Ever wondered what sort of prose might be produced by a gifted poet working through a committee? It would probably be an melange of worthy flashes combined with some mush. Rather like the John Howard-Les Murray-Federal Cabinet draft preamble for our Constitution.
With the best will in the world, it is hard to get excited about the words that the Government has placed before us. But many of those who are most vocal in denouncing the preamble penned by Howard and his mates have nothing but ill will towards the authors.
These people would have disparaged even a Howard-Murray preamble which identified Aborigines as the continuing owners of the whole continent, and which addressed most other enthusiasms of the ABC, the Australian Democrats and the other self-appointed moral giants of our nation.
They hate Howard because they see him as a dull, suburban conservative. And they are jealous of Murray because his ability has brought him international recognition without his having to pander to the "prejudice or fashion or ideology" which the artistic set has long "invoked against [his] achievement" -- to use the phrases of the draft preamble.
Surprisingly perhaps, given his often garrulous ways, Labor's effort from former deputy leader Gareth Evans is considerably better. Gareth described the language of his own preamble as "short and taut, rhythmic and quotable, flowing naturally and easy to say". While modesty has never been one of Gareth's virtues, on this occasion his self-praise has some justification.
But although the language of any preamble should be elegant, the ideas expressed are even more important. And here there are serious problems with both Government and ALP versions.
Both fail to realise that by giving special recognition to a particular people they are compromising the ideals on which the contemporary Australian nation is built, effectively repudiating vital principles that are asserted elsewhere in the respective preambles.
Unlike some nations, such as Germany or Serbia, the Australian nation is not based on blood ties to an ethnically defined community. We do not see ourselves as sharing some primordial essence which forever sets us apart from those who have not been born into the group.
Rather, Australia is a civic nation. We are a nation of individuals of many different creeds and ethnic backgrounds, whose unity comes from a common allegiance to certain political and social institutions and practices such as parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, tolerance and equality -- as both of the preambles clearly acknowledge.
This does not require people to turn their back on their ethnic origins and heritage. Rather, it means that ethnic or racial identity is completely irrelevant to being Australian. Someone who became a citizen yesterday is just as much an Australian as someone whose ancestors have been here for five -- or five hundred -- generations. By singling out indigenous people for specific mention, the Government and Labor preambles both corrode this ideal.
The honouring of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders "for their ancient and continuing cultures" is apparently the work of the Federal Cabinet, which did not like Murray's suggestion that the honouring should be for "their ancient and continuing stewardship of their lands". While this revision largely avoids the "blood and soil" notions of indigenousness that many people foolishly propose, it is offensive in a different way.
"Ancient and continuing cultures" might address the emotional yearnings of alienated politicians and intellectuals. Nevertheless, it excludes a considerable number of people who proudly identify as Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders, but who have also embraced a mainstream Australian culture. Certainly, they may be interested in their ancestors' history and traditions, although this doesn't mean that they regard these traditions as having great relevance to their own lives. Likewise, a substantial number of Aborigines do not necessarily see themselves as "custodians" of the land, as the ALP and Australian Democrats would have it.
While many people now find it painful to admit the fact, the institutions, laws and customs which have made Australia such a free, open and tolerant nation are largely of British origin. Geoffrey Blainey made a comment to this effect after the Prime Minister showed him a preliminary draft of the preamble, although his suggestions were not accepted.
But if the Federal Government persists in its misguided belief that the preamble to the Constitution must include specific mention of Aboriginal cultures, we should ask why it is prepared to omit any mention of the particular cultural tradition from which the Constitution itself derives. I have no ethnic axe to grind by raising this question, for I have no British ancestors.
With last Wednesday's release of Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett's "Declaration of the People of Australia", Mr Howard will probably face increasing pressure to set aside, or drastically modify, his own preamble. But as he is likely to interpret much of this pressure as motivated by political animosity towards the Coalition, or rivalry within his own party, he may be unwilling to give much ground.
The Victorian Premier's version is not as crisp as Gareth Evans' preamble and some of its sentiments, like "the future is our frontier", are vacuous. But it is better than the Howard-Murray draft, and Kennett has at least realised the dangers of identifying specific groups. He has attempted to be as inclusive as possible, although his wording that we are "united by the heritage of a harmonious indigenous and international culture" is awkward and in need of improvement.
Kennett's preamble also includes the statement "we celebrate difference" which he says is "critical to the Declaration". I think this is too broad, for there must be limits to the "difference" which we allow, let alone "celebrate".
Indeed, by making various assertions about our commitment, as Australians, to a number of specific institutions and principles, such as democracy, equality and the rule of law, all the preambles so far proposed are effectively endorsing limits to diversity. Unless this is explicitly recognised, we might be better off forgetting a preamble altogether. Our Constitution will endure without one.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment