This is the start of Turn Number 75000 - Parliament of Victoria · Web viewIn 1947, when India got independence, we really and truly created something that had never existed before

SCHOOLS STATE

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

“Should Australia have a new constitutional preamble?”

Legislative Assembly Chamber

Parliament House

Melbourne

19 October 2009

19 October 2009 Schools State Constitutional Convention 1

Kate Doherty Baimbridge SCEbony Jenkins Baimbridge SCMadeline Haw Baimbridge SCJenna Sinclair Bellarine SCJoseph Goould Bendigo Senior Secondary CollegeNicholas Whan Bendigo Senior Secondary CollegeSieni Elia Cranbourne Secondary CollegeCandice Hinde Cranbourne Secondary CollegeAmy Jackman Eaglehawk Secondary CollegeCameron McGlashan Eaglehawk Secondary CollegeLisa Buckland Eaglehawk Secondary CollegeMargaret Zoides East Doncaster Secondary CollegeElizabeth Frampton East Doncaster Secondary CollegeLiam Moran Elwood CollegeQuan Nguyen Elwood CollegeStefan Richter Elwood CollegeStephanie Griffin Elwood CollegeTrent Stevenson Elwood CollegeJeremy Nielsen Elwood CollegeDavid Topol Elwood CollegeBritt Jeffs Gippsland Grammar SchoolLachie Evans Gippsland Grammar SchoolMelissa Shoghi Glen Waverley Secondary CollegePulkit Gupta Glen Waverley Secondary CollegeAndrea Jones Glen Waverley Secondary CollegeTim Ooi Glen Waverley Secondary CollegeSaheba Singh Glen Waverley Secondary CollegeTayla Hamilton Hoppers Crossing Secondary CollegeClaudia Larocque-Ben-

nettHoppers Crossing Secondary College

Antonia Silik Hoppers Crossing Secondary CollegeGetachew Woreta Hoppers Crossing Secondary CollegeHawee Ibrahim Hoppers Crossing Secondary CollegeVictor Victor Hoppers Crossing Secondary CollegeKonstandina Koliopoulas Lalor Secondary CollegeTalia Atar Lalor North Secondary CollegeZvezdana Butina Lalor North Secondary CollegeDina Mansour Lalor North Secondary CollegeMariam Badra Lalor North Secondary CollegeFatima Dirani Lalor North Secondary CollegeEshani Gnanapra-

gasamLalor North Secondary College

Dzenifer Zekirovska Lalor North Secondary CollegeDarren Rambaran Lalor Secondary CollegeEmma Patane Lalor Secondary CollegeAliciabeth Gicciaroi Lavalla Catholic CollegeKonstantino Psinas Lavalla Catholic CollegeThomas Davy Lavalla Catholic CollegeSarah Price Lavalla Catholic CollegeAlyson Stark Lavalla Catholic CollegeLiam Bednarski Lavalla Catholic CollegeJac Sibrava Mazedon CollegeKieran Scarfe Mazedon CollegeYilei Zhang Northcote High SchoolCharles Cornwallis Northcote High SchoolCienan Muir Northcote High SchoolNicoletta Marakis Northcote High School


Luke Dakis-Corcoran Northcote High SchoolDavid Meaney Northcote High SchoolMartin Ditmann Northcote High SchoolPhoebe Devlin Orbost Secondary CollegeSamantha Geneikis Orbost Secondary CollegeJesse Royle Orbost Secondary CollegeNicole Brunt Orbost Secondary CollegeMichael Damcevski Overnewton Anglican Community Col-

legeNathan Spiteri Overnewton Anglican Community Col-

legeDivna Starcevic Overnewton Anglican Community Col-

legeSarah Kimpton Overnewton Anglican Community Col-

legeMelissa Talevski Overnewton Anglican Community Col-

legeJona Villanueva Overnewton Anglican Community Col-

legeSarah Whitworth Portland SCJacqueline Avery Portland SCTonya Bernardo St Catherine’s SchoolIsobel Conroy-Ryan St Catherine’s SchoolAlexandra Hinchliff St Catherine’s SchoolCharlotte Brook St Catherine’s SchoolAlana Scully St Columba’sZana Maguinness. St Columba’sAmy Williams St Columba’sVictoria Magafas Taylors Lakes Secondary CollegeMelissa Semovski Taylors Lakes Secondary CollegeRyan Lim Taylors Lakes Secondary CollegeShagufta Ali Taylors Lakes Secondary CollegeSussan Nguyen Taylors Lakes Secondary CollegeDaniel Gicevski Thomastown Secondary CollegeJames Harrison Thomastown Secondary CollegeMark Makdesi Thomastown Secondary CollegeKarina Ducret Thomastown Secondary CollegeChris Cadenhead University High SchoolFaseeha Hashmi University High SchoolHugo Roberts University High SchoolMatt Jones University High SchoolAlexander Linger University High SchoolMatilda Neyland University High SchoolMaja Dunstan University High SchoolKaixin Owyong University High SchoolGus Viola University High SchoolGrace Quealy University High SchoolPatrick Wingrove-

LyptonUniversity High School

Savas Petrakis University High SchoolStephanie Revell Wanganui Park SCKatelan Caverzan Wanganui Park SC


Welcome and introduction

The CHAIR (Ms Barker) — Good morning. My name is Ann Barker. I am the member for Oakleigh and the Deputy Speaker of this wonderful chamber. It is my great pleasure to participate again in this fantastic schools constitutional convention. I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we are gathered, the people of the Kulin nation, and I pay my respects to their elders, past and present, and of course any elders who may be with us today.

It is my great pleasure also to introduce Shane Charles, who will welcome us to country, which is most important. Shane is an Aboriginal descent of the Yorta Yorta tribe in the Goulburn Valley and of the Dulan Yagan clan of Ulupna Island in northern Victoria. On his father’s side he also has cultural ties with the Wuradjeri, New South Wales; the Benlamon tribe of south-east Tasmania; and the Kulin nation of the Melbourne area. Through the colonisation of Australia, he has Irish, Scottish and English heritage. That sounds a little bit like me!

Shane has learnt the oral tradition of his culture through his parents and elders and is a strong advocate for indigenous peoples across the nation through many mediums, first and foremost as a keeper of traditional cultural knowledge over 17 years as a cultural heritage officer. He is currently working for Swinburne University, providing training in the areas of business and most recently in community development with the Lake Tyers community.

Shane is also an accomplished didjeridoo player, with 25 years experience in playing this traditional music instrument of northern Australia. I welcome Shane Charles.

Mr CHARLES — First and foremost, I pay my respects to my elders, past and present. At this point I would like to pay my respects also to the state member for Oakleigh, Ann Barker, the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of Victoria; and to the state member for Melbourne, the Honourable Bronwyn Pike, Minister for Education; and all dignitaries present here today.

I would like also to pass on an apology on behalf of Aunty Caroline Briggs, senior elder of the Boonwurrung peoples, who has bestowed upon me the honour of being here today. I descend from the oldest culture still practised today in the world — not 40 000, not 60 000, not 80 000 years, but to date estimated at being 176 000 years of occupation, and yes, we continue to turn back the clock as we have no story of migration. We have always been here from the time before time as we know it today.

This is something to be proud of, not only for me as an indigenous person but for all Australians, for it is within traditional protocols that we respect and recognise each other when entering someone else’s country.

So in the spirit of generosity taught to us by our ancestors, I welcome you: Womin jeka mirakbeek beek. Boonwurrung Nairm derp bordupren uther willam.

Our land has always been protected by our creator Bunjil who travels as an eagle and Waarn, the crow, who protects the waterways.

Bunjil taught the Boonwurrung to always welcome guests. He always requested the Boonwurrung to ask all visitors to make two promises: to obey the laws of Bunjil, and not to harm the children or the land of Bunjil.

Womin jeka mirambeek beek. Boonwurrung Nairm derp bordupren uther willam.

Welcome to our country, the traditional land of the Boonwurrung people, our beautiful home.

Delegates applauding.

The CHAIR — It is now my great pleasure to welcome to the chamber on a non-sitting day the Honourable Bronwyn Pike, the state member for Melbourne and Minister for Education.

Prior to entering Parliament Bronwyn worked as a teacher, a community services manager and as the Director of the Unit of Justice and Social Responsibility in the Uniting Church. She is a former board director of Greenpeace Australia.


Bronwyn became the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, and the Minister assisting the Minister for Health immediately upon entering Parliament in 1999. She was appointed Minister for Community Services and Minister assisting the Premier on Community Building in 2002.

Following the re-election of the Labor government in late 2002, Bronwyn became the Minister for Health and remained in that position until being appointed the Minister for Education in August 2007. In May 2007 Bronwyn became the longest-serving female minister in Victoria’s history — an honour she shares with Minister Kosky.

Bronwyn brings to the Parliament a long history of advocating for social change, equality and the disadvantaged. For many years she has been a supporter of Emily’s List and an active participant in human rights, peace and social justice campaigns. She is also an avid Royal Park dog walker and, as I said, on a non-sitting week it is an absolute pleasure to welcome Bronwyn to now speak to us.

Ms PIKE (Minister for Education) — Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you very much also to Mr Shane Charles for that welcome to country and for reminding us yet again that for many thousands of years before this magnificent building was built the people of the Kulin nation were caring for and tending this land. We pay our respects to their elders, past and present.

It is lovely to see Professor Brian Costar here. I know that you, Brian, are making a significant contribution to the day. It is great that you are here to support the young people. We also have representatives from our consulates; we welcome you to the Victorian Parliament.

Most importantly, we have you young people here. I have already met Samantha from Orbost. I think the Orbost group have probably travelled the greatest distance to be here, but delegates here today are from all over the state. I want to acknowledge particularly students from University High School, who are sitting behind me; University High School is in my electorate of Melbourne and in fact my son went to that school.

As the Chair has said, this week marks the 10th anniversary of my being sworn in as a minister in this Parliament. I have been here long enough to see the members change once and lots of different things happening. I am delighted that you are in this place today. Last week when Parliament sat I was here in my seat. I must say that this is a slightly friendlier group of people. Parliament can be an adversarial environment although people’s perceptions are sometimes coloured by what they see on television, but it is a very important place. In a sense it is the seat of our democracy, and we know how important it is; we value it. If you come from a country where there is no democracy, where the people do not have a voice, that opportunity is something that you yearn for very much.

It is appropriate that the question before you today in this convention is ‘Should Australia have a new constitutional preamble?’ because the preamble sets out the values, aspirations, visions, desires, dreams and goals of the community of a country. It can help to define what kind of country we want Australia to be. In May 2000 in this very place we took a huge step in defining what kind of state Victoria should be.

At an historic joint sitting of this house and the Legislative Council we marked the occasion of the first time an indigenous person spoke in this place. Remember that this Parliament had been in place since 1856, 100 years before even I was born — and I am pretty old! James Wandin, an elder of the Wurundjeri people, told that joint sitting that Melbourne was a place of deep spiritual meaning before the European settlement and Aboriginal dispossession. There was a ceremonial corroboree, right here in the grounds of Parliament, which is a very significant place for the Kulin nation.

It was appropriate that from that historic sitting the government decided four years later to introduce a bill into this very chamber to amend the Victorian constitution by giving recognition to Victoria’s Aboriginal people as the original inhabitants and custodians of the land, acknowledging their contribution to the state. That amendment acknowledged that the development of the Victorian constitution had occurred without proper consultation with the Aboriginal people of Victoria.

That recognition in our state’s constitution of the prior custodianship of Victoria by Aboriginal people is one of those things that you might want to discuss in terms of extending the concept to the preamble to the Australian constitution, which is a document that was written at the time of Federation more than 100 years ago.


Today is about more than a discussion about the constitution. It is also a chance to learn firsthand how the Victorian government and the Victorian Parliament work. I am sure that you and your teachers have discussed how the behaviour of those in this place is moderated and that your Chair today will make sure that you behave much more appropriately than some of the politicians do. It is a chance to participate in open discussions and enter debates that are absolutely central to the decision-making process of government.

I am delighted that our consular guests from India, Spain and the United States of America are with us to help facilitate that debate. I understand that you have received copies of the preambles to their constitutions. Their three countries have gone through significant political and social change as a prelude to the writing of their constitutions. I am sure that you will find that fascinating.

I know that all of you here today are part of a broader group of 1200 students, each of whom has already participated in 1 of 10 regional conventions or 1 one of the 3 model United Nations conferences throughout Victoria. Some of the topics that have been discussed are topical. One was refugees and what should be Australia’s policies on the welcoming of refugee people. Another was the politics of water and how important that is. Australia’s role in the Asia-Pacific region has been discussed, as have environmental issues — and today people are talking about the introduction into the federal Parliament of very significant environmental laws. There has also been discussion of the appropriateness of 26 January as Australia Day. Should it be Australia Day? Is it a day of dispossession? Is it a day of mourning or a day of celebration? I am sure everyone has their views on that topic.

