Nine years ago this week, Australia held a referendum to change its Constitution or at least to change the Preamble to the Constitution. Many citizens became disillusioned with the process that proved to be a grand farce. The referendum was about the wording of a new Preamble. The defeat simply confirmed the deep-down cynicism about politics and constitutional reform that continues to this day throughout our Commonwealth.
The recent public discussion about the use of the Lord's Prayer to open Parliament has actually continued a discussion that preceded the 1999 referendum. That was when alternative formulations for the Preamble were put forward for public debate. And so, as we think about how we can contribute meaningfully to the debate about prayer in Parliamentary proceedings, and how to deal wisely with the reference to Almighty God in the Constitution's Preamble, we might assist ourselves by realising we are part of an ongoing discussion about issues that are unresolved and have thus far proved very difficult to resolve. Getting a better understanding of these difficulties is another of those long-term projects needed if justice is to be rightly and comprehensively nurtured.
So, how did this 1999 referendum come about? The 1999 public debate followed a 1998 Constitutional Convention, the recommendations of which provided the framework by which the suggested alternative Preamble was to be formulated. And it was the Constitutional Convention which recommended that the Preamble include reference to "Almighty God" while also stating:
E. That care should be taken to draft the Preamble in such a way that is does not have implications for the interpretation of the Constitution
F. That Chapter 3 of the Constitution should state that the Preamble not be used to interpret the other provisions of the Constitution.
It is important to understand the rationale for these stipulations; there may be good reasons for them. However, as they stand, they seem to indicate a legalistic and obscurantist constriction preventing free discussion; reflection on how the Preamble should function within the Constitution is left off the agenda. Clauses "E" and "F" of the Convention's Recommendations bring to mind the advice "Don't you worry about that!" of the former Queensland Premier when his the legality of his regime came under question. That way of viewing discussion about the Constitution, let alone what justice requires of us, is simply counter-productive; it avoids viewing citizenship in "whole of government" terms.
Take as an example the fact that the Constitution does not refer to "local government", the "third tier" of our citizenship. What if the Preamble were to include a recognition that "local government" is an integral part of life in the Commonwealth? Could that not function as a plank for reform, a first step to address a neglected dimension of how our Constitution recognises our political responsibility? Moreover, thinking regionally, why should our South West Pacific region be ignored by the Preamble? Is it so absurd to "think regional" and to accept the reality of our citizenship in terms of Australia's closer political and economic ties with the South West Pacific states? In other words, I am suggesting that the discussion about the Constitution's Preamble needs to be widened in order to recognise the reality of the real political challenges we face in Australia, to do justice in a truly comprehensive way.
But now, keeping in mind that the current discussion follows on from the 1998-1999 debate, we note that the alternative Preambles, as put forward by various political parties, were constrained by the Convention's recommendations. This effectively admitted that any fresh aspirations articulated by "we the people of Australia" for our Constitution's Preamble, could be left out of that discussion. It is perhaps no wonder that the Referendum failed and maybe it is just as well. It was predicated on the view that any attempt to creatively re-interpret the current Preamble, is irrelevant because it has to be ignored by any interpretation of the Constitution by the High Court [see the 31/03/99 discussion between John Cleary and Dr Dirk Meure of the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales]. Any discussion must be nobbled by such obscurantist and legalistic restrictions.
And yet, as noted above, among the recommendations of the 1998 Convention was one strongly supporting the inclusion of reference to "Almighty God". One has to wonder whether the 1998 Constitutional Convention simply acquiesced in a deist fear that popular protests would arise from "religious" citizens if they had no given such a recommendation. But now the Convention's recommendations and the subsequent Preambles, read as if Australia must have a "skied deity", an Almighty God who is piously to be depended on for His blessing, but whose revelation can nevertheless not bring about any change to the structure or content of the Constitution itself! Apparently, the blessing of Almighty God is to be limited to what can be spoken about in terms of everything other than the Constitution itself, and in fact reference to Him in the Preamble sounds very much like a concession to what is assumed to be a "purely secular" affair.
But the interpretation of the Constitution by the 1998 Constitutional Convention is not itself the Constitution. There will be those who believe that its judgement should be viewed like the "law of the Medes and the Persians which shall not be changed". And so we confront a predominant view of our Commonwealth Constitution, which is overly biased toward the presumptuous interpretations of legal experts, lawyers and politicians that then give precedence to the views of legal experts, lawyers and politicians. They thus allow themselves to stand in the way of "ordinary people" finding their own place in this polity by reference to an accessible Preamble of our Constitution. After all it is "the people", the citizens, who are made politically responsible by this Constitution for the complex governance of this country. But if the Preamble is to be constrained in this 1998 politically-correct deist way, it is indeed difficult to see how the Constitution can ever be appropriated by Australia's citizens for their daily political lives.
