Dr NELSON (4:11 PM) —The debate on the preamble and the way in which it is being conducted, particularly from the opposition's side, is an indictment on this parliament and an indictment on the processes by which we ought to be discussing something of great substance and concern. The topic for the matter of public importance today is this:

The critical community reaction to the Prime Minister's proposed Preamble to the Australian Constitution.

In other words, the debate is being conducted through the prism of partisanship. The opposition are putting up a proposition that we should discuss in the federal parliament so-called community opposition to this preamble when in fact the so-called critical community reaction stems very much from political partisanship, the kinds of facile and, I would suggest, even juvenile remarks of Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, as I saw on television last night. The preamble has been described in the Sydney Morning Herald as:

. . . embracing the "mateship" of Australians but declining to acknowledge Aboriginal "custodianship" of the land, prompting both Aboriginal and feminist outrage.

In the last 20 seconds of the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition, we really got to the point. The Leader of the Opposition said words to the effect that future generations would be ashamed of us if we passed this preamble. In other words, with derision, some in this place, particularly the Leader of the Opposition and others, look upon a majority vote of the Australian people in this preamble. One of the so-called ordinary Australians—I do not call them that; I call them every day Australians—sent a fax to Mr Laws, and on the John Laws program this morning he quoted it. This woman said:

People may expect some pompous piece of rubbish just because this is supposed to be part of some official thing but I do not think we are a pompous people.

I could not say it any better. The preamble itself says `with hope in God'. Not all of us are Christians or followers of any religion at all. But my observation of individuals and of nations is that, when we do not believe in someone or something that is more important than ourselves, when we allow ourselves or our country to become the centre of our own lives or our own world, it is that that creates the misery, pain, frustration and unhappiness that we see in the world. So a belief in God or in what any of us believe to be our own god is critical.

. . . the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted by the equal sovereignty of all its citizens.

I spent almost nine years servicing a public housing estate in the second poorest part of the country, and I can tell you that a lot of those people would know damn well what that means. You do not have to stand over people with limited levels of education and income and say to them that they do not know what it means. I think the member for Holt is insulting the intelligence of everyday Australians when he says that. The next line says:

The Australian nation is woven together of people from many ancestries and arrivals.

The term `woven' implies diversity but commitment to a common set of values and beliefs. That sentence is a self-evident truth. It goes on to say:

Our vast island continent has helped to shape the destiny of our Commonwealth and the spirit of its people.

What that effectively does is paraphrase the national anthem of which, I think, almost all of us are quite rightly proud—a national anthem that says, `With golden soil and wealth for toil, our home is girt by sea.' The next stanza says:

Since time immemorial our land has been inhabited by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are honoured for their ancient and continuing cultures.

That says that these are special people. These are people whose circumstances are so unique and highly regarded that they receive special treatment in this preamble to the Constitution. I also say to those who are critical of this that we should not in the preamble to our Constitution confer overtly, or even imply, that any group of Australians has a status which might derive greater or lesser rights and privileges, that a person who takes citizenship today has any lesser right than an Australian who arrived, like me, through the birth canal or an Australian who is an ancestor of the original inhabitants of this continent.

I would also like to offer another thought to the debate. One of the principal reasons I went into public life, into politics, is that I am determined to do everything I possibly can to improve the health and living conditions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. I say as a human being, a member of the parliament and a member of the government that, whatever else we achieve, if these people in 10, 20 or 30 years from now are living in the same circumstances they do now, we will have achieved nothing.

If you try to force the word `custodianship' into the preamble and the preamble is defeated at the referendum, whether it is for that or for any other reason, what does that say to the rest of the world, let alone to Australians, about the regard we have for indigenous Australians? I also say that reconciliation, whatever any of us understand by that meaning, is a process, and this is an important and, I would say, significant step in a process of reconciliation. The preamble goes on to say:

In every generation immigrants have brought great enrichment to our nation's life.

Who could oppose that? The next stanza says:

Australians are free to be proud of their country and heritage, free to realise themselves as individuals, and free to pursue their hopes and ideals. We value excellence as well as fairness, independence as dearly as mateship.

Australians are free, but what that actually says is that the responsible exercise of the right to freedom of speech does not, nor will ever, extend the right to make any individual or group of Australians feel demeaned, denigrated or alienated in their own country.

In terms of mateship, as Graham Richardson said in his book Whatever it takes, `A mate is someone who puts up his hand even when he knows that you are wrong.' Its colloquial use, often used by men to one another, has nothing to do with this. This is about a defining moment in this nation's history on 25 April 1915. It is about a generosity of spirit. It is about being prepared to put your interests behind those of another human being, even to the point of laying down your life. That is what mateship is about. Those who are arguing that, in some way, it is a term of gender differentiation entirely miss the point. I think they neither understand nor, in some cases, even respect the blood and the lives that were spilt to give birth to what we understand and will always respect as mateship.

I would also like offer to this debate some other thoughts. To those people who are disappointed in some way about the preamble, for which I can tell you I will be voting, let us just remember that this is a draft. The government is inviting comment from the premiers, the Leader of the Opposition and anyone else who has any suggestions to make about improving it. For those who are disappointed, for those who feel that in some way it is not delivering perhaps what they want, perhaps the preamble to the Constitution is not the appropriate vehicle for doing it. Perhaps we should also turn ourselves and our thoughts to an Australian declaration of principles, values, beliefs and national aspirations. The preamble may not be the correct vehicle for achieving that common objective, the goals that we have for ourselves and our country and the way we relate to one another and see our place in the world. It may not always be the best place to set out the values, principles and sacrifices upon which the country has been built.

In the book by the German philosopher and physicist Bernhard Philberth entitled Revelation, he said of change, which is what this is about:

Progress leads to chaos if not anchored in tradition. Tradition becomes rigid if it does not prepare the way for progress. But a perverted traditionalism and a misguided progressivism propel each other towards a deadly excess. . .

This preamble takes the fundamental principles and values upon which the country has been built and the sacrifices that have made us what we are and melds them with a set of aspirations and ambitions that we all have for our nation. I encourage the House to support it. (Time expired)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) —Order! The discussion is concluded.