Your participation here really affirms the ideals of democracy, equality, freedom of speech, social justice — all values that should be part of any constitutional convention.

I know that Hansard reporters are with us to very carefully record all your words. They even record the interjections sometimes, so just be careful! But it is an important legacy. You will see around Parliament bookcases full of Hansard that cover many, many years recording every single word that has been spoken in this place.

But of course this is not the only place we talk about issues, is it? We need to further the debate and the discussion within our communities so that we have a lively participatory democracy where everyone has a say, everyone is engaged and everyone is involved.

Thank you very much to the state planning committee and the teachers from the host schools who have been involved in organising this and the other events that I mentioned. I know it is a long way to come, and some of you have come from Bendigo and Orbost and all over the place, but it is great that you are here, and I am very honoured to officially declare open the 2009 Schools State Constitutional Convention. Thank you.

Delegates applauding.

The CHAIR — I am aware that the minister has, as would be normal, many other functions, so we thank her very much for making the time to come across this morning. I am sure she will read with great interest the results of the debate and the vote at the end of the day. This is a very important convention, and I really value my participation in it, so we thank the minister very much.

PART A: INTRODUCING THE TOPIC

Should Australia have a new constitutional preamble?

The CHAIR — The purpose of this introduction is to provide you with an overview of the key issues and considerations you need to keep in mind when listening to the speakers and later, when working in your discussion groups. If you keep these ideas and the ideas you gain from your pre-convention reading in mind, it will help you sort out the facts from the opinions. It is always very important to have an opinion, but it is also extremely important to work through what is your opinion and what are the facts of matter.

I am sure you will all listen very attentively and, as I said, this will provide you with an opportunity to listen to facts, think about your personal position on the issues and then we will spend this afternoon listening to those once you have been through the discussion groups.


Our first speaker is well known to many of us — Professor Brian Costar from Swinburne University. Brian is Professor of Victorian Parliamentary Democracy. His principal areas of research are Australian political parties, state and federal parliamentary politics and Australian electoral history.

He is a very frequent commentator on state and federal politics and the press and the world class media; he has written widely on contemporary political issues. His current research focuses on the contemporary role of small parties and Independents in Australian parliaments and the political history of Victoria. Among his books are — and they are quite varied but very interesting — The Victorian Premiers: 1856–2006; The Great Labor Schism: A Retrospective; Rebels With a Cause: Independents in Australian Politics; Deadlock or Democracy? The Future of the Senate; and The Kennett Revolution. Many of you may not recall, but Mr Kennett was the Premier prior to the election of Steve Bracks in 1999.

As I said, Brian is well known to very many of us. I know him particularly through his work as Professor of Victorian Parliamentary Democracy and, as we have often joked, he is a frequent visitor to the great electorate of Oakleigh because we have some fantastic markets to buy fresh food, so I know him very well. I know that his presentation today will be of great interest.

Prof. COSTAR (Swinburne University) — Thank you for the welcome from all. I am very pleased to be here. I have spoken to a few schools constitutional conventions, and I was particularly pleased to be invited to this one until I found out what the topic was. When I was told it was about the preamble to the constitution, I thought, ‘How can we spend a day talking about that?’. How wrong I was. I have to be honest, I had not spent a lot of time thinking about the preamble to the constitution, and I guess that is because it is a preamble, which raises the question: what is a preamble? To be overly literal, it is what we do before we amble, I presume. But in the constitutional sense, it is a general statement that appears very early on in a country’s constitution. Most have them, some do not.

We have to remember also that there are two beginnings to the Australian constitution. Remember, the Australian constitution is section 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which was passed by the British Parliament in 1900. As well as the preamble, which is what we are talking about, there are eight other what-are-called ‘covering clauses’ to the constitution. They sort of clear the ground, if you like, before we get to the constitution. That is why, I guess, we call this section ‘the preamble’.

Why do we feel the need to have them? As you know, by their nature, written constitutions are not particularly exciting reading. I do not know too many people who commence at section 1 and read their way through to section 128; I certainly do not. I suspect there is a desire to say something about the process by which we got to this constitution and to articulate some values that we might hold.

It is not just constitutions that can have preambles. In Australia ordinary acts of Parliament can have them. Most of them do not, but some do. For example, the other day I was delving into the Citizenship Act. The Citizenship Act has a preamble to it, not surprisingly given what it is dealing with — it says something aspirational, I guess, about Australian citizenship before it gets into all the necessary legal detail about how you become a citizen, what that means, the duties and rights and obligations and so on.

I do not want to trespass on our consular colleagues areas, but in your what I thought was particularly good background reading — if you have not paid a lot of attention to it, you should do so; some of you might have plenty of time to do it on the bus back to Bendigo or Orbost, if you have not read it in great detail — if you look at the preambles to other constitutions that are included in your pre-reading, generally what you find is that they give a little history lecture; they tell you things about the nation probably before it was nation: how did it get there, what was going on behind and how and why we came to create this particular nation, which, of course, requires this particular constitution.

What you will notice is that sometimes they go further than that and make what I call ‘aspirational statements’ about some values — that is, things that the people who framed the constitution regard as important to stress about not only the constitution but also the nation and the people of the nation for whom the constitution has been written.

Just to be very quick, if you look at the Spanish constitution, you see it talks about human rights. If you look at the constitution of the USA, you see it talks about liberty. If you look at the Indian constitution, you see it


mentions secularity and a political ideology, socialism. Ireland’s says a lot about a particular religion because that is the history of that state.

I was reminded to chide myself for my initial reaction — that maybe preambles are not the most important thing we can talk about by reading carefully some of the preambles. If you have ears to hear and eyes to see, you realise there is a good deal tucked away in them. Just let me very briefly — we might just quickly read over the American constitution, which says, in part:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union —

and we might just think that it is just language, but, of course, it is not; it is telling you that the original confederation of what were then the American states did not prove to be a particularly successful system, so there was a desire to form a more perfect union. Going from a loose confederation of states it went to a federation of powers, which is where we got the idea from. If you delve down more deeply into that — striving for that perfect union is why the United States constitution has the particular bill of rights that it has: because some of the states, notably New York, would not sign up unless there was a declaration of rights written into the constitution.

If you look at the Indian one — why would it talk about secularity? Because, remember, religion was a big issue on the Indian subcontinent. It does not mention it, of course, but at the same time virtually as India gained its independence from the UK the state of Pakistan was established, which was based particularly on a religion. India was saying that is not the path it was going down. I will not go into that any more; I am sure our consular people will mention those things, and it is something for you to argue about.

What about ours? We told the history of federation; we got it a little bit wrong because we left Western Australia out of it, but, anyway, they did not feel the need to correct that, even though Western Australia was part of the federation. Remember, they were late in terms of voting to accept the act, so they missed out on the preamble. What aspirational things are in our preamble, or what values are articulated? You might say not much.

We get God — we are ‘under God’ — and we are an indissoluble union. So really God and indissolubility — that is about it. Some people might ask, knowing the history of Australia, even 19th century Australia, ‘How did God get into it?’, given, firstly, that Australia then and now is quite a secular country, and, secondly, that religion was a divisive issue in the 19th century and continued to be so into the 20th century. How come God got in there? It was not without a good deal of debate. There were people at the 1890s constitutional convention who believed that ‘God’ should not be there.

Then there was a big popular movement — mainly run by, as you could imagine, the churches — and petitions with thousands of names on them were submitted to the various constitutional conventions, requiring that ‘God’ be there. But if you notice, it is a pretty minimalist reference to God, particularly compared to the Irish constitution. It is about as minimalist as you could get in putting the three letters in there; so you can see that unpacking preambles can tell you things about political societies.

What about that wonderful word ‘indissoluble’? That was the South Carolina amendment, if you like. Australia, when it decided to create the sort of political system that it decided to create, decided on a federation. The trouble was that Britain was not a federation, and we had drawn most of our political institutions from Britain, not surprisingly; so Britain was not a model. There were only really two federations functioning at the time — Switzerland, which gave us section 128; that is the only thing we took out of the Swiss constitution — and of course the other functioning federation was the United States.

If you look at the debates of the 1890s constitutional conventions — and you can see them online — a lot of the delegates were very well informed about American politics. Many of them had visited the United States, lived there for some time, they knew about American politics and they knew about the civil war; and of course the civil war started when South Carolina seceded from the United States, and things got worse after that.

They put in ‘indissoluble’ to prevent a civil war. It was pretty naive, I think. We have not had a civil war, we have never been anywhere near it; but I doubt whether a clause in a preamble would stop it if the move was there, and in fact some of you will know that the union has not been indissoluble because in 1933 the state of Western Australia — probably in a fit of payback for leaving them out of the preamble — decided to secede.


The Western Australian people voted at a plebiscite in 1933 to secede from the commonwealth of Australia. Why the secession did not happen is a long and complicated story which I will leave for another day; but the vote did happen; and that preamble was not the reason why the secession did not come to pass — there were a lot of other reasons.

Have we moved anywhere towards embracing these aspirational values? In the 1999 republican referendum, a new preamble was put to the vote, which did contain value statements, but of course it was not successful. And we have had the earlier reference to the additional, if you like, preamble that was inserted into the constitution of this state in 2004, which was the recognition of indigenous peoples.

I suspect the biggest issue needing to be debated is: what is the status of the preamble in terms of interpreting the constitution? Remember, we borrowed from the United States the notion of having a superior court that, by a process known as judicial review, would settle arguments about what the meaning of the constitution is; and that is what the High Court does. It also does lots of other things, but for our purposes that is what the High Court does.

The question is: is the preamble, to use a bit of jargon, justiciable? That is, can it be used as part of argument in the High Court to encourage the justices to one view rather than another? The long and the short of it is that it cannot. The best you can say is that it could be used as a vaguely supportive remark. It is the sort of thing a barrister would say and hope that most of the judges did not hear, so that they would not interrupt him — and I do not have time to go into that now, but there are parts of the constitution that appear elsewhere in the constitution, so they are justiciable.

To finish on a tricky question, if we are going to have a new preamble, how is it to be inserted? Last time they tried it by referendum; but given that the preamble is not part of the constitution, how can you use section 128 to amend what is not part of the constitution? They did not bother about that and the issue never came up because it failed; but if it had passed somebody might have challenged it in the High Court on the grounds that the process was flawed.

What else might you do? The commonwealth and six states might approach the Parliament of Great Britain, invite it to suspend section 10 of the Australia Act 1986 (UK), and get the United Kingdom Parliament to amend it. That would create all sorts of cultural problems.

I finish on this point: the big cultural problem that nobody ever talks about is that our constitution is the statute of a foreign power. The Victorian constitution is not — it is an act of this Parliament. The Australian constitution is the act of the Parliament of a foreign power. I do not use that term in any negative way; it is the term that the High Court used to describe the status of great Britain in our constitution. Thank you.

The CHAIR — Thank you, Brian. I will point out to you now that the clocks are running. Our speakers are given a reasonable time limit. There was some discussion that perhaps our esteemed guests should not be timed, but I made the decision that as the students will be timed later, to ensure that we get through as many contributions as possible we would set the precedent early and show that our esteemed guests can also stay within a time limit.

I have previously given you the introduction to Shane Charles. I again welcome Shane to speak to us from an indigenous perspective on the Australian constitution.

Mr CHARLES — I stand before you as a proud indigenous man, born of the Yorta Yorta and Dulan Yagan clan of the Ulupna Islands of the Murray and Goulburn rivers regions of Victoria. I would also like to enlighten you on my bloodline connections to this country, firstly from two of the five tribes of the Kulin nation: the Boon Wurrung, the land we are on today, and the Woiwurrung, which stretches out to the east of Melbourne, and secondly through my father’s people, the Benlomon of the south-east coast of Tasmania; this connection stems back nine generations, from my great-great-grandmother, Truganini.

On my mother’s side my connection is to the Wuradjeri, the largest tribe of central New South Wales. This is my Aboriginal connection to country, but I also pay homage to my great-grandfathers, both being of Irish and Scottish heritage. This completes me as an individual. This connection from spirit is felt when on those lands.


The traditional cultures of my peoples are from over 2500 different tribes and over 2500 different languages, a classic example of diversity within this country. All of those have a spiritual connection with the land. We were living in abundance and in harmony with Mother Earth. Mother Earth provided us with the things that we needed to survive, only taking what was needed in return.

We protected the precious most things of all, for the practice was a coexistence as one, or in oneness, living under management structures and systems with a pure intent to ensure that our existence and resources would be there for future generations that would follow. We were protecting a quality of life and holistically promoting and fostering the common practices and beliefs of a caring and sharing culture. Our everyday lifestyle protected our wellbeing, and the wellbeing was not about next year or next season; it was about what we do now and how it affects future generations to come.

My culture gave us many things as keepers of the land. We gave thanks in many ways through our dreaming stories, our songs and dances, our art forms on the landscape, on bark and on our bodies; they were our education, with schools passing on the knowledge and wisdom in the same way that had been done for thousands of generations, always giving respect for everything. This started with the individual, and I say that if you can give yourself respect, you can give anyone else respect.

I am now going to bring this talk back into the context of why we are here today: to talk and share thoughts and ideas as to what the preamble of our constitution may look like in terms of the wording that should be implemented to encapsulate the dialogue for a new beginning, a statement that describes this very country today and the journey ahead.

The lore — L-O-R-E as opposed to L-A-W — gave us many things. It taught us our place, where we fit right in the middle of the world, our relationships with everything. This was our constitution, the oldest constitution on the planet, which is still practised today as I speak. There was a code that never changed, a diversity in the lore structure, embedded in the people, in practice and in landscapes of this great country.

I came here today with the great knowledge and wisdom of my people, to share with you the secrets of this country. Some of you have learnt many things from my words so far. I came here today to bring forth some of my interpretation of what the constitution preamble may have embedded within it from an indigenous perspective. I cannot stand here and say that I represent all the indigenous peoples of this country; I do not, but as a proud indigenous man I share my final words.

The traditional lore of this country has four fundamental values, the first one being respect. First and foremost is respecting yourself, respecting everyone and respecting the world in which we live. This gave us integrity, security and unity as nations within nations. The second fundamental value is about quality and equality: the quality of oneself and the quality of life, the equality of life living in a coexistence with harmony, unit and dignity, also in perfect balance in mind, body and spirit.

The third fundamental value was about acceptance of lore. This was never questioned in our consciousness, in our minds or in our words. There was acceptance of what was in our mind, body and spirit.

The fourth fundamental value was about responsibilities. It gave us the responsibilities as keepers of the land, the knowledge and the wisdom, for they were in unity. Together; as united we stand as one. It also taught us to be responsible for our actions on every level and to take up responsibilities for everything as needed.

In closing, I hope that you will find some words of my peoples and embed them in the words of the preamble of the constitution of this great nation, to progress together as one, hand in hand, side by side, in unity, no matter what colour, what culture, but for the betterment of human kind. Thank you.

The CHAIR — Thank you very much. It is now my great pleasure to introduce Justin Kolbeck, the political and economic officer at the US Consulate General in Melbourne. In that capacity he covers the states of Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, as well as the Northern Territory.

Before arriving in Melbourne in September 2008 he served in Pakistan as a political officer. Justin worked as an investment adviser in California for three years prior to joining the US foreign service in 2006. Originally from Los Angeles, Justin received his BA from the University of California, and a Diplome International from


L’Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris. He speaks French and Pashto. It is my great pleasure, on your behalf, to welcome Justin to speak to us.

Mr KOLBECK — Thank you very much for that kind introduction. Professor Costar gave a pretty good idea of how to evaluate preambles, so what I suggest today is that when I talk about the US preamble, try to think of it in two ways. Think of a history lessen in the nugget — and I will try to help you out with that a little bit today. I do not expect everybody here to be an expert in US constitutional history, but I will try my best to help.

The second is as a statement of aspirations, of values. Try to think of the ones that we will talk about today and what impact they would have in Australia.

The US preamble goes as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Does anybody here know approximately when this was written? Take a guess. Which century?

Interjection.

Mr KOLBECK — It was actually 1787, so it is old by our standards; very young by Mr Charles’ standards. But that is important to understand when you are looking at the history of this issue. Professor Costar did a good job of summarising what ‘We the people’ means in the context of why that is important. Has anybody seen a picture of the US constitution? The words ‘We the people’ are very big, and the rest of it is kind of small handwriting. Do you think that is significant? When people were writing documents around this time it was normal to have a big first letter or first word, but they decided to make ‘We the people’ extremely big, and this is important. The reason it is important is because for people in the US, the authority for the constitution is derived from the people.

Why is that important? What had just happened when we wrote this preamble?

Interjection.

Mr KOLBECK — Yes, that is right. We were rebels — we had just broken away from the United Kingdom. Keeping that in mind, where did the authority come from for the British Empire?

Interjection.

Mr KOLBECK — The King. That is correct — divine right and so forth. So this is very important because this says that from now on the authority to form a government comes from the people.

The next phrase — ‘In order to form a more perfect union’ — we talked about that a little as well. Professor Costar did another good job of stealing my thunder there, but he is right — there was another sort of rough draft to the US constitution which preceded this. Does anybody know what it was called? I do not expect you to; very few Americans would know. It was called the ‘Articles of Confederation’; and in many ways it looked the way the constitution would eventually look. It gave the federal government the right to make war, it gave it eminence over foreign affairs, but it did not give the federal government the right to tax. Why do you think that was?

Interjection.

Mr KOLBECK — That is right. We had this big thing called the Boston Tea Party, where everybody threw crates of tea overboard because we were mad that we were not allowed to have a say in our government even though we were paying taxes. So embedded in these words is a deep suspicion of centralised government and strong centralised power.

The first draft of the constitution, the Articles of Confederation, represent that. The federal government was very weak, and all the powers rested with the states. So in the constitution, that did not change. Fundamentally, that small aspect of the states having the majority of the powers remained; so like your constitution, in the US if


a power is not officially given to the federal government, it remains with the states. But the federal government took on additional powers, and I will not get into all of those.

A few other important attributes in the preamble are the words ‘establish justice’. As I mentioned, everything that is not specifically granted to the federal government is left with the states, and that includes carrying out the justice system. If there is a conflict between state and federal laws, the federal law trumps. This was another way of strengthening the federal government without stomping all over states’ rights.

What about ‘ensure domestic tranquillity’ and ‘promote the general welfare’? What do those mean? That is pretty big. That is a lot of responsibility to give to the federal government over not being able to tax and so forth, so again it is strengthening the federal government to give it more powers because, generally speaking, the Articles of Confederation were written to fill a gap while we were fighting a revolutionary war with the British. They were not seen as very effective; the federal government had to go to the states; to make a very long story short, it failed and people recognised that they needed to be replaced. So this again went to strengthening it.

The next sentence ‘Provide for the common defense’ is a very big power — the ability to make war. It is important to understand that while this was given to the federal government, we have split branches. We have three branches in our government. We have the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. Who has the ability to make war in the US? Whose responsibility is that?

Interjection.

Mr KOLBECK — Yes, the executive. But who controls the purse strings; who has the money power in the US? Congress; right? If you look at US history, you see there have been several cases where the President has made a decision in terms of war and then Congress has used its legislative ability to pass budgets to limit the President’s power, most notably for the war in Vietnam. Again, that is a story for another day.

The last bit is ‘secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity’. The founding fathers designed this document to be a living document, to evolve. If the document as it existed in 1787 were not changed until today, how relevant do you think it would be? Who did not have the right to vote in 1787?

Interjection.

Mr KOLBECK — Women; right. Who else?

Interjection.

Mr KOLBECK — Not-propertied males. How democratic would that be? Again, these things have changed. How do we do that with the US system? There are two ways. One is through amendments. Professor Costar mentioned the bill of rights. That is made up of the first 10 amendments to our constitution. There have been 18 other amendments that have followed them. Those have gone on in trying to modify and make the US constitution more adapted with time. The second way of changing the constitution is the process of judicial review, which also was mentioned. That is the ability of the Supreme Court to review the laws of Congress. That again allows the constitution to develop and be adapted. In the preamble we have this idea of ensuring these things are there for our posterity. That represents the ideal of making this document applicable for future generations.

I want to leave you with one thought. Whenever I am talking about the US system to people, usually slightly older than you but sometimes folks your age, they ask me why our system is as chaotic as it is. The reason, I think — and this is not necessarily about the preamble, but it is important if you are trying to understand why this is significant — is that in many ways the American system of government was designed to be the opposite of yours, the British commonwealth heritage. We have conflict and strife and imbalance embedded in our system of government. When people look at the health-care debate which is going on right now in the US they ask me, ‘Why is there so much fighting and argument while the President effectively has a majority in both houses, so he controls the entire executive branch more or less?’. Part of our system is having this conflict and tension built in to separate the executive and legislative branches. When you are looking at the American system of government it is important to keep that in mind — that our system was designed specifically to insert


chaos, for lack of a better word, into the governance system so people can disagree with one another. This process of tension, I think, creates this sort of living document that we see today.

The CHAIR — Thank you very much, Justin. It is now my pleasure to introduce Ms Anita Nayar, the Consul General for India. Ms Nayar was born in Agra in North India and was brought up in Delhi. She studied history at St Stephen’s College at the University of Delhi, graduating in 1982 with a bachelor of arts honours degree. In 1983, after having completed only one year of her post-grad course, she joined the Indian Foreign Service. It has been pointed out to me that she has always regretted that she never got around to finishing year 2 and getting that masters degree. There is always later.

Since joining the Indian Foreign Service Ms Nayar has had the following quite extensive postings: Hong Kong; head of chancery in Beijing; from 1990 to 1993, back to Delhi as undersecretary, followed by two years on deputation to the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, on the EEC/Europe desk, then back to the Ministry of External Affairs; Tel Aviv; Budapest; deputy high commissioner in Singapore; back then to Delhi as director, China, in the Ministry of External Affairs; and consul general in Mandalay. We are very pleased that on 17 July 2007 she became the consul general in Melbourne. As well as that very extensive list of tours around the world she has a number of personal interests, in particular learning about different cultures, reading, listening to music, and cooking. I am sure that you will have a very interesting discussion with her today.

Ms NAYAR (Consul General for India) — Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Very briefly, on the historical context to the Indian constitution all of you will know that it came after almost 30 years struggle for independence. It was a struggle where the values and ideals of our leaders and the people who set the tone for India today were heavily influenced by developments of the western world: the French Revolution, the American constitution and the Irish constitution. All those predated us and influenced us in many ways.

In 1947, when India got independence, we really and truly created something that had never existed before. If you look at the history of India, you see that India has always been an idea, but as a polity or political entity we have never had the India that exists today. It has always been small kingdoms or periods of brief empires which never covered the India which exists today. Even the British Empire did not include all of today’s India.

In 1947 what we were trying to do was not just get independence and our own voice but create a nation which had never existed before, to bring together peoples who had never thought of themselves as Indians but always in terms of class, caste, religion or ethnic identity. Even today in India whether you are a Maliari from the south is more important than the fact that you are an Indian.

It has been 60-odd years, and we are still a very young nation. That is something that people do not again realise, because we have 5000-odd years of civilisation behind us — many ideas which have contributed to our culture and our society. But as a political entity we are a very young country and a country which is still learning, and a country which in 1947 decided to include many ideas which were not Indian ideas but which were ideas of the West and ideas which our leaders thought were ideas relevant to the whole of human society.

If you look at our preamble, you see it starts with ‘We, the people’. That is very important. We have just got independence. We want to be very sure that everybody knows that the guiding spirit behind the Indian government and the Indian polity would be the people of India.

To that extent we share that with the American constitution, with the Irish constitution and even with the Spanish constitution. We resolved in 1947 to constitute India as a sovereign, democratic republic: sovereign to make it very clear that we were not being influenced by any external powers; democratic, again, to make it very clear that all the people of India were equal and all the people of India had a voice in the country’s politics and in the running of the country; republic, again, to make it very clear that we distance ourselves from our immediate history — we distance ourselves from the Crown. We are now an independent nation which does not have the British Crown as our head.

The rest of the preamble focuses on values which we thought were important to the running of the country and to the way the country should work. There is justice — social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation.


It is interesting that Professor Costar has mentioned ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’. Both these were later additions. They were not there in the original preamble. They were discussed, but the framers of the constitution felt that they were not necessary, that they were unnecessary embellishment and that the basic idea was already there.

Twenty-seven years later, after more than half a century of trying to build a country and build a polity, it was decided that the words ‘socialist’, ‘secular’ and ‘integrity’ of the nation were important and needed to be emphasised based on the experience of the last 25 years. ‘Socialist’ does not refer to a political ideology; it does not refer to socialism. The intention of using the word ‘socialist’ was to highlight social equality — the equality of all people irrespective of faith, of religion, of sex, of race and of caste or class. ‘Secular’ was intended to highlight the separation of state and religion, to underline the fact that India does not consider itself a religious state. It does not in its politics and in its government answer to God or look to God as a source of inspiration, and that was a very conscious decision which was taken by the framers of the constitution when they decided to have liberty of thought, expression, faith, belief and worship, because India has such a pluralistic religious life that just debating the who and what God is would have occupied everyone’s time.

‘Integrity of the nation’: again, it was 25 years down the line, and you must remember that the last independent state to join the Indian union was Goa in the 1960s, so even in 1947 India as it is today did not exist. But in the 25 years there already were very lively controversies about being part of India. There was a language controversy where the south Indian states wanted to have Tamil rather than Hindi as the official language. There was a very small nascent movement for secession. There was a Kashmir problem. There were in the north-eastern states stirrings of independence movements which wanted to break off from India, so in 1976, when the 42nd amendment added to the preamble the words ‘socialist’, ‘secular’ and ‘integrity’ of the nation, these reflected the experiences of the last 25 years and the need to re-emphasise the principles on which India was based. But as Professor Brian Costar has said and as seems to be the case with every preamble, it does not have any legal validity in terms of conferring any rights or conferring any obligations on the government. But, interestingly enough, the preamble is the guiding spirit of the constitution, and to that extent it has a legal validity, because every time the constitution is amended or there is a need to interpret the constitution if there is any ambiguity about the meaning of a particular article, the preamble is one of the documents which is looked to for guidance as to how the particular article should be interpreted or how the constitution should be amended. So to that extent the preamble, together with a couple of other documents like our fundamental rights charter and the directive principles charter, are called the basic structures of the constitution, and this has been highlighted by many court judgements over the years where some governments have tried to change the spirit of the constitution as laid down in the preamble and the courts have been very quick to lay down the judgement that the preamble is the basic guiding factor for the constitution and that no changes to the constitution can be made which violate the spirit of the preamble.

Basically the preamble is a reflection of the fact that we are a pluralistic society. We started off with the intention of making sure that all the people of India could get equal opportunity and an equal voice in the running of the government. Because we were so diverse, we chose to have a very centralised form of government and to have very clear principles which allow the people to express themselves as freely and independently as possible and be involved in the government today.

The CHAIR — Thank you very much. It is now my pleasure to introduce Ms Rosa Prieto. Ms Prieto has a bachelor of arts in English and philosophy from the Complutense University of Madrid, Spain, and a masters degree in Spanish and Latin American studies from the University of Madison-Wisconsin. She has worked for the ministry of education in Spain in the development of educational programs related to the expansion of the Spanish language overseas in Wales, the United States of America and now in Australia. It would be a challenge in Wales, I think. It is a beautiful language, though.

Ms Prieto is currently working with teachers in Victoria as an education adviser with the Consulate General of Spain in Melbourne and the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. I know that is really important work, and I thank her for it. We also thank Rosa very much for stepping in. I understand that your program indicated that the speaker would be Mr Carlos Aragon, who could not make it. We are very grateful that Rosa has made the time available today.

Ms PRIETO (Consulate General of Spain) — Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before describing the preamble in depth, it would be a good idea to explain how important the constitution is for the Spanish people and its historical context. The Spanish Constitution is very young; just a year ago we celebrated its


30th birthday. On 6 December 1978 the constitution was approved in a national referendum. Now every year Spaniards commemorate the referendum with a national holiday and celebrate democracy in Spain.

While Spain may be one of the oldest countries you are studying here today, it has the youngest democracy. Over the past two centuries there were numerous attempts to enact constitutions in Spain. The first one was written in 1812 by Spanish liberals opposing Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Spain. It was a very progressive constitution. Although it was in effect for only three years, its progressive ideals influenced many 19th century European and Latin American constitutions. The next 150 years in Spanish politics were turbulent, with democratic periods interrupted by military coups d’état and civil wars. All attempts at achieving a lasting stability under a constitution failed.

In the 20th century Spain was dominated by two events: the Spanish Civil War, which lasted from 1936 to 1939, and the dictatorship of General Francisco Franco that followed. Before the civil war there was a five-year democratic period known as the Second Republic. This was a period of progressive governments based on the republican constitution of 1931, but the republic was pulled apart by factional infighting and finally destroyed by Franco’s military uprising in 1936. Franco’s dictatorship was long — almost 40 years — and cruel. By the end, the desire for democratic change was practically universal. Franco died in 1975.

In 1977 Spain celebrated the first free elections in over 40 years, selecting a national constituent assembly. The establishment of democracy required the writing of a new constitution. Seven members of the assembly were appointed to compose a new constitution. However, the process of writing a constitution was not done on exactly a clean slate. Of the seven fathers of the constitution, some were holdovers from Franco-appointed governments. Others represented formerly outlawed left-wing opposition parties or were from geographical regions with linguistic and ethnic minorities seeking more autonomy from the central government in Madrid. In addition, Spain was once again a monarchy. His Majesty Juan Carlos I, a protégé of Franco, had been crowned king and head of state at Franco’s death. The authors of the new constitution had the task of defining the king’s role in a constitutional monarchy.

When looking at the resulting text, there is general agreement that it was a good document. However, there is much ambiguity in it. Apparently there was an effort to keep the language somewhat vague to avoid offending any of the diverse factions representing old and new power groups: monarchists, left-wing and right-wing politicians, the military, the Catholic Church, regional minorities, workers groups and others.

At the conclusion of their work these fathers of the Constitution asked a distinguished constitutional law professor, Dr Tierno Galván, to write the preamble to the document. The professor, renowned for his wisdom and skill as a writer, was expected to give the preamble a literary touch at the same time as summarising the constitution and its meaning in just a few words.

When we look at the text carefully, the preamble to the Spanish Constitution begins by explaining under what authority the constitution was promulgated. In the Spanish preamble this authority rests with the Spanish nation. There is no mention of the king, of God and the Catholic Church or of previous Spanish constitutions. The avoidance of past symbols of legitimacy is obvious. But what exactly did the author mean by ‘Spanish nation’? If Professor Tierno Galván meant by this the Spanish people, why did he not use an expression like ‘We, the people of Spain’ or ‘We, the Spaniards’, like those found in the other constitutions you are studying today? However, at the end of the preamble he did write, ‘The Spanish people ratify the following constitution’. Why did he begin the preamble with ‘Spanish nation’ and end with ‘Spanish people’? The easy answer is that the Spanish nation and the Spanish people are the same thing. If so, it is a clever use of the word ‘nation’. On the one hand if ‘nation’ meant the people, it pleased the liberals as it seems very democratic. However, if it could be read also as referring to the grandiosity of Spain, its institutions and its history, then it pleased the conservatives.

The usefulness of the expression does not end there. Avoiding the expression ‘the Spanish people’ also implies respect for the various people of modern multicultural Spain.

They might feel they belong first to another ethnicity with its own language, such as the Basque, the Catalan or the Galician people. The expression ‘the Spanish nation’ is useful to describe all the citizens of Spain and avoids offending minorities whose support was needed to approve the constitution. So ‘Spanish nation’ seems a pragmatic choice and an ingenious solution to one of the constitution’s greatest dilemmas.


Now that we have established what ‘Spanish nation’ might mean, we can address what the intentions were with this constitution and its preamble. The preamble sets out a declaration of principles that lead the state. It is a guide or a compass which directs the state towards an end and establishes a set of values. In the Spanish preamble four specific ideals are mentioned: justice, liberty, security and the wellbeing of the people. In the case of Spain it cannot be said that this was a mere philosophical declaration. Many Spaniards had been deprived of these rights during the Franco dictatorship.

The Spanish preamble describes how these ideals were to be achieved in six points. In these points we can find three themes: promotion of social rights, promotion of multiculturalism and plurilingualism, and establishing Spain’s international role.

It is interesting to note that in the final section, respect for original minority groups — vaguely implied at the beginning of the preamble — is specifically stated.

Finally, I would like to add that what distinguishes this constitution from past attempts is that it worked where all the others failed, and that is because the 1978 constitution is the product of the will of the entire Spanish people. The constitution was the key that opened the door to the full membership of Spain in the group of European democracies and all its institutions. It has succeeded in ensuring that Spaniards nowadays enjoy a good quality of life under the fruits of democracy. Thank you for your attention.

The CHAIR — Thank you very much. I have been very lucky to sit here this morning and listen to our guest speakers. All of them have provided me, I know personally, with a great deal to think about, and I thank them very much.

You now have the opportunity to ask questions of our guest speakers. I am going to try to be fair and go from side to side. I will have to point at you, I am sorry, because I do not know your names at this stage. If I look around chamber I know every seat. Every member of the Parliament who comes in here never gets to be called by name; they get to be called by seat. For example, this young lady over here is sitting in my seat, so if she stood, I would call the member for Oakleigh, which means I would call myself. Just bear with me. Are there any questions? Don’t be frightened. This young lady down here from Cranbourne Secondary College seemed to know a great deal about America. She must have a question. I congratulate her on her knowledge. I think we are all interested in the history of other countries, but sometimes it is difficult to remember all the bits and pieces about countries. Just give me your name.

Ms HINDE — I am Candice Hinde from Cranbourne Secondary College. Just to get me thinking, what should my question be about?

The CHAIR — I am sure there is a little bit more about the American constitution that we would to like know. I could listen to Justin Kolbeck — I could listen to all of them — for a long period of time.

Ms HINDE — They are very interesting.

The CHAIR — Perhaps Justin could give us a little bit more information. He spoke about the judicial review of the constitution, and that is the way in which the Supreme Court reviews it. I am sure you would be very interested, particularly with American politics. What we see is, if you like, the executive arm, the government, but as to the judicial review of the constitution I think a little bit more information on that would be very interesting. All of us see the President and the government — I think would you agree with me — and if we could have a little bit more about how the judiciary reviewed the constitution, I think that would help.

Mr KOLBECK — Candice, thanks for your bravery for coming up. As I mentioned earlier, the US system of government has three branches. There is the executive, who is the president, and the mass of bureaucracy behind him of which I am a member from the Department of State, as well as defence, education and all those other things. Then there is the legislative branch, which is the two houses of Congress which share the same names as yours, so the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are 435 members in the lower house and 100 senators in the upper house. And then we have the judicial branch, which the Deputy Speaker made reference to. This is probably the least well known. When you think of America you think of the President typically or you think of a few loud people from Congress, but rarely do you think of these nine judges. I think this is a very important component of our government because, as I mentioned earlier, this is the process by


which the constitution remains relevant. Let me give you an example. Has anybody here — and I do not expect you to — heard of a case called Brown v. Board of Education? You have? Awesome.

Interjection.

Mr KOLBECK — Yes, it was definitely part of that. This was a very important decision by which the Supreme Court decided that it is not okay to segregate schoolchildren. You cannot be separated from other people in that environment just because of the colour of your skin. Was this included in the preamble? Certainly not. Was it in the constitution or even in any bill of rights or the amendments that had been made up to that point? Certainly not. But this is the process by which the judicial branch is able to review laws that are passed in the US and make decisions about the appropriateness of that decision.

There are many other cases that were important, such as Brown v. Board of Education, but that is probably the best known for the quiet nine judges who sit in the Supreme Court of the US. It is interesting, though, if you think about it: you have got the President with his massive bureaucracy behind him, you have got 535 members of Congress, and you have got only nine judges, but imagine all of the influence that those nine people wield. Hopefully that answered the question.

Ms GRIFFIN — I am Stephanie Griffin from Elwood Secondary College. I would like to direct my question to Professor Brian Costar from Swinburne University. When you were talking I sensed some apprehension; I sensed that you did not really feel that the preamble was that important in reference to the actual constitution because it is not used in a judicial system or whatever. I am just wondering what your opinion is on the actual importance of the preamble. Also, we are all gathered here today, but is there, apart from the educational point, much point in our being here talking about this issue?

Prof. COSTAR — I can vouch for the quality of the morning tea! Do not misunderstand me: you will notice that all the preambles are not justiciable, but that does not mean they are not important. Symbols are very important in politics; sometimes symbols are more important than the reality. When I was listening to people talking about the constitutions of other countries, which have been created in different circumstances to Australia’s, I was struck by the importance of the symbolism and the importance of that symbolism not necessarily going down into the judicial interpretation of the constitution but going out into the polity. That is where I think preambles can be important, but I think that our preamble is pretty sparse.

I think that is probably the reason why my ignorant first reaction was, ‘Why are we are going to talk about the preamble?’. It might be a good reason to talk about the preamble because it might need a bit of improvement. You can see that Victoria has improved its preamble. There was an attempt to ‘improve’, but to be honest I did not vote in favour of the changed preamble because I could not understand some of it, and if I did not understand it, I was not going to vote for it. But that does not mean there cannot be a redrafted preamble that could be accepted. The problem I keep thinking about is how we are going to get it — —

The CHAIR — Into the constitution.

Prof. COSTAR — We cannot get it into the constitution because it is not in the constitution; it is not to be in the constitution. Remember that the preamble was put forward last time in the context of the republican debate. That was a divisive debate, and we know why, and it failed. Rather than tying it to that again, if indeed the republican question is going to come up in the near future, why not patriate the Australian constitution like the Canadians did in 1981? Why not make the constitution of Australia an act of the federal Parliament of Australia? That would not be constitutionally difficult.

As I said, you would need the commonwealth of the six states to formally approach the Parliament of Great Britain and ask it to suspend section 10 of the Australia act, which is the one that stops the British Parliament from legislating for Australia. It suspends it, it repeals the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and at the same time we enact it. Then you have got that problem out of the way and you can approach it in other ways. Let’s face it: what state would these days stand out against making the constitution an act of the Australian Parliament? They would be laughed to scorn. You would not have that partisan problem, and that would clear the way then to do other things rather than tying them together.

Mr VICTOR — I have got a question, but I do not know who could answer me. If Australia came up with a preamble, what would it be, and why would it represent Australia?


The CHAIR — I think that question is something you should consider today. I think that Brian might have a go at answering that for you.

Prof. COSTAR — I think the move is towards including some aspirational values in it. The question is: which ones? That is for you today. I think it is wise to get a constitutional lawyer who can write. That is not a bad place to start. It does need to have some zing in it, if you like, but not too much. You do not want to start unnecessary arguments by being too prescriptive about what is in it. You will notice that the language used in the three constitutions, in the three preambles, is quite rich in the sense that it can be interpreted in different ways, like that of the ‘Spanish nation’ and like ‘socialism’. That is the way to go. You need a crafty crafter of language to get it right, but what is to be in it? I will come back at the end of the day.

Mr HARRISON — Hello. I am James Harrison from Thomastown Secondary College. My question is directed to Shane Charles, the indigenous speaker. If we were to rewrite the preamble of the constitution and include Western Australia in the Federation, would you try to push the Northern Territory into that Federation?

Mr CHARLES — I think we have to do it as a nation. All of us, absolutely. We need to come together. In terms of the wording of the constitution, you can have a look at what the speakers after me said: what is it that you would like to see in those words? Do you think we should include Western Australia and Northern Territory? I think it has to encompass all of Australia.

The CHAIR — Thank you, Shane. I think there is another debate to be had there. If you talk about the Northern Territory, we also have the Australian Capital Territory, so I am not sure about entering a debate about whether territories should become states; I am sure they have opinions on that as well.

Mr WORETA — I would like to direct this question to Mr Kolbeck. When you say ‘We the People’, that preamble was written in 1700-and-something; are you looking at a more decentralised approach? Are you looking at the evolution of coming into a more 21st century approach, or was that preamble written in a centralised state, if you get my question?

Mr KOLBECK — Thank you very much for that question. I made mention of this earlier when I was speaking about what ‘We the People’ meant back then, and again they were not talking about every person living in America, unfortunately, and when I talked about the constitution being a living document, it was very limited — it was limited to landed white males. Because of the process of judicial review and things like the amendments that were added later, that definition gradually extended to the point where, when you look at the constitution and try to understand the term ‘We the People’, you see that, yes, it now applies to every citizen in the United States.

So over time it has gradually grown to become more inclusive. And Professor Costar’s point from a minute ago is important: when you are thinking about the words that should be in a preamble or what qualities should be there, you should be thinking about things that will last for a long period of time, not just in the short period in which it was written. So maybe I will just leave you with that thought.

Ms JEFFS — Ms Nayar mentioned how the preamble to the constitution of India was like the guiding spirit and how it was represented, and it seemed to me that it has more significance than the Australian one. I was wondering, with the Spanish and the US constitution preambles, whether they had that kind of importance as well when it comes to interpreting the constitution itself. I am directing the question to either Spain or America, or both. I think that they did not address it as India did, and I was just wondering about it.

The CHAIR — I will call Rosa first to address it in terms of Spain.

Ms PRIETO — Let me see if I have your point clear: from the Spanish point of view it was very important to leave religious connotations out of the constitution. There was a very important purpose to leave God out of it, because we had the background of the Catholic Church supporting the Franco regime for 40 years, so it was very important to try to have a secular society and it had to be expressed in the constitution through that. So God would be in a different part of it but not in the political part.

The CHAIR — After a turbulent historical period; I think that is quite clear with Spain. America does not quote God. Would you like to comment on that, Justin?


Mr KOLBECK — That is right. When you look at the language in a preamble it is just as important to consider what is not there as what is there. In the US constitution preamble there are many ideas and aspirational hopes and dreams contained in there, but again we do not have the word ‘God’ included in ours, and I think that is important. Part of our bill of rights, which is the first 10 amendments, includes a component which separates the church and state, and this was again an important part of our history where people who came to the United States wanted to be able to practise religion as they saw fit, and they saw it to be very dangerous to incorporate the concept of God and combine that with the state. That is not to say that the American people are not religious people or were not back then — they most certainly were — but the founding fathers decided that it was best to disentangle those two ideas and to leave them separate. This is in contrast to the Irish constitution, which is very, very religious. But you do not see any mention of God in the US preamble.

Prof. COSTAR — Two quick comments. To the gentleman who asked a question about the Northern Territory, I think that is an example of being too specific in your language. Rather than listing the states, just say it is a federation. That leaves open the opportunity that there might be other states, and the constitution provides for that. We have not had any, but it provides for it.

On the question of different constitutions, the thing that struck me today sitting and listening — and I think we have mentioned this, and it is important to remember this not just about preambles but about constitutions as well — is that they are products of particular historical circumstances. All of the three that are not Australian had an experience of civil war or violence going back some time. They were all different, but they had that degree of, if you like, political turmoil in them, and that, I think, produces the more aspirational language.

By historical circumstance that was not Australia’s history other than, of course, the ignored one of clashes between Europeans and indigenous people. But there was not that centralised or even decentralised political turmoil that drove that constitution.

It is a very matter-of-fact document. I am not one to decry the Australian constitution. I think, with only one exceptional clause, it is a very good constitution. It is a very democratic constitution. It has proved itself to be very flexible and adaptive, but it was not the product of turmoil, so there is not a lot of the enthusiastic language there. We just have to remember that nations are different; they have different political histories.

Ms NAYAR — I just wanted to say that the issue of the importance of the preamble in interpreting the constitution is something which both America and Spain have shared in practice. Justin spoke about the judicial review and so on — a lot of it would be interpreting the constitution based on the spirit of the preamble. As far as God is concerned, as I said, we have so many of them that there was no way we wanted to put that into our constitution!

Ms BROOK — I am Charlotte Brook from St Catherine’s School. I have a query regarding clarification of a statement made by Professor Brian Costar. If we were to enact a new preamble that would be so-called ‘inserted’, I was just wondering what was the context that you meant by ‘inserted’ and if there were connotations about how it would be processed. How would that be done?

Prof. COSTAR — The point I was making was that we amend the words of our constitution by way of referendum — that is, the people speak. Remember, I said it is a very democratic constitution. The people speak; however, only on the constitution. Remember, the constitution starts at section 9 of the British act; the eight previous sections, one of which is the preamble, is not part of the constitution. There could be a good argument put that you cannot amend what is not part of the constitution by the instrument by which you amend the constitution. What do you do then? This is in a sense the product of the evolution of the Australian constitution and the separation from the United Kingdom. It has happened very differently. We did not go for a revolution. We did not go for a vigorous independence struggle. We went along the gradualist path. What I am suggesting there is that it is totally unacceptable. I think you could say that the preamble could never be amended so indigenous people can never be recognised. There are very few people these days who are going to argue that. So how are you going to amend it? I suggest that what you do is detach it from other controversies. The first thing you do is patriate it — that is, bring back home the Australian constitution, like the Canadians did in 1981 — and then you could amend the preamble by an act of the Australian Parliament. You would not have to go to a referendum; my argument is that you could not.


If that preamble had been accepted in 1999, I think you could have been pretty sure that someone would have taken the case to the High Court of Australia — not about the preamble, because it is not part of the constitution and therefore the High Court of Australia cannot rule on that. They can, however, rule on the process by which the preamble was amended — that is, there would be an attack launched in the court on whether you can use section 128 to amend the first eight clauses. I do not think you can. I am sure there is an argument the other way, but I cannot see it holding water.

Mr EVANS — I am Lachie Evans from Gippsland Grammar School. I would just like to address a question to Professor Costar. You have sort of already covered it, but you mentioned that Spain had the Franco dictatorship and America and India likewise broke free of the British rule and that gave the driving historical force to the constitution and the preamble: do you think it is necessary for Australia to have a historic moment in the preamble, and if you do, what type of moment would you suggest?

Prof. COSTAR — The preamble that was put up in 1999 was okay until you got to the last sentence; that is the bit that I could not understand. It told a story, in a sense, of the Australian nation, going back to indigenous peoples, going through and mentioning in general terms the British legacy, moving into Federation and then making some comments about democracy and rights and respect. The four lores — l-o-r-e — would not be a bad place to start. I think that you have got what looks like a model sitting there; it just needed to be amended a bit. You tell a story. As I said, this is why you need your literate constitutional lawyer who can put a bit of aspiration in it, but not too much, and also tell the story. Anyway, you guys can have a go at that.

The CHAIR — It might be useful for you to also think about what might be the historical event that turns or changes it. Is it a republic question?

Prof. COSTAR — Not Gallipoli!

The CHAIR — No, I am talking about a future event for the republic.

Ms SINGH — I am Saheba Singh from Glen Waverley Secondary College. It is a question for Anita and Rosa. Were the constitutions of India and Spain written in a different language first before they were translated to English, given the first language of India and Spain are not actually English?

The CHAIR — That is a very good question.

Ms PRIETO — Our constitution was written in Spanish. Spanish is one of the four languages of Spain, but at the same time it was written in Basque, which is the language that the Basque people in the north of Spain speak; in Catalan; and in Andalusian. The four languages are equally in the constitution. They are the four languages that the different peoples of Spain speak, although Spanish is the general one that goes over all of them.

Ms NAYAR — The preamble was written in English. Even though Hindi was made the official language, that came much later when the constitution was being adopted. As I have mentioned very briefly, there was a lot of controversy about that because quite a few of the states in South India did not accept Hindi as the official language — even today. But certainly at that period in time English was one language which all the drafters of the constitution could understand and use to communicate amongst themselves, because there were people in the constituted assembly who could not understand Hindi or did not speak any other language.

The only language that Indians have in common today is English, and that was the case in 1947 also, so the preamble and the constitution were written in English and later translated into Hindi.

Mr MEANEY — I would like to ask Justin Kolbeck: in Australia there is an argument that Aboriginal people should be included in the constitution. In America is there an argument for the American indigenous people to be included in that constitution?

Mr KOLBECK — Effectively they are now. And again that was part of the process I was describing earlier in answer to Mr Woreta’s question about what ‘We the People’ actually means and stands for. But one thing I think it is important for people here to understand is that it is a similar situation to that which Australia faces, and it is a very good question. The issue of Native Americans is a very charged issue still today in the United States. For example, on Native American reservations they are subject to their own laws, and that is protected


by the constitution; so it allows them some of their own governance structures that you would not find in other communities in the US.

That is something in America that we see as perfectly reconcilable with the rest of the constitution and the rest of the guiding set of laws. But again, at the time of writing, if you go back to the history, this most certainly was not the case. It is something that has evolved over a long period of time — over 250 years in the US — and quite frankly it is still a work in progress.

Mr WHAN — My question is to Professor Costar. Do you think that instead of referencing the individual states, the preamble should just mention Australia as a whole? Also, due to the multicultural and secular society that we live in should it perhaps not mention God at all in the preamble now?

Prof. COSTAR — I think the last of your remarks is the one that might prove controversial. It is relatively easy — and the 1999 referendum did it too — to talk about Aboriginal people and to talk about multiculturalism although, again, they might be wise to use ‘multiethnic’ so that they are talking about the reality and not about policies. It is a reality that Australia is a multiethnic community — that cannot be denied — but there are arguments about what multiculturalism means. But keep them out of there; have the arguments by all means, but not there.

I think it is quite ironic that, as Justin was saying, the United States of America is a much more religious society than Australia is. In Australia no-one cares pretty much what politicians’ religions are; they do not even care whether they have a religion. But in America, except in a few places, that would be a bad career move for a politician. The great irony, of course, is that the American constitution, for good reasons, does not include God. Ours does in the preamble, but then in section 116 it separates church and state — well, sort of separates church and state; that is how it is generally regarded.

So we are a bit contradictory there. We should be blessed with many more Gods; then you would avoid the problem completely. I am really not sure how that will play out. If you go back to how it was put in, originally the constitution of Australia was passed by the British Parliament but it was written here. The writers were pretty evenly divided but not passionate about the issue of God. They got passionate about it because interest groups — they were not called that in those days — ran a campaign that ‘God’ has to be in. And you know what happens when politicians are confronted with organised interest groups claiming to be silent majorities or not-so-silent majorities: they tend — present company excluded — to bend in that direction. So I would not be surprised if, to avoid a fight, ‘god’ might go in — with a small ‘g’.

The CHAIR — I think the issue of culturally and linguistically diverse people is a very important one. I have been so enthralled by this debate that I did not realise that the time was rapidly approaching for this session to finish.

We will have a break now. It has been a very intense morning but an extremely interesting one. I ask you, once again, to put your hands together and thank very much our wonderful speakers.

Sitting suspended 10.59 a.m. until 1.30 p.m.


PART B: EXPLORING THE ISSUE

Feedback session

The CHAIR — I understand we have 10 groups and that a member of each will report back in this feedback session. You will have up to 2 minutes, after which I will cut you off, because then we will have what we are calling the soapbox time, when individual members will have an opportunity to speak. I ask the leader for group 1 to speak.

