft preambles, one of which we shall consider soon. Proposals have in fact deleted reference to God. The fourth reason, our group noted, is that if a republic comes into being, the formula will have to change, and that provides the opportunity for various people to move on removing some of the linchpins that were the basis of Federation. This one, we argue, should stay.

What lies behind the move to delete the God reference? Why do people want it out? We heard several reasons. One of them is that it is a problem because Australia is a pluralist multicultural society and therefore the reference to God is offensive. A second reason is that the number of professing Christians in the latest census is now down to 70 per cent, though, of course, if you take into account other believers in God, that percentage is considerably higher. A third reason is that a small minority of non-believers believe- with some good reason, I concede, from past experience- that religion is a divisive force and they would want to remove the reference in the preamble and make Australia a strictly secular republic without any reference to the Divinity.

I think the point that needs to be made in response to this is that, yes, it is true that we can rejoice and celebrate the fact that we are a multicultural and religiously diverse society. I was proud to be a member, participant and speaker at an outstanding national conference on religion and cultural diversity that took place in Melbourne. It was chaired by Sir James Gobbo, the present Governor of Victoria. There is no question but that one of the things that people brought with them when they migrated to this country and settled here is their religious faith. Australia is stronger for it. It is not true that multiculturalism or cultural diversity implies the diminution of religion or belief; the opposite is the case.

I turn briefly to the third point, which is what our forebears said when they gathered together 100 years ago for the Australasian Convention in Melbourne in 1898. There was a long and extensive debate, there were many submissions from many quarters- the various states, churches and religious groups- and there was strong demand for the inclusion of a reference to Almighty God. Sir John Downer summed up the debate in these words:

. . . that the Christian religion is a portion of the English Constitution . . . is part of the law of England . . . that the Commonwealth will be from its first stage a Christian Commonwealth.

Clearly, that is not the way things have worked out. We cannot claim that Australia is, ever has been or perhaps is ever likely to be- certainly not in our time- a Christian Commonwealth, but that does not imply that we should become a purely secular republic.

The other thing that I want to draw to the attention of delegates is the prayers that were crafted for the inauguration of the Commonwealth of Australia three years later in 1901 in the Exhibition. There were a number of significant prayers, all of them making reference to God. Several of them were prayers that we would not pray today because the nature and structure of our society is very different. But the substance and the contents of those key prayers would remain in whatever shape we may be today.

It was also determined that prayers would mark the commencement of the sittings of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We are doing the same thing here at this Convention, and I am thankful that one of our members had the thoughtfulness to do that. Prayer is offered. Prayer should be recognised as something which all people of good faith can engage in, however they define their understanding of God- if they can.

Late last year a senator made a move for the removal of prayers in the Senate. I understand the senator withdrew that move, and that the prayer- the one we pray here each morning- will remain.

Senator FAULKNER- It was withdrawn on the floor. The proposal was not supported.

The Most Reverend PETER HOLLINGWORTH- Thank you. The reference in the preamble is there to unite us in the spirit that our founding forebears intended, with the one qualification that I have indicated: we can no longer claim this to be a Christian Commonwealth. That is not the point that this working party put. The point we put is that in fact we have a broad basis on which we can reach agreement about the primary question of God. The balance of that reference continues:

. . . whereas the people of N.S.W., Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania

and later Western Australia-

humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.

The last three words are the substance of what we are on about. The initial words ought to remain.

The reference to Almighty God is meant to unite all the citizen subjects of this nation, which is a multicultural and multi-religious society whose residents have brought with them faith traditions, and they have immeasurably strengthened the basic faith of this country. If we were to delete that reference, we would stand with the People's Republic of China alone among all the other nations in this region- and, indeed, in most other parts of the world- which include reference to God in the preface to the constitutions of their lands.

We have heard much from delegates about the Irish model, particularly in relation to a president. I have listened to that with great interest. I now quote to you in proximate terms the Irish preface, for which I thank Professor Greg Craven. That preface says:

In the name of the most Holy Trinity, from whom all power is derived and to whom all acts of men are ultimately referable . . . 