Does not the willingness of many citizens to consider the reform of our Constitution, despite the obscurantism of a presumptuous class of politicians and judiciary, indicate a desire to overcome the shortcomings in our polity? Is not the Constitution itself an important part of these shortcomings? Is it not experienced by us as an alien and purely utilitarian document? Do we not need a Constitution that is alive and which encourages real live citizens to promote real live justice? Should not our goal be to formulate a Constitution that promotes and encourages a just polity seeking always to nurture greater justice for all?
The recent history of this Commonwealth's consideration of its Constitution confirms a much-needed reform that has long been overlooked - presumptuous guardianship of the Constitution by legal experts, lawyers and politicians simply stands in the way of the rightful development of this Commonwealth - this res publica.
To complete this discussion, I will list some of the suggested references to God that various 1999 Preambles put before the Australian people.
1. With the assistance of the poet Les Murray, the former Prime Minister John Howard put forward his suggestion which began:
With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is
constituted by the equal sovereignty of all its citizens…
2. The Labor Party's draft Preamble (the Evans/Beazley formulation) was in contrast with the one put forward by the Prime Minister…
Having come together in 1901 as a federation under the
Crown, relying on the blessing of Almighty God…
3. Jeff Kennett proposed a "Declaration of the people of Australia" with no reference to God
4. The eventual version which was put to the vote with
With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is
constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the
common good…
We recall that the referendum was resoundingly defeated. When we examine the record and take note of the incoherent proposal for change that was put to the vote in the 1999 referendum we will not be surprised by the result. John Howard was reported as saying, "Well the word 'God' can mean anything to anyone at any time." A lowest common denominator formulation implies that the word 'God' was included merely to keep up appearances. Such populism is incompatible with Christian political "humble reliance". And yet it is worth our while to think about how that political process was shaped, or misshaped, and why the discussion was so poorly developed.
So, we are reminded, albeit in a somewhat gentle way, about our responsibility as citizens to address the deep-down frustrations that are embedded in our political life. We need to give serious reflection to those fellow citizens who don't care about prayer in Parliament and also those who feel that such prayers make Parliament into an alien reality for them. Since the polity comes to a particular focus in its Parliaments, and is comprised of its citizens, rather than members of the same religious community, Parliament's task is distinct from that of public worship, which is rightfully offered in a community of faith. We need time and patience to work these things through and whether or not Parliament opens with the Lord's Prayer, Christian people are reminded of their responsibilities to pray for the government. Whether or not the Constitution's preamble will always include the phrase "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God", Christian citizens have been reminded in a timely way, that their political responsibilities should be transacted by "humbly relying upon the blessings of Almighty God".
But why, we might ask ourselves, do we need reminding? Is there something about the prevailing political tradition amongst us that makes us confused about our true political responsibilities?
Nurturing Justice is published with the well-founded suspicion that Christian people have been lulled into a false sense of security. Have we perhaps allowed the Constitution to "humbly rely" upon Almighty God on our behalf? The debate about the Australian Commonwealth's '"humble reliance upon Almighty God" may well go around in futile circles as long as Christian citizens opt out of their political responsibility to make their contribution to the governing of this res publica to ensure justice for all.
We need reminding that
our citizenship finds its true bearings when we get serious about following
Jesus Christ. And that, in time, should also mean finding a fresh way to reform
our Constitution in order that all citizens can find in it the clear direction
and inspiration they need to work at ensuring a just polity. Whether we
continue as a de facto monarchical republic, as we have been since 1901,
or whether we find a new independent form, is not really the primary issue. The
important thing is nothing less than what the prophet told God's ancient people
about their duty, about the "doing of justice, the loving of mercy and the
humble walking with your God" (Micah 6:8).
Nurturing Justice
encourages a sustained Christian
political contribution by affirming our God-given calling to give shape to
public justice and avoid the empty myths and contradictions of human autonomy.
A Christian understanding of these myths, as they are accepted and enshrined in
changes to the law, requires a comprehensive political philosophy, one that
finds its point departure for seeking justice in the gentle and merciful rule
of Jesus Christ, the ruler over all of the earth's political regimes.
November 2008 © The contents of this email are
copyright. Documents may be photocopied or retransmitted in their entirety but
not otherwise reprinted or transmitted without permission. "Nurturing
Justice" is a project to encourage Christian political reflection based
upon wise and loving civic participation. Comments are welcome and should be
sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au