Group 1

Ms JEFFS — We determined that Australia should have a new preamble to the constitution. We thought that the first preamble referred a lot to the British commonwealth and our relationship with the Queen — that was our relationship at the time. We did see Britain as the mother country at that time. However, we do not think that is relevant to Australians today, as we see ourselves very much independent from the British, even though we are still part of the commonwealth.

We also said that it does not mention God and the states are mentioned separately, which does not really apply today. At that time the states still recognised themselves as separate, whereas today we are much more united as a country.

The values that we propose are those proposed in the law, which I think one of the speakers said was part of the indigenous culture in Australia. We thought they were relevant to not just indigenous people but to all Australians. So that was responsibilities, acceptance, quality and equality — which would go together — respect, and unity. We think that they are umbrella-type terms that can be interpreted differently by different people, so that no-one feels left out or feels offended by them, and they can be interpreted by whoever writes the preamble in a very creative or linguistic way. That is what we propose for the new preamble.

Group 2

Ms ZOIDES — My group agreed with group 1, that we were going to have the new preamble, but we also thought that with the new preamble we should come up with a more relevant constitution, make a few amendments to make it more relevant to today. We decided on five main things that we would have in there in relation to human rights and freedom. We referred to the indigenous Australians, multiculturalism, diversity, tolerance of religion and culture. We would also have references to the Queen if we did not become a republic, and to history, including Federation and Australia being a democracy. We decided not to include anything on religion, and we also decided to not name each individual state.

Group 3

Ms FRAMPTON — My group came to the general consensus that we did not want a new preamble. We decided this because it was a very high cost and that cost could be better put towards other areas like paramedics or hospital beds and so on, and there was not enough public awareness, so even it was not changed, it would not really mean anything. It did not impact anything again. It is not part of law, so it would not be mentioned in a courtroom. It would not be used as any kind of legal grounds. It would not change anything, and it would not be of any use, really.

We decided that although it is an introduction to the values of Australia, Australia’s reputation already precedes itself. We are already very well known for our values and what we want to achieve, and we do not really need a preamble to do that.

Finally, it is part of Australian history. It was the beginning of Australia. It was what they originally decided, and it goes with the constitution like that. If you were to change it, then you would take away a part of our original history, and for something that does not need to be changed or has no direct impact, there is no point. We said no, it should not be changed.

Group 4

Mr HARRISON — We believe that we should change the preamble of the constitution. We think it relies too much on connections with England and Christianity, and there is hardly any mention of the indigenous


Aboriginals. It does not focus on the people as much as it could. The values that we decided to put down were democracy, respect, acceptance of other cultures, the commonwealth and the Crown, and equal human rights.

Group 5

Mr LINGER — In group 5, I am guessing like most other groups, we thought that the preamble should be changed. In our new preamble we really felt it should have an emphasis on separating religion from politics; also our diversity, culturally, and our environmental diversity. We had a big part for striving for equality and a kind of fair go. We felt our basic freedoms should be included in our new preamble. Something that we all felt strongly about was the recognition of the indigenous part of Australian history, and also a general statement on Australian history, which is what we saw in the different preambles — general statements that in, say, 100 years time could still be applicable to those times, not something extremely specific to these times now because we know things like that can change.

Group 6

Mr ROYLE — We decided that we should change the preamble. We would like to see the names of the states not specifically mentioned. We definitely should acknowledge the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders as the first custodians. We should keep the reference to the Queen and commonwealth because we acknowledge her and do not want to become a republic. We should include values that Australians hold dear as a unified nation. Such qualities are freedom, tolerance, individual dignity, social equality and the rule of law. We came up with an idea of what the new preamble could be, and that is:

We, the people of the Australian Federation, with hope in God, have agreed to unite in an indissoluble federal commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the constitution hereby established:

Being proud of an oath to our national unity, that has been forged by Australians of many ancestries, with recognition of the first custodians of this land, uphold our Australian values of freedom, tolerance, individual dignity, social equality and the rule of the law.

Be therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of Australian people and Parliament and by the authority of the same, as follows.

Group 7

Ms PRICE — We agreed that there should be a new preamble. We strongly agree with group 4 that it is very British based, very clinical and segregated, and yet we found it contradictory because it mentioned indissoluble. We agreed that we should have more equality, freedom of beliefs, justice, liberty and democracy. We agreed that the preamble that we have now is very spiritual and religious, basically because in the 1900s we were very much under British rule, more so than we are now, and that is how it became more religious. We agreed that it should not be as religious. It appears to be anti-ethnic as well.

Group 8

Mr NIELSON — Like the other groups, our group agreed that the preamble should be changed to be a more modern and amended version, because it does not really apply to our current society. We also agreed that we should mention that we are part of the commonwealth so that we do not have any issues with Britain. We decided that we wanted to refer to all states and territories in Australia as a whole country as the Federation of Australia.

We also thought that our preamble needed more ‘zing’, and we decided that ‘mateship’ was an important word in Australia’s culture. We all strongly agreed that we should recognise the traditional ownership of our land by the indigenous people. Lastly, we also agreed that God should not be mentioned in the preamble because Australia has a very multicultural society and it might conflict with other people’s views and opinions.

Group 9

Ms NGUYEN — One point that was brought up is: what happens if we get rid of the preamble? The thing is we have never not had it, so we do not what the ramifications are. We decided to keep it but make amendments to it. We have changed so much in the last 100 years. We have evolved: we have got new technology, we have had so many changes.


One of the things we decided to add in was the multiculturalism thing. There are so many diverse cultures. Instead of writing, ‘We the people of New South Wales and Victoria’, we say, ‘We the people’ and include everyone.

The second point we made was that we need to acknowledge that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were the first owners of the land. We need to make mention of them because they were here before us.

The third one we did was a reference to our alliance to the Queen. We are part of the British empire. This has a lot about the Queen, but we should have a bit about it; not as much. We like that with democracy everyone gets their voice heard. We need to say something about equality in relation to sex, race and gender, liberty and everyone striving for the wellbeing of all.

Group 10

Mr WINGROVE-LYPTON — Coming on last I have heard that there is a general consensus on ideas about what should go into a preamble which serves as a basis for what our group advocated, which was that we should have one. A reason for that, other than the issues that are in it, is that Australia has no official declaration or a bill of rights or anything like that, so it does not have what is written down in terms of our values and rights and things like that. A preamble would serve the purpose of at least outlining what is present in our society now in an official way rather it being just assumed.

Our group also assumed that the preamble would come after we became a republic, so we decided not to mention any links to the commonwealth or the Queen or anything like that. The values and ideas that we thought should go into a preamble include: responsibility to our land and its fellows in terms of the environment and our community, an affirmation of the equality of all people before the law and to celebrate the diversity and coexistence of multiethnicity as opposed to multiculturalism. We thought we should begin the preamble with ‘We the people of the republic of Australia’, much in the style of the American and, I think, the Indian preambles.

We should also acknowledge the indigenous people of the country, and possibly acknowledge also past injustices that have been carried out on them and past suffering that may have been inflicted. That was a possible inclusion as well. We thought that all of those things were vital to include as part of the preamble.

PART C: THE CAMPAIGN CONCLUDES

The soapbox

The CHAIR — That was very good, because it means we have a little more time for individuals to speak. We will allocate up to 2 minutes, but you do not have to use the whole 2 minutes. There are a lot of you in the chamber, and I would like as many of you as possible to be able to express your views prior to us taking a vote on what we have determined today. I call for speakers. Who wishes to express an opinion?

Mr ZHANG — In my opinion the constitution preamble should not be changed, for the following reasons: the cost of changing the constitutional preamble is too much. To change the preamble you need a referendum and it costs around $60 million, and not many referenda have been passed in Australian history. There was a referendum held in 1999 on this issue, and 60 per cent of the population voted against it. I do not think peoples’ attitudes have changed since then.

Also, this preamble does not represent and is not a symbol of Australia. If you go up to someone and ask them what this preamble is, they are unlikely to be able to tell you what it is. Also, this preamble has no definite reason to be changed. We are still under the governance of Great Britain. We cannot really change the preamble much.

Mr PETRAKIS — I am from group 10, and we discussed the issue of responsibility, both towards the environment and towards the people. Obviously 150 years ago the environment was not a big issue, but we need to acknowledge, subtly of course, that we do have a responsibility to look after the environment or the land.

As for the people, I think today as a people we are separating Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders from normal Australians. On the issue of illegal migrants, if we had to make everyone equal or give everyone equal


opportunities, that could backfire on us with all these illegal migrants coming in. These people, who have obviously come into this country illegally, should not automatically be given equal rights.

Also the issue about responsibility is a burden on our value of freedom. We need to acknowledge that we cannot be completely free as there are some things we have a responsibility for.

Mr DAKIS-CORCORAN — I stand in this place today resolutely opposing the new preamble. There is something which has been overlooked in this entire debate, and it is the fact that public support and what the Australian people want should be the overwhelming consideration in public policy decisions.

The Australian people have had their say on this issue, and indeed they emphatically rejected a preamble at the 1999 referendum. A lot of these things we speak of — acknowledging indigenous people et cetera — they were a part of that preamble, and it was rejected. It was not rejected because people necessarily have a negative view towards indigenous rights, but because the Australian people could see that there was no tangible benefit in introducing a new preamble.

This proposal for a new preamble is the ultimate in time wasting. It reminds me a bit of the policy of this state government in the early 1990s, which sat in this chamber and introduced a policy of renaming high schools ‘secondary colleges’, mostly to make them just sound better. I am happy that my school fought that and did not agree to it. It sounded good, just like the preamble sounds, but it did not have any tangible benefit. I urge people today not to get carried away in the symbolism of the preamble. Vote for tangible benefits.

Ms DUNSTAN — There should be a new preamble to the bill of rights. The old one is ridiculously outdated. What our country needs is something which says what we stand for, and there is nothing better than the preamble to do that — there could be, but I do not know of it. Most importantly the preamble should lay down what we believe: that every person in this country should have basic human rights and a roof over their heads; everyone should be able to find a job; everyone should have the right to speak their own language, especially the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, who should be allowed to speak their indigenous languages in school instead of being made to learn in English. Every person in this country should have such basic human rights.

Ms KIMPTON — I came here today wondering what the preamble is and why everyone is making a big deal of it. I read the booklet, but I did not really understand why everyone made such a big deal of it. When I got together with my group I thought, ‘I guess we have to discuss it’, so I got everyone’s opinion. I think everything in the old preamble is bit outdated, and we should write a new preamble.

Then I wondered if in another 150 years they would say, ‘Maybe we should make a new preamble’ different from the one we write today. I thought that if we write a new one today and make it a bit broader to include the things we believe in, like multiculturalism, equality and considering the history of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, in 150 years they might not need to change it fully but maybe change a few little things and leave it at that. We should have a new preamble.

Mr EVANS — My group got together this afternoon, and there was a general consensus that we had to do something about the preamble except that we did not really feel that we had to make a completely new one. When turning the pages of the booklet that we were given we found a preamble that was precisely what our group wanted to express. That was the preamble the Howard government proposed in 1999 that was rejected via a referendum.

What our group has done is take parts of the 1999 proposed preamble and mixed it with the current preamble to give the preamble a sense of Australian values. We have also minimised the religious aspect because we think it is still very important to some people in our country, and it will simply be too hard to completely eradicate it from the current preamble. The issue of the environment was brought up by a previous speaker, that it is important to mention it in our preamble. Our group reached a general agreement that the environment is an important matter; however, perhaps the country’s preamble to the constitution is not the right medium to present our views on this issue.

Our ties to Britain and membership of the commonwealth have already been debated. Yes, we may become a republic, and it is important to note that; however, right now we are not a republic and still have strong ties to Britain. Being part of an international organisation such as the commonwealth is beneficial for us. My group


kept reference to God and the commonwealth and combined 1999 proposed preamble with the current preamble to come up with something we think is beneficial for all Australians.

Ms BROOK — I have something quite short to say in response to the statement by the delegate from group 3 and the speaker from over here that it would not benefit Australia in any way to have a preamble. I partly disagree. If we were to change the preamble, it would only be if Australia was to become a republic. Otherwise, as the speaker said, we would be wasting another $6 million. I do not mean to sound controversial, but the Queen is getting old and things might happen. It would simply be a waste of money. Only if Australia was to become a republic should we change the preamble.

In response to Mr Evans’s statement that his group agrees with the preamble from the 1999 referendum, its opening statement was ‘With hope in God’. Everyone here should be mindful that it is used in the same context and sentence that ‘is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good’. Beginning a statement with the words ‘With hope’ is very lukewarm. It says we are trying to achieve, but by creating a new preamble we show a sense of independence. Just saying we hope to do something is light-hearted and not worth $6 million.

Mr WORETA — I want to say the preamble should be changed. A lot of people are saying it should not be changed, but the bottom line is the government needs to be responsible and representative. It needs to represent the interests of the states and the people of Australia. Community values change continually, and our laws need to change to better suit those values. We are a multicultural society. There is a lot of ethnic diversity in Melbourne, and everyone can see that. The preamble needs to change to better suit that. It is really outdated; Western Australia is not even included, so what does that tell us? It excludes a lot of people.