The committee thought about this for a brief moment, and then, humbly and reverently, decided not to hit this Convention with the full Irish monty!

Dr TEAGUE- I would like to refer at this stage to our Constitution. At the end of the 128 sections is the schedule that we all know well, and I want to refer to its reference to God. Before I do that, because it is related to the matters about which we just heard, as one person not wearing the cloth but supporting all that Archbishop Peter Hollingworth has said to this Convention, I welcome the working group's report and I strongly support the retention of these words. I share those words sincerely as an individual Australian.

The schedule at the end of the Constitution, which will be addressed in another working group in the next few days, will look at the oath or affirmation that is given to those who are to be sworn in as elected members of parliament. There are similar oaths and affirmations for ministers. There is to be an oath and affirmation for the new Australian head of state. The form of words for the oath is, `I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors according to law, so help me God.'

I flag one more thought. In addressing and retaining those traditional and fundamental elements of affirmation and oath, there is a choice. Where there is a requirement for an individual citizen to subscribe to a formula of words, that citizen can choose to use the language that includes reference to God, or choose another form of words. That is entirely consistent with the ad hominem or totally general appeal that Archbishop Peter Hollingworth has made in the keeping of these words in the preamble. I strongly support that and ask delegates to bear these other references to God in mind when these matters are being discussed.

Mr HOURN- I also rise to strongly support this resolution, although I do have one small difference with His Grace the Archbishop, and that is that the Archbishop said that we should do this because it would clearly be in line with nearly all other constitutions of the nations in this region. To my way of thinking, it is our Constitution and it really is irrelevant what other nations think. However, that is a minor point.

The main point is that I do strongly support a reference to God in the preamble. We have had a reference to a deity in the preamble for 98 years. Obviously, many deities have graced the floors of this chamber. The key thing here is that the reference is to the `Almighty God', and that is important to keep in mind.

The other thing is that it does not offend the 70 per cent of Australians who indicated in the 1996 census that they believed in some form of God, nor does it offend Hindus, Christians, Jews, Muslims or others in that category. So in the PM's terms, there was a clear majority of Australians who believe in some form of God and those words in the preamble would not offend any of those. The next point is that it also is in line with the minimal-

CHAIRMAN- We are not making speeches to this.

Mr HOURN- No. It is in line with the minimal approach. As was said this morning, there is no need to change the Constitution radically and, in that sense, keeping these words is in line with the current Constitution. The last point is that the word `humbly' is an important inclusion. `Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God' is a phrase that is important for all Australians to remember.

CHAIRMAN- Please remember that we are only looking at identifying any details that are omitted. We are not having speeches and I think that last one was more of a speech. The idea was, adopting Mr Chipp's suggestion, that rather than just present the report we allow some brief consideration of the details so that everybody is aware of its content before we go away, because we are not going to debate it until Monday and it will take some time.

Mrs MILNE- I do not want to see the concept of God, the divine or the spiritual dimension taken out of the Constitution. Rather, I would like us to consider perhaps being more expansive and inclusive of the spirituality of all Australians. I have been misrepresented in that way in the past in terms of my discussions with regard to the Constitution. I would like to ask Archbishop Hollingworth whether he has looked at the preamble of some other countries. The Czech Republic, for example, uses the term `spiritual wealth' to describe a similar concept.

We recognise that this Constitution has to unite all Australians. Given that I think we would have a consensus that we want the divine, the spiritual dimension, in the preamble and probably a consensus that the reference to `Almighty God' stay- in the sense that it was the people's choice in 1901 that actually lobbied to have it put in there- has your group considered recognising that some people might not see it as a generic term but, rather, something specifically Christian? Did you give any thought to adding something like the Czech Republic's `spiritual wealth'?

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Before I call Pat O'Shane, I just want to say that, following Professor Blainey's comments before lunch, he has proposed the formation of a new working group on the oath of allegiance to the new head of state. He has obtained the 10 signatures necessary, and it is suggested that the new working group meet at the time set in the Order of Proceedings for the working groups on Monday evening to report first thing Tuesday.

Previous Page
Next Page

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 21 October 2000