It comes from a centralised type of government. We are living in a decentralised era now. How many religions do we have in Melbourne? How many different ethnicities are there? We are very diverse, so we have become decentralised. We need to move away from a centralised type of view to come to a decentralised one. Ten years down the track we will be even further decentralised and 10 years further on we will be even more decentralised and the preamble will probably be changed again. But the point of the law is to change and uphold and respect the values of the community. That is the job of the government — to be responsive and representative. If it does not do that, it will not be elected for a new term. That is my point.

Mr MEANEY — In response to what Luke said before: he said Australian people rejected the preamble proposed by John Howard. That was just one preamble, and it was pretty specific. Just because they rejected that preamble does not mean they will reject another preamble that might be proposed.

Ms GRIFFIN — I know I have spoken before, and I do not want to be a hog, but I really want to get across my point of view. Basically, I cannot believe that people are opposing having a new preamble. The preamble is outdated. It does not mention anything about the values that I think Australians hold and the things we love about our country. We are a very multicultural society, and that should definitely be recognised — our democratic views, our freedom of speech and freedom of rights, everything. The fact is that the preamble does not even mention equality, when back when the preamble was written women could not vote. There are so many things I want to change.

I agree completely with what the speaker before me said. Just because they reject one opinionated preamble does not mean that if we change it to suit our opinions today, it will not pass. We do not have to spend that much money. I think there are other ways we can do it. I think everyone should be a bit more open-minded.

The CHAIR — Before I call anybody else I am going to express an opinion, which I do not normally do from the Chair. In this chamber in the normal time of debate there is an opportunity — because obviously speakers have longer to speak on bills — to comment on something that may have been said by those who are opposing the views.

While it is good to perhaps comment on others, the way in which you will sway anybody’s opinion or public opinion or get a good debate going is to put forward your views as to why you want something to change or not to change. It is fine to, if you like, try to rebuff what somebody else has said, but in this chamber of debate the most important thing you can do is to put forward your view as to why something should or should not change, and to put forward a very strong and cohesive argument which may change the mind of somebody else.


While I am very happy for you to enter into a debate and rebuff somebody else, I would really like to hear your reasons for a change or no change. Do you get what I mean? I will not call speakers more than once; there are too many.

Ms MANSOUR — In here we are all Australians. We are all proud to say that we are Australians. We all hold the same values of freedom of speech and equality, and yet we do not want the preamble to change when it does not represent the things we are proud of. We want to be able to say, ‘Yes, we have a preamble that says we are proud of the fact we have freedom of speech and equality and we are a multicultural society’.

The Irish people are so proud of their religion that it is stated in their preamble. It expresses the fact that they believe in God. Why can we not express the fact that we believe in equality, and we are proud of our multicultural society? I think the preamble should change. Maybe the public could be better informed about what the preamble is. Even though it may not affect them personally, if they were better informed about what it stands for and what it represents, they might be more likely to vote yes.

Ms SHOGHI — I do not believe we need to change the preamble. That is not to say that I am ignorant or that group 3 was ignorant. Basically, when you look at it realistically there is not much we can change. We are still under the umbrella of Great Britain, and so as a speaker mentioned it would be better to spend $60 million in the future when we become a republic rather than spending it now merely to change detail.

Yes, we believe in equality, and we believe we should unite the country, but maybe the cost of making Australians aware of a preamble could be spent on a human rights charter or on something that can be legally binding. It does not seem that the preamble can fully represent what we believe. It cannot be used in court. It is only used in Australian politics. Maybe we should have a human rights charter or something.

Ms IBRAHIM — I have heard a lot of people talking about Australia becoming a republic. I know many people have the idea that one day Australia will become a republic, but when do delegates think we are going to become a republic? In 10, 20 or 100 years time? If so, how long do we have to wait to change the preamble?

We know the 1999 preamble was way too specific with exact details about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. What if we made a broader preamble that showed everyone’s views and morals about the Australian way? The current preamble is all about the commonwealth. It is about almighty God, but right now in Australia we have so many people who do not believe in God. Our preamble does not represent the views of every Australian now.

I am sure a referendum would show if people wanted to change the preamble — and I know it would cost $60 million. If we had a broader question in a referendum, we would decide to change it. At this time we need a change because we are not as controlled by the British government as we were back in the 1900s when this preamble was made.

We are not out of the Queen’s range, but we are more free, and we need a new preamble to put forward the views of the new Australia and to include indigenous Australians, because they were here first and they need a point of view in this culture.

Ms STARK — I agree with group 3 and several other speakers. As said by the US consul-general’s representative, the changes to the American preamble occurred due to a need because that preamble was not working. As we all know, our preamble does not even have legal effect. It does not do anything, so there is no need to change it. Some people have said our preamble should reflect our beliefs and wishes, but changing the preamble will just say, ‘We want this to happen; it will not make it happen’. Saying we want equality does not bring equality. Dedicating $60 million to these causes will make a difference, but changing the preamble will not.

Mr SCARFER — Let us have a show of hands: how many of you knew about the preamble before you heard about this convention? Only a couple of you; and most of us study politics or some form of humanities. If we were to try to have a referendum to change the preamble, how many people do you reckon would care? Not really that many at all.

As was stated before, the preamble does not have anything to do with our constitution. It is pretty much like the cover of a book and does not reflect anything in our constitution or us as a country. The only way we can show


people that Australia is such a great country is by treating people well, acting like good people and embracing multiculturalism and different types of religions. The preamble is not going to change that.

Ms AVERY — Can I make the assumption that we are going to have a new preamble? It has been said a few times — I am sorry, but I cannot remember by whom — that the environment is not the kind of thing that needs to be included in the preamble. Awareness of the environment is a really important value, and values are the kind of thing we want to put in a new preamble, if we are going to have one. There are some really topical issues right now like the push for an emission trading scheme and things like that. These issues are not going to be around forever, but the environment is not going to go anywhere. This issue is going to keep on being important, and if we do have a preamble, it should be one of the main values in there.

There has been some argument about whether or not we are going to become a republic. A few of the people from my group spoken about this, and we have been a bit misunderstood. We are saying that if we have a new preamble, it will almost definitely not to until we have become a republic. We think this is something that is going to happen, so the push to be a republic needs to come before the push for a new preamble, because one will definitely follow the other.

Ms ATTAR — Why do you think we are going to become a republic? Do you want to follow in Jamaica’s footsteps and become nothing? If at first you fail, why do you not keep trying until you succeed? Yes, we failed in 1999 with the new preamble, but why have we not tried again? Because people are scared; if you fail once, they think you are going to fail again. I cannot understand why we have not tried.

The preamble should be changed because it is old and outdated, and we are new. To me Australia is all about change. We are always changing. We should really consider changing the preamble and should have a push to change it. Australia is always changing. Other countries have changed too, but have not changed their preambles because, like I said, they must be scared.

Ms HAMILTON — Someone mentioned before that the preamble to the constitution was like the cover of a book, and I totally agree with that; it is like the first page of a book. Does anyone remember in primary school when you had to pick a book from the library and the teachers would say, ‘Read the first page, and if you do not like it, go and put it back’? That is exactly like this.

Has anyone bothered to read the whole constitution? No. You will read the first paragraph and say, ‘Okay, that seems boring’, or whatever, and you will just take it as it is. Does anyone really want the rest of the world to see us that way, in a paragraph about how we are ruled by the Queen?

It seems ridiculous that much of the world sees us like that, as something under the commonwealth. If the preamble is going to be a page about Australia, it has to be good. It does not seem to represent us. If you want to represent Australia, you get stubbies and a barbecue or something. You do not get a paragraph about how we hope to God that the commonwealth accepts us. It just does not seem right.

Ms SEMOVSKI — The preamble should be changed, but the major thing that is facing us against changing the preamble is the lack of public awareness. I came in today not knowing what a preamble was when I first heard about the topic.

As we broke off into our discussion groups our group told me they did not know what a preamble was before today either. I am in year 10 at the moment, and if educated students like us do not know what a preamble is — I am from an ethnic background — how are people like my parents who finished high school in year 10 supposed to know about a preamble? I am learning in Australia whereas they learned overseas.

The CHAIR — Good point. Nobody has raised the issue of language.

Ms SINCLAIR — I totally agree with the speaker from Hoppers Crossing Secondary College when she talked about failing and not trying again. If a five-year-old is riding a bike and he falls over, he gets back up and tries again. I thought I would point that out.

There are a couple of changes we would like to make to the preamble. We thought that instead of saying ‘Almighty God’ because we are a multicultural country we should have freedom of religion. Obviously, in Australia we have people from many different religious backgrounds. Mr Charles spoke about the four


fundamental properties. We thought respect for laws and things like that should be a part of it. If we do not have respect, we would all be doing backflips off the walls in here because we would not care about what happened to the place. We think that should be in the preamble as well.

Mr DITMANN — I am sure everyone here in the chamber today supports some of the values we have discussed such as equality and liberty and rights. The preamble does not include many of those. However, is the preamble really a tourist document? Do we go around waving it to represent us? Do we not have equality or liberty or equal rights in this country? The preamble does not signify that. It is not a tourist document. It is a document that hardly anyone reads.

The constitution is not exactly something you just pick up and read about Australia. It is about the complex processes. Since we already have these values in this country, and I am sure the government supports them, why do we need to include them in a document which is not read and which does not really signify us?

Ms BUCKLAND — I agree with Ms Sinclair, she is completely right. I know other speakers mentioned ‘Almighty God’ but they do not have to mention it as god. I am religious and I think something should be in the preamble like the freedom to have a religion. We do not have to mention the Queen and the commonwealth, we could just say we are under the commonwealth umbrella or something like that.

Ms VILLANUEVA — I am going to go outside the box. We can all say that we have heard both sides — that we should, and we should not change the preamble. Whether or not we change it, Australia is still going to be Australia. The Prime Minister can be changed every three years, but we do not really see that many changes besides water restrictions and whatever else they do. But Australia is still going to be Australia no matter what preamble we have. It is not going to affect us that much.

Ms SINGH — I agree when people say that adding our values to the preamble is not going to make people express those values. We need to change our preamble because it is very outdated, and it is a bad reflection on Australia. I think we all agree that this is not the same Australia as it was 100 years ago. We have really changed and our preamble has to reflect the changes we have made.

Ms BERNARDO — The preamble sets the tone for the constitution. In legal practice it is vital. There is something called statutory interpretation which is the way we interpret our acts or statutes. For example, in one case the preamble might be referred to if there is a debate about a word or about the feel of the constitution. I think the preamble needs to be changed. It does not reflect our national interests, and it does not reflect our multiculturalism and our unity — one country.

I think the debate should be more about how we should change it. I do not know whether it would work to have another referendum now. I think we need to educate people more. It is people like us who can teach people about the preamble. We can make a difference by making our friends and our families aware of the changes. The preamble was not passed at the last referendum because, as has been pointed out, not enough people cared and not enough people knew what the preamble is.

Ms HASHMI — A speaker from the third group said the preamble was a part of our history and that there is no need to change it. I believe we should be proud of our history, and we are proud of our history. We should not be afraid to change it. It is like a spelling mistake. If you make a spelling mistake you do not ignore it, you change it. The fact is that we are making history right now. If we have evolved as a people then our preamble should evolve as well.


PART D: THE VOTE

The CHAIR — That session has now concluded, and I thank you all very much for standing up to speak. Sometimes it can be slightly daunting to stand up in a chamber of the Parliament and speak in front of your peers, but you all did very well.

We now come to the vote, the most exciting part of the day. I will put one preliminary question to you, and then we will go through a series of questions arising should that vote be carried.

There are two ways in which the Legislative Assembly conducts a vote. One is that if a division is called on a particular bill, the Legislative Assembly generally does it on what is called a party vote, which means that you sit in your seat and the whips are the ones who work out how many people are in the chamber. The Clerk will call the Independent member for Gippsland East, who will give his vote; The Nationals, who will say how many are voting yes or not; the Liberal Party whip; and then the Labor Party whip. That is called a party vote.

We also have in the Legislative Assembly a conscience vote or a personal vote, which is usually done for bills where people determine that they can make their own personal vote. Because there are so many of you here today, we have decided that I will call for the ayes and the noes; we will determine the outcome on the voices. If we are unable to gauge that the ayes or noes have it, then I will ask you to stand in your places for whichever way you are voting and we will do a quick count. That is the way in which we intend to conduct the vote today.

The first question is:

That the preamble to the Australian constitution should be changed.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR — We will now move to the next set of questions which have come forward through your discussions. These are not determined by me or any individual organising it, and we will do them individually.

The question is:

That a new preamble to the Australian constitution should make reference to acknowledgement of indigenous Australians.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR — The question is:

That a new preamble to the Australian constitution should make reference to tolerance of all cultures and equality for all Australians.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR — Unanimously — well done!

The question is:

A new preamble to the Australian constitution should make reference to the constitutional monarchy.

Question defeated.


That a new preamble to the Australian constitution should make reference to God or religion.

Question defeated.


A new preamble should make reference to democracy.

Honourable members — Aye.

An honourable member — No.


The CHAIR — We have one anarchist in our midst!

Question agreed to.


A new preamble to the Australian constitution should make reference to a united nation or federation.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR — Well done!


PART E: CONCLUSION

The CHAIR — Gary Shaw, who has been instrumental in organising today’s convention, will introduce our next section, which is a short film.

Mr SHAW — Normally at this time we bring a student into the chamber who has participated in the National Constitutional Convention of the same year. I went out and attended the Regional Constitutional Convention at Taylors Lakes Secondary College. A DVD was shown of the experience of one of the students in Canberra. I asked him to come to present it to us today, but he was not able to because of some year 12 commitments. I thought the DVD would speak for itself. It really is an opportunity for you to get a sense of what the National Constitutional Convention is about. Obviously you are on a pathway to that, because 25 of you from here can go to that next year. I want to introduce this film by Dorian. It will give you a sense of how he experienced the 2009 constitutional convention.

Film shown to delegates.

Mr SHAW — There is an application form in your folders. Dorian said it as well as anybody. Thank you.

The CHAIR — While we are waiting for our next guest speaker, who will close the convention — and I will say a few words after Inga — I think that Dorian did say it very well: you will have the ability to have some fun but also to discuss and debate issues which are of great importance to young people in particular. You are the future. Give it strong consideration.

It is now my pleasure to introduce Inga Peulich who will officially close, as our minister opened this morning. I will just give you a little bit of information about Inga, who is a member of the Legislative Council for the South Eastern Metropolitan Region. She is the shadow parliamentary secretary, education and communities.

Inga Peulich was born in Bosnia-Herzegovina and emigrated to Australia in 1967. Before being elected to the Victorian Parliament, Inga was an English faculty head at Cleeland and Eumemmerring secondary colleges, teaching VCE English and Psychology. She is an international teaching fellow and has a BA and Master of Education Studies.

Inga Peulich was re-elected to the Victorian Parliament in November 2006 as a member of the Legislative Council for the South Eastern Metropolitan Region, having already served in the Victorian Parliament from 1992 to 2002 as a member of the Legislative Assembly. Inga’s roles in Parliament have included membership of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, the all-party Family and Community Development Committee, acting President and assistant to the shadow minister for industry, major projects and small business.

Before her re-election to the Victorian Legislative Council, Inga completed three years on the Victorian Liberal administrative committee, served two years as metropolitan female vice-president and chaired a number of key party committees, including state strategy, the state council agenda committee and the Victorian Liberal training committee. It is my pleasure to welcome Inga.

Mrs PEULICH — It has been a few years since I have actually spoken in this chamber, having spent 10 years here previously after the great honour that was bestowed upon me when I was elected to Parliament in 1992. Could I extend a very warm hello to you on behalf of the Liberal-Nationals coalition, and in particular on behalf of Martin Dixon, our shadow Minister for Education, who unfortunately is not able to be here today with you but has sent me to deputise for him. It is my very great honour to be able to do that, not least of which, as outlined by Ann Barker, our deputy speaker in the Legislative Assembly, because of my history and my passion in the area of education, having spent 15 years teaching in the state education system.

It is great to see you here taking part in what really is the crucible of debate. When people point to members of Parliament misbehaving in Parliament, what we have to understand is that it is a theatre — a stage — where the philosophy is that the government of the day will present its case and its best side, the opposition party or parties will present the doubts and concerns of the opposing arguments, and somewhere in that wash the truth will emerge. Do not be too harsh about the conduct or perhaps the misconduct of politicians. It is all, I think, a symbol of our very vibrant democracy.


The fact is that a little girl such as me — who is now a lot bigger and more generously proportioned — can emigrate here as a 10-year-old with her parents and brother, with four suitcases, no money and no English, from a life of relative poverty under a communist government, where we did not have the opportunity of voting at all or engaging in debate, and can have the opportunity of being elected to this Parliament and serve in both the Assembly and in the Council. I say this in a very humble way, because clearly I have not achieved the echelons of public service that many other Australians have in the past and will the future. However, it is evidence of what is possible in Australia.

Hold those dreams really tight. If you work hard enough, and understand that opportunities are often disguised as hard work and that is the reason people do not realise them or understand the opportunities that they do present, if you hold the view that failure is not the falling down but the staying down, and if you have a passion and you are prepared to make those sacrifices, then you can make it all happen. Even if you do not, each and every one of you can exercise leadership in whatever role you fulfil in your daily life, whether it is as a friend or in your family.

I know that in multicultural families literacy can be a factor. My mother was semiliterate. She ended up running a very successful business of her own, learnt how to drive a car and is a very politically engaged woman, but nonetheless she was a product of the Second World War, when she was denied the opportunity of getting an education. Do not ever be ashamed of your family or what your background is. Take pride in it and play an important role in helping them to make the most of what this country has to offer.

Your leadership can be exercised in many ways — amongst your friends, within your family, within your school and within your community. Before I was elected to Parliament I was elected to the local council, so I have had the opportunity of being involved in democracy at the community and the grassroots level. I was the Victorian president of a group called Parents of Children in Day Care, as a result of which the child-care fee relief system was introduced that now all families have the benefit of. Whether it has been at the grassroots level, the local government level or here in the Assembly or in the upper house — the house of review — I have had enormous opportunities to be involved in that democratic debate.

Certainly there are values that I have treasured and that will always be a part of who I am. I value the right to freedom of speech. I value the opportunity of freedom of religion, because when I was a child we had none. I had to be baptised in secret, because if my parents had been reported to the authorities for having taken the decision to baptise their child, my father would never have worked again. We are very lucky, but in claiming our freedom and our rights we must also extend them to other people, irrespective of whether they share the same religion, have a different religion or have no religious conviction whatsoever. That is the successful formula of Australia, and in my view it is probably the most successful example that exists in the Western world and probably in all of the world.

I commend you for taking part, but remember that the decisions and views that you hold now will evolve. You will be informed by different types of debate. You hold very strong views on the preamble. It was interesting to listen to some of that debate. It was also interesting that the earlier convention in our national city — I am not sure that I would call it ‘funky town’! — came to a different conclusion. All but two states voted it down. Again, through the mock referendum, it failed to achieve the majority of votes in the majority of states.

The important thing is to be involved, and the most important thing is to make sure that you are there and that you participate, because if you do not, you are missing an opportunity of being involved and shaping your country and your community. Who knows? Maybe your dreams will one day be realised.

Congratulations to all the teachers who made this happen, congratulation to all those parents who have supported their young people and congratulations to each and every one of you. The greatest human fear is public speaking. It does not matter how experienced you are or how old you are, quite often those nerves will come in. Every speech you give is not going to be your greatest one. It may not be ready for publication, as were the greatest speeches ever made, but treat it as an experience and an opportunity to grow. As a former schoolteacher I know how difficult it is to pull these things together. I encourage you to put your hands up and nominate for the national convention. I am sure that you would relish the opportunity of taking part in that debate and taking it forward further.


Politicians like Ann and me put in enormous hours, and I feel very honoured to be able to do that. I represent the South East Metropolitan Region, which extends from Frankston down to Mordialloc, from Mount Waverley to Berwick and has Dandenong, Springvale, Noble Park and Clayton at its heart. It is a very diverse electorate which takes in some of the bayside suburbs, some of the growth corridors and some of the most multicultural parts of our electorate.

It is great to see so many people from diverse backgrounds taking part. Last night I got home very late. My 24-year-old son was recently elected to his local council because he was passionate about some of the issues that he felt were being neglected by his community. Accidentally he ended up having himself elected, and he is relishing the opportunity of doing so. We watched a film last night called Hard Ball, starring Keanu Reeves. It is a very entertaining and heart-wrenching film, but I recommend it. The most important lesson from that film is: be there, turn up, because if you are not there, then you are not in the race and not in the game.

Get involved! Get involved in your school and in helping facilitate your family to seize the opportunities that this country has to offer. Get involved with your local council.

Get involved with committees and other levels of government. Be engaged in the debate and understand that the views you hold today may not necessarily be the same as the views you will hold tomorrow or the day after. It is not where you start but where you end up that is really important.

It is very important that you do not necessarily always — unless they are really highly principled views — get yourself locked into a trench with an inability to change as a result of really informed debate or new information that comes on board. In this age of global information technology, you have to understand how to synthesise information, credit sources and how to make sure that you do not just become prone to manipulation by the very powerful and well-financed advertising and propaganda industry. The most important skill is to be able to evaluate arguments: not just analyse them but actually evaluate them.

I make no apologies for being who I am. I am not an arch conservative, but I am centre-right and fairly conservative. Somebody said to me, ‘When you are the Minister for Education’ — if only! — ‘get rid of all those left-wing books and put in a whole lot of right-wing books’. I said, ‘No, that is absolutely wrong. What we need to do is teach our young people how to think for themselves, and they can actually evaluate the quality and merit of the views of those books’. That is what I would like to bring to our Victorian curriculum if ever I have an opportunity to influence it in the future.

Ladies and gentleman, invest in yourselves. It is very important that you do not miss those opportunities. Identify the roles that you play, whether it is as a brother, sister, boyfriend, girlfriend, a part-time employee, a student, a member of your community, a member of your church group. Identify all of those roles. See which really matter and map a path for yourself. Plan your future. I am not saying plan to the extent that you take the fun out of it, but always invest in developing those roles, because over a longer period of time, you will be absolutely amazed at the steps that you take to move forward.

In closing, I think the most important piece of advice that I gave my 24-year-old son that I would like to share with you today is: make the right decisions at the right time for the right reasons. Make sure along the way that you inform yourself and that you are doing something to invest in your community, that you are leaving a legacy and making a contribution. Australia opens its arms to people from all over the world, and that is the way that it should be. When people are in a position like that, the expectation is that we contribute something to the community that has embraced that. I would invite you to continue to make that contribution by being there. I would like to finish where I started: if you are not there, you are not in the game.

Good luck. Hopefully you found the convention productive. May your engagement in your community and your involvement in the battle of hearts and minds and high and lofty ideals continue well into the future, and may some of you be elected to this chamber and perhaps others. All the best, and thank you for the opportunity of joining you.

The CHAIR — Thank you very much, Inga. I would like to particularly thank the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria, the Association of Independent Schools of Victoria and the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development for their work in organising today and making sure that all of you got here. I particularly thank Gary Shaw from the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.


He has done an immense amount of work in making sure that you get notes and that coordination occurs with the schools. I think Gary does a magnificent job and I would ask you to thank him as well as me.

Rod Espie from the Parliamentary education office was here this morning and unfortunately could not be with us this afternoon, but Rod also does a lot of work and I thank him. I also thank Deb Delahunt from the Parliamentary education office who helps us.

I thank the Hansard reporters who ensure that what we say as members of Parliament in this chamber is recorded accurately. They do a wonderful job. I know that they will complete the work from today and you will be able to read all about your day here. They always do a magnificent job. I thank Hansard.

Last, but certainly not least, I thank our attendants: David, who was with us this afternoon, and others who have been with us this morning and during the day and who have assisted in ensuring that the clocks are on and that things run smoothly. Our attendants in this Parliament are great people, and I ask you to thank them.

Thank you to all of you. You are a great group. You obviously know that there is a national government. You can go to Funkytown — I actually think it is a bit funky occasionally; sorry, Inga — but one thing, and Inga referred to it when she spoke as well, is that we have three levels of government in this country: local, state and federal. I would encourage and urge you to ensure that you understand the different levels of government, that you acquaint yourself with who your representatives in those various levels of government are and that you raise issues with them, talk to them and make sure that your views are known, because that is how we, as members of Parliament, whether it is at a local, state or federal level, are able to ensure that we are thinking about the issues that are important to our state and our nation. Please stay connected to that level of politics.

A lot of people — and a lot of young people in particular — say to me, ‘Politics does not matter to me. It is not important to me. It does not relate to me’. Everything you do has a layer of politics around it: your education, your health, law and order. All of the things that we do as a society have politics around them so you do have a role to play and there is an importance for you to continue to put forward your views in a considered way, which is what you have done today and I congratulate you on it. Thank you very much for the great opportunity to again participate. Good luck.

Mr EVANS — On behalf of all the people gathered here for the state convention, I would like to thank our Speaker today, Ms Ann Barker, for her invaluable contribution to today’s event. It has provided us with some great atmosphere and has allowed us to get over a few of the parliamentary procedures that might have held us up if she were not here. Thank you very much.

Convention adjourned 3.01 p.m.


Documents

This is the start of Turn Number 75000 - Parliament of Victoria · Web viewIn 1947, when India got independence, we really and truly created something that had never existed before